Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Hope for the White Man in The Democratic Presidential Race
Rolling Stone dares to discuss the dog that isn't barking, the elephant (donkey?) in the room, the dark horse that has not yet neighed, uh, you know, that famed documentarian Al Gore--the real Next President of the United States.
Past one of those kill-me-now "you think I'm talking about some present phenomenon, but really I'm discussing some historical precursor to it" leads that reminds us of the long-forgotten Richard Nixon (two-term VP in era of prosperity who lost his own race with hints of electoral fraud, came back eight years later in triumph--and, as the lead doesn't note, stepped out again 6 years later in disgrace), here are some of their reasons Gore's The One:
He has the buzz to beat Obama, the substance to supplant Hillary, and enough stature to enter the race late in the game and still raise the millions needed to mount a successful campaign. "Very few people who run for president can just step in when they want, with a superstar, titanic presence," says James Carville, the dean of Democratic strategists. "But Gore clearly is one of those. He's going to run, and he's going to be formidable. If he didn't run, I'd be shocked."
He's got the cleanest hands and most Cassandra-like record on the Iraq invasion, and he's even won over the MoveOn.Org and Kossites, which may be a good enough reason to throw dirt on his non-campaign's coffin right now, but still:
Gore's deep ties to online activists could neutralize Clinton's greatest advantage: her fund-raising prowess. Gore retains a network of big-dollar donors from his 2000 campaign, and many of the party's biggest funders are reportedly sitting on their checkbooks, waiting to see if he enters the race. "If Howard Dean could raise $59 million on the Internet," says Carrick, "the mind boggles as to what Al Gore might do." Joe Trippi, who managed Dean's campaign, believes Gore could raise as much as $200 million on the Internet: "Gore may have more money than anybody within days of entering the race."
While pundits never go more wrong than assuming their world of acquaintances is representative of anything other than their own poor judgement, I will note that I know dozens of prog-leaning would-be voters, who I suspect represent a larger constiuency of types who might otherwise lean Green or stay home in numbed disgust, who would be very enthusiastic about Mr. Gore and his inconvenient truths indeed.
With all this going for him, what's the ol' stiff waiting for? Fear of a Bill Planet!
Letting others battle-test Hillary's viability as a front-runner has an added benefit for Gore: It allows him to put off a bruising political confrontation with Bill Clinton. Some insiders suggest that a reticence to take on his generation's most brilliant political mind -- and someone renowned as a take-no-prisoners campaigner -- is the primary factor keeping Gore off the roster. "It's one thing to distance yourself from Bill Clinton, as Gore did in 2000," says a Democratic strategist who has advised both men. "It's another to run against Bill Clinton when the former first lady is heading the field."
Ah, but perhaps now the time has come...for the student to surpass the master! It'll make a possibly better-than-average campaign psychobiography, at any rate. I'm taking no bets on the Democratic nomination...yet. But the day Gore officially enters, I might be.
|2.1.07 @ 4:50PM|#
"He's got the cleanest hands and most Cassandra-like record on
the Iraq invastion, and he's even won over the MoveOn.Org and
Kossites, which may be a good enough reason to throw dirt on his
non-campaign's coffin right now, but still...Ah, but perhaps now
the time has come...for the student to surpass the master! It'll
make a possibly better-than-average campaign psychobiography, at
any rate. I'm taking no bets on the Democratic nomination...yet.
But the day Gore officially enters, I might be."
Wow! I have got to say that Reason is without a doubt one of the
best (maybe even the best)Left-wing sites on the Web. Thanks for
all you do!
Warren|2.1.07 @ 5:00PM|#
As long at there are Democratic hopeful posts, I'll keep making
the same comment.
There's no point talking about any of this because Hillary holds
all the purse strings. And unless she shows up in a YouTube video
smoking crack and having incestuous relations with Chelsea, nothing
can stop her from becoming the Nominee.
Warren|2.1.07 @ 5:03PM|#
Come to think of it, strike the part about "relations with Chelsea", as that might actually increase her support.
|2.1.07 @ 5:15PM|#
"I have got to say that Reason is without a doubt one of the
best (maybe even the best)Left-wing sites on the Web."
Yes, yes, god forbid anyone discuss the democrats with anything
other than outright dismissal and disdain ("who cares who wins,
they're all a bunch of socialist freaks anyway...now, back to
privatizing the roads..."), lest they be named a "left-wing
site".
Trevor, I know you're just some mindless troll, but, come the fuck
on...
|2.1.07 @ 5:16PM|#
I'd just like to note that you never see comments from angry
Democrats-pretending-to-be-libertarians when you comment on the
Republican primary.
