Re: Eisenhower

["Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>]

Everyone:

We did not just have an election determined by a "majority" of the possible 
legal voters.  We had an election determined by the segment of the 
population who bothered to vote, significantly less than a full majority of 
citizens.

And please let no one forget, our current President was NOT elected by the 
"majority" of the people who bothered to vote in the Gore v Bush election.  
Gore won the majority of votes, as we all know, and really won Florida also, 
according to the intent of the voters of Florida.  The power Bush was able 
to wield to promote the Republican party (odd that he wasted all that time 
and taxpayers money to campaign for Republicans when we are facing such dire 
threats of attack, according to Bush's own predictions.  Shouldn't he be 
focusing on keeping the nation safe from attack?) in the recent election is 
a power that he was granted AGAINST THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bush's Presidency, assumed against the will of the voters with the Supreme
Court blocking the legal counting of citizens votes in Florida, handing the 
Presidency to Bush, should be the shame of a country that prides itself on 
being the world's greatest Democracy.

Ted



>From: "Dan Carscallen" <predator75@moscow.com>
>To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: Eisenhower
>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 07:42:37 -0800
>
>I guess you only have 2 more years to be worried then.
>
>Evidently, the majority just ain't as edumacated as all those who are 
>concerned seem to be.
>
>Dan Carscallen
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: roger hayes <rhayes@turbonet.com>
>To: vision2020@moscow.com <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Date: Friday, November 08, 2002 7:02 AM
>Subject: Eisenhower
>
>
>Greetings:
>
>I share Mr. Hansen's concern on the dominance of a single party over all 3
>branches of Fed. government.  Of late, I begin to sense that there is, in
>the eyes of the Republican party, no "loyal opposition." That is to say, if
>you're not on "our" side, then you are the enemy of the people. Listen
>carefully to G.W's speeches.  Putting aside the illogic, the strange
>grammar, and the "folksy" rhetoric, it is clear there is a true lack of
>respect for anyone who might have a differerent vision than the majority's.
>
>And this is where Eisenhower and Bush part company.  Eisenhower had a
>vision for our country which was inclusive, respectful, and proud of it's
>citizenry who voted, just as we did, out of fear.  Eisenhower bucked many
>within his own party to maintain this dignified vision.  I do not see G.W.
>Bush bucking any of the masters within his party.
>
>While I am not so young as to think that presidential politics can be
>divorced from party politics, it would take a great thinker, and a strong
>individual to step back from the fray and listen carefully to the
>opposition.  G.W.Bush is not that individual.  Eisenhower was.  I am very
>concerned!
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Roger Hayes
>Moscow
>
>


_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail