posted on December 15, 2002 01:32:08 PM new
Al Gore has decided not to run for President in 2004. This announcement follows a fairly good performance on Saturday Night Live last night. Perhaps a career as a standup comedian will follow.
posted on December 15, 2002 10:05:33 PM new
Gore was on 60 Minutes tonight answering that question.
As usual, the Democratic Party seems to be owned by Disney, Inc. Disney is well-known for its string of failure films over the years due to relying upon a "formula" to achieve desired results. While a few films did do very well, most went straight to video and bombed even then. The problem is that every film is entirely predictable before the script is even written.
With the Democrats, it's the ECONOMY.
I've said it before: the Democratic party has lost it's way, it is absolutely out of touch with the American people and they have no idea what we want or why they are there in the first place. That every poll pulls on their puppet strings is sickening and gives no end to the belly laughs of Republicans who don't give a damn about polls or what we want either.
So, I'm supposed to shed a tear for the Demos? John Kerry is their best bet for 2004. Once again, I'll vote for Ralph Nader.
posted on December 16, 2002 09:23:45 AM new
I agree the democraps dont care anymore about us than repukelicans. I want to hear about the economy, jobs, minimum wage increase, health care. I dont want to hear them agree with bush on every issue because they are afraid of losing their seats.
They lost the 2002 elections because they were soft, and had no ideas of their own. Democrats sat home on election day, republicans did not.
posted on December 16, 2002 03:14:57 PM new
I'll agree with that - they failed to inspire. In fact, around here, the Democrats got voted in, in force. Not because the Democratic candidates inspired them so mightily, but because of the Republican candidates who were so extremist far-our right-wing that even the average citizen sat up and said, "Sh1t! I'm going to have to go vote in this election!"
But nationwide, state after state after state, Democrats did not inspire voters. Republicans did, because either they are too scary to let in (like in our state of Oregon) or the Republicans don't care how big and loudly they lie about "morals" and other fantasies to their constituents, and so, they get voted in. I guess it boils down to: if the Republican candidate lied -- they got in. If the Republican candidate told the truth, the public was too scared of them and voted for a Democrat. Sad, that, in so many ways.
posted on December 16, 2002 06:47:57 PM new
that was a serious reply. the only way to beat the republicans is by being a democrat, a green party candidate doesn't have a chance. so ralph nader should go democratic. it's far fetched, but the current democrats are too afraid to stand up to anyone.
posted on December 16, 2002 07:12:35 PM new
drkosmos- My point is that suggesting Nader would even consider becoming a Dem is not serious. And no, the Dems are not afraid to stand up to anyone. That is another foolish statement.
posted on December 17, 2002 09:45:41 AM new
okay, that don't have the courage to stand for what they (or the people) believe. They're all concerned with who's going to line their pockets.
p.s. Al Gore's performance on SNL sucked (he can't act), he was funnier when he was being himself on David Letterman.
[ edited by drkosmos on Dec 17, 2002 09:47 AM ]
posted on December 17, 2002 10:28:07 AM new
>And no, the Dems are not afraid to stand up to anyone.
Oh, really? Let's take this last case in point, Trent Lott. The media and the Republicans were the first to pounce on Lott long before the Democrats offered a whimper! When they finally did offer a few words, they were carefully worded and vague; definitely not a direct condemnation against bigotry. Gore had the harshest wording, saying that if it amounted to racist comments that it was wrong.
As far as the Democrats being the answer to the Republicans, that ASSUMES that there are two different political parties! Ralph Nader and I agree: there's just one political party in Washington masquerading as two different political parties in order to keep people disenfranchised by focusing their attention away from issues and against each other. But you all can have fantasies about there actually being two different political parties. No one has been able to prove it to me yet.
posted on December 17, 2002 12:44:52 PM new
Borillar- Any implication that the Dems are somehow more worthy of the label of bigotry is absurd. To say that they were afraid for some reason to jump on a Republican blunder is foolish. FYI- I happen not to dismiss Nader as quickly as others. I believe he has an always unique and often valid viewpoint on many issues. And yes there is often a blurred distinction between the two major parties. Would you not agree at least that one main difference is that the Dems have been more concerned with social programs? If you won't grant this then you are looking at it all through green-colored glasses(pun intended).
posted on December 17, 2002 01:28:51 PM new
The way I see it there is only one party now. The little guy has no party to represent them. The democrat party needs a complete makeover with a strong leader before it becomes powerful again. If they think about going into the 2004 election the way they are now its going to be a massacre Mondale style.
posted on December 17, 2002 01:29:54 PM new
stusi, I never insinuated that bigotry is part of the democrats,; although they do get "reformed" Ku Klux Klansmen who sometimes fall back into old habits.
As far as the stated, minor differences between the two parties, the proof of the pudding lies in the eating. In other words, Democrats can talk all that they like about social programs, but when push comes to shove, they most often vote Republican on the issues. Check it out for yourself to see if I'm exaggerating! The only difference between the two parties is from which direction flows the HOT AIR.
posted on December 17, 2002 01:58:07 PM new
Borillar- "I never insinuated that bigotry is part of the democrats..." What exactly did you insinuate by saying that the Dems response was "definitely not a direct condemnation of bigotry"? "...the Dems vote Republican on social issues..." How about some links or examples?
posted on December 17, 2002 03:53:48 PM newThe way I see it there is only one party now. The little guy has no party to represent them. The democrat party needs a complete makeover with a strong leader before it becomes powerful again.
which brings me back to my original post
Ralph Nader for Democratic candidate!
[ edited by drkosmos on Dec 17, 2002 03:54 PM ]
posted on December 17, 2002 04:27:38 PM new
>"definitely not a direct condemnation of bigotry"?
Consider the condemnations by the Republicans against Democrats, for instance. Of Clinton, in particular. The Democrat's words this time were tepid at best, guarded, not bold. You can make of that whatever you will.
>.the Dems vote Republican on social issues..." How about some links or examples?
You must be joking! I pay attention to the voting and you don't, so you demand of ME to go look it up for you and to provide it to you - for FREE!
Please pay a lump sum (non-refundable) of $1,000.00 to my Paypal account with a Confirmed Address and I'll go do your work for you right away.
posted on December 17, 2002 06:26:44 PM new
You are weaseling out of supporting your position. You are asking me to prove you wrong when I am simply asking you to prove you are right. No can do? Anyone who thinks that all congressional votes on social issues are bipartisan is delusional.
posted on December 17, 2002 06:44:50 PM new
stusi, *I* take the time to record and to watch C-SPAN. I like to listen to the speeches and see how everyone votes. *I* take the time to go to the Congressional Record online and see what votes and politics are going on. *I* take the time to monitor news reports and also to follow the links provided by everyone here (one of the few to do so, I'll bet!) *I* take the time to be an educated voter. And you? You haven't bothered, that is clear. And now you expect ME to give YOU the education that you've been too lazy to get? What the hell do you think I am, Public Education? You can *damn well* go and spend the time like I do to keep informed! If you're still too damned lazy to go learn for yourself, then don't demand it of me unless you want to PAY ME to do your work for you! Jeezsus! Lazyass people!
posted on December 17, 2002 07:00:05 PM new
Well let's see. To humor you I just did a cursory search and found that most of the votes on housing, health and homeless issues over the past few years were along usual party lines with few exceptions. Maybe some Reps are voting with the Dems and not vice-versa! It seems that you are not paying attention to C-SPAN. As your views border on the delusional, no logical discussion is possible. I am out of here.