It's like the righties think they own libertarians.
|2.1.07 @ 5:19PM|#
If you look at the amount of money raised in the '06 cycle
through liberal blogs, Hillary's rolodex doesn't look quite so
intimidating.
Actually, if you look at the Win/Loss record of Act Blue candidates
or those heavily plugged on Kos, the "throwing dirt on the coffin"
snark looks downright anachronistic.
|2.1.07 @ 5:24PM|#
Right now, I don't know. Probably Obama or Dodd, because they've
had the stones to actually use their power to try to stop the
war.
If Gore's in, I'm 90% pro Gore.
|2.1.07 @ 5:27PM|#
Actually, if you look at the Win/Loss record of Act Blue
candidates or those heavily plugged on Kos, the "throwing dirt on
the coffin" snark looks downright anachronistic.
Now why let facts get in the way of a good cheap shot??
Everyone knows those kossites are loonies whose support is the kiss
of death. Just ask Tester, Webb, and McCaskill
|2.1.07 @ 5:35PM|#
Well, Kos just surprised everybody by coming out in favor of
Gore: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/1/151831/4719
I guess that's either the kiss of death, or the coup that will land
Gore in the White House, depending on which reality you reside
in.
Warren|2.1.07 @ 5:37PM|#
If you look at the amount of money raised in the '06 cycle
through liberal blogs, Hillary's rolodex doesn't look quite so
intimidating.
Hillary had a cakewalk in 06. She didn't call in a single favor or
spend a solitary chip. All money raised was protection money paid
to the machine in the hope of not being squashed by it.
Now that she's in the big one, the gloves will come off. And every
dollar extorted will count as two because her supporters will not
be allowed to contribute to her rivals.
|2.1.07 @ 5:51PM|#
Warren,
I doubt the $10-$200 givers who made up most of the netroots donors
in the '06 race are people Hillary Clinton knows or cares
about.
I'm sure there are big-money bundlers she will tap and deny to her
opponents, but my point is, those people have become much less
important.
|2.1.07 @ 5:53PM|#
"Trevor, I know you're just some mindless troll, but, come the
fuck on..."
Well that's certainly enlightening!
|2.1.07 @ 5:55PM|#
"I'm sure there are big-money bundlers"
Isn't bundling of campaign contributions illegal?
|2.1.07 @ 5:56PM|#
"So did I miss when Gore got a charisma chip implanted?"
He's fat now, so it makes him appear jolly. Everyone loves
jolly.
|2.1.07 @ 5:59PM|#
Skippy Dee,
Bundling is officially illegal.
Having every person in the upper management donate the maximum to
exactly the same candidate is not.
|2.1.07 @ 6:03PM|#
Gore somehow had his charisma chip installed when he went from
being Al Gore, Vice President to Al Gore, head-in-a-jar on
Futurama. He manages to be funny! (and he's apparently appearing in
the direct-to-DVD Futurama movies as well).
Still wouldn't vote for him, but he really can show some
charisma.
|2.1.07 @ 6:14PM|#
But would Gore be good for libertarians or bad for libertarians?
I would guess that Gore would be about the same as Hillary, which
is bad for libertarians on the social side and worse for
libertarians on the economic side. All in all, not much different
from the last six years.
|2.1.07 @ 6:42PM|#
With Gore in the race it would be more entertaining. My inner
cynic says: If you can't have good government, you might as well
have entertaining government.
I think Gore would have a better chance this time. He has ran
before (and there's no substitution for experience); climate change
as an issue is getting bigger and bigger (and he's all over that,
for good or ill); being former Number Two to Bill Clinton will
likely be a positive for him this time (thanks to Bush in some
ways), whereas it was a bit of an albatross for him in 2000 (and
Hillary is Bill's girl, further removing him from Bill's
negatives). Al just might do it, which Democrats would love,
Republicans would hate, and libertarians would suffer from as
usual. ; >
|2.1.07 @ 6:44PM|#
"I'd just like to note that you never see comments from
angry Democrats-pretending-to-be-libertarians when you comment on
the Republican primary.
It's like the righties think they own libertarians."
Very true. It's as if, because the "conservative doctrine" pays
faint lip service to a few libertarian ideals like property rights
and lower taxes, we're supposed to be beholden to the
motherfuckers.
|2.1.07 @ 6:54PM|#
joe said:
I'd just like to note that you never see comments from angry
Democrats-pretending-to-be-libertarians when you comment on the
Republican primary.
