 |
| |
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Actually my post was mostly troll. I'll tell you what I really think later.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:22
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kepler
|
 |
Lovely Oregon
Jul 2002
time: 21:22
|
|
> 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.
Last edited by Kepler on 24-09-2002 at 23:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Are we talking potted plant or pot plant?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-09-2002 11:13
Invented internet.
|