RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Dean/Gore reconsidered(65 posts)

Dean/Gore reconsideredOldEdScott
Dec 9, 2003 4:07 PM
See you guys are all over the Dean/Gore thing. It's a huge development all right, but none of you have it right quite yet. Ho, ho.

Let us be Socratic here. I will ask a question (after my hero V.I. Lenin): Who? Who benefits?

Once you answer that question, it all falls in place.

But you won't get the answer from me because my tux is pressed and I'm off to the Inaugural Ball to party with a covy of leggy blonde Republican operatives, whose numbers seem seem to be legion.
Fine, I'll take a shot at it.dr hoo
Dec 9, 2003 4:51 PM
Wes Clark benefits.

He was being painted as a Clintonian pawn, the candidate of the insiders, while Dean was the outsider. This gives Clark the "if I were the insider why does Gore not support me" tactic.

I don't know if that's what you are thinking about or not. It's a real insider/hack kind of argument imo, and I don't think I buy it, but that's the only thing I can think of.
But there's the "Gore really won" factor...Cory
Dec 9, 2003 5:06 PM
Certain Democrats (those able to count) still believe Gore actually won the election, and that the presidency was a gift to W from the Supremes. I get mail about that even now, even in Nevada. For those people, a Gore endorsement actually has weight.
For many, probably most, Dems, their favorite candidate is Not Bush. If this moves Dean toward what looks like critical mass, they'll jump on because he's Not Bush. I lean toward Clark myself (used to like Kerry, but he's cooked). If he doesn't get rolling, though, I have to give my vote and my every-four-years $100 contribution to Howard. I'm guessing I'm not the only one. So: Dean benefits.
Doesn't that only matter if you voted for Gore?TJeanloz
Dec 10, 2003 6:24 AM
I would think the "Gore really won" argument only holds water for those people who voted for Al Gore, as opposed to the lesser of two evils. My guess is that most people voted for Gore (or Bush) not because they particularly respected the man or his opinions, but felt he was the best of poor options.
Maybe...but that's still a majority.Cory
Dec 10, 2003 9:34 AM
Not to harp on this, but Gore did get more of the popular vote in 2000. I think Bush will walk in standing up next year (and then he has to give both the twins to Karl Rove in appreciation). But I thought that last time, too, and I was wrong. If it does turn out to be close, and Gore were to motivate the Dems who otherwise wouldn't show because they think it's a GOP lock, who knows?
LOL Not that again! LOL! Sore spot...No_sprint
Dec 10, 2003 9:38 AM
Perhaps we can discuss hanging chads again. Wouldn't that be fun!
also, what they fail to recall, apparentlyDougSloan
Dec 10, 2003 9:50 AM
States like California stop counting absentee ballots when the total number of outstanding absentee ballots would not change the majority vote for the electors in the state. Usually, absentee ballots are heavily Republican. So, lots of Republican/Bush ballots likely went uncounted. Whether this happened in other states or enough in Califorina and other states to change the total popular vote, we'll never know.

In addition to the popular vote whine, they persist in complaining that the Supreme Court gave Bush the election. That's totally disingenuous, as all the Supreme Court did was overturn a Florida Supreme Court order that would have given Gore the election. Gore, not Bush, is the one who invoked the courts to steal an election.

This is just as much as a sore loser whine as St. Louis fans after the '85 world series with Kansas City. Get over it.

Doug
Doug, dude, you're the only one in thisOldEdScott
Dec 10, 2003 10:10 AM
conversation whining. You're whining about whining that isn't there! Cory's not whining about anything, he's very cogently pointing out an extremely salient fact: Gore got more votes than Bush, so conceivably he can influence some of those folks to get out for Dean. Seems like a perfectly legit thing to say in this context, and there's not a hint of a whine in it.
Not so.No_sprint
Dec 10, 2003 11:05 AM
In just the past few threads I spotted at least two others that brought it up without reading but maybe 1/4 of what's posted.

