Al Gore is the best chance we Democrats have to win in 2008. Red Staters hate Hillary, and no one other than Gore is capable of beating her in the primary. Also, at a time when Democrats can and will win largely by relying on widespread anti-Republican sentiment, Al Gore is the safest bet. This is my argument.
I found it pretty weak. Is it a Democrat thing that I don't understand? Seriously, it's not really any different from the mass of mildly funny SNL skits that go on for about a minute or 2 too long.
As for Mr. Gore, he's had 6 years to work on a personality, and he has very little to show for it other than a passable job at navigating his way through jokes at his expense that someone else wrote.
The tired old "I really won the election" thing is only slightly less pathetic than the Rams fans whose team "really" beat the Patriots and similar sports near-misses with controversial officiating.
The Democrats had widespread anti-Republican sentiment in their corner in 2004 and couldn't pull it off.
There will be more of it in 2008, but if the Republicans get smart and go with someone more centrist (like McCain), it will actually matter who the Dems put up. And Al Gore isn't that guy. The Dems have another chance to pull their collective head out of their ass and continue to at least keep the GOP honest. Don't screw it up like you did in '04 (and '00)
You know what, you're full of shit. Bush's approval rating in 2004~45%. Bush's approval rating now~30%. And who the fuck else are you going to put on the ballot? Abraham Lincoln? He's dead. Here's a true quote from Richard Cohen of The Washington Post: "It may be that Gore will do more good for his country and the world with this movie than Bush ever did by beating him in 2000." He won the motherfucking popular vote by 500,000 people, you dumb shit. Your sports metaphor is irrelevant and uninsightful. Spend less time jacking off in front of the football helmets and go read more.
[I'm anonymous #2 addressing anonymous #3]: This sort of blinded-by-anger incoherence is a decent example of why the Dems keep losing.
I'm not sure what the Abraham Lincoln reference means. If "you" refers to the Democrats, I suggest that if all "you" have is Abraham Lincoln and Al Gore, then you're in pretty rough shape. Bill Bradley came across pretty decently 6 years ago, but the morons in your party buried him. John Edwards, despite being a sleazy tort lawyer, is probably more electable than either Gore or Kerry. I've heard good things about Warner.
Bush's approval rating isn't that relevant. He's not running for reelection. Unless Bush does some amazing things in the next year or 2, the next GOP candidate will probably try to respectfully distance himself from Bush's mistakes, just as Al Gore tried in 2000 to respectfully distance himself from Clinton's inability to keep his pants on. [I think Clinton was a great president, but as you may remember, a good number of the voters were unhappy with him about that in 2000] The GOP may be on the ropes, but the Dems still have to execute. It's not as if they can put Michael Moore or George Clooney on the ballot. I suggest that Al Gore is more or less in their league.
The incoherence of your post proves my point and my sports metaphor. Spend less time jacking off in front of Al Gore and more time reading, and maybe you'll have something to contribute.
Who knows... maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Al Gore could win the 2008 election by running on the "RE-elect Gore" slogan and using that slogan to stir memories of 2000 and paint all Republicans with a broad brush and taint them with the Bush legacy. Maybe that would reach the voters in the same way Cindy Sheehan reached some people before she went off the deep end.
But I doubt it. I think that the Republicans will put up a solid fight in 2008, and if all the Dems have waiting for them is Al Gore, then I expect to see 8 more years of Republicans in the White House.
Explain why I'm wrong, you dumb shit.
And while you're at it, you might answer my original question of how Al Gore's skit was actually funny. I didn't find it all that funny.
I think it's far too early for the Democrats to be worrying about 2008, especially when they're not looking so hot for 2006.
They seem to be counting on a "throw the rascals out" sentiment, and it might work in a few places (Santorum, Burns, Ney, CA-50). Congress does, after all, have an approval rating hovering around 20 percent. And on a generic ballot, Democrats are kicking Republicans around the court.
But look a little deeper, and the Democrats have some serious problems. While general congressional approval ratings are in the twenties, approval ratings for one's own congressman remain in the mid-fifties. And on their specific ballot, most voters are willing to push the button for the incumbent. And the Republicans look able to pick up a few seats (Dayton's seat in Minnesota could go for Kennedy, Kohl's seat in Wisconsin if Thompson enters the race, maybe even Menendez's seat in New Jersey if Kean's polling numbers hold), potentially negating any Democratic shift.
2008 may be the focus of many Democratic minds, but it shouldn't be--without a Democratic House and Senate, they won't get much done. And building a Democratic House and Senate must start in 2006.
