So Al Gore isn't standing in 2004...
- Thread starter p_p_man
- Start date
Texan
'nuf said
- Joined
- May 31, 2001
- Posts
- 2,146
70/30 said:
don't flatter yourself, little boy.
I have a teenage son who has your level of political acumen. Because I want to maintain peace in the house, I keep my mouth shut about how ignorant he sounds, most of the time. I guess when I come to lit and read your posts, I take a bit of my frustration out on you. I know you honestly believe the stuff you post, even the C&P crap, but it does get old.
enjoy the evening.
Don K Dyck
Devilish Don Downunder
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2002
- Posts
- 8,255
70/30 said:
Hi 70/30 . . . this Lott business must be getting pretty big Stateside because it is now making the Oz popular media in both radio and print news . . .
I can understand why you would be hesitant about Powell . . . Secretary for State (?) and totally ignored . . . so much for being the nominal AfricanAmerican "on the team" . . . he has been made about as useful as tits on a bull . . .
Don't think you can write off Jeb Boy just yet . . . I mean, Dubyah wants 2004 so Jeb Boy can only put his hand up for 2008 to keep the Family Dynasty going . . . and Daddy Bush will ensure that the secret ploice do everything possible to rig the election in Jeb's direction . . . no point in being a former Head of the CIA and also responsible for sanitising the FBI files after Hoover died, if you cannot pull in a marker or two for the Family Dynasty . . . and most Americans couldn't care less because few of them vote anyway . . .
So will America ever return to sanity?? . . . From this side of the world it appears unlikely while the Fundamentalist Christians are in power . . . the question is "How many 89 day wars on former allies will the U$ be committed to by Dubyah Shrub before the 2004 election?" And will he try to follow the old script of staying at war in 2004 to get re-elected? Next year, 2003 could be very hectic . . . and bloody . . . but as already seen, there will be few pictures for the television news . . .
Speculation about future American politics is intriguing because of all the possible variables and consequent outcomes.
SINthysist
Rural Racist Homophobe
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Posts
- 11,940
Racicot is a more likely Candidate than any I've seen mentioned yet.
SINthysist
Rural Racist Homophobe
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Posts
- 11,940
Jeb will not run for President (IMHO). Even he knows he is not a strong enough person. He may run for Senator eventually, but I think it's more likely he retires from politics completely. It's been a rough ride for him and his family.
LovetoGiveRoses
Southern Gentleman
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2002
- Posts
- 16,796
What are the real reasons why alGore isn't running?
brokenbrainwave
Just draggin around
- Joined
- May 6, 2002
- Posts
- 18,892
$$$$$$$$$$$$$LovetoGiveRoses said:
His fund raising was going nowhere.
SINthysist
Rural Racist Homophobe
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Posts
- 11,940
The dirt Hillary will have dumped on him and his family, even to the point of lies. She's ruthless and in firm control of the party. She intends to have her way and has been making that perfectly clear.
You see, they still think by the end of January that they will control the Senate now that they may have driven Lott out. Then they are counting on turning Chaffee. Leiberman will take the fall in '04 leaving Hillary/McCain, Hillary/Chaffee, or some other such nonsense...
You see, they still think by the end of January that they will control the Senate now that they may have driven Lott out. Then they are counting on turning Chaffee. Leiberman will take the fall in '04 leaving Hillary/McCain, Hillary/Chaffee, or some other such nonsense...
LovetoGiveRoses
Southern Gentleman
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2002
- Posts
- 16,796
SINthysist said:
She is a scary woman. She thinks she knows what's right for everyone and won't brook any arguments. Look at the whole healthcare thing. She developed "in secret" and lobbied for it ruthlessly.
SINthysist
Rural Racist Homophobe
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Posts
- 11,940
The two of them have always reminded me of Josephine and Napoleon.
White trash Ivory-Tower Euro-Socialist wanna-be's...
White trash Ivory-Tower Euro-Socialist wanna-be's...
LovetoGiveRoses
Southern Gentleman
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2002
- Posts
- 16,796
I wish alGore would run again, if he got trounced, that would put to bed the whole thing and, the democrats would think that their northeastern elite message was still workable saying that the fault was in alGore and not in their message (which would cause them ongoing consternation.
At least as long as Terry McAuliffe is still there, the unspoken but clear message will be that lying, cheating and stretching the truth are the provinces of the democratic party and that nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of their manifest destiny of being in power (no political message associated, just that they "deserve" to be in power) because they know what we all need...our divine leaders if you will.
