Gore And Kerry Are The Reason We've Had Six Nightmare Years Of Bush

[ruggerson]

Before you get your panties in a wad, I think they're both right on almost every issue. I appreciate their consciences and their work for the cause and for our nation.

But constantly fawning over them as potential saviours of the Democratic party is absurd.

Al Gore should have beaten George Bush by 10 - 15 points. He didn't because he has the personality of a tree stump on the campaign trail and comes across as the unlikable know it all, annoying child we wanted to bust up in third grade. You think George Bush stole the election from him? Great, but it should never have even been remotely that close to steal. Triumph the insult comic dog could have beaten George Bush in 2000. He was a truly mediocre candidate, we were the incumbents, the economy was still humming along and there was an eight year record of truly impressive achievement to run on.

John Kerry ran a pathetic campaign. He didn't fight back when they Roved him. If he had a war room, it was invisible and ineffective and anyone who was involved in it should never go near another national campaign. And beyond that, he, like Gore, does not come across as genuine or sincere (even though they both are). His personality comes across as an out of touch, faux Boston Brahmin, humorless prig. He does not have natural charm nor projected authenticity, which is a shame, because he would have made an excellent President.

But, you don't get to be President solely by being right on the issues. You get there by having that ineffable, killer political instinct and truly authentic charm.

Pinning our hopes on these two is like that old definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CatWoman]

17. marry me, skoooo

:D

[skooooo]

35. up for lesbian marriage?

Ok! (joke) ..lol

[dailykoff]

56. how about polygamy?

in our big tent :evilgrin:

[XemaSab]

[Crazy Guggenheim]

41. How ya doin'?

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[Gman]

2. No, Ralph Nader is the sole reason for the catastrophe we are

experiencing. Of course, so are those that voted for him in 2000.

[tuvor]

4. So you're giving Diebold a pass?

I thought subsequent recounts gave the election to Gore, after all. Nader or no Nader.

[ruggerson]

Well, him too

But if Gore or Kerry had been better politicians, either of them could have won. Even with Nader.

[Deja Q]

11. Oh, so Jeb, Kathy, supreme court, and all the other factors were a sham;

it was solely Nader?

Forgive me when I say this: Get real. Nader was nowhere near a problem compared to the others.

Never mind the joke of a campaign Gore pulled. He was riding on good circumstances, but tied to a President brought down by the pubs. Not very bright and he should have noticed at the time, though I'll admit to distance himself likely would not have helped.

So much whining over a fuckin' mosquito who couldn't get more than 5% of the nation. To whine solely about that is... SILLY.

Yes, Nader was a factor. One of many. And not one of the most damning ones to be sure.

So please stop scapegoating.

[tuvor]

21. Besides, Nader played within the rules.

He didn't do anything the system wouldn't allow him to do.

If that's a problem, the system needs changing.

[Golden Raisin]

72. I used to say the same thing about Nader

and those who voted for him, but no longer. I am so disgusted with the Dems that I now have an inkling of why people voted for Nader (or any 3rd option).

[noahmijo]

3. religion and nationalism are the reasons we are in this mess

And the fact that your average American's IQ isn't high enough to fulfill the duties of a jizz-mopper at the local peek and pull.

[agincourt]

7. Thank you

I couldn't have put it that well.

[ruggerson]

10. So what happened then between 1996 and 2000?

In four years, the public changed dramatically?

I don't think so.

The difference was in 96 we had a good candidate who understood how to play the game. In 2000, we didn't.

[noahmijo]

16. In 2000 The Christian Coalition took an active role after Rove had Junior

reach out to them. That's MILLIONS of voters who didn't bother to vote or care last time around. Even if not all of them belonged to the Christian Coalition or other whackjob groups, the fact that a true God-fearing man woke up at least 20% of a sleeping part of a nation and got them out to vote; hook line and sinker.

Suckers.

[ruggerson]

22. So then why didn't we have a candidate nimble enough

to recognize that and counter it? Isn't that what candidates are supposed to do?

[noahmijo]

45. How many evangelical Christians have you convinced to change their ways?

and ignore gay marriage and abortion?

[ruggerson]

48. Why didn't we use our own wedge issues to mobilize the left?

Stem cell. Privacy rights. Immigration.

Or why didn't we frame some issues to appeal to Christians? Like the environment. An issue which would have been perfect for Gore to exploit successfully as a values issue.

You're not going to convince me that 2000 and 2004 weren't winnable. They were. We LOST them, because we didn't play the game ruthlessly and relentlessly enough. And people have to wake up to that or we're doomed to repeat it.

