Okay. For one thing, that wasn’t posted to be picked apart. That’s my opinion, how I interperet what I absorb from the media, etc. I didn’t say you have to believe it, I didn’t say I’m right. Maybe I walked in here expecting the wrong thing, obviously I’m a little new and have much to learn about these forums, but for goodness sakes…don’t think of me as ignorant. I know what I need to know about this election. My vote has been casted. Deal.
I’m just glad that this thread is not related to the Rolling Stone cover photo.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Stoidela…One of us is going to have a very rough night. I hope you don’t have any money riding on Gore. The guy is a nutcase who has finally run out of time. What the hell was he doing campaigning THROUGH THE NIGHT??? Somehow Bush was comfortable enough to get a good night’s sleep.
Elvis…
I guess we will see the definitive word on this tonight. I would agree that tonight is a referendum on the last 8 years. If we have a Republican President, Senate and House. Along with a majority of Governors, I think you may have to re-evaluate this “broad resentment” you are dreaming about.
I think most Americans support the impeachment hearings, think that Clinotn/Gore are corrupt, and will send the democrats packing.
Either way, we will know in only a few short hours. I’m smiling, are you?
**Shatzi
**
If you walked in here thinking this was a good place to throw out propaganda and “feel good” comments without them getting picked apart, then I guess you were expecting the wrong thing. If you post it, it is fair game for the rest of the time you post on the SD. You don’t get to share your opinion here, you get to defend it.
The Zogby poll is identical to the Reuters/MSNBC poll. The major news organizations hire professional polling firms to do their polling for them. Reuters/MSNBC have been using Zogby during this election run.
Voter.com has been linking to all sorts of polls, and any poll junkies might check there.
In addition, The Drudge Report will be posting the results of the exit polls sometime this afternoon. Good luck getting into the site.
I’m on my way out the dorr so I can’t respond to anything else here, but I wanted to remind Freedom that Clinton, who knew without a doubt that he had it locked up in 92, also campaigned through the night.
stoid
Different people have different views about who deserves compassion. To some people, hardened and proven criminals deserve our compassion, to others, unborn children deserve compassion. Two sides, One fence. Never shall they agree.
No, I think he was giggling at the ridiculous hate crime laws that was brought up by Gore about the Byrd case and Bush got to slam that lob right back in his face.
8 years of Clinton/Gore hasn’t changed that. Do you really think another 4 years will?
Incorrect point. Do you really think that the Republican Party would have the backing it has if it only represented the top 5% of the nation’s populace? Please keep the propaganda on the fantasy land thread if there is one.
You have a cite where he was quoted as saying this right? You do have it in quotes after all, would hate to see you sued for slander.
Funny how Bush’s desire to protect the northwest don’t count as preserving the environment, but Gore’s desire to protect Alaska from oil refinery, but natural gas is okay, is in the best interests of environmental preservation. A little hint, if you use words like ALWAYS, NOTHING, NEVER, you are usually WRONG.
Yeah, I think I saw that on a billboard. :rolls eyes The only thing he has said about the abortion issue is that he is against late term, partial-birth abortions. Even most Democrats agree with that.
Sure it does. When he is elected, why don’t you just send your extra tax refund to me. Do you really even believe this crap? Do you really think Republicans would have the kind of support they have if only 1% were to benefit from their programs?
Another quote… please leave the cite and we will get back to you on that one.
How many times has Al Gore lied? And about STUPID things. If you had a DUI, would you run about bragging? Thank God he didn’t or we might think he was proud of the fact.
Sainthood automatically disqualifies one for political service. They all live in glass houses. You would think that the Clinton era would have taught you that everyone lives in a glass house and the public is tired of picking up the glass.
Why is Al Gore running? What plans does he really have that he couldn’t get done in eight years under Clinton? Core beliefs? Jesus, show me ONE core belief that Al Gore doesn’t change his mind on from day to day. Bush never wavers to the audience. He has his principles and his beliefs and whether you agree or not, he doesn’t suck your ass and lie to get your vote.
Yes, it is, that is why Al Gore will lose.
He is the governor of the BIG state of Texas with a [Forest Gump] whole other country [/Forest Gump] right next to it.