Al Gore is the best chance we Democrats have to win in 2008. Red Staters hate Hillary, and no one other than Gore is capable of beating her in the primary. Also, at a time when Democrats can and will win largely by relying on widespread anti-Republican sentiment, Al Gore is the safest bet. This is my argument.
ReplyDeleteI found it pretty weak. Is it a Democrat thing that I don't understand? Seriously, it's not really any different from the mass of mildly funny SNL skits that go on for about a minute or 2 too long.
ReplyDeleteAs for Mr. Gore, he's had 6 years to work on a personality, and he has very little to show for it other than a passable job at navigating his way through jokes at his expense that someone else wrote.
The tired old "I really won the election" thing is only slightly less pathetic than the Rams fans whose team "really" beat the Patriots and similar sports near-misses with controversial officiating.
The Democrats had widespread anti-Republican sentiment in their corner in 2004 and couldn't pull it off.
There will be more of it in 2008, but if the Republicans get smart and go with someone more centrist (like McCain), it will actually matter who the Dems put up. And Al Gore isn't that guy. The Dems have another chance to pull their collective head out of their ass and continue to at least keep the GOP honest. Don't screw it up like you did in '04 (and '00)
You know what, you're full of shit. Bush's approval rating in 2004~45%. Bush's approval rating now~30%. And who the fuck else are you going to put on the ballot? Abraham Lincoln? He's dead. Here's a true quote from Richard Cohen of The Washington Post: "It may be that Gore will do more good for his country and the world with this movie than Bush ever did by beating him in 2000." He won the motherfucking popular vote by 500,000 people, you dumb shit. Your sports metaphor is irrelevant and uninsightful. Spend less time jacking off in front of the football helmets and go read more.
ReplyDelete[I'm anonymous #2 addressing anonymous #3]: This sort of blinded-by-anger incoherence is a decent example of why the Dems keep losing.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what the Abraham Lincoln reference means. If "you" refers to the Democrats, I suggest that if all "you" have is Abraham Lincoln and Al Gore, then you're in pretty rough shape. Bill Bradley came across pretty decently 6 years ago, but the morons in your party buried him. John Edwards, despite being a sleazy tort lawyer, is probably more electable than either Gore or Kerry. I've heard good things about Warner.
Bush's approval rating isn't that relevant. He's not running for reelection. Unless Bush does some amazing things in the next year or 2, the next GOP candidate will probably try to respectfully distance himself from Bush's mistakes, just as Al Gore tried in 2000 to respectfully distance himself from Clinton's inability to keep his pants on. [I think Clinton was a great president, but as you may remember, a good number of the voters were unhappy with him about that in 2000] The GOP may be on the ropes, but the Dems still have to execute. It's not as if they can put Michael Moore or George Clooney on the ballot. I suggest that Al Gore is more or less in their league.
The incoherence of your post proves my point and my sports metaphor. Spend less time jacking off in front of Al Gore and more time reading, and maybe you'll have something to contribute.
Who knows... maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Al Gore could win the 2008 election by running on the "RE-elect Gore" slogan and using that slogan to stir memories of 2000 and paint all Republicans with a broad brush and taint them with the Bush legacy. Maybe that would reach the voters in the same way Cindy Sheehan reached some people before she went off the deep end.
But I doubt it. I think that the Republicans will put up a solid fight in 2008, and if all the Dems have waiting for them is Al Gore, then I expect to see 8 more years of Republicans in the White House.
Explain why I'm wrong, you dumb shit.
And while you're at it, you might answer my original question of how Al Gore's skit was actually funny. I didn't find it all that funny.
I think it's far too early for the Democrats to be worrying about 2008, especially when they're not looking so hot for 2006.
ReplyDeleteThey seem to be counting on a "throw the rascals out" sentiment, and it might work in a few places (Santorum, Burns, Ney, CA-50). Congress does, after all, have an approval rating hovering around 20 percent. And on a generic ballot, Democrats are kicking Republicans around the court.
But look a little deeper, and the Democrats have some serious problems. While general congressional approval ratings are in the twenties, approval ratings for one's own congressman remain in the mid-fifties. And on their specific ballot, most voters are willing to push the button for the incumbent. And the Republicans look able to pick up a few seats (Dayton's seat in Minnesota could go for Kennedy, Kohl's seat in Wisconsin if Thompson enters the race, maybe even Menendez's seat in New Jersey if Kean's polling numbers hold), potentially negating any Democratic shift.
2008 may be the focus of many Democratic minds, but it shouldn't be--without a Democratic House and Senate, they won't get much done. And building a Democratic House and Senate must start in 2006.