Albert Arnold Gore Jr. Wins to no one's surprise

[Tylerdurden31]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071012/D8S7KOB82.html

maybe he'll run now...please

[RotationSlimWang]

"Please?" Are you Republican or something?

We're never going to get out of this never-ending cycle of right-wing fuckwits in charge unless the Dem supporters realize that they need someone with personality and balls--just being a good guy doesn't win shit. He couldn't beat a retard the first time around because he pussied out left and right, same way Kerry did. If they put up another pussy I'm deeming it the official beginning of the end of the glorious American democracy.

[Tylerdurden31]

"Please?" Are you Republican or something?

We're never going to get out of this never-ending cycle of right-wing fuckwits in charge unless the Dem supporters realize that they need someone with personality and balls--just being a good guy doesn't win shit. He couldn't beat a retard the first time around because he pussied out left and right, same way Kerry did. If they put up another pussy I'm deeming it the official beginning of the end of the glorious American democracy.

I'm insulted...I'm not a Republican.

A. Gore is a better realistic choice than every Democratic candidate out there.
B. Gore is a better choice than the entire lot of Republican douchebags running.
C. He's a completely different person than he was in 2000.
D. A Gore/Obama ticket would fuck shit up.
E. American Democracy has been on it's way out SINCE 2000

[Yablonowitz]

He's not going to run.

[RotationSlimWang]

I'm insulted...I'm not a Republican.

A. Gore is a better realistic choice than every Democratic candidate out there.
B. Gore is a better choice than the entire lot of Republican douchebags running.
C. He's a completely different person than he was in 2000.
D. A Gore/Obama ticket would fuck shit up.
E. American Democracy has been on it's way out SINCE 2000

I know you're not a Republican, but don't be insulted, I'm just saying that you're going about this all wrong. It's time that Democrats stopped picking who they think would be the best President necessarily and start picking someone who can BEAT THE REPUBLICANS, first and foremost. Gore had his chance and fucked it up by being too much of a nice guy, Kerry wasn't fierce enough and he was trying to beat Bush by being like Bush. Gore may seem like a different guy now, but he wasn't when it counted and the people who didn't vote for him the first time around will still see him as that.

I'm still not sure whether Obama is the kiss of death or not even though he seems like a possibility--dark skin still isn't "in" in America quite yet, I don't think. And yes, our democracy has been on the way out, but if they couldn't beat a retard in 2000 and couldn't beat that same retard now halfway into having fucked up majorly in 2004 and then still can't manage to screw up their nerve enough to take the fucking fire to the Republicans in 2008 when the country is ready and willing to blame the shit out of them... well that will mean we're truly screwed. The previous elections were signs of the demise to follow--it's only truly the collapse when you can't beat them even AFTER they've shown how much they suck.

[Yablonowitz]

I know you're not a Republican, but don't be insulted, I'm just saying that you're going about this all wrong. It's time that Democrats stopped picking who they think would be the best President necessarily and start picking someone who can BEAT THE REPUBLICANS, first and foremost. Gore had his chance and fucked it up by being too much of a nice guy, Kerry wasn't fierce enough and he was trying to beat Bush by being like Bush. Gore may seem like a different guy now, but he wasn't when it counted and the people who didn't vote for him the first time around will still see him as that.

I'm still not sure whether Obama is the kiss of death or not even though he seems like a possibility--dark skin still isn't "in" in America quite yet, I don't think. And yes, our democracy has been on the way out, but if they couldn't beat a retard in 2000 and couldn't beat that same retard now halfway into having fucked up majorly in 2004 and then still can't manage to screw up their nerve enough to take the fucking fire to the Republicans in 2008 when the country is ready and willing to blame the shit out of them... well that will mean we're truly screwed. The previous elections were signs of the demise to follow--it's only truly the collapse when you can't beat them even AFTER they've shown how much they suck.

Well...I'm inclined to agree with you but I'm now being convinced that since the Democrats won't pony up and get someone who won't take shit, the Republicans are going to help us out by delving so deep into shit that even the most retarded citizen won't vote for someone with an (R) next to their name.

