Talk about a presidential candidate with extremist ideas, John is about as politically incorrect as a candidate can be, and there's no doubt that if he were to run in Election 2004, he would be demonized as a right-wing extremist by everyone from "moderate" Republicans to Nader's Green Raiders.
The first problem I see is that the man has some notion that religion and morality go hand in hand, and that's not politically correct. In fact, it might be a constitutional issue.
The second problem I see is that his friends are reportedly radicals, even revolutionaries, and have been known to espouse doctrines that are associated with the "radical right". That could cause some very embarrassing congressional hearings to spring up.
And the third problem I see is that he would, in my opinion, speak outright against the practice of abortion in any form, without hesitation.
Of course, there are other problems associated with John's fitness to be a candidate, one of which will be mentioned later.
However, if Justice Antonin Scalia thinks himself to be a "strict constructionist" of the Constitution, I believe John would enlighten Scalia on exactly what that term means. One of John's preoccupations was with "federalist" ideals and policies.
Doubtless it would be to John's disadvantage that he was brought up in farming country and would clearly favor the rights of citizens to bear arms. John's hunting activities extend back to boyhood and he reportedly once carried his gun to school, a fact that would arouse much consternation.
Frankly, I believe that the statement he published on morality and religion would be enough to totally demolish his candidacy in Election 2004. This is on the record:
“Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.”
John may also, by the quote above, be considered to have achieved insight that borders on the prophetic.
However, he is not a candidate for anything in Election 2004 because he is deceased. Were he alive, he might expatriate, spawn another revolution, or simply forego politics altogether because he would feel he could do nothing with the present liberal mindset and loss of morality in this nation.
Oh ... his full name?
John Adams, the second president of the United States, 1797-1801.
History has a way of repeating. We have had two Bush (father and now son)terms. Both will be single terms followed by a return of Clinton, not slick willy in 2004 but Hillary. You have'nt seen the last of her and she will not complete her term in the senate so don't let 2004 fool you. She will run.
Now that Bush is president we never hear much about Al Gore anymore. I think it is a given that in the news Hilary clinton will run for the Dems and beat Bush to become the first fem-nazi president in 2004.
