Gore loses mind; 2004 election

[Capt Dizle]

Well ole Al Gore, without the guidence of professional handlers that propped him up through his years as Vice President, has opened his yap and cost himself any chance he might have had at occupany of the White House.

In a tirade fitting for some of the dopey teens here at Poly, Gore warns that Bush will ""severely damage" the overall war on terrorism and "weaken" U.S. leadership in the world."

Further Gore spouts that "Bush has set his sights on getting rid of Hussein because the hunt for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda terrorists has bogged down."

Given that Gore has taken a position opposite most of his own party as well as 83% of the American public (Gallop poll) it seems that he will be rooting for Iraq when hostilities break out later this year or early next year. Only a poor showing by the US military could save him now.

I can't remember any significant American politician taking this radical a position on such a matter. But I am sure that someone here will come up with a nomination. One thing for sure, as Bush relegates himself to Ralph Nader status he is opening the door for a fresh face to take the podium at the 2004 Democratic Convention.

[Hurricane]

Maybe Gore says what other politicans don't dare to say. There are already enough american politicians parroting Dubya's propaganda, so I thought Gore's speech was very welcome. At least it shows that some people believe in free speech in the USA today.

[Capt Dizle]

Actually my post was mostly troll. I'll tell you what I really think later.

[Drake Tungsten]

There are already enough american politicians parroting Dubya's propaganda, so I thought Gore's speech was very welcome.

The politicians are parroting Bush's views for a reason; they want to have continued careers in politics. Gore's speech may seem ballsy to some, but it was a pretty stupid move, politically. I think that he's getting desperate, as the Democratic nomination in '04 no longer seems to be reserved for him. He's attempting to "pull a Schroeder", to turn a horrible phrase...

[CyberGnu]

He must have felt so incredibly lonely in DC... One of the few intelligent and informed politicians. Poor guy.

[Nubclear]

To think....those same politicians caving into political pressure are also the same politicans who make the decisions on what Americas military does.

[Ned]

I think that Hawk Gephart is looking better and better for the nomination. Certain Gore message of appeasement has a lot of problems not only with Bush, but with a lot of Democrats.

Gore's message implicity assumes that Saddam in not working on nuclear weapons and that we have the luxury of time. I think the average American would rather not take that risk.

Gore has indeed lost the nomination, IMHO.

[Kepler]

Then again, if it turns into a bloodbath he can write his own ticket.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I'm no Gore fan, and I think he'll lose the nomination because he's damaged goods, not because he's a radical. But everything he says there makes sense, especially the part about how Bush squandered the world's good will after 9/11.

In fact, I'll go out on a limb and predict that that'll be the Dems party line in 2004, regardless of who they nominate: that Bush's War on terrorism is an unfocused, goal-less mess; that his war in Iraq (if it happens) has isolated us from many of our traditional allies; and that post-war Afganistan (and Iraq, if it happens) are unstable places and threats to regional peace; that people around the world hate us because we're bullies, and that Bush's foreign policy crew (minus, ironically, the Secretary of State) are arguably the worst bullies ever.

I also have to disagree with Ned about Gephardt. Nobody has made it to the presidency straight from the House since Polk, over 160 years ago; the House just isn't a good staging ground for a modern presidential run. Besides, I think the Dems are poised to recapture the House at midterm elections, and Gephardt will happily settle for a return to the Speakership.

[CyberGnu]

Rufus,

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Actually my post was mostly troll. I'll tell you what I really think later.

we need a cry smiley...



that is the best post ever

[MikeH]

Good for Gore!

[The Emperor Fabulous]

John Kerry, 2004

[monolith94]

Ralph Nader '04!

[Lincoln]

If we win the war in Iraq Gore will demand a recount! He is saying that because the world does not have a long attention span that we should not either. This time next year Europe will be sending their ships to Iraq and selling Volkswagens to the free people and buying their oil. And Gore will be looking for a job at Mc Donalds.