And let's not forget that, despite a lackluster strategy and methodology, the Democrats won every single contested Senate race and took the House over DESPITE all the fucked up gerrymandering that the GOP had put into place.

I don't know what that's going to mean for 08. It's going to be a long, painful, ride. I know that.

[TomAz]

"Please?" Are you Republican or something?

We're never going to get out of this never-ending cycle of right-wing fuckwits in charge unless the Dem supporters realize that they need someone with personality and balls--just being a good guy doesn't win shit. He couldn't beat a retard the first time around because he pussied out left and right, same way Kerry did. If they put up another pussy I'm deeming it the official beginning of the end of the glorious American democracy.

Randy, you should read "1876" by Gore Vidal. You'll see that American democracy comes and goes throughout history. You think the 2000 election was rigged? read about the 1876 election. holy shit. electoral college voters bribed by the railroads to change their votes so that they (the railroads) could get free access to land across the west and make their billions.

[Tylerdurden31]

It's time that Democrats stopped picking who they think would be the best President necessarily and start picking someone who can BEAT THE REPUBLICANS, first and foremost.

I know you're right, but it's fucking sad.

I feel like Clinton is gonna be just a Republican in Democrat's clothing.

Obama, unfortunately as you said, the people probably aren't ready for.

John Edwards...well...I dunno, I sorta liked him, but sometimes he just seems like another shitty politician.

Joe Biden's fuckin nuts.

Kucinich is too much of a socialist for most people.

Chris Dodd might be good, but no one's gonna vote for him.

Bill Richardson has been kinda all over the place.

Mike Gravel...I'd put that guy in office...he's fucking crazy in a good way.

The entire Republican line of candidates are such complete pieces of shit. Giuliani 9/11 is 9/11 a 9/11 lying 9/11 bastard 9/11 and 9/11 he 9/11 was 9/11 a 9/11 crap 9/11 mayor.9/11 9/11 9/11

Romney is great at telling people what they want to hear.

McCain shot himself in the foot a long time ago.

Huckabee's a nice guy, but no fucking way.

The rest of em are fucking crazy

[RotationSlimWang]

Randy, you should read "1876" by Gore Vidal. You'll see that American democracy comes and goes throughout history. You think the 2000 election was rigged? read about the 1876 election. holy shit. electoral college voters bribed by the railroads to change their votes so that they (the railroads) could get free access to land across the west and make their billions.

I wasn't saying that the rigging of the 2000 election is why our democracy is fucked--elections have always been and will always be rigged. The truly scary part of these past couple elections is not the 1 or 2 percent that were tampered but the other 48 percent in Bush's favor that was definitely genuine. It's hard to find people that voted for him here in So Cal, but in Jersey there were fucking tons and it amazed me.

Democracy cannot be brought down by the politicians, only by the populous.

[J~$$$]

I would vote for Ron Paul.

[canexplain]

i disagree that gore couldnt win ... like said above, almost anyone could beat a republican the next time ... and that is what makes this sort of interesting .. if gore doesnt run, that to me means, here is this guy, that could be president of the US if he wanted, and he is turning it down ... i find that amazing ..... canx**

[Yablonowitz]

I would vote for Ron Paul.

Cuz of his whole pro-life stance or that he wants to build an actual wall along the Mexican border?

[Yablonowitz]

i disagree that gore couldnt win ... like said above, almost anyone could beat a republican the next time ... and that is what makes this sort of interesting .. if gore doesnt run, that to me means, here is this guy, that could be president of the US if he wanted, and he is turning it down ... i find that amazing ..... canx**

He's not going to run.

[RotationSlimWang]

almost anyone could beat a republican the next time ...

This is exactly why the Dems are going to lose again. Nothing against you of course, Ron--you know I'm with you--but thinking like that is giving far too much credit to our fellow Americans, sorry.

[J~$$$]

Cuz of his whole pro-life stance or that he wants to build an actual wall along the Mexican border?