It's like the righties think they own libertarians.
actually i think trevor was being ironic...at least that is how i
read it.
I am supposedly one of those right wingers masquerading as a
libertarian...and this article only raised a "eh whatever" response
and had more to do with dem on dem battles then anything.
|2.1.07 @ 6:54PM|#
"Trevor, I know you're just some mindless troll, but, come the fuck on..."
Well that's certainly enlightening!"
Not nearly as enlightening as calling a libertarian blog "leftist"
because it had the gall to discuss a democratic candidate in
less-than-absolute-dismissal terms.
People like you add nothing to the conversation. You're like a gnat
buzzing around the heads of people having conversations of
substance, serving only to interject your off-the-cuff
criticisms.
If I were you, I wouldn't go around criticising OTHER people's
posts of lacking enlightenment.
|2.1.07 @ 7:06PM|#
Gore "reminds us of the long-forgotten Richard Nixon . . ."
[enumerating various parallels between Nixon and Gore]
What's another thing Nixon is famous for? He consistently ran for
office on an anticommunist platform, which included calling many of
his Democratic opponents soft on Communism. Nixon is particularly
indignant at proposals to normalize relations with Communist
China.
Then, in 1971, who's that clinking glasses with Mao and applauding
operas with titles like (I'm approximating) -- "Smash the
revisionist imperialist dogs"? Richard Nixon!
The phrase passed into a proverb: "Only Nixon could go to
China."
Would Gore emulate Nixon in this respect? In other words, will he
end up clinking glasses with the President of Exxon-Mobil and
singing "screw the polar bears, let them drown!"
Edward|2.1.07 @ 7:07PM|#
What happens to libertarianism if alarmists like Gore are right,
and global warming does a number on the planet? Isn't market
capitalism predicated on the continuous prodcution of new wealth?
Could the (to me) obvious implcations davastating climate change
explain why there are so many global-warming skeptics among
right-wing libertarians? I know I'm just a lowly troll, but these
are sincere questions.
(God, I hope Jennifer doesn't jump in with some boring personal
anecdote.)
|2.1.07 @ 7:08PM|#
Oddly enough, I think Gore could win this thing. He has a low "hate" factor. People may dislike him, but the don't hate him. Lots of people HATE Hillary (on both sides). She could succumb to the anti-Howard Dean gang campaign from 04. The fact that he had more votes in 2000 reduces the stench of loss on him. And he he's 2-0 on the widom of Iraq wars. I hate to say it, but Gore's got a decent shot at 08.
|2.1.07 @ 7:09PM|#
"I would guess that Gore would be about the same as Hillary,
which is bad for libertarians on the social side and worse for
libertarians on the economic side. All in all, not much different
from the last six years."
I would like to think that any democrat, short of Lieberman, would
be better on the social side than Hillary "WE'VE GOTTA BAN GTA FOR
THE CHIIIILLLLLDDRRRENNNN" Clinton. Ugh.
|2.1.07 @ 7:26PM|#
"What happens to libertarianism if alarmists like Gore are
right, and global warming does a number on the planet?"
Wealth can still be created via services, etc., but that's not the
point. The point is that capitalism is, honestly, the only economic
system that is equipped to adapt the human race to whatever the
realities of GW end up being. At the end of the day, if the
doom-and-gloom scenarios come true anytime soon, the fate of
libertarianism will be the least of my worries. But, at the same
time, I think libertarianism is compatible with environmental
restrictions. Always have. Environmental destruction is
externalized. Therefore, libertarianism sees that
government has a vested interest in regulating it. This can be
debated left and right, but if I dump shit in my air and it fucks
over my neighbor, it's not really too different than if I went over
and set his house on fire. And no libertarian would argue that
setting someone else's house on fire is a "natural right".
Edward|2.1.07 @ 7:39PM|#
Evan!
Good points. But doesn't the rpofit motive often blur vision? Maybe
I can make a bundle by producing something that polutes the
environment, and I'm more interested in making money than in being
socially responsible. What's to stop me if the people harmed are
not my target market? This is going on in leather production in
China right now. We're getting cheap leather goods from China. What
do we care if the Chinese producers are ruining some river that
far-away peasants depend on?
|2.1.07 @ 7:53PM|#
I don't know about Gore. Senator Gore would've been a good candidate for the Democrats. There's still some negative associations due to his time served with the Clintons, and he has seemed off the farm at times to the mainstream in his post-2000 days. Interesting to see what he does, though.
liberaltarian4kucinich|2.1.07 @ 8:16PM|#
Have to repeal 22nd amendmentor Gore can only serve one-term. It was proven after supreme court theft He really won Florida.
|2.1.07 @ 8:27PM|#
We've seen some pretty lame attempts at sock-puppetry over the
years, but you raise transparent lameness to a new level.
