I wonder if the fact he's been more open, doing shows like Futurama, is paving the way for his comeback? :)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101021125-390894,00.html
At least every Futurama fan knows his position on universal Armageddon - as a conservationist, he's against it.
Jonah Falcon
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 23:19:23 -0500, "Jonah Falcon" spewed forth:
I have to wonder if anyone other than himself thinks he has a chance in hell of winning if he were to get chosen as the candidate (a massive shot in the dark if ever there were one).
Yeah -- I think his chances are pretty low, considering that he won the last election but STILL didn't get the Presidency. You need a two-thirds majority, right?
I mean judges, not voters.
-- L.Y.
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 04:04:32 -0600, Luxury Yacht spewed forth:
Well if Gore doesn't need it, I'm sure Mondale or Dukakis is available.
Yeah. Only TIME magazine thinks he can.
PS. Nixon did it before.
Jonah Falcon
"Rev. Bleech_" wrote in message news:[email]...
is
yodelling out his Oscar Mayer"
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 04:04:32 -0600, Luxury Yacht wrote:
Right now, it would be hard for anyone to overcome Bush's 117% approval rate. But that number is slipping. Remember, his father, king Bush I, has the record for most precipitous decline in popularity in presidential history.
Iraq isn't rallying support in the US. In fact, it is becoming ever clearer that Bush suffers from target fixation. Much of the success in the war on terrorism is thanks to military preparedness developed during the Clinton administration, not Bush's brilliant leadership. Now that real leadership is needed, it has decayed into a constant verbal attacks on Iraq. Warlordism is once again rearing it head in Afghanistan and terrorist training camps are back in business under our very noses. We have had very little news from there lately and what we do hear is often bad. Meanwhile, back at home, the "give more to the rich" program doesn't seem to be spurring the economy.
If things continue as they are for another two years, Gore's chances could be good. I think he should run the video clip from Ronald Reagan's first campaign "Are you better off than you were four years ago?".
The UN should send in election observers to Florida for 2004. Just like that do in other third world backwaters of political corruption.
You just need 50% + 1. Since Bush already owned 3 out of 9, Gore needed 5/6 of the remainder to win.
If he does run again, I will print up shirts that say "re-elect Gore 2004".
--Larry
In article , Larry wrote:
I agree!
And I will buy one.
Say, how come when Clinton addmitted to trying pot it was a character issue, but when we found out Bush was an ex-cokehead who was technicaly AWOL from the armed forces it was "youthful indescretions?"
I always wanted to hear the official Republican position on that.
-- L.Y.
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 18:12:53 -0600, Luxury Yacht spewed forth:
It was a character issue not because he tried pot, but because of the waffling textbook-Clinton way he tried to weasel out of it. You'll notice they didn't give Bill Bradley shit about it.
I'm not sure what you mean here by "waffling" and "weasel." Do you mean like the way George W. talked about his "youthful indescretions," or more like when Ronald Reagan said he didn't remember anything? Or maybe you mean like the time Nixon said he wasn't "a crook."
-- L.Y.
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 19:12:43 -0600, Luxury Yacht spewed forth:
Yep. S'waffling to a lesser degree though. "I did it, but let's not dwell on it, no big deal really, hey look, a bear!" vs Clinton's "I did it, but I didn't do it."
I find it utterly hilarious that when one points out the shortcomings of a democrat, people automatically take a "So what makes you the Republicans are any better, huh, huh ?" stance.
No, it's more along the lines of "Why is it o.k. for a Republican to do these things, but not a Democrat?" Either it's o.k. for both to do these things, or neither. But the standard Republican reaction to political misdoings is invariably hypocritical in nature.
-- L.Y.
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:12:14 -0600, Luxury Yacht spewed forth:
And the standard Democratic reaction is no less so.
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 05:20:23 GMT, Rev. Bleech_ wrote:
How can you compare John Jackson to Jack Johnson? They're barely clones.
--Larry
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 18:12:53 -0600, Luxury Yacht wrote:
An attempted character issue. At the polls, no one really seemed to care.
Bush never admitted to using cocaine nor was it ever proven in court. So, he simply summed up everything he did as "youthful indiscretions".
If Bush had said "I used cocaine, drank too much and got a DUI, then I got my act together", I would have respected that. But he lied and mis-directed. that is dangerous.
What if an enemy got his hands on proof of his cocaine use (or any of the other details of his collective indiscretions)? He could be blackmailed. If he admitted his past, it would disarm any possibility of blackmail.
As for "technically AWOL", he was ordered to show up and he didn't. Nothing that technical, more a black and white issue. He also claimed that he volunteered to go overseas if needed. However, on the form he filled out, the box for "I am willing to serve overseas" wasn't checked. Likewise, his claim that he didn't use family influence to get into the guard and to the front of the line for pilot training. Somehow, he managed to get out of the guard with a court martial.
Al Gore on the other hand, was the only son of congressman to face enemy fire in Viet Nam. The sons of congressmen were automatically exempt from combat so they couldn't be ransomed. He was an army photographer and volunteered to go.
If I recall, Bush said he hadn't committed any crime under the rules of some FBI background criteria. But, that was limited to a certain number of years in the past.
He refused to discuss anything before that, beyond the famous "Youthful indiscretion". I suspect that he waited until that time had passed before running for public office.
