![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thatcrazycajunI'm reposting this from my response to shelleybear in her latest post, because it's undoubtedly the beginning of all the noise my friends are likely to make (yes, redaxe, I'm looking at you) about Al Bore Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday and how he absolutely should run for President again now because of it and the halo he's gained from the popularity of his environmental message.
My response to this notion: Oh, God, please, NO!!!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Ralph Nader did NOT cost Al Gore the 2000 election--Al Gore did! All the experts said it was Gore's to lose going in two years prior, and damned if he didn't go right out and lose it. He had all the advantages in his column: a borderline moron as a GOP opponent; the best campaigner alive, Bill Clinton, squarely in his camp (yes, yes, I know, he was a two-edged sword, but no one can fault his political smarts, just his libido and self-control); eight years of a rip-roaring economy; a gigundo federal-budget surplus; relative peace in the world; and all the big Democrat money behind him.
And he squandered it all on repeated attempts to "remake" himself, unclear policy statements and flip-flopping, picking "Holy Joe" Lieberman as a running mate, and opportunistically using his family as a campaign tool (remember that squick-inducing kiss with Tipper on the convention podium? I sure as hell wish I didn't...), plus >0 charisma and putting people to sleep on the stump. In the end, too many people who desperately wanted to avoid Bush still just couldn't bring themselves to pull the lever for Gore (those that even showed up at the polls at all)...and that, and that alone, was what threw the election in Florida to the courts. (GOP state officials' chicanery in the recount was what kept it there; thank you ever so much, Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, and may you both roast stark naked in the lowest, hottest circle of Hell for eternity.) If Gore had run even half as effective a campaign as he'd been expected to, Nader's vote would not have been enough to matter at all.
No one bears more of the blame for the 2000 debacle than Gore himself, as far as I'm concerned. His running again would be a disaster for the Dems and ensure GOP hegemony for another two terms; he absolutely must NOT be given another chance to run the party into the ground in 2008. Say what you will about Hillary Clinton's baggage (and you can say plenty!) or Barack Obama's inexperience, at least they're halfway electable; Gore simply isn't, Nobel or no Nobel.
You don't agree? Bring it. He wasted all the faith and hard work we invested in him seven years ago, and I'm heartily sick of the sumbitch—and of people saying he can be the party's salvation this time. If you believe that, I've got a pair of bridges in New Orleans I wanna talk to you about; no checks, please—cash only, and in small bills.
shelleybear in her latest post, because it's undoubtedly the beginning of all the noise my friends are likely to make (yes, redaxe, I'm looking at you) about Al My response to this notion: Oh, God, please, NO!!!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Ralph Nader did NOT cost Al Gore the 2000 election--Al Gore did! All the experts said it was Gore's to lose going in two years prior, and damned if he didn't go right out and lose it. He had all the advantages in his column: a borderline moron as a GOP opponent; the best campaigner alive, Bill Clinton, squarely in his camp (yes, yes, I know, he was a two-edged sword, but no one can fault his political smarts, just his libido and self-control); eight years of a rip-roaring economy; a gigundo federal-budget surplus; relative peace in the world; and all the big Democrat money behind him.
And he squandered it all on repeated attempts to "remake" himself, unclear policy statements and flip-flopping, picking "Holy Joe" Lieberman as a running mate, and opportunistically using his family as a campaign tool (remember that squick-inducing kiss with Tipper on the convention podium? I sure as hell wish I didn't...), plus >0 charisma and putting people to sleep on the stump. In the end, too many people who desperately wanted to avoid Bush still just couldn't bring themselves to pull the lever for Gore (those that even showed up at the polls at all)...and that, and that alone, was what threw the election in Florida to the courts. (GOP state officials' chicanery in the recount was what kept it there; thank you ever so much, Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, and may you both roast stark naked in the lowest, hottest circle of Hell for eternity.) If Gore had run even half as effective a campaign as he'd been expected to, Nader's vote would not have been enough to matter at all.
No one bears more of the blame for the 2000 debacle than Gore himself, as far as I'm concerned. His running again would be a disaster for the Dems and ensure GOP hegemony for another two terms; he absolutely must NOT be given another chance to run the party into the ground in 2008. Say what you will about Hillary Clinton's baggage (and you can say plenty!) or Barack Obama's inexperience, at least they're halfway electable; Gore simply isn't, Nobel or no Nobel.
You don't agree? Bring it. He wasted all the faith and hard work we invested in him seven years ago, and I'm heartily sick of the sumbitch—and of people saying he can be the party's salvation this time. If you believe that, I've got a pair of bridges in New Orleans I wanna talk to you about; no checks, please—cash only, and in small bills.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-12 02:50 pm (UTC)Not much time today for anything but an initial flurry of links... but:
- http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh060107.shtml
- http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/04.28A.Election.Fraud.htm
- http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/ccrdraft060401.htm
- http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0011/08/bn.31.html
And that's just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head. If you want, wait till Sunday afternoon, when I'll have more time, and I'll break out the big guns.Now, whether or not he'll run, whether or not he'd win, I don't know. But don't diss the man because of the perfecet storm of a whole bunch of self-entitled Republicans who wanted Clinton and anything even nominally progressive the hell out of Dodge. Even with all the screw-ups you list, and I don't accept all of them as screw-ups, he did win the popular vote.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-12 03:07 pm (UTC)Truthfully, I'm tired of arguing the point.
Yes, Gore did get the majority of votes.
That makes him president.
Period.
I'll say he allowed the election to be stolen by not following through with a full recount of Florida.
That was HIS error.
On the other hand, the Democrats had never dealt with the likes of Carl Rove before.
And, unless they are prepared in 2008 I see the same result.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-12 06:59 pm (UTC)First, I've wanted him in the race since way before he started accumulating hardware (Emmy, Oscar, and Nobel, so far).
Second, those things don't qualify him, by themselves. They do raise his profile.
Third, Lieberman was a horrible mistake. I think he'd have both the brains and the stones to admit to his mistakes (unlike some other pols we know).
Fourth, Gore couldn't possibly be any more divisive than Hillary, given that roughly 40% of the populace (or is that 45%) have said they'd vote against her without even considering her politics. Gore carries some of the anti-Cleni bias, but certainly not that much.
In 2000, Gore ought to have fought for a full recount; a stacked SCOTUS certainly made a difference against him. Wedt Palm Beach, the butterfly ballot, and hanging chads all were part of the equation. And yet, if you dicount the Nader vote, you're overlooking a key part of the "perfect storm" that brought us the current Chimpy in Chief.
I disagree with you about "electability", even discounting that the word is mainly used by Beltway insiders and their echo chambers to preclude good candidates from making serious runs at offices. Gore is more electable than most of the Democratic field, and a better candidate than all of them (except possibly Kucinich).
The perfect tickets
Date: 2007-10-12 10:35 pm (UTC)Gore/Clinton
That second one's actually got a bit of a ring to it. Familiar, predictable, downright comfortable in a 'you know what to expect' kind of way.
Either way, at least it won't be Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton. I don't care who's side you're on, that'd be jes' wrong. Especially if Jeb were to run and win after Hillary adding two more Bush entries to the end of the list.
Aren't there any other dynasties in America (The Kennedy's are finished for now and probably for good) capable of leading as well as wanting to lead?
I'm ready to vote for Nadar just to break things up.