We're not supposed to realize you're a right winger trying to pose
as a kucinich supporter?
Smarter trolls, please.
liberaltarian4kucinich|2.1.07 @ 9:10PM|#
We're not supposed to realize you're a right winger trying to
pose as a kucinich supporter?
Well seeing as how this is a libertarian blog's comments you would
think most people here would be "extreme right wingers". Which
would make Socialist Statists, such as yourself, the trolls.Trolls
keep things interesting so continue as you were Mistuh joe Suh. The
"liberaltarian" concept is in of itself a troll.
|2.1.07 @ 9:12PM|#
I always chuckle when people start to map out the presidential
elections. I can still remember Muskie being the presumptive
nominee and thinking "Jimmy who?" in 76. But I guess things are
much different now.
I heard someone on Bob Edwards show talk about the race before the
primary to lock up the best consultants, money raisers and other
campaign types that are essential to winning. He said that Hillary
pretty much had them all on her side and that was 3 months ago. I
have no idea if any of this is valid, so take it for what it's
worth.
The only way I see Gore getting in is if Clinton stumbles or gaffes
her way out of it. It's difficult to imagine that. Also, with
California moving their primary up to early February, I think
that's a huge advantage for someone with her money raising
capability. It could also help blunt any weakness she shows in the
south. I'm not a betting man, but it's difficult to imagine her
losing.
|2.1.07 @ 9:16PM|#
joe - it has to be someone who worships Gore. You didn't notice the capitalized He?
Sam Franklin|2.1.07 @ 9:26PM|#
It's like the righties think they own
libertarians.
Mee-owww. It is comments like this that keep me below the fold
here, FBOFW.
|2.1.07 @ 9:58PM|#
Happy Jack,
"joe - it has to be someone who worships Gore."
Al-leluia! Al-leluia!
Al-leluia, Al-leluia!
Al-leluia!
|2.1.07 @ 11:17PM|#
unless she shows up in a YouTube video smoking crack and
having incestuous relations with Chelsea
No no, she won't show up and actually do it. She'll show
up and just want to talk about it. You know, it's
Therapist Clinton now that she's running.
So did I miss when Gore got a charisma chip
implanted?
It happened at the very moment that Gore was having actual, real
incestuous relations with Gaia Our Earth Mommy. The fallout from
this experience (and Hers), is that Gore has become Our Earth
Daddy.
The Democrats are so warm and fuzzy.
[barf]
Oddly enough, I think Gore could win this thing. He has a low
"hate" factor. People may dislike him, but the don't hate
him.
You really should have checked with me before you said that.
I dislike Bush. I hate Gore, and Clinton, the way lefties today
hate Bush.
I doan theenk I'm alone, omeego.
|2.2.07 @ 4:33AM|#
Re: Gore's Iraq Record
Not that facts matter, but wasn't Gore the number two man in an
administration that used to talk all the time about how Saddam was
building WMD's? Doesn't that make him a Giant Lying Liar Liar Lying
Liar? And didn't this very same Clinton-Gore administration make
"War On" Iraq with, you know, BOMBS that KILLED people? Wouldn't
that have been "Not in our name" or "Blood for oil" or something?
Just curious.
By the way, right after the fall of the Taliban, when asked his
opinion of how the war on terror was progressing, Gore said (and
I'm paraphrasing) "That's all well and good, but the real threat in
the Middle East is Saddam Hussein, and this isn't going to be over
until we do something about him". Not that any of those facts
matter. Gore is part of the "reality based" community, who need not
explain such things.
|2.2.07 @ 4:48AM|#
Even still, I suppose Gore would be a better president than
Edwards, whose vision for America is apparently a nation drowning
in a sea of its own jealousy.
As someone who holds what is essentially a blue-collar job, I find
it appalling that almost no politician, left or right, ever
suggests that the difference between the "Two Americas" may just
possibly have something to do with how the people in those Two
Americas behave. I'll bet you a lot of rich "fat cats" don't call
out of work sick an average of 5 times a month and make comments
like "the power company is going to shut me off because THEY SAY
(emphasis mine) I owe them $300" after spending their bill money on
liquor and weed. Amazingly, some of us watch our standard of living
improve while our co-workers who have been handed the same job by
"life's lottery" with the same opportunity to make money continue
to be left behind. Amazing how that works out. I guess I just must
live in the Good America. What we really need is a president who
encourages them to believe that it's The Man keeping them down, and
the solution is to punish those of us who made good choices.
|2.2.07 @ 5:11AM|#
How is Obama with relation to libertarian issues?