No, not full bore whine and cheese complaints, the typical just can't get over it pains.
I think you missed my pointTJeanloz
Dec 10, 2003 9:49 AM
My point was, how many people voted for Al Gore, the Man vs. Al Gore, the Democratic Candidate? I would suspect more voted the for the latter than for the former. Did all people voting for Gore do so because they believed, flat out, that he was the best man for the job? We know this isn't true, because there was a contingent of Greens who wanted to vote for Nader, but realized their vote should go to Gore.

Gore's influence now only extends to those who voted for him because they like HIM as a politician, not him as the only chance to beat the Republicans. Some people will invariably vote for Dean, not because they support him 100%, but because he's perceived to be better than GWB (isn't that Dean's platform, basically?).
These "arguments" are getting stale ...HouseMoney
Dec 10, 2003 9:58 AM
Karl Rove, Halliburton, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Tom DeLay, blah, blah, blah, ...

I'd be willing to bet there's a good % of people on the left who couldn't pick Karl Rove out of a lineup, much less explain what his role is in the Bush admin. But, hey, they can say the name!

It's comical the extent to which the far left tries to demonize any & all Republicans. Keeps the bumper sticker manufacturers in business, though.
Fill in the blank.OldEdScott
Dec 10, 2003 10:13 AM
I could write the very same post inserting 'the right' and 'the far right' and different names and be just as accurate.

I ADMIT to our failures and shortcomings. Hell, why not? They're manifest.

Funny how you guys never do. Even though yours are equally manifest.
I subscribe to the Ed Koch School of Politics ...HouseMoney
Dec 10, 2003 12:37 PM
Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch, when asked about who should vote for him, once said (I'm paraphrasing), "Pick 10 topics, if you agree with me on 7 of them, vote for me, if you agree with me on all 10 of them, seek help!"

Blindly supportive of all things Republican? You must have me confused with someone else!
Ah! I must have missed all your posts critical of the GOP!OldEdScott
Dec 11, 2003 5:41 AM
Point me to some, so I can properly apologize for misrepresenting you!
Wait a minute, Ed...moneyman
Dec 10, 2003 3:57 PM
I admit to your failures and shortcomings, too. How's that?

$$
I rest my case. nmOldEdScott
Dec 11, 2003 5:39 AM
Funny you should askfiltersweep
Dec 9, 2003 5:24 PM
I had fogotten about Gore (I voted for him... if it counted, that is). Listening to him on the radio today reminded me WHY he was not elected (although it still doesn't explain why GW was).

BTW- no matter how you count it, Gore DID receive more votes than GW- just not the electoral votes he needed.
Thus Gore's endorsement is more a reminder to all that GW was not elected by a landslide- that this country was very evenly divided- that GW does NOT have a mandate from the people.

History shows that it is highly unlikely that the reps will keep a majority in the house and senate AND maintain someone in the White House.

GW and Herbert Hoover- two "modern" presidents who had NO job growth during their term. Arguably, if the economy grows despite this (as it has), it just means more for those of us who DO have jobs ;)

Who benefits? I'd argue that Dean already has the nomination cinched up. I'm not a big fan of him, but consider the alternatives. I'm afraid he'll still just be another Dukakis... an "also ran"- but the Dems have nobody that really excites me. I liked what Clark had to say until I understood what was really going on.
Oil and waterStarliner
Dec 9, 2003 6:21 PM
Gore would benefit, Dean would not, and us people making up the citzenry of the good ol' USofA would lose out, because I see Gore pulling Dean down rather than elevating him to prominence.

Dean will do just fine without a recycled pol with an seemingly impressive resume (but not without baggage). What Dean really needs is pure and simply more exposure. His primary negative is based upon people having unsure feelings about him - 'he seems to be this, he seems to be that'. The more people see him and get to know him, the more he will benefit.

Dean is scary to people because he's difficult to pigeonhole. I like him because he seems to use his brain before opening his mouth. His unpopular stance on the Iraq war, which I was in accord with, has proven to be correct, and separates him from the usual suspect contenders for the nomination who went along with Busch's decision to stike without world support.