This is only if I had to vote for a republican. He is the only one that tells it like it is......he is honest in his stance from what I can see.

[Tylerdurden31]

This is only if I had to vote for a republican. He is the only one that tells it like it is......he is honest in his stance from what I can see.

I'd like to see Mike Gravel and Ron Paul have a debate

[Yablonowitz]

This is exactly why the Dems are going to lose again. Nothing against you of course, Ron--you know I'm with you--but thinking like that is giving far too much credit to our fellow Americans, sorry.

I'm not sure anymore. Do you see Guiliani, Thompson, McCain or Romney winning?

Romney's out. Better to be a woman or a minority than be a Mormon.

McCain? I can't even see him winning the nomination and once he gets to the general election, he'll have twisted himself up like a demented pretzel that it would take entire stump speeches to just clarify and explain all his contradictions.

Thompson? By all accounts of late, he's too slow and dull and lacks any sort of coherent message to excite the loyal retarded Republicans.

Guiliani? Two main obstacles that I see - if he wins the nomination, social conservatives will bow out in droves or support a third party. GOP can't win without them. Plus, I think if he's paired against Hillary Clinton, he'll look like more of a fucking cocksucker than he already does - I don't know how to put that into a rational argument, but the guy's social life and persona contrasted with Hillary's just spells doom for him. In my eyes.

There aren't any other options for the Republicans.

I'm not saying this is a lock or that I'm 100% sure of this. But at this point in time, if I were to guess who is most likely to win the presidency in 2008, it seems to me, as hard as it is for even ME to believe it, I would say it's Hillary Clinton.

I think people, myself included, are underestimating her campaign skills and forget that she is schooled in the art of attack response campaigning.

[RotationSlimWang]

Social conservatives? Meaning the Christian Right? You really think they'll stop supporting the Republican ticket because the man's been a philanderer and has multiple marriages? Dude, their religious leaders get caught in scandals left and fucking right, they're not going to give up the incredible power they have working within the Republican Party to go support a third-party, much less a liberal.

The reason why the Republican support base is infinitely more effective is that they have no problem ignoring the failings of the people they support to represent the principles they claim to value. I'm not saying that Guiliani will be the one, although it wouldn't surprise me, but don't think for a fucking second that the Bible Belt is going to stop humping the Republican ticket.

[canexplain]

This is exactly why the Dems are going to lose again. Nothing against you of course, Ron--you know I'm with you--but thinking like that is giving far too much credit to our fellow Americans, sorry.

lets put it this way, i have voted for the person that lost everytime i have voted i think (cept once i think), so i know there is a lot to what you are saying, but if we lose this one, we deserve it ... canx**

[TomAz]

I wasn't saying that the rigging of the 2000 election is why our democracy is fucked--elections have always been and will always be rigged. The truly scary part of these past couple elections is not the 1 or 2 percent that were tampered but the other 48 percent in Bush's favor that was definitely genuine. It's hard to find people that voted for him here in So Cal, but in Jersey there were fucking tons and it amazed me.

Democracy cannot be brought down by the politicians, only by the populous.

so you're saying democracy failed because a substantial portion of the population actually had the gall to have a viewpoint that differs from your own? that democracy is only 'working' when your side wins?

you were on such a roll the last couple days, randy.

[RotationSlimWang]

so you're saying democracy failed because a substantial portion of the population actually had the gall to have a viewpoint that differs from your own? that democracy is only 'working' when your side wins?

you were on such a roll the last couple days, randy.

Neither side is my side. I'd say that our democracy is clearly on its downswing when the populous is actively supporting a complete moron doing his best to send us along the path of the decline of an empire. The politicians alone cannot make us go the route of Rome faster--the people must be compliant.

[Yablonowitz]

The reason why the Republican support base is infinitely more effective is that they have no problem ignoring the failings of the people they support to represent the principles they claim to value. I'm not saying that Guiliani will be the one, although it wouldn't surprise me, but don't think for a fucking second that the Bible Belt is going to stop humping the Republican ticket.