Is he a complete socialist? surely he would be better than Gore and
Hillary?
Joe, you support Obama over Gore? Why?
I dislike Gore and Hillary, but I am ambivalent about Obama, but
that is probably because I know nothing of the guy.
|2.2.07 @ 8:57AM|#
Khan, I used to hate him too. But now I see him as one of those American Idol losers, so I pity him instead. Anyway, Gore, and Democrats like joe haven't yet been properly chastized for challenging an election that was within the margin for error, jeopardizing the elective process forevermore.
|2.2.07 @ 9:25AM|#
kwais:
Obama is anything you WANT him to be. Get with the program.
Gore is getting so much more love now than anytime in his life. Why
are they even fucking pretending having a "competition" for the
Academy awards? Just fucking mail the award to him already. He owns
the damned thing... even though I guess they need to have the
official coronation ("award show") where all those left-coasters
can have a collective orgasm.
And the Peace Prize? His. And won't that piss Bill off (hey,
there's gotta be a silver lining here).
So the Gorebot 2000 is unstoppable. He's here to save us, people.
He's Superman. So what's keeping him from strolling into the White
House? I doubt even Billary would be able to stop this wave.
|2.2.07 @ 10:10AM|#
"How is Obama with relation to libertarian issues?"
"Is he a complete socialist? surely he would be better than Gore
and Hillary?"
The ADA has given him a 100% rating just like Hillary. From a
libertarian standpoint, none of the three, Hillary, Gore, and Obama
would be any good.
|2.2.07 @ 10:13AM|#
If I were a betting man my money wold be on Al. When the dust
clears and the donkey kicking is done he'll be the one left
standing with no hoofprints on him.
And if I were a voting man he'd probably get my vote too,
considering that all the elephants seem to be able to come up with
is McCain.
Hell I'd vote for Hillary before I'd even think about voting for
McCain.
|2.2.07 @ 12:05PM|#
but wasn't Gore the number two man in an administration that
used to talk all the time about how Saddam was building WMD's?
Doesn't that make him a Giant Lying Liar Liar Lying
Liar?
Now now kwais. You just need some good therapy.
|2.2.07 @ 12:33PM|#
That was my quote, not Kwais'.
And did Gore or did Gore not say pretty much exactly what Bush has
said about Iraqi WMD, up until the point where Bush started to say
it and then it was a "lie"?
|2.2.07 @ 12:37PM|#
I know you were being sarcastic, but really: What planet are we
living on that Gore is allowed to pretend he didn't used to talk
about Iraqi WMD and call for the removal of Saddam, right up to the
point when Bush said it? I guess that will just vanish now, just
like the records of the Democrats who were criticizing our troop
levels as too low....right up to the point where Bush said
it.
What the hell is the next Democrat prez going to do when they need
to make a decision about anything, call up Bush to go take a stance
on TV and then rail against it?
|2.2.07 @ 12:50PM|#
From
this article, I wouldn't classify Obama as a traditional
socialist in the sense that he is advocating that the government
directly solve problems of the underclass through redistribution of
wealth. He seems to be advocating the creation of new wealth which
is quite different.
While he does reject what he calls the "individualistic myth" that
entire communities can change on the actions of individuals working
alone, he is not calling for the government to hand out welfare. He
instead is promoting the idea that communities need to come
together to produce or enact their own change.
He sees his role in the government as that of an "organizer"
helping to stimulate grass roots collective improvement:
"What if a politician were to see his job as that of an
organizer," he wondered, "as part teacher and part advocate, one
who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real
choices before them? ...... We would come together to form concrete
economic development strategies, take advantage of existing laws
and structures, and create bridges and bonds within all sectors of
the community.
more
"Now an agenda for getting our fair share is vital. But to
work, it can't see voters or communities as consumers, as mere
recipients or beneficiaries of this change. It's time for
politicians and other leaders to take the next step and to see
voters, residents, or citizens as producers of
this change. The thrust of our organizing must be on how to make
them productive, how to make them employable, how to build our
human capital, how to create businesses, institutions, banks, safe
public spaces--the whole agenda of creating productive communities.
