Gore Wont Be The Next President

[-= JR =-]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/15/...gore/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/15/gore/index.html)

"Many Democrats were disappointed with his behavior as a candidate in 2000 and feel other candidates may have a better shot at winning bipartisan support in an election."

potential Democrats....

Sen. Tom Daschle, South Dakota
Gov. Howard Dean, Vermont
Sen. John Edwards, North Carolina
Rep. Richard Gephardt, Missouri
Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Connecticut

who will it be? there should be an Oprano "Democratic Presidential candidate pickem".

the winner should get free porn for 4 years (assuming that would still be legal at the time of the elections).

[Mike AI]

Gore is not as stupid as I thought. He knows he cannot beat Bush in '04 ( probably not Dem could) - if he ran again he would be finished forever in National Politics.

So he sits it out, plays on sidelines - hope Bush wins, then in 2008 run....

Of course I hope that he is finished forever. Gore is a loser!

[MikeW]

"Gore Wont Be The Next President, :("
-------------------

Boo fuckin' Hoo ... POOR HIM!

;-))))

:rokk: :rokk:

[ulfie]

He announced on 60 minutes he won't be running in 2004. More than likely he was told he wasn't going to running, that's the way the parties work. I think he could make a good living doing the voice for automated call systems. Press 1 for customer service, press 2 for billing support.... Imagine his monotone voice and I think you'll see what I'm talking about.

[RawAlex]

Credit to Gore for seeing what is coming down the road: Voters are not going to be any more definitive the next time out in a Bush-Gore battle, it would be very expensive, and would probably get about the same result, maybe with a bit of a swing to Bush as the incumbant...

More importantly, Bush and Gore are about the same, in many ways, and the last presidential election, except for the whole Florida issue, was actually quite boring. Bush coming off smug and distant, and Gore coming off smart but aloof... neither of them very engaging people the last time. out. Bush has certainly improved his "personal" skills, and I think that is part of the reason Gore won't run - the differences are so small that any improvement on Bush's behalf is enough to tip the scales.

The Democrats not doing well at the midterm elections is also a certain key - not because anyone voted against Gore, but because the Democrats will have to come out swinging with some new things to get people's attention for 2004.

Gore was Bush's assurance of being more of a President than his daddy... new blood on the other side might change that yet.

Alex

[-= JR =-]

i really think these next elections are going to be interesting. people often said that in the last presidential elections, more people voted against the other candidate than for their own.

i think that people will really want to vote against Bush next time around. i think doubly so because of the total Republican majority in government. but i am not really sure that the Democrats have someone that can go the distance either.

considering what has happened to date and that Democrats have pretty much already thrown everything but the kitchen sink at Bush and it did not dent his ratings, i am more prone to believe that very little will happen between now and election time that will change that. additionally, the economy is recovering, Saddam is bowing to the pressure, the stock scandals are long forgotten etc etc.

i think Democrats will really need to start shifting into high gear soon with a focused "plan" to make the world a better place that they can sell, or they wont stand a chance.

http://www.pleasurelabs.com/pics/clinton1.jpg

[SykkBoy]

Maybe Al Gore has a future in comedy. He handled himself quite well on Saturday Night Live last night...the Willie Wonka and potsmoker's webcam sketches had me cracking up...

I've always liked Al Gore, despite be married to a woman I loathed all through the mid to late 80's.....I even voted for him in '88


Yeah, Al Gore the loser...who won the popular vote....

Bush actually has Ralph Nader to thank...most who voted for Nader would have voted Gore as their second choice...and of coyrse the State of Florida and a bunch of senile people who probably shouldn't have been voting in the first place ;)))

[Ironhorse]

It's largely irrelevant who runs against Bush because we have a choice of wars on the table and between those conflicts and the Osama hunt, nobody will want to change presidents in the middle of this.

[Torone]

Add in the fact that the Trent Lott thing has a lot of Democrat angles, including the fact that Gore's father was a racist who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Also the fact that their oldest member, Robert Byrd, was a KKK'er, and that Clinton's hero was William Fulbright, a strong Segregationist...

As for the popular vote, that does not elect the President. It elects the electors. Otherwise, the people who feed this country (the farmers, ranchers, etc.) would have no voice. The election would be decided in the population centers.

