If all you do is look pictures, pretty much anything could be made to look ridiculous.
But go back and actually read Gore's major speeches beginning in late 2002.
He was right. Bush was wrong. On all of it.
Gore's bumper sticker (should he decide to run): "I told you so."
Like Carville said:
“Back in 2000, a Republican friend of mine warned me that if I voted for Al Gore and he won, the stock market would tank, we’d lose millions of jobs, and our military would be totally overstretched.
“You know what?
“I did vote for Al Gore, he did win, and I’ll be damned if all those things didn’t come true.”
Seriously, I don't think Gore wants it. But if he did, he's got the left-wing cred to rally the base and the national stature to win the general electorate.
I know what he said back in 2000. I also know what he has said since.
He tried to be a Clinton style moderate when he ran for Prez, since losing he has shown his true colors. He is a hardcore left wing whacko. He is on the same level of Pat Buchanan. I wouldn't cast my lot with Pat, either.
For the record, I've never liked or respected Gore. I developed my distrust and distaste of him back in my Liberal days. Gore was nasty to Dukakis and he was the first one to use Willie Horton, btw. Gore was nasty to Clinton during the Primaries, I was shocked when Bill picked him. I voted for Bill despite his choice of Gore but it wasn't easy. I would have happier if he picked a rock as his running mate.
Steven Malcolm Anderson 4 GodsSelfSex (mail) (www):
I far prefer the manly style of Howard Dean over that of Al Gore. I can't imagine anything that would motivate me to vote for Gore, even Santorum is at least far more interesting as an enemy.
That's funny, I read that exact same joke many years ago:
“Back in 1964, a Democratic friend of mine warned me that if I voted for Barry Goldwater, there would be riots in the streets, we’d be in a land war in Asia, and our money wouldn't be worth anything.
“You know what?
“I did vote for Goldwater, and I’ll be damned if all those things didn’t come true.”
AuH20! -- in my heart, I know he was right, and now you know it, too. We've got to get back to the bedrock principles he stood for: limited Constitutional government established to protect our God-given inalienable individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
Oh and Steven: It's a good thing Goldwater is dead because otherwise, he'd be spinning in his grave contemplating what's happened to the conservative movement he founded.
Steven Malcolm Anderson 4 GodsSelfSex (mail) (www):
Ara Rubyan:
You are quite right that Goldwater would puke at the thought of "conservatism" being re-defined by the likes of Bork and Santorum to mean unlimited majority rule and government control over our private lives. I remember well when he said that "every good Christian should kick Jerry Falwell in the ass." I agree.
As to Gore vs. Bush and who "really" won in 2000 (electoral vs. popular votes, the endless re-counting and re-re-counting of "pregnant chads", etc.), that debate got tiring as soon as it started. I strongly disagree with a number of recent decisions (and some past decisions) that the Supreme Court has made, but I refuse to undermine its Constututional authority merely because they didn't vote for somebody else's (or even my own) favored candidate in an election. Which party wins or loses an election is one of the least of my concerns. Most important things happen between election years and have nothing to do with which politician is up or down in the polls.
Steven Malcolm Anderson 4 GodsSelfSex (mail) (www):
Ara Rubyan asked:
"And yet...and yet...they ride in the luxury dining car being pulled by the Bush-Cheney locomotive.
Steven, doesn't that bother you just the least little bit?"
It does indeed.
And it bothers me also that, if Gore or Kerry was driving the locomotive, these anti-sexual totalitarians would still be be riding in that luxury dining car and calling the shots. The Democrats like to have homosexuals pay their fare, and then kick them off the train whenever they find it politically convenient. Their thinking is: "Moral and spiritual issues such as individual rights aren't so important, all that is really important is economics, and so we must get control of the government, and then get the government in control of all that is important."
At least the GOP doesn't have Robertson and Falwell up on the dias at the national convention. I suppose Soros's money smells better than the $25 individual Christian's contribution.
Steven Malcolm Anderson 4 GodsSelfSex (mail) (www):
Nor do Falwell or Robertson speak for Christianity or all or even most Christians. They just get on TV and clain to do so. Pat Robertson is my enemy because he advocates overturning Lawrence &Garner because that overturned "sodomy" laws (i.e., Big Brother in our bedrooms -- I'm against that!).
Actually, Robertson and Falwell have little political clout if any now. It's James Dobson that has a much louder voice when it comes to the Christian right. Still, didn't see him at the last convention.
And it's true, SMA, Robertson and Falwell don't speak for Christians or at least not me and my friends. I certainly don't get advise from them on how to think or vote. I really don't appreciate televangelists particularly Robertson.
Sorry to be so late to the party! Was on an extended vacation, and it was heavenly :)
Steven (ol' pal!), I must take exception to one of your statements.
As to Gore vs. Bush and who "really" won in 2000 (electoral vs. popular votes, the endless re-counting and re-re-counting of "pregnant chads", etc.), that debate got tiring as soon as it started. I strongly disagree with a number of recent decisions (and some past decisions) that the Supreme Court has made, but I refuse to undermine its Constututional authority merely because they didn't vote for somebody else's (or even my own) favored candidate in an election.