That's not clearly written....I'm too busy to re-write it.
At least as long as Terry McAuliffe is still there, the unspoken but clear message will be that lying, cheating and stretching the truth are the provinces of the democratic party and that nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of their manifest destiny of being in power (no political message associated, just that they "deserve" to be in power) because they know what we all need...our divine leaders if you will.
That's not clearly written....I'm too busy to re-write it.
SINthysist
Rural Racist Homophobe
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Posts
- 11,940
He never had a chance. The Democratic Party eats its own and rarely tolerates a looser.
Time to get to work.
New board change is awesome. Took care of my biggest pet peeve.
Time to get to work.
New board change is awesome. Took care of my biggest pet peeve.
teddybear4play
better when i'm drunk
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2002
- Posts
- 12,906
From the other Gore thread:LovetoGiveRoses said:
1) Gore is not stupid. He realizes that unless the current situation changes remarkably for the worse, Bush is a lock for reelection. Gore's already lucky to still have a political career right now; if he loses to Bush again, he's toast.
2) By saying not to run, he opens it up for 2008, assuming Bush wins reelection. The '08 Democratic primary will be bloody, given that the winner of that has a pretty good shot at the Presidency, considering the GOP nominee won't be anyone close to the Administration (i.e. Cheney or Powell).
3) When you say you're not running, you immediately become more popular. It's called the Perot Effect.
TB4p
Bush is no lock---he's not known for crossing the aisle
Chief Bush Aide:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/17/calio.resigns/index.html
Since the November elections, Calio also has been among the senior White House advisers cautioning conservatives -- especially social conservatives -- not to overreach and ask too much now that both chambers of Congress are back in Republican hands.
"There's been a lot of talk -- I call it hyperventilation -- about what we will now be able to do," Nick Calio said in the late November CNN interview. Given that the Republican majorities are quite narrow, Calio said, "the notion that someone can run some big agenda through I think is fallacious. It won't happen in reality. You are still going to have to reach out, work with the other side, make accommodations."
************************************************
Interesting reading, I've been talking judiciary for some time---Lott got my message out:
After Election 2002, Bush plans to fill courts with right-wing judges
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/08/findlaw.analysis.dean.judges/index.html
Election 2002 does not give the Bush-Cheney administration a mandate to load the federal judiciary with right wing judges. The voters, after all, had the economy and the war on their minds -- not the federal courts. But if you doubt it's about to happen, just sit tight and wait....
The margin of the 2002 midterm vote was so thin it says exactly the same thing to the nation that voters said in 2000. As Los Angeles Times political analyst Ron Brownstein notes: "However the final races sort out, it appears that the Republican advance Tuesday wasn't large enough to suggest that they have decisively broken out of the 50-50 divide that has defined American politics for the last half-decade."
We are a divided nation. And when all of the minority parties are added into the equation, the Republicans -- particularly the right-wing of the party -- remain in the minority. Nevertheless, Bush's hard right core constituency wants more than anything else to pack the federal courts with those who share their thinking, and are willing to impose it through the court system.
These judges are the most inappropriate conceivable in these times: They are uniform in perspective and activist in imprinting that perspective on the law.
To keep his hard right constituency happy, Bush is scouring the legal community for conservative judicial appointees. I promise, you've seen nothing so far: Nominees to come will be, if anything, far more objectionable than those already considered.
Unfortunately for everyone, this is a very dangerous, short-sighted political game....
Packing the judiciary is going to become a truly high-stakes game when one or more of the aging conservative Supreme Court justices step down. Never has that been more likely to happen than during the next year. It will occur long before the presidential race, so the argument can't be used that filling the high court must be left to the next president.
Meanwhile, there are presently sixteen conservative Bush judicial nominees awaiting confirmation. It is possible none of these nominees would ever have been approved. Yet now they are all, at least, going to be processed, and doubtless some, if not all, will be confirmed.
Bush aides have said that given the changed situation, the White House will resubmit the rejected nominations of Charles Pickering of Mississippi and Priscilla Owen of Texas. Both Pickering and Owen were earlier rejected for seats on the United States Court of Appeals by the then-Democratically controlled Senate.
The GOP is still far short of a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority in favor of its nominations. Will Democrats use the filibuster to prevent Bush from packing the judiciary (and for other conservative initiatives)?
I don't know. I do know if they don't, we will have a tyranny of a technical majority, which is -- in truth -- a minority that has the reins of government in its hands.
