Everyone's mum about GORE...

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Have you noticed this?

Ever since "campaign time" hit, we've heard the left talk up (er, try to talk up) how Kerry is a better, smarter, man, and who if elected, would do so much better at everything from the war with Iraq to the war on terror to the economy to education...

But for all the hue and cry and bitching about a stolen election in 2000, NO ONE HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT HOW MUCH BETTER GORE WOULD HAVE BEEN DOING IN THESE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES. In fact, it's as if Gore had never existed.

I find that extremely telling. What the hell was all the bitching about, if they aren't even right now telling us that had Bush not "stolen the election," we wouldn't be in this mess?

I don't find that there is much, if any at all, discussion about how much better everything would be if Gore had won the presidency. Right now it's, "Boy, if we had Kerry in there!..." but not a whisper of, "Boy, if only we'd had Gore in there!"

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[likearock 2]

I agree. Gore would have been a stronger choice since he comes without all that anti-war baggage and is much harder to tag as "the most liberal".

I also think McCain would have been a stronger choice than Bush for the Republicans.

As far as I can see, both sides are going with their B teams.

Wayne

[kelpdiver 2]

Gore lost. If you're trying to win an election, nothing is gained from trumpeting out the last round's loser.

The answer you're looking for, and I would generally agree with, is any better than Bush. But this election is not about the past so much as the future. Will Bush do better now that election concerns are removed, or will Kerry run better with the current situation.

[quade 4]

Or maybe it's because Gore isn't running.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PhillyKev 0]

You know, I think you're right. It's almost as telling as no one talking about Bob Dole in 2000

Translation...what the hell are you talking about?

[complexity 0]

Point is that Gore lost and is now considered damaged goods. He would never be able to beat George Bush a second time around - particularly as he has pretty much gone off the deep end in the past year, ranting and raving about how poorly Bush has done. While he may make some points during his speeches (he just did one today in DC at Georgetown University), his words carry little weight as he is seem more as bitter about losing to Bush n 2000.

Gore should just stay quiet and go away. He is no Clinton (as far as getting the base of the Democratic party energized)

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Point is that Gore lost and is now considered damaged goods. He would never be able to beat George Bush a second time around - particularly as he has pretty much gone off the deep end in the past year, ranting and raving about how poorly Bush has done.

That's exactly why I think he might have had a decent shot. The libs would have played up the so-called "raw deal" he got, all that bullshit about how the Supreme Court "appointed him," ad nauseum. Couple that with the fact that anyone voting democrat this election seems to be doing so because they hate Bush and "how poorly Bush has done," and I can't see why Gore would not have pulled everyone who voted for him last time (close call, right?) plus those who have hopped the fence.

But I still think it is telling that they screamed up and down how much better their choice would have been, but now nothing, not a peep about the very guy they went to court to try to get elected.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[jimbarry 0]

Quote

I find that extremely telling. What the hell was all the bitching about, if they aren't even right now telling us that had Bush not "stolen the election," we wouldn't be in this mess?

Agreed. And, if Gore had only won his own state of Tennessee, there wouldn't have been an election to "steal". But somehow the republicans had a crystal ball to know that Florida would be the place to stage their conspiracy.

The SupCt "appointed" Bush? No, the Supremes forced Florida to follow their own law and not change it in the middle of an election process. Would a court appointed mostly by Dem presidents have allowed Florida to break its own election law? Is that what the Dems really think was the better option? Change the rules as you go if you don't like the results? Isn't that what they don't like about Bush?

Ahhhem. Enough about 2000.

[complexity 0]

Well, you have a point but I think that the people that will really make a difference in deciding the election are the small group of undecideds in those swing states - some of who voted for Bush last time and some of who voted for Gore and some who didn't vote. They aren't the ones who think Bush stole the election - its the diehard Democrats who do. And those hard core Democrats will be out there in full force regardless of WHO it is, as they hate Bush that much. Also many of them think that Gore and his campaign lost an election that he should have won due to poor campaign strategy and Gore's inability to connect with voters.

Also, I also think that many undecided voters don't see Gore as a viable candidate because they, unlike the liberal Dems, DO think that he lost the election. And if the liberals play up losing the election to the fence-sitters it may backfire and seem petty and negative. Better to look forward and use Gore at speeches/rallies with the core and let him rant and rave and foam at the mouth.

And so we have... Kerry. A second-rate candidate in everyone's eyes (including most Democrats) but he doesn't have Gore's baggage and perception of being a loser.