Guiliani, if I'm not mistaken, is pro-choice. Have we even had a pro-choice Republican candidate run in the past 20 years? I don't think Bush Sr. was really concerned about it, but he never openly claimed to be pro-choice. Other than that....I can't think of anyone.

And there HAS been talk from some social conservatives to push for a third party candidate if Guiliani wins the nomination.

But the main effect that this would have, as I see it, is to dampen turnout when it was energized in 2000 and 2004 because of Rove's deal with the devil political strategy. Florida and Ohio would be most affected by a reduction in turnout by the religious right.

And if you want to talk about a demographic that is solidly loyal in voting regardless of the lack of attention to issues of importance to them, well...the African American community has got the social conservatives beat in that arena by an exponential factor.

[RotationSlimWang]

Talk is talk--those people aren't going to give up their power just to prove a point.

As far as the black vote goes... um, okay, I guess? I'm not really sure what you're getting at. That they accept the fact that Dems won't do all that much for them because they know Repubs won't do fucking anything at all, not even attempt to court their vote? Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[Deviate_420]

Gore would not run against Clinton...

[Tylerdurden31]

Gore would not run against Clinton...

why not?

[Yablonowitz]

Talk is talk--those people aren't going to give up their power just to prove a point.

As far as the black vote goes... um, okay, I guess? I'm not really sure what you're getting at. That they accept the fact that Dems won't do all that much for them because they know Repubs won't do fucking anything at all, not even attempt to court their vote? Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Right - and that's the same thing Christian conservatives do.

I'm not making a point other than to say that blacks in the Democratic party are far more loyal than Christian conservatives, despite being taken for granted for years.

I shouldn't have mentioned it, wasn't really part of an argument. Whether or not conservatives would support a third party candidate isn't really the main reason I think Guiliani would suffer in the election. He would be far more damaged by the lack of enthusiasm and turnout that would occur...unless he plays to them in which case he loses a substantial portion of middle of the roaders who are already leaning to the Democrats.

[miscorrections]

since the democrats are sucky and the republicans are beyond the pale, i'm inclined to throw my vote away and vote third party.

[J~$$$]

If your going to throw it away vote for kucinich.

[algunz]

I'm writing Ron in on my ballot.

[canexplain]

I'm writing Ron in on my ballot.

well tnx lol ...jk ... ron**

[Yablonowitz]

BTW, Hillary winning the presidency is a pretty awful prospect for me. It's not like I'm wanting that. I'm pretty depressed in general about 2008. The only good thing about it is that I don't think anyone would be as bad as Bush.

[algunz]

Talk about an old bitch.

The prospect depresses me too.

[canexplain]

BTW, Hillary winning the presidency is a pretty awful prospect for me. It's not like I'm wanting that. I'm pretty depressed in general about 2008. The only good thing about it is that I don't think anyone would be as bad as Bush.

agree 100% and its not that hillary is a woman, she is just sort of unpleasant .. something else i noticed .... people always call her Hillary ... the men, they usually never say just their first name ... you say president bush, or john kerry, or even bush and kerry, but you dont say, john or george ... i was thinking it was her unusual name, but even obama, most people dont say whatever his first name is lol ... canx**

[Yablonowitz]

agree 100% and its not that hillary is a woman, she is just sort of unpleasant .. something else i noticed .... people always call her Hillary ... the men, they usually never say just their first name ... you say president bush, or john kerry, or even bush and kerry, but you dont say, john or george ... i was thinking it was her unusual name, but even obama, most people dont say whatever his first name is lol ... canx**

Well...there's another sigificant Clinton that she could be confused with. People now mainly refer to Bush's dad as Bush Sr. I think it's more of a way to differentiate her from her husband.

[Yablonowitz]

Since you cats got me all riled up about politics, I found this editorial from Paul Krugman about the right wing attack machine. I get tired of hearing people say that both parties do this shit equally. It's total bullshit. The right wing in this country stoops far lower and spews way more hate and venom than the left as a whole.