That is where our future lies.
more
Just as holding hands and singing 'We shall overcome' is not
going to do it, exhorting youth to have pride in their race, give
up drugs and crime, is not going to do it if we can't find jobs and
futures for the 50 percent of black youth who are unemployed,
underemployed, and full of bitterness and rage.
"Exhortations are not enough, nor are the notions that we can
create a black economy within America that is hermetically sealed
from the rest of the economy and seriously tackle the major issues
confronting us," Obama said.
"Any solution to our unemployment catastrophe must arise from us
working creatively within a multicultural, interdependent, and
international economy. Any African-Americans who are only talking
about racism as a barrier to our success are seriously misled if
they don't also come to grips with the larger economic forces that
are creating economic insecurity for all workers--whites, Latinos,
and Asians.
(of course this article is way old, being written in 1995 )
Not saying that he is a libertarian by any stretch, not even saying
that he is not solidly within the spectrum of mainstream Democratic
thought.... just some data points.
|2.2.07 @ 12:52PM|#
Dave,
"Not that facts matter, but wasn't Gore the number two man in an
administration that used to talk all the time about how Saddam was
building WMD's? Doesn't that make him a liar?"
Try to follow me here: saying Iraq had WMDs when Iraq has WMDs is
not a lie. It is telling the truth.
Saying Iraq has WMDs when Iraq does not have WMDs is a lie.
Iraq had ongoing WMD programs prior to 1998, when Clinton and Gore
were talking about it. After Operation Desert Fox, the Iraqi
military shut down their program and destroyed their stocks.
|2.2.07 @ 12:55PM|#
kwais,
You misunderstand - I'm supporting Obama or Dodd unless Gore gets
in, in which case I'm supporting Gore.
|2.2.07 @ 1:23PM|#
"After Operation Desert Fox, the Iraqi military shut down their
program and destroyed their stocks."
This, btw, has been confirmed by the Iraq Survey Team, and was told
to people in the Bush administration by Iraqi defectors and sources
in the years leading up to the war.
|2.2.07 @ 1:56PM|#
joe:
"After Operation Desert Fox, the Iraqi military shut down their
program and destroyed their stocks"
And Saddam also kicked out the UN inspectors and ignored about a
hundred UN reprimands.
But you libs knew all along the man was hiding nothing. That's why
a vast majority of lib Congressional leaders voted for the 2nd
invasion.
Okay, I know what kwais is talking about. I am having a really hard
time understanding what I just wrote.
Larry A|2.2.07 @ 4:16PM|#
There's no point talking about any of this because Hillary
holds all the purse strings. And unless she shows up in a YouTube
video smoking crack and having incestuous relations with Chelsea,
nothing can stop her from becoming the Nominee.
Hillary Clinton's campaign and nomination will raise more money
than any politician in history, for the Republican Party. The
"Anyone but Bush" movement will be nothing compared to "Anyone but
Hillary." People on both sides will drag themselves over broken
glass to vote against her. I'm not sure even "showing up in a
YouTube video smoking crack and having incestuous relations with
Chelsea" would make her less attractive than she already is to too
many people.
And the Demo big money knows it. AlGore could do well on that
playing field.
|2.2.07 @ 9:33PM|#
MNG,
"But you libs knew all along the man was hiding nothing."
Not quite.
We liberals, most of us anyway, suspected that there was some low
level of WMD program activity going on, but did not think there was
any reason to believe it posed a threat, or would for a long
time.
We liberals, most of us anyway, also knew pretty much as soon as he
opened his mouth that Bush was lying when he said otherwise.
"That's why a vast majority of lib Congressional leaders voted for
the 2nd invasion." Very few liberal Congressional leaders voted for
the resolution. Did you mean Democrat?
Nice job with the oily phrasing, btw. I almost forgot that a
majority of Democrats, and a huge majority of those who could be
considered liberals, voted against the AUMF.
|2.2.07 @ 10:36PM|#
And Saddam also kicked out the UN inspectors and ignored
about a hundred UN reprimands.
No, actually the UN withdrew the inspectors because they
thought they'd be in danger when Clinton began bombing.
I hate defending the UN or Bill Clinton but I do like to have my
facts as they really were.
And while after Operation Desert Fox, the Iraqi military actually
did shut down a lot of their programs they kept Saddam believing
that the programs were up and running. And furthermore there was no
certainty among the US (or any other country's) intelligence and
military that Operation Desert Fox had, in fact, shut down the WMD
programs. In fact everyone, including Richard Butler, believed that
Saddam was still getting his fix of exotic weapons in a big
way.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245