He invented the Republican Party and Christianity? My but you do give him way too much credit.
And people voting Republican are stupid…interesting tactic.
Shatzi, as much as I hate it, I have to reiterate Freedom2 here. ( ;), Freedom2.)
Easily said statements aren’t so easily defended. Your vote certainly is not up for attack here - I can’t picture a Doper who would chastize you for participating and exercizing your rights. But your posted beliefs are, for the simple reason that you posted them in a forum where discussion is sustenance.
As for me, I’d really like you to clarify your stance on the DUI issue. At what point does a teacher or a nurse undergo extensive criticism and observation for a misdemeanor? And how should a misdemeanor disqualify one from running for President? I’d like to point out that Bill Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury. If litigated and prosecuted, he could face a felony conviction.
Also, as JC pointed out, please note Gore’s past drug use as well. Double standards, double standards…
JustAnotherGuy, I’m curious as to your statements regarding the governorship of Texas. “key decision maker, executive officer”, and “he has done one hell of a job down there” were both statements that you made. From what I’ve heard (very little research on this, sorry), I’ve heard the exact opposite - that the Texas governorship is a VERY weak position, is responsible for very little, and what he has been responsible for, Bush hasn’t exactly done a great job apart from naming one hell of a staff.
If Bush is elected, I suspect we’ll see one of the most competent cabinets and WH staff in a while. But at what point does delegation of responsibility become shirking of duties? T’will be interesting, but I guess we’ll have to wait until he runs again in 2004. 
Delegation is leadership. I don’t know how the position of the ‘man who signs the bills’ (i.e. President of the U.S.) can be a very weak position under any circumstances. But an intelligent leader recognizes that they don’t and can’t know everything about everything and thus they delegate. An unwise leader [mumble]Al Gore [/mumble] 
alleges that they know everything and are flawed in both the assumption and much of their knowledge.
FTR, JustAnotherGuy, “Is THAT why he calls at risk children “children who cannot learn?”” is a little off. What Bush actually said during the October 3 debate in Boston was:
“[regarding at risk children] What that basically means is that they can’t learn.”
And the Clinton/Gore administration was a supporter of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. Cheney has made his position clear that he does not support this, and believes homosexuals have no place in the military.
LOL!
Well, Gore will win Massachusetts. If only Bush had killed a girl in his car while intoxicated 24 years ago maybe he’d have a chance here.
We know Ted Kennedy. Ted Kennedy is a Senator of ours. And George Bush is no Ted Kennedy!
Even if you can’t join me in voting for Al Gore, please do join me in exercising your right to vote today. This simple act is what makes our system of government so great and has enabled our democracy to endure for 224 years.
As to how I made my choice…
While a President can have an impact on the laws implemented in our nation, our system of government ensures that Congress and the Supreme Court have the final say on spending, on regulations, on the actions the government can and cannot take. Individual issues like reforming Social Security or Gun Control, will be decided by the 435 members of Congress (who can override any Presidential veto) and interpreted by the Supreme Court in light of our Constitution.
Consequently I feel the central and most important role of the President is that of leader in times of crises – both domestic and international. This is where the rubber hits the road and great Presidents are made (Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis) or broken (Carter and the Iran Hostage Crisis).
I learned an important lesson as a business manager – when interviewing candidates for a position, past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. Anyone can answer a hypothetical question correctly by simply studying and using the right buzzwords. The real test is how he/she handled a similar situation in the past.
Here is how I compare the two major candidates after my “interview”:
-
Both came of age during the turbulent Sixties and graduated from Ivy League colleges with modest achievements. From there, the stories diverge.
-
After graduation, Gore volunteered for enlistment in the U.S. Army and served in Vietnam, even though he disagreed with the war. To avoid the draft, Bush enlisted in the Texas Air National Guard. After initial training, Bush’s attendance record was so spotty that two supervisors declined to complete a May 1972 to April 1973 performance review for Bush, stating “Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report.”
-
After Vietnam, Gore settled in Tennessee and studied religion at Vanderbilt University while working as a newspaper reporter with The Tennessean in Nashville. Bush received an MBA from Harvard and began working in the Texas oil and gas industry.
