So Al Gore isn't standing in 2004...
- Thread starter p_p_man
- Start date
teddybear4play
better when i'm drunk
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2002
- Posts
- 12,906
Your writings are merely a nuisance. I'll live with them.p_p_man said:
TB4p
HeavyStick
Anti-M 0derator
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 47,301
p_p_man said:
What was it tonight? Guinness.... cognac?
Al Gore said he wouldn't be running for President in 2004.
Our politicians don't stand for office.
Put the bottles down.
Lost Cause
It's a wrap!
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Posts
- 30,949
Gore's a weasel.....
His announcement was, "I will not seek a nomination for PRESIDENT in 2004", he didn't say VP, Governor,or the Senate again. you can tell when he's lying...his lips move! Cheers!
His announcement was, "I will not seek a nomination for PRESIDENT in 2004", he didn't say VP, Governor,or the Senate again. you can tell when he's lying...his lips move! Cheers!
Spinaroonie
LOOK WHAT I FOUND!
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 17,721
Re: Gore's a weasel.....
SO? SO?
The questions were asking if he was running for president, he said he isn't running for president
WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU WANT AND WHEN WILL YOU START MAKING SENSE? WHY IS ANSWERING A FUCKING QUESTION A LIE?
Lost Cause said:His announcement was, "I will not seek a nomination for PRESIDENT in 2004", he didn't say VP, Governor,or the Senate again. you can tell when he's lying...his lips move! Cheers!
SO? SO?
The questions were asking if he was running for president, he said he isn't running for president
WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU WANT AND WHEN WILL YOU START MAKING SENSE? WHY IS ANSWERING A FUCKING QUESTION A LIE?
Cuckolded_BlK_Male
Green Light Believer
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2002
- Posts
- 3,073
I think that it's fair to assume that Al Gore was asked not to run by the Democratic Party. They obviously don't think that he can win against Dumb-Ass Dubbya. This is odd, considering that he got more votes that Dubbya the first time around. The American people didn't elect Bush, his Daddy's supreme Court and his Brother's Secretary of State did.
teddybear4play
better when i'm drunk
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2002
- Posts
- 12,906
Blah, blah, whatever.Cuckolded_BlK_Male said:
The election in 2004 won't come down to that. I wonder what you'll complain about then.
TB4p
SINthysist
Rural Racist Homophobe
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Posts
- 11,940
Sunday, Dec. 15, 2002 10:30 p.m. EST
Hillary Blocked Gore
Why would Al Gore quit the presidential race?
That's a good question, considering he was running well ahead of all potential Democratic presidential wannabes.
A CNN-Time poll just last month found that 36 percent of Democrats nationwide preferred Gore. Not too far behind was Hillary Rodham Clinton at 20 percent. The other candidates didn't get more than single digits.
So Gore was clearly the front-runner for the nomination.
Did Gore pull out because he thought Bush would win easily in 2004?
Probably not.
In fact, Gore talked with NewsMax's Chris Ruddy and John LeBoutillier in New York last week and told them he had little doubt that Bush's popular support would collapse in the next two years.
Many Democrats remember Bush's father and his high midterm approval ratings after the Gulf War - ratings that turned into mush by Election Day.
Why, then, is Gore withdrawing?
One answer may be Hillary's efforts to block Gore's fund raising.
NewsMax, in a special report by Carl Limbacher, "Hillary Plans for the Presidency," detailed Hillary's behind-the-scenes efforts to lock Gore out of the Democratic money machine.
The report detailed how Hillary had quietly been sidelining New York and Hollywood big-money Democrats, the base of the party's money machine, telling them not to donate to Gore and await either her decision to run or go with another candidate.
Also, the DNC's apparatus remains firmly under the Clintons' control, with the DNC headed by the Clintons' hand-picked DNC chief, Terry McAuliffe.
Gore must have clearly seen that his efforts to raise money would be stymied by Hillary.
Even after McAuliffe's and Hillary's debacle this past Election Day, McAuliffe and the Clintons remain firmly in the driver's seat.
In fact, they believe the Democrats have nowhere else to go.
Without Bill or Hill, who will draw a crowd in New York or Hollywood?
As detailed in the Special Report on Hillary's presidential plans, Hillary has long had a distaste for Gore and his wife, Tipper.
The dust-up between Hillary and Gore began on the day Bill Clinton was inaugurated.
Secret Service overheard the Clintons in a screaming match.
Hillary was demanding to occupy the vice president's office, next to the Oval Office.
Things between Gore and Hillary never improved.
Gore has told associates he blamed Hillary for his loss in 2000.
Gore claimed that Hillary's Senate run pulled precious White House and DNC resources, not to mention national media attention, from his campaign.
