Gore loses mind; 2004 election

[walruskkkch]

I would be shocked, SHOCKED I SAY! She has always been a person of honor. Her word is her bond and all that!

[Jac de Molay]

The reason the economy sux, IMHO, is lack of confidence in Bushs leadership vis a vis his economic policy, plus voters perception he's in the fat cats' pockets. We should be out of this recession by now, but Bush's leadership is sowing too much uncertainty.

All the same, I hope gore doesnt' run. His strenght is in acting as more of a party elder. time for some new blood.

[DanS]

That was a muddled speech. All of the conclusions are based on the false premise that we have decided to act unilaterally with regard to Iraq.

However, I have been surprised that there have been few Democratic foreign policy heavyweights in this discussion. If Madeleine Albright is the heaviest the Dems have, then this is pathetic. In light of this absence, I guess a Gore punching bag for the Bush administration is not a bad outcome.

[chequita guevara]

This isn't about the election of 2004. This is about the election of 2002. Since Gore isn't running, he can hammer away at the popular president on a popular agenda and try and show that Bush has blown it. He's not risking a seat and may be helping his parties prospects of picking up the House and solidifying its control of the Senate.

This topic is the one topic on which the Republicans can win, but it's too iffy for someone to risk their seat challenging. If Gore can show the public that the emperor's new cloths are a fantasy, then the Repulbican's lose their one advantage in the mid-term elections.

It's actually a very crafty political ploy. If it doesn't resonate with the public, the Democrats can always claim Gore doesn't represent them.

[walruskkkch]

But it does put them in the postion of now having to publicly declare there support for Gore and his policy pronouncements, and if there is one thing they don't want to do is have to make a decision.

[chequita guevara]

They can publicaly chastise Gore without completely repudiating him. Look at Leibermann (though he subsequently backed down when Gore rose to the challenge). While I do not in any way support the man, I am impressed by his growing political acumen.

[walruskkkch]

By opposing the desires of some 68% of the US voters? That ain't acumen your smellin'. And if anybody cared to compare his statements in 1998 about Saddam and the problems posed by Iraq you could call his speech a badly calculated poliical gambit. He probably thinks that the only chance he has in 04 is to have the US fail with Iraq so he can capture the "See, I told you so" position. If we succeed he just hopes for the short term memory lapses the US electorate in known for. Personally I think it's a tad disgraceful a poitician pinning his election hopes on the US failing in a war, but then Al Gore hasn't exactly shown the same kind of statesmanship his running mate LIebermann has at least demonstrated.

[SlowwHand]

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

Al Sharpton is burdened by... Al Sharpton.

[walruskkkch]

He's currently the front runner among the Democrats seeking the Presidency.

[Gatekeeper]

Heh. That's the problem with Washington, D.C.: Too many politicians, too few statesmen and women. It shows in a good deal of our policies, both domestic and foreign, whether we like to admit it or not.

That said, Iraq is a threat. And no matter what we do, the outcome won't be cut-and-dried.

I get the impression that Rumsfeld and Cheney think a fairly easy victory is possible in Iraq, and that arrogance could cost the military lots of lives and equipment. It won't be another Vietnam by any means, I think, nor shall it be like Desert Storm in 1991.

And if the British government's assessment of Iraq's WMD capabilities is correct, at least some U.S., et al., deaths will be due to the use of chemical and biological weapons.

Gatekeeper

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by walruskkkch
He's currently the front runner among the Democrats seeking the Presidency.

Who? Gore dominates the polls I have seen.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by walruskkkch
He probably thinks that the only chance he has in 04 is to have the US fail with Iraq so he can capture the "See, I told you so" position. . . . Personally I think it's a tad disgraceful a poitician pinning his election hopes on the US failing in a war,

This is not a supportable position. There is no evidence other than your own supposition that Gore favors the defeat of the United States.

As for the percentage of people who support the Pres, the American people are sheep. Sheep with teeth, but sheep nonetheless. Jimmytrick is a perfect example. He makes a claim about how Reagan would have ignored world opinion and democratic debate and just done what he liked, implying that acting like a dictator is an admirable quality in the leader of a democratic republic. There's no evidence of much of a thought process going on in this country regarding Iraq.

[SlowwHand]

If Al Sharpton ever, and I mean ever, wins the Presidency, Apolyton can line up and I'll kiss your collective asses.

[walruskkkch]

As opposed to all of your assumptions? I'm just offering my view as to how his speech will work best for him. It's my interpretation but it's no less supportable then some of your more fanciful ideas about people's motivations.

I think you seriously underestimate the desire of the American people for action in regards to removing the threats posed by Iraq to the US.

[Capt Dizle]

The US is a representative democracy. God forbid we should have to debate each action beforehand. We would be the UN.

Its bad enough that the adminstration has to face reelection every four years. It is very hard to have continuity in policy with constant elections.

Che, you need to contemplate the concept of leadership.