-
In 1976, Gore was elected to represent Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives and he would fly back to Tennessee nearly every weekend, to hold town meetings in every part of the state. In that same year, while taking a break from the oil industry, a thirty-year old Bush went to stay with his parents in Maine. He went out drinking with friends and was convicted of a DUI while driving a car with three passengers. (To me, the length of time since the DUI is not relevant, it is Bush’s age when it occurred that’s relevant.)
-
Gore was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1984 and was re-elected in 1990, when he became the first statewide candidate in modern history to carry all 95 Tennessee counties. In 1986, Bush took a two-year hiatus from the oil business to work on his father’s election campaign.
-
While Gore continued to serve Tennessee in the Senate and run for President in 1988, Bush assembled a group of partners that purchased the Texas Rangers baseball franchise in 1989. He served as general manager of the baseball club for the next five years. In an interview during this period, Bush revealed that his career aspiration was to serve as Commissioner of Major League Baseball.
-
In 1992, Gore was elected Vice-President of the United States and become one of most active and influential Vice-Presidents. Bush was elected Governor of Texas in 1994 and re-elected in 1998.
My “interview” with the candidates leads to a clear choice between an Army Volunteer / Reporter / Congressman / Senator / Vice President who has consistently made decisions that served the nation’s interests and an Oil Man / Baseball Club Owner / Governor who has frequently made decisions that served his interests. The candidate whose past behavior predicates an ability to lead our country in time of crisis is Al Gore.
Perhaps the Atlanta Constitution put in best in their endorsement of Gore on October 20, 2000:
“Admittedly, Bush would not be the first such president in U.S. history. In many ways, Ronald Reagan was also a “face” for a group of well-seasoned and influential Washington policy-makers. But on the national stage, and in meetings with foreign heads of state, Reagan at least possessed an actor’s confidence that Bush utterly lacks. To put world leadership in the hands of the Texas governor would be to put a heavy load in a surprisingly fragile vessel.
“Moreover, the memoirs of important figures in the Reagan White House make it clear that the absence of strong leadership exacted a heavy price on the country. If the members of his inner circle disagreed among themselves, Reagan lacked the grounding to choose a clear path on his own. That contributed greatly to the Iran-Contra debacle, the decision to deploy troops in Beirut that led to the deaths of 241 Marines, and the runaway deficits that marked the Reagan era, among other problems.
“In the end, Gore is much more engaged in the world around him, more willing to do the work needed to comprehend a complex situation, more willing to think things through to the point that a solution is found. Bush is either unwilling to submit to that grind, or incapable of pulling it off.
“And what’s worse, he appears to know it. He’s running for figurehead; Gore’s running for president.”
Hmm, does this mean that Republicans might gain control of every branch of the government?
Regardless of party affiliations, I’d thínk that it is a bad thing.
It kind of defeats the purpose of a democratic system if the opposition is rendered impotent.
My knowledge of the American politics is quite limited here, so could anyone enlighten me?
How probable is this, and how much would it affect the balance of the two parties?
Those of you interested may want to take a look at the final Portrait of America. The PoA has a smaller margin of error than most polls.
Last night, I was told that the “coffin nail” report indicates a strong Republican showing across the board. This is a mythical final prediction that is supposedly highly accurate and which both candidates are informed of the night before the election. Sounds like bullshit to me, but that’s my buzz here inside the Beltway. The rumor mill was dead on the last two elections, but this one is closer.
All I have to say is this: the best way to turn moderate American people into Democrats faster than shit through a goose is to give the Republicans both branches of Congress, an irresponsible and uninformed Chief Executive, and an opportunity to pack the Supreme Court. If they go into a feeding frenzy of party-line legislation and administration, it’s time to saddle up the donkeys again. But the damage will have already been done to some of us.
Some of you are laughing now. I’ll just point out that if all three branches of our government wind up in the control of one party, then willingly or not we have all signed off on an agenda which we cannot easily interrupt. Think about that a minute.
Stoid, it’s good to see that you’re passionate about your politics. I can appreciate that in a person.
I think you would be wise to channel all that energy into something positive. Have you considered running for office? We need energetic, motivated people in Washington. And I’m pretty sure they’ll be a vacancy for the democratic nominee for President in 4 years…
Lisa, running out to cast my vote
Jaakko, according to what I heard last night, it’s going to look something like this:
Republican majority in House: anywhere from twelve to twenty seats.