Hillary Blocked Gore
Why would Al Gore quit the presidential race?
That's a good question, considering he was running well ahead of all potential Democratic presidential wannabes.
A CNN-Time poll just last month found that 36 percent of Democrats nationwide preferred Gore. Not too far behind was Hillary Rodham Clinton at 20 percent. The other candidates didn't get more than single digits.
So Gore was clearly the front-runner for the nomination.
Did Gore pull out because he thought Bush would win easily in 2004?
Probably not.
In fact, Gore talked with NewsMax's Chris Ruddy and John LeBoutillier in New York last week and told them he had little doubt that Bush's popular support would collapse in the next two years.
Many Democrats remember Bush's father and his high midterm approval ratings after the Gulf War - ratings that turned into mush by Election Day.
Why, then, is Gore withdrawing?
One answer may be Hillary's efforts to block Gore's fund raising.
NewsMax, in a special report by Carl Limbacher, "Hillary Plans for the Presidency," detailed Hillary's behind-the-scenes efforts to lock Gore out of the Democratic money machine.
The report detailed how Hillary had quietly been sidelining New York and Hollywood big-money Democrats, the base of the party's money machine, telling them not to donate to Gore and await either her decision to run or go with another candidate.
Also, the DNC's apparatus remains firmly under the Clintons' control, with the DNC headed by the Clintons' hand-picked DNC chief, Terry McAuliffe.
Gore must have clearly seen that his efforts to raise money would be stymied by Hillary.
Even after McAuliffe's and Hillary's debacle this past Election Day, McAuliffe and the Clintons remain firmly in the driver's seat.
In fact, they believe the Democrats have nowhere else to go.
Without Bill or Hill, who will draw a crowd in New York or Hollywood?
As detailed in the Special Report on Hillary's presidential plans, Hillary has long had a distaste for Gore and his wife, Tipper.
The dust-up between Hillary and Gore began on the day Bill Clinton was inaugurated.
Secret Service overheard the Clintons in a screaming match.
Hillary was demanding to occupy the vice president's office, next to the Oval Office.
Things between Gore and Hillary never improved.
Gore has told associates he blamed Hillary for his loss in 2000.
Gore claimed that Hillary's Senate run pulled precious White House and DNC resources, not to mention national media attention, from his campaign.
p_p_man
The 'Euro' European
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Posts
- 24,253
SINthysist said:
Now that's what I call good, interesting information...
With the experience of that woman Maggie Thatcher now thankfully behind us I don't think the UK will be ready to accept another female Prime Minister for a long time to come.
Do you think America is ready for a female President?
ppman
Last edited:
Byron In Exile
Frederick Fucking Chopin
- Joined
- May 3, 2002
- Posts
- 66,591
America will have a black President before America has a female President.p_p_man said:
Don K Dyck
Devilish Don Downunder
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2002
- Posts
- 8,255
Good Find . . .
Good find, SIN . . . well done!! I agree with ppman, even with Hillary's high profile, the American establishment in most unlikely to support for and vote for a woman . . . American politics is not yet rady to enter the 21st century . . . European countries have had female Prime Ministers of great note (not counting the Batty Baroness) but male dominated America is well prepared for the nineteenth century . . . after all women's sufferage only dates from about 1927, and the Americans need more time to get used to the idea that women are smart enough to go out and enroll to elect . . . sadly not enough women are registered.
In the 1949 Oz elections it was the women's vote that put Pig-Iron Bob Menzies (Liberal Party) into power and kept him there for 23 years . . . Americans women should take note and bring some sanity to American politics . . . after all, behind every good man . . . is a woman pulling the strings.
SINthysist said:
Good find, SIN . . . well done!! I agree with ppman, even with Hillary's high profile, the American establishment in most unlikely to support for and vote for a woman . . . American politics is not yet rady to enter the 21st century . . . European countries have had female Prime Ministers of great note (not counting the Batty Baroness) but male dominated America is well prepared for the nineteenth century . . . after all women's sufferage only dates from about 1927, and the Americans need more time to get used to the idea that women are smart enough to go out and enroll to elect . . . sadly not enough women are registered.
In the 1949 Oz elections it was the women's vote that put Pig-Iron Bob Menzies (Liberal Party) into power and kept him there for 23 years . . . Americans women should take note and bring some sanity to American politics . . . after all, behind every good man . . . is a woman pulling the strings.
Coolville
rampant quodlibertarius
- Joined
- May 16, 2001
- Posts
- 2,807
To be fair, there were some states in the States who gave women the vote right back at the beginning. I think NZ was first, then Canada and some European countries... can't remember the facts... but I believe one or two states granted them the vote as well... anybody know which ones?