Sliming Graeme Frost
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Two weeks ago, the Democratic response to President Bush’s weekly radio address was delivered by a 12-year-old, Graeme Frost. Graeme, who along with his sister received severe brain injuries in a 2004 car crash and continues to need physical therapy, is a beneficiary of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Mr. Bush has vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have expanded that program to cover millions of children who would otherwise have been uninsured.
What followed should serve as a teaching moment.
First, some background. The Frosts and their four children are exactly the kind of people S-chip was intended to help: working Americans who can’t afford private health insurance.
The parents have a combined income of about $45,000, and don’t receive health insurance from employers. When they looked into buying insurance on their own before the accident, they found that it would cost $1,200 a month — a prohibitive sum given their income. After the accident, when their children needed expensive care, they couldn’t get insurance at any price.
Fortunately, they received help from Maryland’s S-chip program. The state has relatively restrictive rules for eligibility: children must come from a family with an income under 200 percent of the poverty line. For families with four children that’s $55,220, so the Frosts clearly qualified.
Graeme Frost, then, is exactly the kind of child the program is intended to help. But that didn’t stop the right from mounting an all-out smear campaign against him and his family.
Soon after the radio address, right-wing bloggers began insisting that the Frosts must be affluent because Graeme and his sister attend private schools (they’re on scholarship), because they have a house in a neighborhood where some houses are now expensive (the Frosts bought their house for $55,000 in 1990 when the neighborhood was rundown and considered dangerous) and because Mr. Frost owns a business (it was dissolved in 1999).
You might be tempted to say that bloggers make unfounded accusations all the time. But we’re not talking about some obscure fringe. The charge was led by Michelle Malkin, who according to Technorati has the most-trafficked right-wing blog on the Internet, and in addition to blogging has a nationally syndicated column, writes for National Review and is a frequent guest on Fox News.
The attack on Graeme’s family was also quickly picked up by Rush Limbaugh, who is so important a player in the right-wing universe that he has had multiple exclusive interviews with Vice President Dick Cheney.
And G.O.P. politicians were eager to join in the smear. The New York Times reported that Republicans in Congress “were gearing up to use Graeme as evidence that Democrats have overexpanded the health program to include families wealthy enough to afford private insurance” but had “backed off” as the case fell apart.
In fact, however, Republicans had already made their first move: an e-mail message from the office of Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, sent to reporters and obtained by the Web site Think Progress, repeated the smears against the Frosts and asked: “Could the Dems really have done that bad of a job vetting this family?”
And the attempt to spin the media worked, to some extent: despite reporting that has thoroughly debunked the smears, a CNN report yesterday suggested that the Democrats had made “a tactical error in holding up Graeme as their poster child,” and closely echoed the language of the e-mail from Mr. McConnell’s office.
All in all, the Graeme Frost case is a perfect illustration of the modern right-wing political machine at work, and in particular its routine reliance on character assassination in place of honest debate. If service members oppose a Republican war, they’re “phony soldiers”; if Michael J. Fox opposes Bush policy on stem cells, he’s faking his Parkinson’s symptoms; if an injured 12-year-old child makes the case for a government health insurance program, he’s a fraud.
Meanwhile, leading conservative politicians, far from trying to distance themselves from these smears, rush to embrace them. And some people in the news media are still willing to be used as patsies.
Politics aside, the Graeme Frost case demonstrates the true depth of the health care crisis: every other advanced country has universal health insurance, but in America, insurance is now out of reach for many hard-working families, even if they have incomes some might call middle-class.
And there’s one more point that should not be forgotten: ultimately, this isn’t about the Frost parents. It’s about Graeme Frost and his sister.
I don’t know about you, but I think American children who need medical care should get it, period. Even if you think adults have made bad choices — a baseless smear in the case of the Frosts, but put that on one side — only a truly vicious political movement would respond by punishing their injured children.

[canexplain]

yea, frost is all over talk radio ...canx**

[xbnmx]

He's not going to run.

Praise allah.

[algunz]

When is Bono gonna win this sucker?