This is an issue that has confounded me at every turn. It did get tiring, but only because both sides of the election were pushing their views at every turn. Last time I checked, though, the Supreme Court had no "vote" in a Presidential election. Did I miss something? Educate me if I did, please. I was under the impression that the "people" voted for the President. And although there were stories of endless recounts, the facts are different. Florida state law required mandatory full recounts if the margin of victory was less than half of 1%. 18 of the 67 counties did NOT recount the votes, they just rechecked the tallies from the election night tallies. Those 18 counties accounted for about 25% of the state's total votes.
I've read acounts that seemed credible from both sides debating who actually won the Fla. vote. But the SCOTUS overreached its authority, IMO, in casting aside Florida's right to determine its own fate by its own laws.
Yeah, I may be a bit bitter about it. I voted for Gore. Say what you want about him, he was at least more intelligent in the delivery of his speaches. And more of an expert on Foreign Policy. Sure, his claim of "inventing the internet" as some said, was an overstatement, but there's no denying he saw its potential and advocated its development.
Which leaves me with the question of where we'd be right now if he had prevailed. I daresay not in Iraq.
But go back and actually read Gore's major speeches beginning in late 2002.
He was right. Bush was wrong. On all of it.
Gore's bumper sticker (should he decide to run): "I told you so."
Like Carville said:Seriously, I don't think Gore wants it. But if he did, he's got the left-wing cred to rally the base and the national stature to win the general electorate.
Gore was right. Bush was wrong.
He tried to be a Clinton style moderate when he ran for Prez, since losing he has shown his true colors. He is a hardcore left wing whacko. He is on the same level of Pat Buchanan. I wouldn't cast my lot with Pat, either.
Ok with me.
That's funny, I read that exact same joke many years ago:
“Back in 1964, a Democratic friend of mine warned me that if I voted for Barry Goldwater, there would be riots in the streets, we’d be in a land war in Asia, and our money wouldn't be worth anything.
“You know what?
“I did vote for Goldwater, and I’ll be damned if all those things didn’t come true.”
AuH20! -- in my heart, I know he was right, and now you know it, too. We've got to get back to the bedrock principles he stood for: limited Constitutional government established to protect our God-given inalienable individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
That's funny, I read that exact same joke many years ago:
Perhaps, but you left out the best part of the joke: Gore won.
You are quite right that Goldwater would puke at the thought of "conservatism" being re-defined by the likes of Bork and Santorum to mean unlimited majority rule and government control over our private lives. I remember well when he said that "every good Christian should kick Jerry Falwell in the ass." I agree.
As to Gore vs. Bush and who "really" won in 2000 (electoral vs. popular votes, the endless re-counting and re-re-counting of "pregnant chads", etc.), that debate got tiring as soon as it started. I strongly disagree with a number of recent decisions (and some past decisions) that the Supreme Court has made, but I refuse to undermine its Constututional authority merely because they didn't vote for somebody else's (or even my own) favored candidate in an election. Which party wins or loses an election is one of the least of my concerns. Most important things happen between election years and have nothing to do with which politician is up or down in the polls.
Say the words "Attorney General John Conyers," while she's dunking cookies.
Pat Robertson, too. Even more so. And Lou Sheldon, Robert Knight, Paul Cameron, etc.. Totalitarian radical subversives.
Steven, doesn't that bother you just the least little bit?
"And yet...and yet...they ride in the luxury dining car being pulled by the Bush-Cheney locomotive.
Steven, doesn't that bother you just the least little bit?"
It does indeed.
And it bothers me also that, if Gore or Kerry was driving the locomotive, these anti-sexual totalitarians would still be be riding in that luxury dining car and calling the shots. The Democrats like to have homosexuals pay their fare, and then kick them off the train whenever they find it politically convenient. Their thinking is: "Moral and spiritual issues such as individual rights aren't so important, all that is really important is economics, and so we must get control of the government, and then get the government in control of all that is important."
I never fail to get a chuckle out of how much the left pays attention to Pat Robertson.
Just follow the money, baby, follow the money.
Steven:
The Democrats like to have homosexuals pay their fare, and then kick them off the train whenever they find it politically convenient.
[Shrug] Fair enough. I don't like it either.
And it's true, SMA, Robertson and Falwell don't speak for Christians or at least not me and my friends. I certainly don't get advise from them on how to think or vote. I really don't appreciate televangelists particularly Robertson.
Steven (ol' pal!), I must take exception to one of your statements.
This is an issue that has confounded me at every turn. It did get tiring, but only because both sides of the election were pushing their views at every turn. Last time I checked, though, the Supreme Court had no "vote" in a Presidential election. Did I miss something? Educate me if I did, please. I was under the impression that the "people" voted for the President. And although there were stories of endless recounts, the facts are different. Florida state law required mandatory full recounts if the margin of victory was less than half of 1%. 18 of the 67 counties did NOT recount the votes, they just rechecked the tallies from the election night tallies. Those 18 counties accounted for about 25% of the state's total votes.
I've read acounts that seemed credible from both sides debating who actually won the Fla. vote. But the SCOTUS overreached its authority, IMO, in casting aside Florida's right to determine its own fate by its own laws.
Yeah, I may be a bit bitter about it. I voted for Gore. Say what you want about him, he was at least more intelligent in the delivery of his speaches. And more of an expert on Foreign Policy. Sure, his claim of "inventing the internet" as some said, was an overstatement, but there's no denying he saw its potential and advocated its development.
Which leaves me with the question of where we'd be right now if he had prevailed. I daresay not in Iraq.
Ron
Just follow the money, baby, follow the money
What money, baby?