…is that, in watching him on “Meet the Press,” I found myself agreeing with just about everything he was saying about Democrats, Republicans, and the various issues. Compare his performance with the hesitant, fear-mongering, redundancy-filled appearance by Bush and you see what it’s like when a man of genuine intelligence is speaking. The only disingenuous statement he made was claiming that he shouldn’t be singled out for Gore’s loss in Florida because, hey, Pat Buchanan also got votes. Which is ridiculous since Buchanan’s voter base wouldn’t have voted for Gore if he’d been the only candidate available. Still, it’s annoying to find that I’m more in synch with his opinions than I am with Kerry et al, considering Nader’s unelectable.
I very much doubt Nader will have any serious impact this time. Democrats are so focused on wanting Bush out, I’d be amazed if even one half of one percent were willing to risk that by throwing away their votes on Nader again. Still, if I were the GOP, I’d be mobilizing volunteers to go work for Nader in order to try and get him on as many state ballots as possible, ’cause you never know. At the very least, Bush should send him a nice fruit basket.
PAD
• 
A few things…
First, I’m not actually as small-minded as I’ve come across the last few posts I’ve made. I allowed myself to get into Goad Mode, and didn’t bother tempering it. No, not all people who voted for Bush are ignorant hillbillies. But I’d reckon most ignorant hillbillies voted for Bush. And they think because he’s a goofy-smilin’ simpleton who believes in God like them that he’s looking out for their interests. They couldn’t be farther from the truth.
Second, I meant to type “Southern Baptist,” rather than Baptist. If I still paint too large, I can live with that, having been raised by the breed and having been around them all my life.
Third, Gore wasn’t the darling of the DNC even when he ran, but he was a sitting vice president under an enormously popular and successful Democratic president, so he had the chance to go for it. He lost, and though the final huge chunk of that loss was due to the cheating of the other side, he got close enough for them to cheat because he made serious errors in the race, distancing himself from Clinton being one example. He could have run again, but there were strong forces inside the party already bucking against him, and he was already saddled with all the bûllšhìŧ baggage that got attached to him last time (like the “inventing” the Internet bit).
Leiberman was chosen in the first place as a sop to draw more conservative voters, not because he and Gore were philosophy twins. He also played right into GOP hands when he pussied out on live TV and let them corner him into saying they shouldn’t make any strong attempts at filtering the votes of absentee military voters, making it very difficult for the Gore campaign to make certain those votes were accurately and legally counted (which the evidence indicates they were not). And Leiberman wouldn’t win the Democratic vote not because of his race, but because he is so conservative. As John Stewart put it one night, “Joe Leiberman, for those who think they’d really like to vote for Bush, but he’s just not Jewish enough.
And as far as Dems voting in blacks and Jews…uh. They do. That’s how Leiberman, among many others, got in office in the first place.
If you’re talking to me about the presidency and vice presidency, how many black or Jewish contenders for that have the GOP offered up?
Actually, he said the exact opposite, even claiming that Gore would have invaded Iraq. Which I don’t believe for a microsecond, if for no other reason than that the GOP congress would never have given him the power to do so.
I’ll go you one better, PAD. I don’t think Gore would have attacked Afghanistan, even if Bin Laden had taunted him. I think Gore would have tried to get the UN to get Bin Laden. They would have said “no” of course, peace loving folks that they are, and would have said the attack was a reasonable response to US aggression, arrogance and imperialism. You know, kind of like many countries (some of them our “friends”) did anyway.
Oh, and also under a Gore presidency, not only would we not have gone to war with Iraq, the UN wouldn’t have restarted their weapons search, Saddam would still be alive and killing hundreds of Iraqis every month, he would still be sending money to the Palestinian families of suicide bombers, and human rights organizations would still be claiming that all the deaths in Iraq were really the United States fault for keeping sanctions in place, evidently for possessing WMDS that the even UN still believed that they had.
I’m thinking not. Personally, I’m not afraid to be in the minority. I’ve taken stands on any number of positions that I know aren’t shared by the majority of Americans.
Your position (liking Nader but expecting you will vote for someone else) isn’t what I am arguing against. I said “the idea that your vote is wasted unless it is spent on someone who might actually win is…the vote of someone afraid to be in the minority” in response to the previous poster who referred to potential Nader voters as “wimps and losers…too dámņëd weak to stand up and make a choice between Bush or the Democratic candidate.” You didn’t argue that a vote for Nader is wasted, just that it is not your strategy of choice, which is an entirely different story. I am arguing against the implication that the only choices are the potential winners, that anything else is a cop-out. When the powers that be get everyone to the point of thinking that Donkey and Elephant are the only two worthwhile options and that thinking outside of that particular box can be dismissed as “weakness,” we will be a fully owned and operated subsidiary of politics gone dreadfully wrong. Hëll, they own most of our shares already.