Chief Bush Aide:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/17/calio.resigns/index.html
Since the November elections, Calio also has been among the senior White House advisers cautioning conservatives -- especially social conservatives -- not to overreach and ask too much now that both chambers of Congress are back in Republican hands.
"There's been a lot of talk -- I call it hyperventilation -- about what we will now be able to do," Nick Calio said in the late November CNN interview. Given that the Republican majorities are quite narrow, Calio said, "the notion that someone can run some big agenda through I think is fallacious. It won't happen in reality. You are still going to have to reach out, work with the other side, make accommodations."
************************************************
Interesting reading, I've been talking judiciary for some time---Lott got my message out:
After Election 2002, Bush plans to fill courts with right-wing judges
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/08/findlaw.analysis.dean.judges/index.html
Election 2002 does not give the Bush-Cheney administration a mandate to load the federal judiciary with right wing judges. The voters, after all, had the economy and the war on their minds -- not the federal courts. But if you doubt it's about to happen, just sit tight and wait....
The margin of the 2002 midterm vote was so thin it says exactly the same thing to the nation that voters said in 2000. As Los Angeles Times political analyst Ron Brownstein notes: "However the final races sort out, it appears that the Republican advance Tuesday wasn't large enough to suggest that they have decisively broken out of the 50-50 divide that has defined American politics for the last half-decade."
We are a divided nation. And when all of the minority parties are added into the equation, the Republicans -- particularly the right-wing of the party -- remain in the minority. Nevertheless, Bush's hard right core constituency wants more than anything else to pack the federal courts with those who share their thinking, and are willing to impose it through the court system.
These judges are the most inappropriate conceivable in these times: They are uniform in perspective and activist in imprinting that perspective on the law.
To keep his hard right constituency happy, Bush is scouring the legal community for conservative judicial appointees. I promise, you've seen nothing so far: Nominees to come will be, if anything, far more objectionable than those already considered.
Unfortunately for everyone, this is a very dangerous, short-sighted political game....
Packing the judiciary is going to become a truly high-stakes game when one or more of the aging conservative Supreme Court justices step down. Never has that been more likely to happen than during the next year. It will occur long before the presidential race, so the argument can't be used that filling the high court must be left to the next president.
Meanwhile, there are presently sixteen conservative Bush judicial nominees awaiting confirmation. It is possible none of these nominees would ever have been approved. Yet now they are all, at least, going to be processed, and doubtless some, if not all, will be confirmed.
Bush aides have said that given the changed situation, the White House will resubmit the rejected nominations of Charles Pickering of Mississippi and Priscilla Owen of Texas. Both Pickering and Owen were earlier rejected for seats on the United States Court of Appeals by the then-Democratically controlled Senate.
The GOP is still far short of a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority in favor of its nominations. Will Democrats use the filibuster to prevent Bush from packing the judiciary (and for other conservative initiatives)?
I don't know. I do know if they don't, we will have a tyranny of a technical majority, which is -- in truth -- a minority that has the reins of government in its hands.
Thinking about it, Condoleezza Rice is the most inept official in American history. Her title is National Security Advisor. She should have been fired 10:00AM EST September 11, 2001. For 9 months she did nothing to prevent an attack, despite the obvious threats they were clearly warned of from many sources---especially Warren Rudman, Gary Hart and democrat SEN. Diane Feinstein.
The 9/11 probe with qualified individuals on the Democratic side will expose the truth. The facts will come from Lee Hamilton---his impressive qualifications have been discussed. War hero and FMR SEN. Max Cleland. Fmr. REP. Tim Roemer who was on the select committee on Intelligence---the subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security---the subcommittee on Intelligence Policy and National Security. Richard Ben-Veniste (former Watergate prosecutor), and Jamie Gorelick (former deputy attorney general).
Stooges along with a couple coverup artists were appointed by GWB and Lott but that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Tom Kean FMR NJ GOV--no qualifications but for some reason he's the lead. FMR Sen. Slade Gorton close ties to the airline industry. Jim Thompson Fmr GOV Illinois---no qualifications. Fred Fielding former counsel to Reagan---nuff said. John Lehman former Secretary of the Navy under Uncle Ronnie---ditto.
Bush's operatives might not want to hear the word LOCK when 04 is mentioned.
