Let's not get in a flame war and hear about how the media of other countries
can be just as manipulative as the media here in the US.
However, seen by many in the US, Al Gore is a slick, uncaring, big spending
lawyer who knows as much about the common man's condition as I do of being
filthy rich, i.e., none. He was raised by a career politician with his own
(thwarted) political ambitions to be one thing: president, regardless of
what that meant. And Al has tried to achieve that goal, by any means
necessary. He has consistently shown that he is willing to do, or say
what it takes, regardless of his own personal beliefs. In 1991-92,
before Al became Vice President, I fervently hoped that he would become
president, as in general, I liked many of the things he said. As vice
president of perhaps the most corrupt and morally destitute Presidency
in history, he went along, supporting and defending President Clinton,
and by both his accounts (prior to the Lewinsky scandal) and the presidents,
he's been a player in the administration; now that that may not be a
good asset to have, he's seriously backed off his own accomplishments
in the administration. Al has been caught MANY times "misspeaking or
missrembering". He gets away with it due to a strong liberal stance
in many media sources, and a VERY strong, VERY liberal stance of Hollywood.
Al Gore's "honest reasons" for becoming president are that he wants to
be the most powerful man in the world.
George W. Bush is not a charlatan... but he's not a savior, either. He
comes in with EXACTLY as much experience as Bill Clinton had when he became
president, which Clinton and the other Democrats said was MORE than
sufficient. He has indeed "misspoke" and "missrembered" at times, but
certainly not more than Al Gore has. BTW, in your comment, you betrayed
a very UN-American thought process (but since you are an American, it's
to be expected): Bush CANNOT be "seeking office on false grounds"; there
are no false grounds to seek office in. Each person put up for president
simply says that they will serve in office to the best of their abilities.
George Bush's "false grounds" for seeking office are that he wants to be
the most powerful man in the world.... same as Al's honest reason. Both
think they can do a better job than the other, which I don't see in either
case being more honest or more false than the other.
My honest and informed vote (and as an American, mine counts in this) is
that if I could so choose, I would choose neither; forced to choose one
or the other, it's time for a change, and I'll vote for Bush. I'd much
rather, however, have had choices such as Bill Bradley and Elizabeth Dole
to choose from.
Of course, it really doesn't matter which we choose, in the long run;
they are both counting on things happening after the election that will NOT
happen. Hang on folks, with either of these two, we're about to have a
recession (it's already started up, folks are just ignoring it at the
moment),
and it's my strong belief that this presidency is a "one term wonder"
shot...
because by the time the next election starts, the economy is going to be
in a shambles.
Oh, and this is so far off topic here, it's ridiculous. Can we get back to
Linux, or at least off politics?
Bill Ward
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 4:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re[2]: What was Gore's Role in Inventing the Internet?
I donnot understand the fuzz regarding Al Gore on this list. Seen from
abroad,
he is a serious person seeking the office for honest reasons.
G. W. Bush is a charlatan seeking the office on false grounds. He is a
charming
guy that can get away with lying publically on TV. I wittnessed that in a TV
show the other day.
Is the US election a Hollywood show rather than seeking the best person
suited
for the most powerfull office in the world?
Rgds
Peter Bech
Informi A/S
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