Gore is out of touch with his manhood. His stance on the Elian Gonzalez situation where he did not stand up for the father's rights to his own child was an indication that this guy does not have any feeling or sense for the existing inequities which men face with regard to child custody, support and alimony.

The bottom line is I think Dean is too intelligent and too much of a strong individual to have for his VP a big name with a long resume but with no backbone.
ClarificationStarliner
Dec 10, 2003 8:56 AM
FWIW, I wrote that reply before I found out about Gore's endorsement of Dean - thus I misinterpreted OldEd's post as referring to a Dean/Gore ticket with Gore as the VP running mate. Which won't ever happen.
Master, I have an answer, if it pleases youDale Brigham
Dec 9, 2003 8:50 PM
AlGore benefits. He acts like the "adult" of the Dumocrats (my peeps!) by rallying all of us knuckleheads around the Doc from Montpelier. Doc goes down swinging in a gallant attempt in slaying the dragon (GWB).

After that (perceived) setback, AlGore emerges from the wilderness, shorn of beard, and leads the disloyal opposition throughout the remainder of the 8-year Bushreich. We rally around AlGore as 2008 nears, and he successfully fends off the Wicked Witch of the NE (The Hon. Sen. Clinton) for the 2008 Dumocratic nomination. AlGore becomes President (after beating another Doc, this one named Frist), and the "Internet" ceases being just a pipe dream -- it becomes a reality. What a world that would be!

Dale

P.S. If I answer correctly, please send two (2) leggy blonde Repub. operatives (preferably in those adorable red dresses they seem to like so much) to my address by parcel post. DB
Leggy blonds on way, 2nd Day Fed Ex andOldEdScott
Dec 10, 2003 6:22 AM
congratulations on the only correct analysis of Gore's bold move yesterday!

Gore declares war on Clintons for 2008 nomination.

Clintons make vast political miscalculation with coy game and 'misunderestimating' Dean. Uncharacteristically bad strategerie.

Clintons compound strategeric miscalculation by letting Gore do first what Hillary should have done when the scope of her muscalculation became clear.

Whew. Not much to the naked eye, but the stars just realigned themselves in the Democratic Party.
What a load of bs. I respect planning and we know the Democrati128
Dec 10, 2003 6:51 AM
c Party could use that. But what kind of self serving political jockeying nonesense is throwing a viable candidate to the lions so Gore, a multiple loser, can get his fat cat ass in the WH? Come on! What are you people (stubby, thick ankled, greying Democrats) doing? Conceding todays election? Allowing four more years of the "Bushreich". I don't see the logic.

I'm ripped not because I dislike R's or like D's but because these neo-clowns are doing possibly irreversable damage on multiple fronts.
Not QUITE as cynical as that.OldEdScott
Dec 10, 2003 7:03 AM
It's a roll of the dice for Gore. He knows very well that Dean could possibly win, and will work to make that happen, and if so he can just say bye bye to his presidential hopes. That's the chance he takes.

BUT, he's positioning himself for the more likely outcome: A Bush re-election, and 2008 as the Dems' next target of opportunity, a target of opportunity that will almost certainly include HRC.

I'm certainly not conceding the election. I can make a good case that Dean can win (and a less good case that he will). And I much prefer some thick-ankled jockeying that includes an endorsement of Dean to some thick-ankled jockeying that translates into a Stop Dean movement within the party that will tear us asunder.

The beauty is, almost everyone benefits under the Gore masterstroke. Everyone but HRC, who's probably mad as a hornet right now.
Maybe it'll be return of the VP :O)Live Steam
Dec 10, 2003 7:16 AM
I highly doubt it as Dean won't have a chance once it's down to two. But as they say "anything is possible". Maybe Dean will tap Gore for VP. LOL! That would really put a crimp in the Witch's broomstick.