Republican majority in Senate: 53-47
Republican President
Turnover in Supreme Court: most likely two (Rhenquist and Stevens) within the next year or two. Sandra Day O’Connor supposedly has health problems which may compel her retirement as well. With her exit, I think we can safely say that Roe v. Wade will be reversed by the “strict constructionists” that Bush plans to appoint.
*Rillian *,
If you truly, objectively voted by ‘the interview’ your clear choice last election would have been Bob Dole. The clear choice the election prior would have been George Sr.
It’s okay to be partisan, but when you attempt to make it look objective, it is easily rebuked.
With that logic, I am sure this [sarcasm]non-partisan rag will hold the current President responsible for the deaths of those American sailors who were fueling in a known, historic area of terrorist attacks.[/sarcasm] Puh-leeze. Tax cuts accompanied by big government spending created the deficit. Talk to all those Democratic Congresspeople who wrote the bills during the Reagan administration. If Ronnie was so incompetent, you can only blame the Democrats for the inflation. However, we non-blaming-Party-politics-for-everything-that-goes-wrong majority can separate economics from economic policy of the government. The feds don’t have as much control over the economy as some would like to think.
Lovely conclusion based upon a completely objective interview. [/sarcasm again]
**Jaakko
**
A little understood fact about America is that we are not a democracy. We are a Republic. I do know that I do not understand all the finer differences, but this is what I understand some of the major diffrerences to be:
It takes more than 50% to change everything. Ie: The Constitution, States rights etc…
Regardless of which party is in power, it must still govern in the frame work of the Bill of Rights.
The party in the minority can still fillibuster in order to stall and prevent legisalation. It takes a 2/3 vote to end a filibuster.
One of the nice things about our system was mentioned up above. If the Republicans get wild and cray, they will get voted out in 2 years. The same thing happened to the democrats in '94.
And, even though we are not a straight democracy, the will of the majority does seem to get paid attention to. If the majority of the country wants the Republicans in power, then the Republicans will be in power until the people change their minds.
BTW…One indicator to me that this is going to be a run away race for Bush, is that Lazio is close to Hillary. I thought this was going to be a gimme seat for Hillary, much like Ted Kennedy gets his seat in Mass. If Lazio beats Hillary, I will be walking around humming…
Ding dong the witch is dead…
for the next week or so.
smirks Thanks for the tips, guys Evidently I don’t have the patience and stamina to participate in these debates, but I do enjoy just being an onlooker. Perhpas that’s where I’ll stay from now on. A lot of you have very interesting points to bring up, and views on issues that have not been taken before. I admire the passion and resource of intellect lot of you have in arguing and defending your points. So I’ll stop gushing for now and just sit quietly to watch.
Oh, and when we start talking about biology or environmental issues, I’ll certainly have something intellectual to say
arrivederci!
Forgotten the 1998 and '99 elections already, have you?
1998: GOP confident up until the last day or so of a 30-seat or so GAIN in the House, consistent with mid-term electoral history. Late coalescence of anti-vendetta feeling caused a significant LOSS of GOP seats, and almost the margin of majority. That didn’t keep 'em from going ahead with impeachment anyway, in a lame-duck session, before the chances of holding the votes together dwindled.
1999: ALL big-state governorships, and ALL big-city mayorships, up for election, and many smaller ones too, go Democratic.
2000: What’s going to be so different today?
No evidence exists for your statements about “most Americans”.
Rilliam- You’re absolutely right. It’s plainly obvious that we should only vote for candidates who have a strong past history of success.
Of course, by that token, we never should have had Abraham Lincoln (who could only get elected to Congress for a single term and was defeated for the Senate) or Harry S Truman (whose haberdashery failed completely during the ‘boom’ of the '20’s) as Presidents; meanwhile, we should devote more time to such brilliant former Presidents as Ulysses S. Grant (who proved himself an innovative, competent, courageous leader during the Civil War, only to run the most corrupt administration in all of history) and Dwight D. Eisenhower (who also proved himself a capable and courageous leader in WW2, but whose administration was not particularly notable for its leadership).