[-= JR =-]

Originally posted by Torone@Dec 16 2002, 09:28 AM
Add in the fact that the Trent Lott thing has a lot of Democrat angles, including the fact that Gore's father was a racist who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
what does Gores father have to do with anything?
:unsure:

[RawAlex]

Originally posted by Ironhorse@Dec 16 2002, 12:09 AM
It's largely irrelevant who runs against Bush because we have a choice of wars on the table and between those conflicts and the Osama hunt, nobody will want to change presidents in the middle of this.
Actually, Bush runs the risk of "vietnam"... he has almost two years left to run, and unless the war on terrorism moves forward soon, it is going to start looking like a real problem. I suspect that, sadly, less and less news is going to have to do with terrorists being caught in Afganistan, and more and more to do with US soldiers dying in accidents and ambushes. Nobody likes a President who let's the boys die for no reason.

The Iraq thing won't last long, no matter what. Sort of like Afganistan without the follow up. It will be long over before the next election, but the war on terrorism will certainly be dragging it's feet along.

Bush has already had as good a rating as he is going to get, things peaked early, and there isn't anything in the future that is going to be a slam dunk positive thing to boost his popularity back up. If anything, the details of it all are going to catch up to him like it has to many other Presidents before him.

How he handles the details day to day, how he manages a government that isn't "at war" will certainly shape the runup to the election, and I am not sure how he will do. He wasn't having that good a time of it before 9/11, and once things get back to more normal, he will once again be back to politics as usual... then who knows?

Alex

[Torone]

Originally posted by -= JR =-+Dec 16 2002, 09:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (-= JR =- @ Dec 16 2002, 09:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Torone@Dec 16 2002, 09:28 AM
Add in the fact that the Trent Lott thing has a lot of Democrat angles, including the fact that Gore's father was a racist who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
what does Gores father have to do with anything?
:unsure:[/b][/quote]
WTF does Bush's father have to do with anything; but he is constantly being mentioned. Mainly, the names I mentioned are as much proof of the Dems' leanings as Lott's remark (made only to try to make a very old man feel good) are of the Republicans' leanings. My point is, Gore knows that there might be a lot of discourse on that particular subject; and he and his family want to stay clear of it as much as possible due to the vulnerability.

[-= JR =-]

Originally posted by Torone+Dec 16 2002, 10:01 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Torone @ Dec 16 2002, 10:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by --= JR =-@Dec 16 2002, 09:34 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Torone@Dec 16 2002, 09:28 AM
Add in the fact that the Trent Lott thing has a lot of Democrat angles, including the fact that Gore's father was a racist who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
what does Gores father have to do with anything?
:unsure:
WTF does Bush's father have to do with anything; but he is constantly being mentioned.[/b][/quote]
Bush's father was President of the United States of America. send me your e-mail address and i will send you the link and some information about that.

[Mike AI]

The war on terrorism is not at all like vietnam. First we are not losing thousands of American serviceman a year. While the enemy is not out in the open, and is difficult to find, Americans understand this. These enemies also made a direct attack on the United States and its civlilian population. When we do find pockets of terrorists, we have been somewhat successful in taking care of them.

I could go on and on and on, this war and vietnam have NOTHING in common. The whole vietnam quaqmire thing is always used by liberals and anti-American types to scare this country from acting. These people said that about Iraq I, and most recently Afganistan - remember all the naysayers who said that the US would end up like Russia in Afganistan, like the British and every other country who fought there? HAHAHA

These are the people who under estimate this country, our military and our goals. We did not go to Afganistan to control or conquer - we came as LIBERATORS!

The war on terrorism has to go on, Bush needs to lay a ground work, and should be more agressive - but if he does a good job, the next preisdents will have to follow, because the war on terrorism is going to take a long time to win.... maybe a generation.

[Ironhorse]

Well if you also consider that by 2030 Saudi will have 54% control over global oil reserves, with the closest after being Iraq of course, you should begin to envision how long this conflict will really last, and where our boys will be for quite some time.

Unless there is some radical new energy source that can replace oil, and even then you don't just switch an entire global economy from one energy source to the next overnight.

There probably is a way to fix the whole thing relatively peacefully, I hope we stay the course.

[Mike AI]

IronHorse look how long our troops have been stationed in Europe, and in Asia? Look how stabile those continets have become! They want from fighting major wars every few years, to forming Unions and trading their good and services.

What the middle east need, because of their Oil, is a modern day Marshall Plan!

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Torone@Dec 16 2002, 09:28 AM
Add in the fact that the Trent Lott thing has a lot of Democrat angles, including the fact that Gore's father was a racist who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Also the fact that their oldest member, Robert Byrd, was a KKK'er, and that Clinton's hero was William Fulbright, a strong Segregationist...

