|
Al Gore will be indorsing Howard Dean
|
View this Thread in Original format
| rizen |
| I just heard it. Anyone know if this is true or not? If true, it makes you think why he isnt indorsing his former VP canidate mate, Joe "The Republician" Liberman :D |
|
|
| Shakka |
| True, and likely to throw a wrench into the Clinton agenda. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| Gore's stupid, don't try and over anaylize anything he does:p |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
I personally think this is a good move for the Dems in general. I saw the endorsement this morning on CNN, and I think it's important what Al Gore was saying about the other candidates and the need to cease fighting amongst themselves, as well as putting a target on Dean's back. He's clearly ahead, he has the biggest grassroots backing, his finances are far in the lead, and I think Al Gore's choice is an obvious one.
| quote: | | True, and likely to throw a wrench into the Clinton agenda. |
I agree, and my response is - GOOD! I think the last person the Dems. need in the White House is Hilary. Her character as well as her behind the scenes deals as a slithering corporate lawyer is more than I can handle in the White House. I could care less if she's a woman - in terms of character she's no better than that little Yale C- brat who's always needed daddy Bush and his buddies to bail him out of all his bad business dealings that we have to currently bear with now.
If this undermines Hilary's chances for the White House, all the better I say. You get Dean in the office for 8 years and her chances of Presidency in 2008 will slither away. Clinton's politics need to go, period. |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
I am a bit surprised that Gore backed anyone this early, if at all. And I am kind of disappointed in the whole thing on some level.
I don't think Dean is electable against Bush especially with the economy appearing to be strengthening. The anti-Iraq war stance will only get you so far and with all of this personal records secrecy going on in Vermont it appears that he is doing exactly the kind of thing that he criticizes the BUsh administration of doing.
Oh well.
The primaries start in a month so the wasted year and a half of government begins I guess.
MrS |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrSquirrel
I am a bit surprised that Gore backed anyone this early, if at all. And I am kind of disappointed in the whole thing on some level.
I don't think Dean is electable against Bush especially with the economy appearing to be strengthening. The anti-Iraq war stance will only get you so far and with all of this personal records secrecy going on in Vermont it appears that he is doing exactly the kind of thing that he criticizes the BUsh administration of doing.
Oh well.
The primaries start in a month so the wasted year and a half of government begins I guess.
MrS |
These "secret documents" thing is a complete conservative sham, and a great wedge ploy by the GOP (and their controlled media). Revealing gubernatorial documents is unheard of and very unprecedented, but as Dean had mentioned, he would be more than happy to reveal his documents if Bush reveals his. If Dean has a skeleton or two in his closet, I'd bet you my house that Bush has a graveyard collection in his closet!
As for the economy "appearing to be strengthening", looks are quite deceiving. If a monumental deficit combined with unbelievable tax cuts and benefits to the wealthy can strengthen the economy in the long term, then I'll be the first the jump on the GOP supply side bandwagon. Unfortunately, history shows supply side economics combined with huge deficits doesn't produce results. Oh yeah, we'll also run out of Social Security, just in time for all the baby boomers to retire, so kiss that goodbye. I cringe to think what will happen with Medicare.
But I will agree with you on this - the anti-war stance will only go so far. It most certainly got him to this point, but I don't think it should be his only focus in debating Bush. Better foreign relations combined with more fiscal and thought-out domestic policies should be his focus, and I think that will happen. Still, it's not too difficult to see why Dean's still beating the anti-war drum, considering we are there illegially without provocation and there's not even a hint of WMD (which was why we went there in the first place, right?) So now we have a serious situation that was not well planned, military and innocent people are dying daily, we have a puppet government in place with a known international convict and flat-out liar at the head (Chalabi), we have funds being spent on this ridiculous war that should have been spent elsewhere (and not to more of GOP's special interest groups - Omnibus anyone?), and to top it off we've pissed off practically everyone else in the world around us by our GlobalCop credibility. Dean had the balls to say it was bogus beforehand, and he had the balls to call the President a ing liar for getting us into this mess, so why shouldn't he continue to beat the drum when he is 100% correct in doing so?
