HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/57120.htm I can guarantee there's NO ONE Bush would rather run against. No one. The Democrats were stupid enough to nominate him once, and frankly the election shouldn't even have been close. With everything he had going for him, it should have been a cakewalk. Say what you want about Florida, the Supreme Court, yada, yada, yada, Gore screwed the pooch. They say Clinton is STILL furious about it. Great story; (I think it was in Time mag, but it might have been Newsweek) when the Bush's visited the Clintons at the White House, supposedly Bill and George got along famously, laughing and chatting like old pals. (Which figures because, again, forget politics, they're both very gregarious, outgoing, fun loving and social guys). They were getting on so well that George felt comfortable enough asking Bill to help him understand Gore as a person, saying that he never really "figured him out". Reportedly, Bill looked at Hillary, they traded smiles and he said "It's been eight years and we haven't been able to figure him out either" Oh please Santa, bring me Al Gore as the Democrat nominee. I've been SOOO good.
Gore wont be running because "he has had trouble raising campaign cash". With the "lockbox" empty and little else going in his favor I doubt he'll take a chance at another major loss.
Why, because Bush got more votes last time? This isn't exactly like sending Dukakis out there for a rematch. And it isn't as if Bush is exactly going to knock the first George W. off the dollar bill.
If I have to explain it to you, then you're beyond hope and it wouldn't matter anyway. It's people like you, who can't see what the problem is, nominating Gore again that are going to give us four more years. Thanks.
SSHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop giving the enemy advice. Just sit back and watch them (hopefully) hang themselves.
From my understanding the Democratic nominee will be the Edwards(?) guy from the Carolina's. He has a lot of $$$$$$$$$$, and is getting a substantial amount of support from his class action attorney friends.
You're no fun anymore. I'm perfectly willing to explain the concepts of "It's the economy, stupid" and "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"
Bradley is not going to run. You would be smart to look at Howard Dean, govenor of Vermont, as an alternative. Social liberal, fiscal conservative who believes in national health (and as a doctor may have a better grasp of the problem than any other politician).
This time, he won't have all of the big dog consultants working for him. On top of it, he does have to battle the perception (ok, reality) that he was a bad candidate (probably the worst campaign run by the party in power since Nixon in '60). Someone will need to stand up to say that a) Gore is not entitled to another try at the prize just because he got robbed of it and 2) has to show he is a legitimate and good alternative (which means someone who is left of Gore). In any case, I see him running, but can't see him winning the nomination for some reason.
Damn, I thought the next word after "Al's running" was going to be "away"... If Gore runs again, he's an idiot and if the Dems let him they'll deserve the loss they'll get for forgetting King Richard I of Chicago's political advice: "Don't back no losers (even if he did technically win the last time around)".
> I'm perfectly willing to explain the concepts > of "It's the economy, stupid" and "Are you better > off now than you were four years ago?" No, Bill means Gore now has a beard. > Yeah, but wouldn't that concept have applied in > 2000 (except it was eight years, rather than four)? You would think that it would, but I guess it doesn't because Bush got a lot of votes.
> Ummmm, so why did Gore get 500,000 votes > more than Bush? If voters thought that their improved standard of living was due to Clinton-Gore and that Gore would continue the boom (and if that was the limit of their thinking), it would not have been that close. I think that it was more like people were happy with the boom, but now that they had new found money they were looking forward to lower taxes and the continued right to massive SUVs.
Honestly, I couldn't see Gore doing any better of a job as Bu$h has. The corporate crime would have been uncovered no matter what so that would have hurt the markets. The tax cut would not have happened, so there may have been more money to stimulate the economy. Of course, we don't know if Gore could have stopped 9/11 (my guess is that no way he could have stopped it, like Bush was unable to), but I think his reaction on the home front would not have been as costly or oppresive than what Bush and Ashcroft had done. Overall, its all just speculation, and we are still a year and a half from New Hampshire. If the GOP hold onto Congress, Gore gets competition from Daschle and/or Gephardt. If the Democrats do gain control (a more likely possiblity unless we go to war before election day), then Gore will face a lot less opposition, probably Kerry and Dean. Sorry for the long post, but just some stuff I have been mulling over. Bill Q.
So you think that money spent by the government is better allocated than by consumers? If there's one lesson that Japan has given us, it's that stimulus packages don't work.
Re: Re: Al's Running!!!!!! I thought Iraq was the enemy? Though you're probably closer to Bush's line of thought than I am.
I ain't never seen no consumer build no highway, Captain Generalizations. I thought it was not to sneak attack American naval bases.
> So you think that money spent by the > government is better allocated than by consumers? Now it usually ends up being the same. There are a few obvious cases of private spending being superior, like with railroads, shipping, and some kinds of mining. There are obvious cases of public spending being superior, such as autobahns and military take over of other resource laden nations. But those were mostly done with 50 or 100 years ago. And even if there was a difference, it certianly would not come about by the tiny percentage of the GDP that any reasonable tax cut or increase would be. > If there's one lesson that Japan has given us, it's > that stimulus packages don't work. But we already know tax cuts don't do it either. Putting the green paper in different people's hands doesn't do a lot unless there is actual wealth to back it up. Bush the Younger knows what to do; he is just doesn't seem to be doing a good job actually implementing the plan.