[noahmijo]

49. I agree we should have been alot more ruthless. I always point out the

notion that if Karl Rove was on our side, we could've talked the nation into tarring and feathering whoever our opponent was because we would most likely have FACTS on our side. Rove did it with LIES.

But on the flipside you cannot get through to religious whackjobs with ANY sort of logic. Many of them IN JESUS NAME THEY PRAY!!!! will still to this day tell you that Clinton financed his campaign with Chinese bribes for nuke secrets and that Al Gore really did the rounds and scream that he invented the internet.

[ruggerson]

53. I think the environment

is our best issue to get to a small segment of the evangelicals. We frame it as the Republicans have been destroying what God created. The Democrats respect what God created and want to preserve it. In His name. Hallelujiah. It'll get just a small segment of them, but that's enough to dent the advantage in that demographic.

[noahmijo]

55. This is a fun discussion, and I sense for the most part we're on the same

page, but I still just have no faith whatsoever in getting through to that type of demographic. I have yet to see a "Save The Environment" sticker plastered on a truck or SUV that bears a "REAL MEN LOVE JESUS" sticker.

Ultimately it comes down to either get on the boat and bash gays and abortion or the alternative, which is what I would like to see, is run a macho campaign that is unlike the one they try to run all the time. Instead of being macho by attacking women and gays and talking big and bad about war, get someone like Clark up there and have him say something like "Hey unlike you punks I've been to war, I did my time, and you punks would be pissing yourselves and crying home to momma if you saw the shit I seen, which is why I want our troops back home and why we should not tolerate a punk ass spoiled brat like Bush to be at the commander's helm."

I'm too tired to think of good lines but you get my point I think.

[ruggerson]

57. Absolutely

I forgot who said it (might have even been Rove) but the way you win national elections is to attack your opponents STRENGTH. Their "strength" is their perceived toughness on national security issues. The daddy party vs. the mommy party, etc. We need a candidate who can aggressively and smartly show them as chicken hawk quislings who have been selling our national security to the highest bidder and endangering us by recklessly creating instability in the middle east. And that means someone tough and relentless.

[Erika]

47. Once again downing the dems

They can do nothing good according to you. Keep attacking them.

[ruggerson]

50. Two individuals

Gore and Kerry. Not "the Dems," as you keep repeating over and over. I'm criticizing the campaigns two men ran. I"m not "downing the Dems." And if we live in a fantasy land where we can't look to the past to see what went wrong so that we don't repeat it, then we might as well toss in the towel right now.

[Erika]

64. When you down the dems rather than the GOP

what is your message?

[Erika]

24. Yep, Rove deceived the religious fanatics and got them to vote

For a war against innocents for corporate profits. I wonder if they think Christ is smiling down at them.

[Coastie for Truth]

26. "Big Ed" Schultz has been on this issue for a while.

Accoring to "Big Ed" (and I'm an "Ed Head") church is not theological - it is social like the Rotary or the Bowling Alley - you meet and greet the neighbors out in the parking lot, and shoot the shit.

And we lost the election in "Church."

[Horse with no Name]

70. I don't think it is IQ that is the problem

It is the media.
The average American is busy working and raising their families, and they don't understand the nuances of the complicated messes that this regime has wrought.
They turn on the news for 10 minutes a day and hear Chris Matthews or Wolf Blitzer or Brit Hume telling them everything is fine and they go on with their day.
If the media did their job and informed the public, people would be in the streets.
I am an educated person and honestly until Bush won AGAIN when I know full well he shouldn't have--I had no idea about how deep the corruption was.
That was the day I got ANGRY and started seeking out information.
I had to look pretty hard to find it--and most of what I found was in the foreign press.

[noahmijo]

73. point taken into consideration and agreed

[July]

77. IMO, that is half the problem with the "charisma" question.

Gore and Kerry are not quite as characterized in the OP, but that characterization is the line that the GOP sold and the media bought. Contradictory evidence was downplayed or ignored. Both men have much more charm, substance, and humor than the media presented, and the GOP (Rove) obviously had a vested interest in erasing any positives in either man.

[mindfulNJ]

5. You're forgetting

about voter fraud, irregularities, and intimidation that went on during those two elections.

[ruggerson]

6. If Gore lost by voter fraud

it's because the election was close enough to steal. And it should never have been that close.

[niyad]

15. try reading greg palast's reports on the skulduggry that wiped tens

of thousands of voters OFF the rolls in florida, a good many of whom would have voted democratic. talk about the harrassment and intimidation that went on in florida, amoung other things. it wasn't gore or kerry who messed up, but a systematic and widespread corruption and trail of illegalities from the repukes and their cohorts in florida who did the most damage in 2000, and 2004 (take a look at ohio)

and if you are trying to imply that * has "authentic charm", I would REALLLLLLLY like to know what you are smoking.