[SlowwHand]

Rufus be a trip.
Yeah. Big Al makes really good sense.
The best thing he's done is invent the internet and ride the coat-tails of the charismatic Bill Clinton.
Hey, wait a a minute... Invented internet.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Gore is simply desperate. I think he knows he won't be running for President, so he can say what he really believes (which is no different that plenty of people who either a. don't have a position or b. have a safe position [like Republican Ron Paul]). The problem is when you become a politician, you basically end up saying that my opinions don't matter. It's a tough thing for people that love to flout their opinions openly to become politicans.

[orange]

Thank God for free thought!

[DinoDoc]

What did he actually say?

[Jac de Molay]

I thought everything he said was right on-target.

[DinoDoc]

Which was?

[Kepler]

> I'm no Gore fan

Neither am I.

> and I think he'll lose the nomination because he's damaged goods, not because he's a radical.

I agree, although I would have put "pretending to be a radical." Gore is a political opportunist.

> But everything he says there makes sense, especially the part about how Bush squandered the world's good will after 9/11.

That part makes sense, but I don't think this is an especially good time to bring it up, politically. The GOP is absolutely dead in the water on every other issue except for Bushy's supposed leadership -- his economic, tax, education and environmental policies have been exposed as shams and are deeply unpopular. Gore should let the small fry hammer away at the war and simply stick to the economy. That will get it in the news every day. Yapping about the war just helps Bushy wag the dog a little more.

> In fact, I'll go out on a limb and predict that that'll be the Dems party line in 2004, regardless of who they nominate: that Bush's War on terrorism is an unfocused, goal-less mess; that his war in Iraq (if it happens) has isolated us from many of our traditional allies; and that post-war Afganistan (and Iraq, if it happens) are unstable places and threats to regional peace; that people around the world hate us because we're bullies, and that Bush's foreign policy crew (minus, ironically, the Secretary of State) are arguably the worst bullies ever.

Yes, by '04 that will be obvious. Not now. Now we still have a prez who can wrap himself in the flag and call anybody who disagrees with him a traitor. By '04 the electorate will understand the emperor has neither clothes nor a plan, and he might have to campaign in TX just to pick up one state.


> I also have to disagree with Ned about Gephardt. Nobody has made it to the presidency straight from the House since Polk, over 160 years ago; the House just isn't a good staging ground for a modern presidential run. Besides, I think the Dems are poised to recapture the House at midterm elections, and Gephardt will happily settle for a return to the Speakership.

I don't know about the Dems picking up the House, because they haven't shown that they have any plan other than stopping the GOP from raping the middle class. Historically, "not me!" doesn't exactly galvanize the voters.

It's way too late for a broad policy initiative and it's too late to bring any Dem congressional personality into the public spotlight for this election cycle. The Dems are seriously injured by having that Southern Manitoba Tony Blair fembot as their TV go-to guy.

And that's a problem for '04, too. We elect charisma to the White House. In 80, 84, and 00 we elected morons with nice smiles, in 92 and 96 we elected a date-rapist with Professor Harold Hill's people skills. Only in 88 did we elect an uncharismatic president, and that was because he ran against a gargoyle. Well, in '04 is there a single well-placed Dem with the charisma of a potted plant? I can't think of one.

[walruskkkch]

Say it.... Al Sharpton.

There, I knew you could.

[Capt Dizle]

Are we talking potted plant or pot plant?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by walruskkkch
Say it.... Al Sharpton.

He's still burdened by the shadow of Tawanna Brawley.

[walruskkkch]

Ha! Like that wasn't a set up to make him look bad. Just another example of the man keeping us down!

[Capt Dizle]

I would have given Gore the nomination a few days ago, now I really think he will have a tough time. The most important thing in the election of 2004 is the economy. People might be swayed by charisma but the pocketbook matters.

Bush will not be reelected if the economy fails to rally. Now the interesting thing is that Hillary could really win this thing if it doesn't.

[walruskkkch]

And break her pledge to the people of NY to finish out her term as Senator?

[DinoDoc]

Heaven forbid!

[Garth Vader]

Dino, transcript

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ext092302.html