So you are willing to back Dean even though he is a Republican in wolves clothes? The only difference between him and the rest of the field, including Bush, is his stance on Iraq and it's disingenuous. It was the only issue he could play out to show that he was clearly different than the other nine pins. That fear that won't be enough to do it especially if people are happy with their lot and Iraq is bringing positive results.
Hard to believe u pols nourish my already robust Celtic cynicism128
Dec 10, 2003 8:18 AM
I understand Gore's strategy. But maybe we should focus on the task at hand, and Gore not coat-tail on (current contentender) Dean's possible failure. I do think this endorsement will (probably) help Dean though, so sure, chalk it up to my perceptions that Gore's motives are selfish.
Bravo Dale I had ...Live Steam
Dec 10, 2003 7:06 AM
a similar inkling. Payback is indeed a "b!tch" :O)

One problem Old Wise One, Gore will still be a has-been who was unelectable. What will be different in 2008? What is going to reinvigorate his cache if he can't help Dean get elected? Besides does anyone really think the Clintonpods will turn away from the light to support the Machiavelli who masterminded the coup that toppled their queen?
You're not thinking like a pol, Steam.OldEdScott
Dec 10, 2003 7:25 AM
In Gore's mind, and in at least one of two alternate realities, he WON the 2000 election. Popular vote, anyway, by a goodly figure. Quite an achievement for an admittedly terrible campaigner who's 'unelectable.'

I happen to agree that we need to move on, and another Gore candidacy in 2008 would probably drive me into despair and retirement. But a big-time pol maddened with with Presidential Lust will not be deterred. Al thinks he was elected President and still wants to be President, and a pol of any party, age, or possibility convinced of even ONE of those things is certifiably insane.

Just taken as politics, though, yesterday was brilliant. I admire brilliance when I see it, whether I agree with it or not. I constantly admire Karl Rove's brilliance, even when it pisses me off, which is always.

The Clintons definitely have some work to do now. But I suspect they're up to it. Hey, if all else fails Al can just die mysteriously, right Steam? :O)
Hey ya' never know! Maybe he'll ...Live Steam
Dec 10, 2003 7:52 AM
contract some rare disease of the conscience :O)

Goodly margin? He won the popular vote by .005%! 500k votes out of 101.5 million cast. Virtually a dead heat. I love the way you guys portray it. Like it was some sort of a mandate or something. Jees you could stuff the ballot box with a handful of votes in a small percentage of precincts and get that many votes. I know you know that too :O)

I see your point about the nice move Gore made for himself, but I wouldn't be happy if I were a Dumocrat. He made himself relevant for the next few short months. However, your real money rakers are Bubba and the Witch. Why piss them off?
Bubba and the Witch need us as much as weOldEdScott
Dec 10, 2003 8:02 AM
need them. Maybe more. Besides, with Gore lurking, it's in their best interest to be even more lovingly attentive to us. So this is a win-win situation for the Party too.
if it was so close thenrufus
Dec 10, 2003 9:17 AM
with an admittedly horrible campaign by gore, and yet he still won the popular vote; no real mandate for dubya, why the general consensus on the right that it's gonna be a blowout this time, versus a much better campaigner against bush? all it's gonna take is for one or two of the bush states to swing the other way.
Xmas comes early! I'll have some 'splainin' to do...Dale Brigham
Dec 10, 2003 8:22 AM
...to the wife when the Fed Ex guy off-loads the blonde, red-suited, Republicat trophy bimbos. "See honey, there was this contest online, and I won, and...." Better hide the shotgun before she gets home. These Mizzou gals are serious about this kind of thing.

I think Dean will benefit from Gore's endorsement, but I doubt it will put him over the top next November. It won't hurt, though. I watched Our Glorious Party's Candidate Debate last night, and I was struck by how poor of a public speaker Dean is compared to, say, Al Sharpton or Dennis Kucinich. If it eventually comes down to Dean vs. Bush, their debates may permanently mutilate the English language.

Dale
debates -- at least good ammo for SNL! nmDougSloan
Dec 10, 2003 8:26 AM
agreeDuane Gran
Dec 10, 2003 9:02 AM
For what it is worth, I had a similar take on things before reading further down the thread. Gore in 08. I see it already.
over-thinkingDougSloan
Dec 10, 2003 8:02 AM
I think this is being over-thought. First, I think Gore probably over-estimates his pull or even relevance. Second, I think he did it purely in an attempt to focus the party to beat Bush. I think Gore hates Bush, and would do anything to see him lose 2nd term. Coalescing a splintered party as early as possible is the best chance of succeeding.