By the way, I can't wait for him to debate Bush. It will be nice to see Bush actually not having a "staged" Q&A press conference filled with questions he knew he was going to be asked beforehand, as well as his bullying tactics of shoving off and ignoring certain press folks who ask him tough questions. It will be nice to see him put on the spot for his lack of accountability.
But then again, I surmise the GOP smear tactics will come in full effect real soon, likely sometime this week with more ads. And if all else fails, hell, it was Clinton who lied about his blowjob, right? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
These "secret documents" thing is a complete conservative sham, and a great wedge ploy by the GOP (and their controlled media). Revealing gubernatorial documents is unheard of and very unprecedented, but as Dean had mentioned, he would be more than happy to reveal his documents if Bush reveals his. |
Bush's documents have been published and are in the public domain. Bush's records are in the custody of the Texas State Library and, by law, are open to all who wish to see them.
And now here's some transcript from Hardball with Dean saying that the records SHOULD be sealed. A bit hypocritical, don't you think, especially considering that Bush's records ARE public?
This is from near the bottom of the transcript:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/1000254.asp?cp1=1
| quote: |
DEAN: Yes. Every governor in Vermont and most governors around the country, maybe every governor for all I know, has a process by which certain records are sealed and certain records are left open. The vast majority of my records are open. You are welcome to go, as ever opposing campaign has done, and rummage through them for the next six months. There are some that are left private, and I don’t exactly know all the things that are in those because those are attorney to secretary of state negotiated. But some of the kinds of things might be a letter from a constituent saying, dear governor, I am an HIV, AIDS victim, can you please help me?
(emphasis added by me) Now, those kinds of letters do not belong in the public, and they’re not. That’s why some records are sealed, and governor’s offices throughout the country. |
|
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Again, what's the problem with sealing these letters of a private matter?
As for Bush opening up his documents as governor, I don't know offhand but are all his documents, private or otherwise, open for public consumption? If so, yippie.
I was, however, referring (and I assumed Dean was referring when mentioning about Bush's records) to Bush and his workings pre-9/11 with terrorism, as well as his known connections to the Saudi Royal family. That has remained sealed and immediately marked "Classified". Oh sure, a few selected individuals are able to see it on both sides of the aisle, but considering those selected individuals cannot publicly comment on classified documents, that hardly gives merit to the situation, and most certainly does not help the selected committee who's job is to investigate 9/11. Furthermore, the White House's refusal to give up those documents almost to the point of a subpoena seems to speak a little loudly for this Administration.
Finally, the refusal of GOP-led Congress to open up a much needed hearing on the matter cries dirty partisanship as well. You can thank my Senator Roberts (KS) for that one. Considering these guys were so hellbent on firing up hearings and private counsel on Clinton's zipper, but remain hush-hush when it comes to national security and Bush's inability to prepare for terrorism on our soil, it kinda makes me sick to the stomach seeing that protecting American lives takes a backseat over a blowjob.
If, however, Dean is merely referring to Bush's records as governor, I stand corrected. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
As for the economy "appearing to be strengthening", looks are quite deceiving. If a monumental deficit combined with unbelievable tax cuts and benefits to the wealthy can strengthen the economy in the long term, then I'll be the first the jump on the GOP supply side bandwagon. Unfortunately, history shows supply side economics combined with huge deficits doesn't produce results. Oh yeah, we'll also run out of Social Security, just in time for all the baby boomers to retire, so kiss that goodbye. I cringe to think what will happen with Medicare.
|
The boom in the 80's? Are we to recycle this discussion? |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
| It's just Reaganomics finally kicking in.:haha: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
The boom in the 80's? Are we to recycle this discussion? |
Note I said combined with huge deficits. Perhaps a rephrase on my part.
Aside from that, no, I don't want to rehash it - I know you'll school me in economics, past or present :toothless . |
|
|
|
|