Byron In Exile
Frederick Fucking Chopin
- Joined
- May 3, 2002
- Posts
- 66,591
I, personally, would vote for Walter Williams in a second. Or Thomas Sowell, but he's given up the whole political fracas, from what I understand.Coolville said:
It doesn't matter, really, because America will have a black President eventually. Hopefully, it will be a real patriot like Roger Wilkins, not some stupid political whore like Jesse Jackson.
Don K Dyck
Devilish Don Downunder
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2002
- Posts
- 8,255
Southern Hemisphere Leads . . .
Hi Coolville, how's the mermaid?
The southern hemisphere led the way in women's franchise. The Oz State of South Australia led the way in 1892 and the other States fell into line with Federation in 1901.
Sadly, the enfranchised Aboriginals in South Australia, were disenfranchised by the Aborigine-hating Isaacs J in a 1904 Oz High Court decision, overturning the provisions of the Constitution that specifically allowed enfranchised Aborigines to continue to vote, but NOT including Aborigines living in States which had failed to enfranchise Aborigines. Truly it may be said that White Australia has a Black History . . . and the modern Oz High Court has been no different in the recent Yorta Yorta land claim decision . . . Oz needs to take a lesson from Canada.
New Zealand was settled from Oz about 1850, and women's franchise occurred about the same time as South Australia, but I am unsure about which country was historically first.
The UK gave in to the sufferagettes . . . after WWI??
Switzerland was very modern and allowed women to vote from about . . . 1990. (True story).
Coolville said:
Hi Coolville, how's the mermaid?
The southern hemisphere led the way in women's franchise. The Oz State of South Australia led the way in 1892 and the other States fell into line with Federation in 1901.
Sadly, the enfranchised Aboriginals in South Australia, were disenfranchised by the Aborigine-hating Isaacs J in a 1904 Oz High Court decision, overturning the provisions of the Constitution that specifically allowed enfranchised Aborigines to continue to vote, but NOT including Aborigines living in States which had failed to enfranchise Aborigines. Truly it may be said that White Australia has a Black History . . . and the modern Oz High Court has been no different in the recent Yorta Yorta land claim decision . . . Oz needs to take a lesson from Canada.
New Zealand was settled from Oz about 1850, and women's franchise occurred about the same time as South Australia, but I am unsure about which country was historically first.
The UK gave in to the sufferagettes . . . after WWI??
Switzerland was very modern and allowed women to vote from about . . . 1990. (True story).
brokenbrainwave
Just draggin around
- Joined
- May 6, 2002
- Posts
- 18,892
Gore is a three time loser in the Presidential Popularity contest. This in and of itself precludes him a snowballs chance in Tahiti from the nomination.
teddybear4play
better when i'm drunk
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2002
- Posts
- 12,906
Gore said on "60 Minutes" that he didn't want a Bush vs. Gore presidential election in 2004 to be a rehash of Bush vs. Gore 2000. Which is smart, because where Democrats fought the last election in 2002, they lost, badly. America is over the 2000 election, no matter how many Democrats aren't.
As for minorities who could capture the Presidency, if Colin Powell wanted to be President, he could probably win easily. He won't run, though.
It's interesting to note that despite Democrats' claims that they are the party of minorities and women, since the last time Jesse Jackson ran, which I believe was in 1988, the only blacks or women that have ran were Republicans, namely Alan Keyes and Elizabeth Dole.
I still think J.C. Watts, who was up until he retired this past year the only black Republican in Congress, could have made some serious waves if he decided to run. I won't still preclude a possible Presidential run out of him in 2008, but I still think that if the Republican Party were smart, they would have made him George W. Bush's running mate for 2004. It would be even smarter politically now, given the Trent Lott debacle.
TB4p
As for minorities who could capture the Presidency, if Colin Powell wanted to be President, he could probably win easily. He won't run, though.
It's interesting to note that despite Democrats' claims that they are the party of minorities and women, since the last time Jesse Jackson ran, which I believe was in 1988, the only blacks or women that have ran were Republicans, namely Alan Keyes and Elizabeth Dole.
I still think J.C. Watts, who was up until he retired this past year the only black Republican in Congress, could have made some serious waves if he decided to run. I won't still preclude a possible Presidential run out of him in 2008, but I still think that if the Republican Party were smart, they would have made him George W. Bush's running mate for 2004. It would be even smarter politically now, given the Trent Lott debacle.
TB4p
G
Guest
Guest
p_p_man
The 'Euro' European
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Posts
- 24,253
teddybear4play said:
Yes I saw that and he added that if he stood, the main topic of debate would be how the last election was won which would detract from the current issues facing America...
Very clever lad that Al...I've always liked the boy...
ppman