[sheelz]

62. Gore won the election.

Bush stole the election with the help of his brother, Harris, and others. SCOTUS gave the final blow.

A fixed election is just that. It doesn't matter if they steal it big or little. It's stolen...gone.

[Horse with no Name]

71. Please at least get the term correct

It is "election fraud".
Not voter fraud.

[buff2]

8. Gads.....this sounds like repukelican talking points

:wtf: You think bu$h has "truly authentic charm"? :rofl: Sorry,but that idiot and his thugs rigged BOTH elections with the help of diebold,Harris,Jebthro, Blackwell and the 24 hour non-stop big mouth FReeptards and their dirty tricks. Bu$h had a LOT of help in stealing the elections....it was wide spread all over this country. Anyone who doesn't know that has their head in the sand.

[Erika]

12. Exactly Why are we downing our party picks? n/t

[ruggerson]

14. Maybe because some of want to win next time?

Just a thought.

[Erika]

31. Maybe we could win next time

if people stop putting down Dems.

[radwriter0555]

54. This position is straight off of GOP hate radio.

With a smattering of the freaks on Faux and the twits in Newsmax.

That's all we need to know about that.

[Deja Q]

I agree with you entirely.

Gore's campaign was as robotic as Nader's.

And Kerry turned me off; particularly during the debates. He made errors and oversights. Often. For obvious things. Especially the flip-flop attacks; who couldn't wipe the floor with Bush's record?


But, you don't get to be President solely by being right on the issues. You get there by having that ineffable, killer political instinct and truly authentic charm.

Too true.

[Erika]

39. As if W had any of those attributes

Go ahead and down the dems. Just don't pretend that that you are true dems. You don't kick your own.

The GOP does that.

[TygrBright]

9. F*** charm, charisma, persuasiveness and all of that crap.

I'll take a boring, intelligent, moderately honest (or at least smart enough not to overdo the corruption) candidate, thanks.

With any luck, a reasonable percentage of Americans are starting to remember about judging books be their covers, especially when something as critical as the nuclear briefcase is at stake.

If not, no amount of smarm, charm or other personality-wanking qualities is going to make a difference in 2008.

Let's hear it for tree stumps!

appreciatively,
Bright

[Erika]

19. Gore is an intellectual

For anyone to refer to him as a tree stump is sick.

[zulchzulu]

13. Maybe you forgot both elections were...ahem....STOLEN!

You bit into the Rove apple with thinking Gore is boring and that Kerry ran a bad campaign.

They both actually won their elections. Superman and Spiderman would have lost to the fixed election... do some homework.

[sheelz]

59. Nicely said...

I'm tired of the search for a hero. It won't win a fixed election. And forget hero worship! What we really need are public servants not leaders.

[unblock]

18. so, if they were real winners, they wouldn't have been cheated against.

what a load of crap.

shrub and the gang cheated, rigged the game, and the media played along every chance they could.

perhaps a superman, perhaps the second coming of bill clinton could have beaten him with the deck stacked against him.

but it's pointless, self-defeating, and demoralizing to keep claiming that a stronger democratic candidate might have overcome the grossly unfair playing field.

but why should the democratic candidate have to be held to such a high standard? IT SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO WIN BY SIMPLE MAJORITY.

instead the standard is now that the democratic candidate must win by a large enough margin so that it's "unstealable"??


this is pointless. gore and kerry both ran campaigns strong enough to win. gore clearly DID win. kerry probably did win as well. the fact that neither wound up in the white house is not THEIR fault, IT'S OUR FAULT for not rioting in the streets and screaming bloody murder when the republicans stole the white house again and again.

[Old and In the Way]

29. Thank you.

We need to take some ownership here....where was the Democratic Party protecting our interests and making sure that the elections were clean? We should have been prepared for Ohio and Florida in 2004. Kerry ran the table in the primaries and he got more votes than any Democrat ever in the GE. I have no doubts that the election was gamed. No way does Bush do better than he does in 2000.

[Erika]

34. Some might have expected the Dems to be superman

and exempt from the GOP cryptonite. Since they weren't, they want to blame the Democrats. A subservient attitude completely.

[napi21]

20. Listen to Mark Crispin on cspan tonight. Kerry's responses

to his warnings were awful! I agree with the OP. Even this morning, I watched Kerry on MTP, and he rust doesn't have the personality to win the Presidency. Sorry if you don't agree, but you have to accept reality, not idoligy.I don't think anyone disagrees that he's a smart man, and has good plans and ideas, but he just can't seem to get those ideas across. Even to me he seemed distant today.