That's just my opinion. Of course, I could be wrong.

Doug
Yeah, he hates Bush almost as much as he hatesOldEdScott
Dec 10, 2003 8:12 AM
the Clintons. This is a massive win-win for Gore, while hardly breaking a sweat.

A maxim: It's almost impossible to over-think political machinations.

Corollary: If you're cooking for your in-laws, it's impossible to make too little coleslaw.

Two truisms that will get you through life.
Ok. as long as were are on maximsDougSloan
Dec 10, 2003 8:21 AM
Here is the only maxim I ever originated:

"Never think of your car as a place to roast marshmallows."

I can see this as a "win-win," but not "massive." It will be forgotten a week from now, and could be downright silly if Dean doesn't get the nomination.

Doug
Once again, I carry work-talkOldEdScott
Dec 10, 2003 8:31 AM
into civilian discourse, and make no sense. Obviously, it's not 'massive' in the real world. Within the Party, though, here in Middle Earth, it's huge, just a major move on Gore's part that promises to rain benefits down on him. But you're right -- if Dean doesn't get the nomination, it's all for naught. Not much chance of that, though. The hog's in the tunnel on that one.
sureDougSloan
Dec 10, 2003 9:22 AM
I can see that within the inner-circle[jerk] (hehe) Gore's move would be seen as massive. I just don't think it will affect the election. It's sorta like Madonna being pregnant again. Makes the news, but just not that significant in real terms.

Trying as best I can to set party bias aside, I find Dean so irritating to listen to and see. There's just no charisma at all. He seems unnecessarily abrasive. He's "not Bush," but I think that is about all he'll have going for him in the general.

Doug
that may be enough. nmrufus
Dec 10, 2003 9:26 AM
We'll see. Won't stop you all from talking the wholeNo_sprint
Dec 10, 2003 9:45 AM
thing til everyone vomits. OldEd has already got his imagination in full tilt. He's overanalyzing every spec of unwritten word between every line. I've never seen a wheel spin so fast and go nowhere.

He needs a drink.

I say shut up and put up.
Excellent advice.128
Dec 10, 2003 10:31 AM
Take it.
Already done. You won't find me overanalyzingNo_sprint
Dec 10, 2003 11:01 AM
every single Dumo or Rep baby step over the next year. I've said before, we'll just see what happens.

Either way, no huge biggie for me.
I refer to the 'shut up and put up' part.128
Dec 10, 2003 11:56 AM
At the very least say something nice or meaningful once in awhile. Geesh.

fin
Don't feed boring Non_sense trollBottomBracketShell
Dec 10, 2003 12:00 PM
Nothing makes him happier than someone talking to him the more negative the better. He must be very lonely.
His loathing of Bush ...Live Steam
Dec 10, 2003 8:13 AM
is probably much stronger than any high ideals he has for the Dumocratic party. We both agree that he needs to be relevant again for his own ego. It must suck to have to listen to the flatulence of oversexed coeds when one could be ruler of the free World :O)
You ought to like Gore, Steam.OldEdScott
Dec 10, 2003 8:34 AM
He's the only man in America who hates Bill Clinton more than you do, and says worse things about him. You guys ought to get together for a couple of pops.
under-thinkingczardonic
Dec 10, 2003 1:01 PM
Gore could have picked any of the candidates if his only goal was to unify the party. Dean is arguably the worst choice if that was his true aim.

If you are tired of these half-baked consipracy theories, why not listen to what Gore actually said. I know: take a politician at his word!? But it is at least as credible as any of the other voices in this debate. More to the point, Gore gave reasons that are consistant with positions he has been taking for months (as opposed to being based on ad hominem and/or the unknowable future.)