--Larry
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 03:20:24 GMT, Larry spewed forth:
But he would have lost all credibility in the War on Drugs (not that he or anyone else in DC have any credibility on it in the first place IMO, but you know what I mean). Cocaine isn't nearly as 'innocent' as pot.
He never faced enemy fire. Most danger he was ever in was when he was pointing his own gun at his head.
Mmm, more waffles !
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 06:11:14 GMT, Rev. Bleech_ wrote:
There was no 'front' in Viet Nam, everyone there was in harms way. Second, he photographed ongoing battles. A stray bullet or artillery shell could have killed him. He may not have been in as much danger as an infantry soldier, but it was a lot more than Bush ever faced.
As an army photographer and a senator's son, he could have stayed in the US and done QA photographs of aircraft on the assembly line. Instead he was the only senator's son who actually heard enemy gunfire in Viet Nam.
By comparison, Dubya found the demands of being a cargo pilot in the air guard too much and went AWOL. The only reason he got any credibility with the military was by being confused with his father.
Could you define 'waffles'? Could you define 'more'? What exactly do you mean by Mmm? Write that up and send it to my lawyers . . .
--Larry
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 19:54:46 GMT, Larry spewed forth:
He most certainly did not. He wasn't a photographer assigned to the 20th Engineer Battalion. Biggest battle he ever encountered was probably between two drunk bulldozer operators.
My attorney says I don't have to.
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 20:18:27 GMT, Rev. Bleech_ wrote:
I think you meant to say "He *was* assigned to the 20th . . ". Which, of course, is correct.
I did research on what I remembered from The History Channel. this article clears up a few things: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52119-1999Dec30¬Found=true
To sum up a few points: Gore said he was fired at while on guard duty. Quite possible, but not independently documented.
He arrived a battle sights after the shooting was "over". Even after the shooting was over, the area could be dangerous.
I think this sums it up: "He was a reporter, not an infantryman, and while he was never fully out of harm's way, neither did he face situations where he had to kill or be killed, and he was spared the sight of seeing any buddies die."
Gore was certainly not what I would call a war hero. He served mostly because he knew it would be necessary if he ever went into politics. His record would not stand long next to say John McCain or George Bush Sr. But next to drunken, cokehead, AWOL from the guard Dubya, it looks pretty good.
If they were armed and on their bulldozers at the time, it could be bad. Or it could be a new series on TLC.
Well my attorney says your attorney looks like a dork.
--Larry
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 21:34:31 GMT, Larry spewed forth:
B'oh ! Yes. S'what happens when you go away and come back in the middle of a post.
Indeedy
They can call it "Junkyard Wars : The Quickening"
My attorney opened his mouth to say something about yours and barfed all over the side of the Cadillac instead.
Poor Al. The only way he'll win is if he runs against Frankenstein. Please, let me explain.
In a conversation with a friend of mine who was born and raised in a foreign country, he said that whoever wins the American presidential election is whoever looks the best on TV. I laughed. Later, I thought about it. The more I thought about it, the more it seemed true. Looking back over past elections, there is a disturbing pattern of the coolest-appearing candidate winning the election.
Gore isn't bad in photos, but his movements and mannerisms are stiff awkward to the point of being bizarre. He looks bad on TV. Bush was looked rather stupid on account of his great struggles with the English language, but he has a certain personable charm and natural-looking smoothness about him that was enough to get him half the vote. (Ok, *almost* half, let's not start THAT again.) Basically, it took a very scary person to lose to someone as perplexed by his own native language as Mr. Bush is.
"Jonah Falcon" wrote in message news:arkb35$i3m$[email]...
as
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 00:32:24 GMT, "That Guy" wrote:
That is generally true. Look at the Kennedy - Nixon Debates. Nixon, an otherwise healthy man, had been pretty ill before the debate and he didn't use make-up. He looked terrible. Kennedy, despite serious chronic illnesses, had good makeup and looked very good. Just after the debate, Kennedy passed Nixon in the polls and won.
However, looking good on TV isn't a 100% guarantee of winning. Bush I was better on TV than Clinton in 1992. However, Iraq moved from a quick victory to a protracted ordeal with inspectors and sanctions and the economy continued to slip. Clinton pulled ahead weeks before the election. If the election had been in september, Clinton would have lost.
When you look in retrospect, it's easy to say the guy who won looked better on TV. Its kind of like showing how right nostradamus was after events occur. It is harder to predict ahead of time who will win using that system.
--Larry
"Larry" wrote in message news:[email]...
You are correct that it's easy to "see" it in retrospect when the subjective issue of how someone looks may be influenced by the fact that I already know who won. One thing that kind of kicked me was that Ralph Nader, who has undoubtedly been the inspiration behind a lot of safety regulation that has saved the lives of many tens of thousands of Americans, but who also looks like elephantine anal herpes, got such a small percentage of the vote compared to what another famous third-party candidate, Ross Perot, got when he ran.
Yes, would be harder to predict ahead of time who will win using that system, for a number of reasons. Still, it would be fun to try.
in article jMxE9.618$[email], That Guy at [email] wrote on 11/25/02 2:47 PM:
Can I get a link to a picture of elephantine anal herpes before I make comment?
"petben" wrote in message news:BA07F5DD.6F7D%[email]...
subjective
know
has
has
looks
when
I don't have a photo but I can give you some of mine if you like.