[July]

78. I always found his comments easy to follow.

And I recall the huge turnouts he got in many campaign stops across the country, as well as evidence that he is a pleasant, polite guy with a sense of humor, i.e., someone with a "personality." His background in investigating important issues showed through in many of his speeches, where he could actually back up whatever point he was making (compare: Chimp).

[Lexingtonian]

23. Thanks for the Monday Morning Quarterbacking

As I recall, none of what mention struck people here as important during the last week of the campaign. Nor does any of these excoriations show up meaningfully in the exit polling or exit interviews.

In fact, 5-10% of Gore support left him in the day or two after Election Day and more or less went over to Bush. Check the pollings.

I invite you watch videotapes of the Republican National Convention. That ran Bush up to 55%. Have a look at it and explain why. It has nothing to do with Kerry. Then read the exit polling and exit interview analyses.

You're being a part of the problem rather than part of the solution by just grabbing this sort of stuff out of your ass.

[ruggerson]

25. Wrong

I felt this way watching the debates DURING the 2000 campaign. Gore was so pretentiously annoying that it made me (and those watching with me) actually cringe.

And we were not alone.

It ain't Monday morning quarterbacking. It's reality. And unless people like you come to grips with it, it's your ass that's going to get handed to you in national elections, over and over again.

[Erika]

30. Why do you not emphasize what a blithering idiot W was

in the debates rather than focusing against Gore?

[ruggerson]

32. Because WE only control our side

that's who we vote for. OUR candidate. I want to put up a candidate who can win. Regardles of who they put up. It's a given they'll put up some asshole who will take us futher down the road to hell. It's not a given that we won't find someone who can actually win. But in order to win, we have to know and recognize what happened the last two times around. And not agitate to repeat them.

[Erika]

37. You feed the opposition by attacking our own

Can you see that? I find your attacks on our own very offensive. Why do you choose to attack us rather than the GOP? Try to be honest with yourself.

[ruggerson]

38. I attack the GOP constantly

but the only way we win is if we understand how to win. Otherwise, we repeat the same mistakes over and over and over. Sorry, if you find it offensive, but I don't want another four years of Republican bullshit. I want my fucking country back.

[Erika]

42. Your attacking dems will strengthen the GOP

Why do you choose to attack dems rather than the GOP?

Be honest.

[ruggerson]

44. That's absurd

the Republicans are imploding. But even with them in a weakened state, we won't win unless we understand why we lost the last two times. If you want to stick your head in the sand, be my guest. I refuse to.

[Erika]

46. Keep on downing the Dems

and saying you're helping the cause. Sure.

[Common Sense Party]

63. Agreed. Clinton was (is) smart as hell, a true policy wonk,

could babble on for hours at length about technical legislative minutia...

But on the campaign trail, he didn't. He wasn't a stuffy or wooden wonk.

He connected.

He wasn't perceived as out of touch.

He made his message simple, understandable, memorable.

And he had a dynamite campaign staff.

Whether you like the guy or hate him, whether you agree with him on some (most) issues or not...the guy was good.

Running against two losers like Bush 41 and Dole didn't hurt, either.

The questions here are:

1) Does the Dem party HAVE anyone who is both smart AND a polished communicator

and

2) Even if we come up with someone, will it matter if the pukes own the voting machines?

[Erika]

27. What are you talking about?

Prove that 5-10% Went to W.

[FrenchieCat]

28. Back to election 2000 & 2004 and forward to election 2008......

While election 2006 sits and waits for attention.

[JeffR]

33. I wish this had been response #1

Nothing else needs to be said on this tired topic. Last - and smartest - word is yours.

Well done.

:patriot:

[Swamp Rat]

36. The CLENIS did it!!

Or perhaps we were invaded by alien lizards. :D

[radio4progressives]

69. Feed the Lizards Dem Crickets!

[DanCa]

40. We lost for two reasons.

One Kerry had the election stolen from him. Hell am mad at him for conceeding but lets not forget the fact that he won. Two we need to reach out to the green party. A united left would be invincible.

[Erika]

43. Agreed.

The Greens are as disgusted with W's wrecking the environment as the Dems are.

[bluestateguy]

51. There are a lot of very stupid people in this country

The American people are child like, and that needs to be recognized. George Bush connects well with the stupid people of America, which gives the Republican Party an automatic base of 48%.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alittlelark]

58. Gore FOUGHT ALL THE WAY... to the SUPREME COURT!!!!!

He waged a good campaign, was civil and honorable (not knowing what types of lizards he was dealing with). He won the popular vote and FOUGHT FOR US!!!