As for the popular vote, that does not elect the President. It elects the electors. Otherwise, the people who feed this country (the farmers, ranchers, etc.) would have no voice. The election would be decided in the population centers.
Torone ... man, you must have been saving this up for a long time, dude.

Please tell me what the views of Al Gore's father has to do with Trent Lott's feet slamming into his mouth so hard they are coming out his anus? Exactly how does the racial views of the late Senator William Fulbright have to do with the egg smeared all over the face of the almost-Senate Majority leader? Please tell me ... did the Democrats employ mind-control microwave technology to make Lott show his true color?

You really, really need to be careful dredging up the 1960s racial views of the Southern Democratics in your attempt to defend the Republicans. Remember that the honoree that Lott was singing the praises of LEFT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN PART BECAUSE OF ITS POLICIES AND PLATFORM ON RACE. The success of the Mitchell Plan to attract southerns to the Republican party has a whole lot to do with the successes they have enoyed over the past 30 years ... and they brought with them the views of the individuals you are referencing.

As far as Bush's Daddy ... methinks that's a bit more recent than Fulbright or Senator Gore the 1st. Lame ... positively lame.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Dec 16 2002, 12:01 PM
IronHorse look how long our troops have been stationed in Europe, and in Asia? Look how stabile those continets have become! They want from fighting major wars every few years, to forming Unions and trading their good and services.

What the middle east need, because of their Oil, is a modern day Marshall Plan!
Holy Fuck! Did I just read that correctly? Is MikAI seriously suggesting that we spend billions of dollars in foreign aid to help folks in the Arab world? Are we going to conquer them first?

Good idea, maybe ... but how do you want to do this? Under the leadership of "tax and spend" Democrats, or "Don't Tax and Spend Anyway" Republicans?

[Danny_C]

Originally posted by SykkBoy@Dec 15 2002, 09:37 PM
Bush actually has Ralph Nader to thank...most who voted for Nader would have voted Gore as their second choice...and of coyrse the State of Florida and a bunch of senile people who probably shouldn't have been voting in the first place ;))
I hope you're not yet another person blaming Nader. If Nader ran on the same platform as Gore, I would understand.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Dec 16 2002, 11:47 AM
These are the people who under estimate this country, our military and our goals.
Mike,

I totally agree with you.

Before the Gulf War, people said it would be another Vietnam.

Before the Afghanistan skirmish, people said it would be another Russia-Afghanistan war (some used Vietnam again)

History teaches lessons but you just can't pick the worst stuff and say that how it is going to be.

People will keep invoking Vietnam every time the US enters a conflict and fail to see the differences.

[Almighty Colin]

I think the number of future events that will effect the next election are so many that any of this speculation is just way too early. One cannot focus on just one aspect of the administration and expect that will be the tell-tale pulse of the next election.

[Torone]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Dec 16 2002, 03:25 PM
Please tell me what the views of Al Gore's father has to do with Trent Lott's feet slamming into his mouth so hard they are coming out his anus? Exactly how does the racial views of the late Senator William Fulbright have to do with the egg smeared all over the face of the almost-Senate Majority leader? Please tell me ... did the Democrats employ mind-control microwave technology to make Lott show his true color?

You really, really need to be careful dredging up the 1960s racial views of the Southern Democratics in your attempt to defend the Republicans. Remember that the honoree that Lott was singing the praises of LEFT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN PART BECAUSE OF ITS POLICIES AND PLATFORM ON RACE. The success of the Mitchell Plan to attract southerns to the Republican party has a whole lot to do with the successes they have enoyed over the past 30 years ... and they brought with them the views of the individuals you are referencing.

As far as Bush's Daddy ... methinks that's a bit more recent than Fulbright or Senator Gore the 1st. Lame ... positively lame.
Lott was 7 years old when Thurmond ran for President. Granted, that he was at one time (like most Dems) involved in some racist activities; but he changed parties and pholisophies long ago. His remarks were far less offensive that Sen. Byrd's remarks about 'white n-words'. In fact, the Black Communists (Jackson, Sharpton, Mfume, Watters, et al) are simply parsing words to create a furor which they hope will drive Lott out of the Senate, thereby changing the balance of power without an election. Show me the words in what he said that say he supports segregation (a concept which seems to be ok as long as it is people like Jackson espousing it).

Bush's dad had nothing to do with it. He is constantly being brought up, though, by the Left. I just think that it is time to hold the Dems' feet to the same fire. Remember, if not for the Republicans, there would have been no CRA '64...