Where you and I differ is in a place where I’m pefectly happy to differ: you place a value on getting rid of Dubya Deficit that makes your voting for the other of the two potential winners a worthy strategy, whereas I think the differences between Kerry and Bush so insignificant to my country’s future that I would rather spend my vote on someone who is closer to what I want to believe in, even knowing that my guy ain’t hitting the tape first.
I’ll go you one better, PAD. I don’t think Gore would have attacked Afghanistan, even if Bin Laden had taunted him. I think Gore would have tried to get the UN to get Bin Laden. They would have said “no” of course, peace loving folks that they are, and would have said the attack was a reasonable response to US aggression, arrogance and imperialism.
I don’t believe this for a second. And international reaction would have been the same after 9/11 no matter who was president.
I think Gore would have been more timid in Afghanistan (and this would have probably been a mistake), but to say this is just knee jerk “thinking.”
Greg Palast has written a lot about who controlled and manipulated the ballots in Florida, and it sure wasn’t Ralph Nader. That’s the most interesting story about the last election.
Tim,
I hope I didn’t come across as having been horribly offended. I’m a bit annoyed by statements like that, but the annoyance tends to be more at those who CAUSE that stereotype than those who believe it.
I’ve read Palast’s book, “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy”, and it sure is an eye opener. Before anyone talks about politics in America they should make this required reading. In it you will learn that both parties are owned by the corporations and the truth about how Bush stole the election with good old Jeb’s help. That said, I plan to vote Democrat, even though Nader is right about both parties being bought and paid for. Bush isn’t even trying to be subtle about helping the wealthy become wealthier. How much is enough?
On another note, I lived in the south and had many Southern Baptist friends. These were the only people who ever told me I was going to hëll and they were only trying to be nice! They were concerned for my soul. This attitude permeates the south. That’s why we live in Washington state now.
Nadar is my hero. He does what he wants and could careless about the Dems. I love it when he sticks it to them like he’s doing now.
Goooooo Ralph!
PS: And, As an Indie Voter (and proud of it) Ralph will have my vote, always.
You can keep your Gore’s and your Kerry’s which will never beat Bush. I will take the Nadar’s of the world every time! 🙂
I just had to add that.
Who is this Nadar you speak of, Dee? He sounds intriguing. Likely far better than Nader, the man we were talking about.
Ack. There I was picking on the unfortunate, and I was spelling the name wrong too.
It’s “nadir.” Of course, that’s with a lower case “n.”
When spelled as a proper name, it’s “Bush.”
And as far as Dems voting in blacks and Jews…uh. They do. That’s how Leiberman, among many others, got in office in the first place.
Uh, I was talking about the presidency, but as long as we’re talking about the black politicians in office, most of them come from “Safe” districts, meaning that the voters there are most likely predominately black. Jews are white people. As long as they don’t play up the religious aspect too much, other Dems will vote for them. Heck being Catholic almost cost Kennedy the election, and in fact, he did lose the popular vote I believe.
f you’re talking to me about the presidency and vice presidency, how many black or Jewish contenders for that have the GOP offered up?
Hmm, well right off hand I can think of at least three. Alan Keyes, Colin Powell and JC Watts. Although admittedly the last two were asked but declined the offer.
As for Jewish, well, considering what’s said about conservative Christians can you honestly believe a conservative Jew would put his neck on the line? Of course, you could just ask Joe Lieberman.
Heck being Catholic almost cost Kennedy the election, and in fact, he did lose the popular vote I believe.
Un, no he didn’t. He did, however, lose the electors from West Virginia, who decided to throw their support to Sen. Byrd.
Saddam would still be alive
You mean he isn’t??
Are you saying the government secretly killed him and now are holding a body double prisoner for the show trial?
Okay, so the Democrats are actually racists because they uh…because you think so. Not based on the fact that they elect Jews and blacks, not based on the fact that they run Jews and blacks for the presidency, not based on the fact that they field a lot more Jews and blacks than the Republicans (who wailed “Oh no, there goes the black guy from our big tent! when Watts stepped down)…just because you think so.
Surely you weren’t implying that Dems are racist because they may never elect a Jew or black, because I’m doubting your gifts of prophecy, and lacking such, that’d be a pretty facile argument. It also seems to imply that the GOP is more likely to do so, and that seems insane considering current trends and attitudes.
I don’t believe this for a second. And international reaction would have been the same after 9/11 no matter who was president.
I didn’t say it wouldn’t, but to be honest, I had more than one discourses with certain people (most notably a certain German who posts in this forum and on AOL in PAD’s forum there) who seemed to think that the United States was asking for it. Heck, the Saudi Prince offered money to New York to help rebuild, but at the same time he says the US asked for it. Guiliani refused the money, so don’t tell me the international community can’t be two-faced about this.
