Gore would kick ass if he threw his hat in

I figure the DNC chose Lieberman. Gore just went along as a good party type would to.

Just my thoughts on the matter.
 
Darla said:
It was a terrible choice. And it all goes back to giving into the intimidation of the right wing. Lieberman made a big show, if you remember, of loudly chastising Clinton for his sex life. Gore was running away from Clinton (big mistake), and I think that's why he chose Lieberman.
Click to expand...

For the most part you're right .. but Gore chose Lieberman because he gave in to the forces that were behind him. There were a thousand better, more qualified choices than Lieberman.
 
Cypress said:
I can honestly say, that no way could I have predicted that he would invade and occupy iraq.

But, I can say that in 2000, I saw a man who was predisposed towards violence, arrogance, and swagger. I saw him say that we needed to "take care" of saddam, and I saw him smirk and nearly giggle when he talked about executing a mentally retarded man in Texas.

I knew that putting this psycho in charge of foregin affairs and our miliary might have dire consequences.

I thought that Al Gore was a man who exhibited a fair amount of prudence, and deliberation. A man who would not make rash, ill-considered decisions.

For that reason alone, this country would have been much better off with Gore. It's just silly to assert that things would have turned out the same. Actually, on second thought, you can assert that. But, I place minimal value on unsubstantiated assertions and speculations.
Click to expand...

It is your right to place any value on any assertion that you choose or deem anything "silly" that you choose.

But the specter of Lieberman stands glaringly in the face of democrats and reflects of the election of 2000. I understand the interests of those who choose to run away from any speculation they do not want to hear. As I said, perhaps you have more faith in the godliness of the neocon horde than I do or perhaps I understand the depth of their evil more than you do.

This is political discussion and we speculate everyday.
 
blackascoal said:
For the most part you're right .. but Gore chose Lieberman because he gave in to the forces that were behind him. There were a thousand better, more qualified choices than Lieberman.
Click to expand...


Unless one were to subscribe to the theory that PNAC was going to assasinate Gore, and then have Lieberman invade iraq, the fact is who becomes vice president is largely irrelevant. With all due respect, It's almost like your grasping for reasons to dismiss the benefits of a Gore presidency.

FDR's first vice president was a nightmare. He opposed FDR on a lot of the New Deal reforms, and opposed him on a host of other issues. Did this knucklehead VP stop the New Deal? No he didn't. Because the VP is largely irrelveant.
 
Onceler said:
I'm just tired of it. "We don't know what Gore would have done w/ Iraq"...to me, it's like saying "We don't know that Gore wouldn't have nuked Madagascar." We can make a pretty reasonable assumption that he wouldn't have done that, and wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

To speculate that he "might have" does the history of this fiasco a great disservice, as though there is any scenario where an invasion of Iraq was logically "on the table" after 9/11. It wasn't. It only pertained to the agenda of a group of neocons led by Cheney & Wolfowicz, who surrounded & exerted plenty of influence on Bush, but wouldn't have been near a Gore administration.

Enough.
Click to expand...

No, again. Just because you're tired of hearing it is by no means a reason not to discuss it.

If people can suggest/speculate "if Gore would have been president", then surely others can present an opposing point of view. That entire ABB ridiculous nonsense was a failure from top to bottom .. and there is NO speculation about that. Any speculation about "if Gore" should rightly include "why Lieberman" and that he was only a heartbeat away from becoming the president.
 
Cypress said:
Unless one were to subscribe to the theory that PNAC was going to assasinate Gore, and then have Lieberman invade iraq, the fact is who becomes vice president is largely irrelevant. With all due respect, It's almost like your grasping for reasons to dismiss the benefits of a Gore presidency.

FDR's first vice president was a nightmare. He opposed FDR on a lot of the New Deal reforms, and opposed him on a host of other issues. Did this knucklehead VP stop the New Deal? No he didn't. Because the VP is largely irrelveant.
Click to expand...

I'm not grasping for anything. I like Gore.

However, my like of Gore does not change the fact that he was putting a man to the right of George Bush a heartbeat from the presidency. My like of Gore does not change the fact the the forces behind the attack on Iraq, the attack on Afghanistan, and in my opinion, 9/11, were not going to let anything stand in their way and with the opportunity to install a dufous like Lieberman as the President .. you can believe what you want .. perhaps I know them better.
 
blackascoal said:
No, again. Just because you're tired of hearing it is by no means a reason not to discuss it.

If people can suggest/speculate "if Gore would have been president", then surely others can present an opposing point of view. That entire ABB ridiculous nonsense was a failure from top to bottom .. and there is NO speculation about that. Any speculation about "if Gore" should rightly include "why Lieberman" and that he was only a heartbeat away from becoming the president.
Click to expand...


Okay, BAC. You win.

The Lieberman vice presidency was one of the most hugely important affairs in our nation's history. While other vice presidents have been irrelevant, PNAC would have assasinated Gore, installed lieberman, and then invaded iraq.