[Torone]

Oh, and BTW, Byrd's remarks are only something less than 2 years old...

Here's something interesting...LBJ is said to have made the remark that, "I'll have the (n-words) voting Democratic for the next 200 years...".

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Torone@Dec 17 2002, 09:45 AM
Lott was 7 years old when Thurmond ran for President. Granted, that he was at one time (like most Dems) involved in some racist activities; but he changed parties and pholisophies long ago. His remarks were far less offensive that Sen. Byrd's remarks about 'white n-words'. In fact, the Black Communists (Jackson, Sharpton, Mfume, Watters, et al) are simply parsing words to create a furor which they hope will drive Lott out of the Senate, thereby changing the balance of power without an election. Show me the words in what he said that say he supports segregation (a concept which seems to be ok as long as it is people like Jackson espousing it).

Bush's dad had nothing to do with it. He is constantly being brought up, though, by the Left. I just think that it is time to hold the Dems' feet to the same fire. Remember, if not for the Republicans, there would have been no CRA '64...
Okay ... let's do this fair and square. We'll determine's who's daddy is relevant by awarding one point for every person working for the son today who used to work for the Daddy. Just to be fair, there will be no "negative numbers" assigned for the dead folks you mention. Why, you do it that way and Bush really will have a landslide under his belt!

Leaving aside the delusional (Communists like ...) and the blatantly false (Jackson et al. espousing segregation), your post is typical Bullshit (pun intended). Lott said, in effect, that if Thurmon had been elected in 48 we wouldn't have the problems we have today. Now, Strom did NOT run on a platform based on fiscal responsibility in government. He did NOT run on a platform based on a stronger military, or staunch anti-communism, or on anything other THAN A PLATFORM DESIGNED TO PERPETUATE AMERICAN APARTHIED. So when he said "we wouldn't have all these problems today" if Thurmon had been elected in 48, what in the hell COULD he have been talking about?

Yes, Torone, LBJ got Republican support from the likes of Dirksen and Percy for Civil Rights Legislation in 64, and later. There was a left and a right in both parties back then; both parties were far more diverse than they are today. LBJ had to hand out a LOT of pork to get Dirksen (Republican Majority Leader) to sign on ... yet Dirksen wasn't able to get all the members of his party (i.e., Goldwater and the more conservative wing) to support the legislation. The battles over Civil Rights in the 60s were far more idealogical (left vs right) and regional (Northeast, Northern Midwest and West vs South, the border states and the rest of the midwest) than they were party oriented. It wasn't the Good Republicans/Bad Democrats kind of issue that you seem to want to paint it as.

Torone, Lott made a statement that offended many, many people ... by no means all of them Black people. Your attempts to describe the ensuing controversy as some kind of Black Communist conspiracy is pathetic.

[Vick]

:headwall: :headwall: :headwall: :headwall: :headwall: :headwall: :headwall: :headwall: :headwall: :headwall:

Bang your head

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Danny_C+Dec 16 2002, 03:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Danny_C @ Dec 16 2002, 03:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--SykkBoy@Dec 15 2002, 09:37 PM
Bush actually has Ralph Nader to thank...most who voted for Nader would have voted Gore as their second choice...and of coyrse the State of Florida and a bunch of senile people who probably shouldn't have been voting in the first place ;))
I hope you're not yet another person blaming Nader. If Nader ran on the same platform as Gore, I would understand.[/b][/quote]
So ... do you really think that the folks who voted for Nader really would have voted for Bush? Yeah, I'm sure a few would have; and some more probably would have sat it out. Still, I think it's likely that most of the Nader voters would have voted for Gore had he not been on the ballot.

I'm not sure that the Nader vote was enough of a factor to label him a spoiler - it's almost as weird as the Wallace factor in '68. Back then most of Wallace's voters were nominally Democrats ... so some folks think they tipped the election to Nixon. In reality, that assumes they would have voted Democratic in an era when the country was as polarized as it's ever been; so I think Nixon would have won by a larger margin had Wallace not been in the race.

Still ... I have some friends who were very active in working for Nader in 2000, and they get very, very touchy over the subject. What's funny is that of the four of them, three have decided to get active in Democratic party politics again. I can't imagine why ... maybe pissing in the wind is fun once, but once you realize what it's going to cost you, you're not so quick to do it again.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Vick@Dec 17 2002, 11:55 AM
:headwall: :headwall: :headwall: :headwall: :headwall: :headwall: :headwall: :headwall: :headwall: :headwall:

Bang your head
:rokk: sometimes it feels so good when you quit :D