I think Gore would have been more timid in Afghanistan (and this would have probably been a mistake), but to say this is just knee jerk “thinking.”
You basically agree with me then accuse me of “knee jerk “Thinking””? sheesh! Can’t win with you guys.
The small minded “goading”, as he calls it, from Tim is “knee jerk thinking”. My thoughts about Gore are merely supposition.
I’ll go you one better, PAD. I don’t think Gore would have attacked Afghanistan, even if Bin Laden had taunted him. I think Gore would have tried to get the UN to get Bin Laden. They would have said “no” of course, peace loving folks that they are, and would have said the attack was a reasonable response to US aggression, arrogance and imperialism.
Nah, I don’t think so. After all, Bush’s immediate reaction — attacking Afghanistan — was a political maneuver that was supported by the overwhelming majority of the people in this country. We would have cheered Gore into enough of a fervor that he would have attacked Afghanistan, and though it’s hard to imagine anyone doing a worse job than the Bush Administration (intermittently bombarding the country with weapons and food, warn the Taliban where we’re going to strike with plenty of notice so the only people remaining when the bombs hit are innocent civilians), I’m still willing to entertain the possibility that he would have.
I think Gore would not, however, have attacked Iraq afterwards. His motivation to do so wouldn’t have been nearly as strong as Bush’s. He may have tried to go there politically, but would have gone with the idea that Korea, who definitely has WMDs and is taunting us with that fact, is more dangerous to world security than Iraq, which in all likelyhood has found a place to hide theirs (we know he had them; we gave them to him).
You know, all things considered, if Powell had run in 2000, I would have voted for him.
For me, it didn’t matter which party he was in, or even that he’s black (me being the not-quite-middle class white guy from the Midwest), I just had respect for him.
Too bad he lost that respect when he joined the Bush Administration.
That, and isn’t his son the head of the FCC?
I can’t stand that Powell either (“It’s a NIPPLE! It’s the end of the world!”).
The only disingenuous statement he made was claiming that he shouldn’t be singled out for Gore’s loss in Florida because, hey, Pat Buchanan also got votes. Which is ridiculous since Buchanan’s voter base wouldn’t have voted for Gore if he’d been the only candidate available.–PAD
If I remember correctly, a lot of people (specially in West Palm Beach) MEANT to vote for Gore but punched the Buchanan chad (in the BUTTERFLY BALLOT) by mistake.
Maybe that’s what he meant.
If you want to check out the ballot, here it is:
http://www.andrys.com/vballot.jpg
Okay, so the Democrats are actually racists because they uh…because you think so.
Coming from someone who just recently castigated an entire region of the country as being “hillbilly”, you sir can’t talk. Also, I never called the Dems racist
Not based on the fact that they elect Jews and blacks, not based on the fact that they run Jews and blacks for the presidency, not based on the fact that they field a lot more Jews and blacks than the Republicans (who wailed “Oh no, there goes the black guy from our big tent! when Watts stepped down)…just because you think so.
Well, yeah. Not that I actually SAID any of that, but if I HAD, everything I say on this board is based on what I THINK unless I specifically state otherwise. In which case, I’ll usually back it up with facts and figures and even links to where I got the info. And once again, comming from someone who just castigated an entire REGION of the country, I don’t think you have room to talk.
Surely you weren’t implying that Dems are racist because they may never elect a Jew or black, because I’m doubting your gifts of prophecy, and lacking such, that’d be a pretty facile argument.
Once again, didn’t say that. On the other hand, the fact that the few black candidates that have run received votes predominately along racial lines kinda supports the argument. You can just look at Sharpton’s recent wins in South Carolina and DC for more evidence. AND the fact, which you DIDN”T address, that many Black Democrats in Congress come from “safe” districts, meaning that their districts have probably been gerrymandered to be predominately black or, at least Democrat, thus insuring that they’ll keep their congressional seats.
It also seems to imply that the GOP is more likely to do so, and that seems insane considering current trends and attitudes.
Once again, didn’t say OR imply that. But then again, considering everything you just pointed out to me, I notice that you have no problem once again castigating an entire organization because YOU think the “current trends and attitudes” say so.
Heck being Catholic almost cost Kennedy the election, and in fact, he did lose the popular vote I believe.
Un, no he didn’t. He did, however, lose the electors from West Virginia, who decided to throw their support to Sen. Byrd.
My bad. He won the popular vote by less than 1 percent. That, on the other hand, doesn’t detract from my statement about him being Catholic.
My bad. He won the popular vote by less than 1 percent. That, on the other hand, doesn’t detract from my statement about him being Catholic.
Interestingly enough, though, is that he won in 1960 by promising to respect the idea of separation of church and state and not bow to the wishes of Pope in making US policy.
Today, conservatives would blast him for being anti-religion.