;)


:foil:
 
Cypress said:
Okay, BAC. You win.

The Lieberman vice presidency was one of the most hugely important affairs in our nation's history. While other vice presidents have been irrelevant, PNAC would have assasinated Gore, installed lieberman, and then invaded iraq.

;)


:foil:
Click to expand...

Yep, reach for the tinfoil hat just as the right does. That really makes us smarter.

Your assertion that the VP is irrelevent is strikingly odd as we see the machinations of the current, right now today, administration. But we can always speculate that Gore would have been different .. even though he was too weak to fight for the office .. even though he was too weak to shun advisers who told him how to dress .. even though he was too weak to choose a better running mate.

Yep, "tinfoil hat" and "koolaid" are the answers. Makes us so much more different and smarter than the right.
 
blackascoal said:
Yep, reach for the tinfoil hat just as the right does. That really makes us smarter.

Your assertion that the VP is irrelevent is strikingly odd as we see the machinations of the current, right now today, administration. But we can always speculate that Gore would have been different .. even though he was too weak to fight for the office .. even though he was too weak to shun advisers who told him how to dress .. even though he was too weak to choose a better running mate.

Yep, "tinfoil hat" and "koolaid" are the answers. Makes us so much more different and smarter than the right.
Click to expand...


BAC: don't take it personally. It's fine if you want to believe that PNAC was going to assasinate Gore.

Personally, I'm a man of reason, facts, and evidence. So, don't mind me if I make fun of you ;)
 
I'll wind up saying this, BAC:

It's actually laughable that you consider the choice of Lieberan to be VP candiate, to be this ominous affair, with great historical importance.

some of the greatest progressive presidents have chosen idiots, morons, and reactionaries to be their VP candidate. It had virtually no effect on the broad sweep of progressive history: VPs are chosen for electoral and adminstrative reasons -- not because they have great policies or great minds.



and don't mind me if I tease you....I do it to many people.
 
Cypress said:
BAC: don't take it personally. It's fine if you want to believe that PNAC was going to assasinate Gore.

Personally, I'm a man of reason, facts, and evidence. So, don't mind me if I make fun of you ;)
Click to expand...

I would suggest that you are no more a man of reason, facts, and evidence than I am, so don't mind me when I make fun of you as well.
 
Cypress said:
I'll wind up saying this, BAC:

It's actually laughable that you consider the choice of Lieberan to be VP candiate, to be this ominous affair, with great historical importance.

some of the greatest progressive presidents have chosen idiots, morons, and reactionaries to be their VP candidate. It had virtually no effect on the broad sweep of progressive history: VPs are chosen for electoral and adminstrative reasons -- not because they have great policies or great minds.



and don't mind me if I tease you....I do it to many people.
Click to expand...

What I find laughable .. and telling my brother is how you dismiss the selection of Lieberman in the face of what we see today. That is seriously amazing, but not unpredictable. It doesn't fit your mantra of Greens and everybody else are responsible for the failures of Gore and the Democratic Party.

That being said, I still have much respect for you and your perspectives, but I'm sure are other issues on which we will disagree.
 
blackascoal said:
I'm not grasping for anything. I like Gore.

However, my like of Gore does not change the fact that he was putting a man to the right of George Bush a heartbeat from the presidency. My like of Gore does not change the fact the the forces behind the attack on Iraq, the attack on Afghanistan, and in my opinion, 9/11, were not going to let anything stand in their way and with the opportunity to install a dufous like Lieberman as the President .. you can believe what you want .. perhaps I know them better.
Click to expand...


However, my like of Gore does not change the fact that he was putting a man to the right of George Bush a heartbeat from the presidency

Okay, I had to address this, I missed it before.

this is an example of what I was saying. We should stick with facts, rather than throwing out statements simply because they feel good to say.

As much as I dislike Lieberman, it is just factually incorrect to assert that he's to the right of Bush.

I consider Lieberman's support of the war to border on criminal. But, I'm not simply willing to make stuff up about him, that are unsupported by facts.

As much as we may hate Lieberman, he is not "to the right" of Bush. Lieberman consistently voted pro-choice, he is a reliable vote for labor on issues like minimum wage, collective bargaining, and workplace saftey regs (all oppossed by bush), and Lieberman is a reliable vote on stem cell research, and many environmental issues. Including, but not limited to, climate change.

His war support, and support for neo-liberal so-called free trade agreements is atrocious. He may be a bush apologist, in some senses. But, its simply wrong to say he's "to the right" of Bush.

And this is not a Lieberman apology. I wanted Ned Lamont to win as much as anyone. But, I also think we can't just toss out wild assed statement with no basis in fact. The progressive movement is based on credibility and facts. I prefer to jealously guard that tradtion. Or, as Harry Truman said: We don't have to lie to republicans - we just have to tell them the truth, and they'll think it's hell..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top