Gore loses mind; 2004 election

[SlowwHand]

Yeah right Jimmy. Leadership leads in a forward direction.
Of late, Che only has been excelling at correcting the past.

[Ned]

Joe Lieberman and Al Gore now on opposite pages on the issue of Iraq. Lieberman is standing up to Saddam. Gore is playing politics. Of the two, I think the majority of Democrats back Lieberman.

Gore could have done himself a favor by supporting the administration on this issue. Whatever happens in the coming presidential campaign, his fellow democrats will not let the public forget this speech.

[SlowwHand]

Republican's won't let Gore forget, if Democrats do.

Next President will be Colin Powell, if he decides to put up with the crap that goes with the job.
Personally, I think he'd be a fool.

[chequita guevara]

The majority of the current Democratic hopefull's for a 2004 Presidential run are all opposed to Bush's stand on Iraq. Kerry's criticism has been the sharpest. Gore isn't even opposed to attacking Iraq. He's opposed to the way in which the current Administration is going about it, blowing all the good will he world had towards the US following 9/11 and risking greater instability.

walruskkkch, while my suppositions are just that, I don't then use them to make a point later. I said, this may be what he's up to (nor am I the only one to make that supposition, I just read it in Salon after writing it here). You on the other hand say, I think this is what he's doing, and what an awful person he is for that. Do you see the difference?

jimmytrick, the nature of leadership in a democratic republic is different from that of the divine right of Kings. President's are necessarily limited by the Constitution from acting without the permission of Congress. Our system was designed to keep any one branch from having complete power, and giving most power in the Federal government to the legislature. In our system, therefore, a leader must lead by the agreement of his people, and not simply do what he likes, damn the Congress, treaty allies, and the American public. It seems Republicans really want a King, and not a President.

[walruskkkch]

Che. No. Are you just parroting what you read? And what later point was I supposed to be making other than I think Gore is a disgrace as a politician. Personal opinion of course, but no less valid than anyone else's opinions of particular politicians.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I find it interesting from a historical/family perspective.

Bush's dad went to war against Saddam.

Gore's dad lost all political clout because he opposed military action.

History repeating itself?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by walruskkkch
Che. No. Are you just parroting what you read?

Do you understand the concept of time? As I wrote before, I read Salon after I wrote it here. That means I wrote it first. That means I read it second. First comes before second, unless you're counting backwards. Were you counting backwards?

And what later point was I supposed to be making other than I think Gore is a disgrace as a politician. Personal opinion of course, but no less valid than anyone else's opinions of particular politicians.

You were basing that opinion on an erronious assumption. You assume Gore is opposed to the war (he is not). You assume he wants the US to lose the war (on what evidence?). You then declare he is a disgrace based on those assumptions. It's faulty reasoning.

[walruskkkch]

Gore is not opposed to it? Seemed pretty much what comes through all his musings. The only reasoning that's faulty is Gore's.

So you read Liberalfantasy.com afterwards, so what. Still doesn't make your opinion anymore correct than anybody eleses.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by walruskkkch
Gore is not opposed to it? Seemed pretty much what comes through all his musings. The only reasoning that's faulty is Gore's.

All right, put your money where your mouth is. Show the quote, in context, that shows Gore's opposition to an attack on Iraq. Since I read the damn speeh, I know you won't be able to do it.

So you read Liberalfantasy.com afterwards, so what. Still doesn't make your opinion anymore correct than anybody eleses.

Typical conservative weasel. Attacks me for one thing, then when disproven, tries to pretend that it was something else.

[walruskkkch]

Not trying to distract, just making a point about what I think of your sources.

Gore is not going to come rigth out and say he's against the war, he's going to give all the excuses as to why action is not necessary or should wait or all the other qualifiers that the opponents use. It's pretty much plain if you interpret his words rather than just read them.

[nationalist]

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

If Sharpton were the Democratic candidate, even Harlem would vote Republican.

[Swissy]

One possible mistake Gore has made is more in the timing of his remarks and the subject. His fellow Dems have be trying to get the Iraq stuff pushed off the front page now that we are approaching (6 weeks) the congressional elections. It would have been better for Gore to hammer Bush on the economy, with minor focus on Iraq.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think Gore is being advised by the same people that told him to change his 'image' during the 2000 campaign every few weeks.

[Alexander's Horse]

[Chris 62]

Well, I made it through three quarters of the transcript Garth provided, Gore is as mudle-headed as ever...

Bush is wrong to attack saddam!...but Saddam must be attacked!

We must fight one war at a time!...But I support a regime change in Iraq!

Still the boring, lifeless pol he always was, I especailly enjoyed where he points out that he voted for the gulf war in 91, yet in 2002 that hasn't been resolved!...yet he was VP for 8 years, and said nothing during that time!

It's a wonder ANYBODY EVER voted for this guy for anything.