The 9/11 probe with qualified individuals on the Democratic side will expose the truth. The facts will come from Lee Hamilton---his impressive qualifications have been discussed. War hero and FMR SEN. Max Cleland. Fmr. REP. Tim Roemer who was on the select committee on Intelligence---the subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security---the subcommittee on Intelligence Policy and National Security. Richard Ben-Veniste (former Watergate prosecutor), and Jamie Gorelick (former deputy attorney general).
Stooges along with a couple coverup artists were appointed by GWB and Lott but that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Tom Kean FMR NJ GOV--no qualifications but for some reason he's the lead. FMR Sen. Slade Gorton close ties to the airline industry. Jim Thompson Fmr GOV Illinois---no qualifications. Fred Fielding former counsel to Reagan---nuff said. John Lehman former Secretary of the Navy under Uncle Ronnie---ditto.
Bush's operatives might not want to hear the word LOCK when 04 is mentioned.
Last edited:
M
miles
Guest
70/30 said:
Do you have any sources on those warnings? I think they would be interesting.
If they exist.
teddybear4play
better when i'm drunk
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2002
- Posts
- 12,906
Do you believe in talking cheese?miles said:
TB4p
RhumbRunner13
No alts, no "Iggy"
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2002
- Posts
- 3,463
teddybear4play said:
70/30 posts, therefore, I believe he must be able to talk as well as type.
Rhumb
Rightwing paranoids in a deep slumber--I know it's not Ruby Ridge but it's kinda big
Don and others can read an easy version--
http://www.thedubyareport.com/terrorisanship.html
I have repeatedly posted sources that the Administration admits to being warned of the probability of a domestic airliner being hijacked by Al Qaeda in early September 2001.
For the GWB accomodationists:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/homefront021213.html
Lott has promised to consult with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a close ally of the families, in choosing his second appointee. The families and McCain have been pushing for former Sen. Warren Rudman, R-N.H., who led an advisory group http://www.nssg.gov/Reports/reports.htm that warned of U.S. vulnerability to terrorist attacks before Sept. 11.
Gilmore/Rand Commission
---Toward a national strategy for combatting Terrorism---
http://www.rand.org/nsrd/terrpanel/terror2.pdf
Listed on the first page (even GWB can read that far)
"We are impelled by the stark realization that a terrorist attack on some level inside our borders is inevitable and the United States must be ready. We are similarly convinced, however, that much of the legitimate fear associated with the prospect of a terrorist attack can be substantially reduced.
Improving our ability to address the threat and reducing the fear of citizens and government leaders is possible if-and only if-we are willing to take bold action as a nation."
submitted December 15th, 2000.
This one sums it up for me...incompetence by RICE.
http://asia.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/16/rice.sept11/
National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, one of President Bush's closest confidantes, addressed the press Thursday about the administration's recent admission it knew of a possible al Qaeda hijacking plot last summer -- before the September 11 terrorist attacks....
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/22/9.11.warnings.facts/
The administration touched off the debate when it acknowledged that President Bush received an eleven-and-a half page report on al Qaeda during his August 6 daily intelligence briefing, known as the Presidential Daily Brief. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice stressed to the media that the briefing was an "analytic report" that mentioned hijackings but in the traditional sense.
And the desired coverup Fleischer supposedly says doesn't exist, doubtful considering the Republicans appointed nerfballs and Reagan coverup masters---
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/05/wh051702.html
Q Are you denying that the administration -- are you saying the administration did not try to delay any investigation?
MR. FLEISCHER: The administration made it clear to the Congress that we supported an investigation so long as it was done in a responsible way by people who had the expertise to know how to handle it. The administration made clear to the Congress that we are a nation at war, and that the key participants from the Central Intelligence Agency, from the FBI, and from the military have vital ongoing missions to protect our country, and we wanted to make certain that those who are doing the investigation were expert enough and cognizant of the fact of the current war-fighting duties of the personnel involved, so that this did not become a fishing expedition or another endless waste of taxpayer money in an open-ended congressional investigation. And we worked --
Q And you did try to delay it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, we work together to get a satisfactory result.
Q Ari, in fact, Senator Daschle did say yesterday that on several occasions, on more than two occasions, that the Vice President asked him to delay or block any congressional investigation. He said on one occasion that the President asked him to do that, at a breakfast meeting. Are you now saying that they weren't asking to block an investigation, they were just specifying what kinds of investigation they wanted? And if so, how many times did they make that request?
