of my views--and also an admirable and courageous man. Also, I keep coming back to Gore. I've paid close attention to his passionate speeches on constitutional government over the last several years, and he is right on. He also has a host of unbeatable personal qualifications (he has already been elected president, but fraudulently deprived of the office, and everybody knows it; eight years in the executive branch, etc.) The only thing I don't know about is NAFTA. Was he just under the Clintons' thumb on that? Has he re-thought it (quite possible, with him). Dunno. But Kucinich is good on ALL issues, except....
One other vital matter, in my opinion. Perhaps THE most vital matter--regarding not my personal preference for president, but rather the PEOPLES' choice for president--and that is: TRANSPARENT ELECTIONS. Bushite corporations have taken over vote counting, and are using 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming in the insecure and extremely insider hackable electronic voting systems. This WAS the fascist coup, in my opinion. And it must--and I mean it MUST--be changed. And the ONLY candidate, or potential candidate, I know of, to say one word about it is John Edwards who today announced that we should rid ourselves of the touchscreen (paperless) voting machines. Although it is the corporate fallback position (ban the touchscreens, keep the optiscans and the central tabulators, and their secret code), it is at least SOMETHING--will help in a lot of states--compared to the mind-boggling silence about this critical matter among other Democratic Party leaders. And for this, I'm going to give Edwards a second look. See
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2754357Edwards has otherwise not impressed me very much. He says the right things on a lot of issues. Just too ambitious maybe--so that it overrode his common sense on the Iraq War vote? Something about all that bothers me (with Kerry, too--whom I might like to see as V-P to Gore for a full Restoration Ticket, and who I think is qualified to succeed Gore, if need be, but who has not learned to handle the corporate news monopolies very well, and would not be good as the top of a ticket).
Kucinich has only one problem that I can see (besides the fact that I have not heard much from him on the fraudulent vote counting system), and that is inability to project on the TV screen. Some people have it. Some don't. It has nothing to do with intelligence, talent, gravitas, strength, courage, reliability or anything else. It's like having an affinity with numbers. Either you do or you don't. It's inborn. And I don't think it can be taught, or trained. People without the ability to project on screen come off as artificial if they are trained. He just falls flat on TV. It's nothing he can help.
But maybe his "Dennis the Menace" looks, and his rawness and lack of projection will become a craze--in a country fed up with artificiality and lies and media manipulation. A person can dream. People say I'm nuts to think that a nearly no-money campaign might take off like a wildfire with the American people. I was thinking Gore could do it--cuz he's so well known. Just say: I'm not going to spend time raising money for stupid TV ads. Utilize every free venue available. What you see is what you get. No bullshit. No focus groups. No PR consultants. Be real. Be real real. Lord, I think people would stampeded to vote for someone who ran a really clean campaign like that. People are so sick of it all.
And maybe Kucinich could combine these things--as conscious endeavors. Say things like, "Yeah, I don't project very well. But I'm really a nice guy. Like the hairdo? Now let's talk about reality." And announce a policy decision about campaign contributions and no ads on the war profiteering corporate news monopoly TV stations. It might just work. It might just save our democracy. It would certainly be refreshing.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