Gore believes that the Democratic Party needs to appeal to the grass-roots support that Dean has mustered. More importantly, Gore stands with Dean on his opposition to the war, of which Gore said, "Our nation in its 200-year history has never made a worse foreign policy mistake." Of the viable candidates, Dean is the only candidate even remotely in synch with Gore's current politics. Who else would he endorse?
Yawn! Boring. Next!No_sprint
Dec 10, 2003 9:10 AM
We'll see what happens in 2004.
Troll. Boring. nmBottomBracketShell
Dec 10, 2003 12:04 PM
not sure if it's all about 2008rufus
Dec 10, 2003 9:25 AM
either way, if dean wins or loses in 2004, gore has positioned himself to gain control of the democratic party apparatus away from the clintons. right now, as a former president, bill's got all the influence within the party and tha DNC. if dean wins, or even puts up a good run, that's gonna change.

the best way i can see gore helping dean is a few speeches in areas where he won the vote by large margins in 2000, maybe more if he can continue with the more dynamic presentations he's been doing lately. where was that speaking style four years ago? but if he's gonna be the same old bland and dry albore, then best to keep him off the stage, and concentrated on the backroom arm-twisting and money raising deals.

if the dems ever nominate hillary, all i can see is the end of the party. i just think there's too much baggage she brings, too much animosity toward her, verging on outright hatred toward her. in my eyes, she's just unelectable.
More inside baseballOldEdScott
Dec 10, 2003 9:34 AM
That's the big slight -- Clinton still pulls the party levers, though Gore, as the most recent nominee, should have some major say too. But he does not, and it really rankles him.

So you're right. A lot of this is Gore trying to wrestle control of the Party apparatus away from the Clintons. So it's not ALL about 2008, but it sure leads directly to 2008 and the Ultimate Prize.
I don't get itgtx
Dec 10, 2003 9:42 AM
Gore may be a legend in his own mind, but I assume he's not so deluded as to think he'll ever have a chance in hell again for the presidency. I also don't see the win win. If Dean wins it's 100% certain Gore will never have another shot. If Dean loses he just put himself with a loser. To me it just seems more like an effort to prove that his opinion actually matters to anyone, and perhaps, as you say, it was also an attempt to piss off the Clintons. But I doubt he really succeeded here, either. I just hope we don't have to hear about the guy much more in the months leading up to the election. He's bad luck.
I still don't buy it, but...dr hoo
Dec 10, 2003 9:45 AM
... it does make for an interesting idea (Gore 2008).

My wife sent me this link, re: Clark benefiting from it.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_12_07.html#002303

She's the political hack in our house, and the Clark idea I posted last night was hers. I was stumped, it took her 20 seconds. For y'all's consideration.
Here's what Dick Morris says in today's PostBottomBracketShell
Dec 10, 2003 11:27 AM
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/12928.htm
I pretty much agree nmDougSloan
Dec 10, 2003 12:05 PM
I'd imagine commentary (ala baseball) for a televisedNo_sprint
Dec 10, 2003 12:20 PM
circus to be quite similar.
Troll. Spew. Ignore. nmBottomBracketShell
Dec 10, 2003 12:27 PM
One gets much of his support from the internet, ...HouseMoney
Dec 10, 2003 12:46 PM
the other one *invented* the internet!

Myself, I prefer one of the FoxSports news babes, Inga Hammond in particular, to any of the leggy blonde Repub operatives!
Hmm. Are you ignorant? Or just a fan of stale jokes? (nm)czardonic
Dec 10, 2003 1:10 PM
The latter. Obviously. Unlike you. (nm)HouseMoney
Dec 10, 2003 3:13 PM
Thanks, though it wasn't exactly obvious. . .czardonic
Dec 10, 2003 3:24 PM
. . .in view of your recent posts.
Coming from you ...HouseMoney
Dec 10, 2003 7:13 PM
I consider that a compliment!
You're welcome. (nm)czardonic
Dec 10, 2003 7:20 PM
You have the same awful effect on everyone. nmNo_sprint
Dec 11, 2003 8:35 AM
Stop now. No more. Thanks nmDougSloan
Dec 11, 2003 8:43 AM