MR. FLEISCHER: What I made clear is that there were discussions with Congress about the need to make certain, particularly in the early stages of the war, that the people who were engaged -- 100-percent attention needed to be on fighting the war -- that their efforts would not be distracted at that point, at that moment in an investigation that could take them away from their immediate duties. We made it clear that we support an investigation so long as it's done by the responsible people and done in the manner that would be -- allow for the experts to have access to the information.
The info is all around---it didn't get covered long enough by the press but a commission is good. Lee Hamilton and Richard Ben-Veniste are the guys to spur it along.
Don and others can read an easy version--
http://www.thedubyareport.com/terrorisanship.html
I have repeatedly posted sources that the Administration admits to being warned of the probability of a domestic airliner being hijacked by Al Qaeda in early September 2001.
For the GWB accomodationists:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/homefront021213.html
Lott has promised to consult with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a close ally of the families, in choosing his second appointee. The families and McCain have been pushing for former Sen. Warren Rudman, R-N.H., who led an advisory group http://www.nssg.gov/Reports/reports.htm that warned of U.S. vulnerability to terrorist attacks before Sept. 11.
Gilmore/Rand Commission
---Toward a national strategy for combatting Terrorism---
http://www.rand.org/nsrd/terrpanel/terror2.pdf
Listed on the first page (even GWB can read that far)
"We are impelled by the stark realization that a terrorist attack on some level inside our borders is inevitable and the United States must be ready. We are similarly convinced, however, that much of the legitimate fear associated with the prospect of a terrorist attack can be substantially reduced.
Improving our ability to address the threat and reducing the fear of citizens and government leaders is possible if-and only if-we are willing to take bold action as a nation."
submitted December 15th, 2000.
This one sums it up for me...incompetence by RICE.
http://asia.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/16/rice.sept11/
National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, one of President Bush's closest confidantes, addressed the press Thursday about the administration's recent admission it knew of a possible al Qaeda hijacking plot last summer -- before the September 11 terrorist attacks....
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/22/9.11.warnings.facts/
The administration touched off the debate when it acknowledged that President Bush received an eleven-and-a half page report on al Qaeda during his August 6 daily intelligence briefing, known as the Presidential Daily Brief. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice stressed to the media that the briefing was an "analytic report" that mentioned hijackings but in the traditional sense.
And the desired coverup Fleischer supposedly says doesn't exist, doubtful considering the Republicans appointed nerfballs and Reagan coverup masters---
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/05/wh051702.html
Q Are you denying that the administration -- are you saying the administration did not try to delay any investigation?
MR. FLEISCHER: The administration made it clear to the Congress that we supported an investigation so long as it was done in a responsible way by people who had the expertise to know how to handle it. The administration made clear to the Congress that we are a nation at war, and that the key participants from the Central Intelligence Agency, from the FBI, and from the military have vital ongoing missions to protect our country, and we wanted to make certain that those who are doing the investigation were expert enough and cognizant of the fact of the current war-fighting duties of the personnel involved, so that this did not become a fishing expedition or another endless waste of taxpayer money in an open-ended congressional investigation. And we worked --
Q And you did try to delay it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, we work together to get a satisfactory result.
Q Ari, in fact, Senator Daschle did say yesterday that on several occasions, on more than two occasions, that the Vice President asked him to delay or block any congressional investigation. He said on one occasion that the President asked him to do that, at a breakfast meeting. Are you now saying that they weren't asking to block an investigation, they were just specifying what kinds of investigation they wanted? And if so, how many times did they make that request?
MR. FLEISCHER: What I made clear is that there were discussions with Congress about the need to make certain, particularly in the early stages of the war, that the people who were engaged -- 100-percent attention needed to be on fighting the war -- that their efforts would not be distracted at that point, at that moment in an investigation that could take them away from their immediate duties. We made it clear that we support an investigation so long as it's done by the responsible people and done in the manner that would be -- allow for the experts to have access to the information.
The info is all around---it didn't get covered long enough by the press but a commission is good. Lee Hamilton and Richard Ben-Veniste are the guys to spur it along.
Last edited:
And Lott boldly stated Clinton should have been impeached, not because of Monica but because of his failure to prevent the USS Cole attack. That's bad enough---then GWB, the great White savior--proceeds to insist Daschle abandon the inquiry. Cheney repeats that sentiment twice to Daschle and many more times to the press. Somehow GWB gets the rep as the leader in defence---laughable at the least. Maybe developing a war like a product line to assist in winning an election or two---will give that impression to voters.
Last edited:
