| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Home Front | ||
| Democrats attack Gore’s decision | ||
| 2003-12-10 | ||
| [Edited for brevity] Democratic presidential aspirants met in New Hampshire for the last debate of year, but the campaign was overshadowed by Al Gore’s endorsement of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. Sen. Joseph Lieberman lashed out at the former vice president Tuesday, saying he was surprised Gore would back a candidate who "will take this party back to where we were before [President] Bill Clinton Traitor! "I don’t have anything to say today about Al Gore’s sense of loyalty, Traitor! But he said he was caught off-guard. "I was surprised about the decision. I was surprised that Al Gore didn’t notify me before I learned about it from the media — that would have been the right thing to do. I was surprised that Al Gore would endorse a candidate who stands for so many things that Al Gore has not stood for." Traitor!
Neener, neener! but the calls were not returned.
F**king Traitor! Prior to Tuesday’s endorsement, a source told CNN that Gore — the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate in 2000 — thinks a protracted primary campaign would serve only to help President Bush. So now that I’ve decided to make a King, you other losers drop out Erik Smith, a campaign press secretary for Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, sounded as if the Gephardt team was surprised by the news. Traitor! "Dick Gephardt fought side-by-side with Al Gore to pass the Clinton economic plan, pass the assault weapons ban and defend against Republican attacks on Medicare and affirmative action. On each of these issues, Howard Dean was on the wrong side I never tried this before. It IS fun. Fred, I tried to link to the title but didn’t work right. Is the link too long? | ||
| Posted by:Glenn (not Reynolds) |
| #17 CY-Gore the sperminator, who cares what he thinks....moron. Although, he is the best cure for insomnia. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-12-10 11:08:54 PM |
| #16 LH is right. It was a tie. The results of the election both in Florida and nationwide were well within the margins of error for the various polling systems. No QC (impossible in a secret ballot system), operators (the voters) who are in many cases senile, semiliterate, or just plain metally incompetent, and old equipment. If anything, the number of dimpled/hanging/swinging chads found during the recount should reinforce just how wide the margin of error is. I've always suspected that the MOE in elections is closer to 5% than the 1% that most election officials and equipment manufacturers claim. Just another reason why we need an Electoral College. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-12-10 7:41:24 PM |
| #15 LH, sorry, but that's not really right. Bush won the election on any count by winning the majority of electoral votes and no amount of chad counting by Gore was going to change that. Noone should be allowed to sue their way to the Presidency: that SCOTUS rightfully put the smackdown on the Gorebot after 5 weeks I can only thank God for the rest of my life! Presidential Election recount 2000=Gore coup attempt |
| Posted by: Jennie Taliaferro 2003-12-10 4:07:50 PM |
| #14 So I assume from all this carrying on about how endorsements disenfranchise the voters that no other Democratic candidate has received any endorsements this year? And that GWB hadn't received any this time four years ago? I can't imagine who's going to change their vote on Al Gore's say-so, but let's not pretend candidate endorsements are some kind of new threat to democracy. |
| Posted by: VAMark 2003-12-10 3:37:58 PM |
| #13 "Think about it: he couldn't carry his own state in 2000" Washington D.C. is not a state. As someone who was born, raised, and will hopefully die here in TN, I can tell you that Al is not a Tennessean. Just because he's got a Southern accent doesn't mean he's a Bubba. He was raised in D.C. |
| Posted by: Kentar 2003-12-10 2:59:28 PM |
| #12 Interesting take on Tech Central Station, describing this as the opening salvos of the 2008 campaign for the Democratic nomination between Gore and Clinton. Since the Clintons are doing whatever they can to destroy the Democratic party (Moveon.org, couple of other behind-the-scenes plots), it may be an exercise in futility. I dispise Hillary Clinton, her husband, and their friends. Anything that will evict them from American politics would be good for the nation, IMO. Let Gore roll - it's a flat tire anyway. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-12-10 1:27:59 PM |
| #11 LH: It -was- a tie, but doing the recount that Gore had asked for would have meant a Bush win. |
| Posted by: someone 2003-12-10 1:22:46 PM |
| #10 I'm sure that Kerry was the most pained on a personal level... they're were like a band of brothers in SE Asia. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-12-10 12:22:48 PM |
| #9 1 the reality of the election was that it was a tie. Whichever way the SCOTUS might have ruled could have been justified. Both sides had justification in making their case in court, and those who accuse either side of being scum for doing so are themselves bitter partisan a-holes. (although Jim Baker did say some bitter partisan A-holish things himself, that doesnt mean Dubya is not the legitimate president) re Gore. In 2000 Gore said that Leiberman was THE MOST QUALIFIED Dem to become Pres in an emergency. I see nothing that has changed in that regard - other than feuding between Gore and Joe re Gore's campaign, Gore desperately trying to distance himself from Clinton and the DLC, etc. As a Joe supporter, I am suitably aggrieved. Gore may see this as positioning himself with the left of the party, to fight against Hillary in 2008. I think it will be an abysmal failure. I hope it not only doesnt help Dean, I hope it does help Joe. Mojo - pols are pols, in both parties. Dubya has jumped all over on steel tariffs for partisan advantage. Maybe McCain is different, Dubya aint. Charles - that tradition is found in both parties, and was amply demonstrated in the GOP 2000 nomination campaign. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-12-10 12:06:05 PM |
| #8 If anyone is suprised by this you shouldn't be. It's just following the fine Democratic party tradition of 'backing the one with more money'. |
| Posted by: Charles 2003-12-10 11:13:00 AM |
| #7 Don't drop the soap in the Democrat shower, you guys. These guys have no real morals (just "positions"), and feel no loyalties except to themselves. |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-12-10 11:04:34 AM |
| #6 The Democrats are never going to admit that Gort lost the election. It's just not in their makeup. GnR -- welcome to posting on Rantburg; may your highlighter never run dry... :-) |
| Posted by: snellenr 2003-12-10 10:54:31 AM |
| #5 Do you suppose that, in the fine Democrat Party tradition of getting all mad and burning bridges, some Donks will now start admitting that Algore didn't actually win the 2000 election? |
| Posted by: BH 2003-12-10 10:37:36 AM |
| #4 From USA Today: Like early primaries, early endorsements concentrate power for choosing a nominee in the hands of a few. Endorsements help candidates raise money and build organizations, both crucial to winning a nomination early. The result is to deprive millions of voters of a say in the selection. Howard Dean - Selected, not Elected? |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-12-10 10:14:29 AM |
| #3 Frank: Yeah, the posting program is smarter than I thought. This probably didn't need to be here but irresistible. Tom Bodett coined the simile "like throwing a raw steak to a pack of dogs." |
| Posted by: Glenn (not Reynolds) 2003-12-10 10:13:44 AM |
| #2 It would be amusing if the next NH or Iowa polls show that Gore's endorsement of Dean hurt Dean. |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-12-10 10:00:52 AM |
| #1 the link works fine. Al Gore is a pedantic a**hole. Think about it: he couldn't carry his own state in 2000, and has thrown any principles in order to make himself look as if he's back in the game by backing Dean. His treatment of Lieberman was the worst - backstabbing asshat |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-12-10 9:57:05 AM |