Replies

Let's talk about Perot.

Perot pointed the way to the politics of the future. Economic nationalist, culturally populist. The William Jennings Bryan of the late 20th century. If the Dems are smart enough to let the sodomites and decadents split off into the Greens and restore economic populism as their centerpiece (in effect, admit the McGovern reforms were a terrible mistake) they could get it back.

Perot pointed the way to the politics of the future.

Yeah, that's why his political party has been doing so well lately.

Perot pointed the way to the politics of the future. Economic nationalist, culturally populist.

I think your recollection of Perot's 1992 campaign is a little hazy. His campaign platform included two specific items that were definitely not "populist" in any sense of the word -- a 50-cent per gallon increase in the Federal gasoline tax, and a frank, startling admission that the working class had to absorb the bulk of the nation's tax burden.

Let's talk about Perot.

Perot pointed the way to the politics of the future. Economic nationalist, culturally populist. The William Jennings Bryan of the late 20th century. If the Dems are smart enough to let the sodomites and decadents split off into the Greens and restore economic populism as their centerpiece (in effect, admit the McGovern reforms were a terrible mistake) they could get it back.

I almost voted for him in 1992, sometimes I think I've should have, at least I could have been true to my conscience. If he would run in 2008, well, that's unlikely but I'm just pretending here for the sake of argument, he would have my vote. The Republicans have a few people to thank like the lefty moonbats, the homosexual marriage crowd, the anti-war crowd and so on for the 2000 and more importantly, the 2004 election victories. The true reasons why I voted for President Bush last year was the War on Terror and stopping the homosexual marriage crowd, i.e., moral issues which are the most important to me. Were it not for those two main reasons, I might have voted for the Constitution Party, Populist Party or just stayed at home. I do agree we need a William Jennings Bryan or a Teddy Roosevelt.

I'm am registered Republican, always been but I am generally a Teddy Roosevelt, a Gerald Ford or Eisenhower type than a Herbert Hoover type. I could easily be an FDR Democrat too much like my grandmother, she'll be 91 next year, still a member of the union she was with when she worked at since the 1930's and an FDR Democrat. She remember's her family losing the farm during the Depression to a sherriff's sale and she is still upset at that to this day. Later on, she was a single mother, brought that up since single mom's were brought up a while ago. I could have easily been for Democrats had I been around during those eras. I would have voted for FDR, Harry Turman, JFK or even Hubert Humphrey in a heartbeat. It's a shame, really, the Democrats had honorable people, even if you don't always see eye to eye woth them, like those I mentioned a second ago, but now have the likes of the moonbats, John Kerry and so on. I absolutely loved Zell Miller, he hits things right on, but unfortunatly, he is u p in years and I doubt he'd run for the White House.

I am very, very conservative on moral, social, religious and military matters. Economically, I'm probably more of a Hubert Humphrey or a Tony Blair than a Ronald Reagan. I think where things went wrong is LBJ took FDR's safety nets and turned them into hammocks creating an underclass with their hands out all the time while not being expected to work for it (FDR had things like the CCC and so on to where you did have to put in some "sweat equity" to get your help) and thus staying that way for generations. Those people don't know any better unfortunatly and that is the true tragedy. The way I see things, laisse faire capitalism of the social Darwinist mold is no different than pure communism, in both, you have too much power concentrated in too few hands and the average person is just a cog in the machine. I favor some sort of free enterprise guided by Judeo-Christian principles, Pope Leo XIII had great ideas in his Retum Novarum that was put out in 1891 on the roles of capital and labor. I don't object to joint private and public ventures either, some call this "Third Way." Perhaps that is the wave of the future. When I mean "Third Way," I do mean it where labor has some sort of interest and capital in whatever they are doing, not the "third way" that plays into the hands of globalism at the expense of our sovereignty. I think Japan has the right idea of an agency that acts as a gathering place for capital and ideas in their Ministry of Trade and Industry (MITI, IIRC).

Well, I know i'm gonna get some flames, but hey, I can take it. B-)