Kerry wussed out.



I'd say you are 1/2 right.

[KyuzoGator]

60. You are 100% correct.

And it's unfortunate that so many people here gnash their teeth at anyone who suggests that a Democrat possibly went about something the wrong way.

I agree completely with your sentiments that the 2000 election shouldn't have even been close enough to steal. We knew that Bush was an idiot fraud then.

Gore selecting Lieberman as his running mate and refusing to let Bill Clinton stump for him were two of the biggest political blunders of the last 30 years.

[sheelz]

65. That's silly...

What do you mean close enough to steal? It doesn't matter. Even if it wasn't close they still would steal it. If they steal it by a few votes, a recount will likely ensue--if possible. If they steal it big, then no recount. They had it all figured out before election day. It doesn't matter if it's close or not. It just means that Bush has less support. Do you think he cares whether he has public support?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

61. American voters are then just as responsible.

[JohnKleeb]

68. very true

Its not to say that Gore and Kerry ran a flawless campaign even the campaigns with the greatest victories have that. Anyone who watched the 2004 Presidential Debates I think should have known that Kerry was much mroe presidential than Bush. I don't recall the 2000 ones since it was 6 years ago but I recall Bush looked moronic at those too. Gore and Kerry both did pretty amazing considering in Gore's case he was once pretty down in the polls and the Nader factor and Kerry got the most votes ever against a wartime president, I know to some it doesnt seem like a factor but it is like it or not, and further more, as recently as 3 years before the election Bush once had a 91% approval rating. Thankfully it has come a long ways down since.

[Kathryn STone]

66. here's how I see it: when I went to see a movie at the art house

called Spider with Ralph Fiennes, Noooooooooobody was there but then I went to see Anger Management with Adam Sandler & Jack Nicholson, it was PPPPacked and people were laughing their asses off. So goes the voter, the dumb ones go see Adam Sandler and the educated ones go to the art house, who gets the most money (votes)?

[radio4progressives]

67. ruggerson! I'm shocked I tell you! simply shocked!

"expecting a different result when doing the same thing over and over again"..

hmm.. where have we heard that before?

Oh yeah! it was Kerry's 2004 campaign talking points on Iraq!

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

[Bridget Burke]

74. Yeah, Bush won on his "charm" & "authenticity"...

He's always impressed me as a half-bright overage fratboy. His fake Texan act is quite obvious to this Texan. And he's the King of being Out of Touch.

Sorry, I won't forget Florida 2000.

[BeFree]

75. Blame everyone except the vote stealing bastards, eh?

Sad.

[Mass]

76. Thank you for repeating GOP talking points.

Sadly, some people are so intent promoting their guy that they are ready to thrash other people by repeating the most Rovian talking points.

These two guys who supposedly ran a pathetic campaign and do not connect with people won their party nomination. So give us a break.

The only point I agree with you (and apparently so does Kerry) is that they should have answered more powerfully to the SBVT attacks. And you know what! The error that Kerry did there was to accept what the Democratic elite said (the same elite who would agree with you) and take federal money or accept the nomination in Boston. Yes, it was an error, and unfortunately, we know who is guilty of that. The same guys who could not be bothered going on TV and defending him against the SVBT, who criticized him during the campaign, ... Probably the guys that you like.

As for Gore, he won the popular vote. What more can I tell you? And with a lot more votes than your guy with natural charm and projected authenticity (Mr 42 %).

So please, if you want to promote somebody, promote him on his own merits. Don't hide.

[stepnw1f]

79. Two Thousand Six

2006

[Ignacio Upton]

80. Both of them are partly to blame

But the degree of blame they should bear is an unequal proportion. Gore should be blamed for falling under the influence of Donna Brazile and the crappy consultants, and ultimately by not acting as himself. However, the media deserves the most blame for 2000. If they hadn't been so hard on Gore while whitewashing Bush's indiscretions, then we might be talking about President Gore today, because if not for the Mainstream Media, the election would not have been close enough for Nader to be a factor in New Hampshire and Florida, and would not have been close enough for Katherine Harris to steal and for the Supreme Court to throw to Bush.
Kerry, on the other hand, deserves more blame for how he actied in 2004. If he had just come as aggressively as he is doing now on Iraq, then he would have won. He also had four years to study how Gore failed in the face of the VRWC, and knew the Swift Boating liars would attack but didn't respond adequately enough to stop them. His use of Bob Shrum and Mary Beth Cahill was also a major problem.