Heres my take, since I know you are all waiting breathlessly…
Big Al doesn’t expect to be the candidate, so he is free to unleash full blast while others must tiptoe around even yet. Reflexive and unthinking patriotism is a very powerful emotional force in America, hence a very powerful political force. He can front it face on without risk. If the reaction is negative, no hurt no foul, the Candidate (whomsoever) can disavow any knowledge of his actions. If the reaction is largely positive, the ground is broken, banzai!!
And, of course, there are hints of a “Draft Al” movement, a notion that sends me into paroxysms of mixed emotions. But he is signalling by this that if he is going to be the Candidate, it’s balls to the wall and take no prisoners. Lieberman will not be invited to dance again.
Whatever Al Gore will choose to say now, however brilliant, in reference to Bush adm. policies, will be taken as too little, too late and, moreover, always interpreted as an attempt to get even for losing 2000 election. There is an ample evidence of that reaction right here on this thread and in general public it is expressed far more clearly. Al Gore is stuck in the worst position: no matter how much damage he does to Bush, he damages himself 10 times more. That’s why I called any of his attempts to speak against Bush as extremely stupid. That way he only reinforces Bush. The only smart thing he can do now is to avoid direct attacks on Bush and build himself up as a wise and charitable colossus, who knows all the answers, who is above sordid political shenanigans and who is prepared to come and rescue his ungrateful countrymen at the time of real trouble. That would be smart. But he is too stupid to see that.
That’s why I have no time for his attacks on Bush.
I’m sorry, I understood almost none of that. No matter how much he damages Bush, he damages himself 10 times more, yet he reinforces Bush, but he is too stupid to understand, so he should portray himself as a wise and charitable colossus?
How can he damage Bush (albeit at 10% of his own hit points) and yet reinforce Bush? How can he damage himself at a rate 10 times of the damage he does Bush if he is already in a position where he can only be regarded as a sore loser?
I also really enjoy how concerned so many conservatives are for the appearance of Democrats and liberals. So many are counseling us to stop criticizing and speaking out and otherwise attacking Bush because we only look stupid doing so. Thanks! I appreciate your concern, but I can’t help but think it has more to do with the continually dropping approval ratings Bush is enjoying. Considering that the Gore speech under discussion here is the first major recounting of the massive failures Bush has racked up, the already dropping numbers must be quite scary for y’uns Bush types.
The discontent is rising up from the “working class”, if you forgive the hackneyed Marxism. But it applies in the sense that so many soldiers became soldiers in the hope of improving thier station in life. Each of those soldiers has, say, 10 persons attached to his or her self, parents, spouse, children, close relations, that sort of thing. Thier focus is a soldier who is in danger, in a place that utterly sucks, for a cause at best nebulous, and fulfilling a role as occupier that they have no training for. No matter how they tell you to write the letters home, the truth will leak out.
And they are not marching home, hurrah, hurrah. As the patience of each of those 10 people wears thin, they start talking. They don’t have political stickers on thier car, they wouldn’t dream of being caught dead at a protest… But they are getting sullen.
This kind of “invisible class” discontent doesn’t show up directly, these people don’t talk to reporters. But they talk to their neighbors. For a while, they were flattered with platitudes about how patriotic they are, but it wears thin. They want thier loved ones home, or a good reason why not. GeeDubya can offer neither.
NI… a couple of rightys calling Gore a loser is hardly ample evidence of much of anything besides their inability to refute the substance of his speech, which has yet to be done. Tilly ranted on for a bit, spewing the party line, (and making the thoroughly silly assertion regarding which party s/he ostensibly belongs to… a feeb attempt to lend legitimacy to the rant? No matter…) but not really directly addressing anything that I could see.
One can only conclude that Al speaking up was anything BUT stupid.
WUC, the issue here isn’t George Bush. It’s Al Gore. If Stoid wanted to discuss any issues she neglected to actually highlight one for discussion.
43% of all adults in the United States is at least eighty million people. I guess the question is, what’s so impressive about Al Gore that he’s on board with 80,000,000 other people? Sure, it’s all valid criticism, but… so what? Why is he a better candidate for President than, say, Stoid herself? Or you? The time to say stuff like this (well, not the exact details, but in a general sense) was October 2000.
I mean, talk about a day late and a dollar short. Sheesh.
I think this is the first contribution to practical sense on behalf of all left-leaning posters in this thread. This actually make sense. Perhaps he did make a calculated political move here, in which case I’d be wrong and he won’t be stupid. I almost wish it was the case for once, considering that we are talking about a man who can bungle anything.
However, it is extremely naive to discuss the speech per se. This speech is not a philosophical treatise or detached political analysis. It may be either a stupid outburst or political instrument, shrewdly employed to achieve certain political goals. If the latter, it makes sense to discuss the timing, the location, the points that were raised and that weren’t, and what the real objective might be (is he still playing with an idea to run in 04?) and so on. The “substance” of the speech is irrelevant.
How in god’s name do you arrive at that? In whose estimation is the substance of the speech irrelevant? Are you actually coming in here arguing that what is important here is to dissect possible political manueverings? That THAT is where import and meaning lie?
Good god…talk about disconnect!
This is a prime example of what I find so unendurable. God help us.
All Goar is much more stupider than Bush. You guys is just soar loosers cuz he was too stupid to win the election and now your crying like babees. who cares if Bush was given wrong info by the CIA? Sadamm was a evil trator who gassed his own people that’s the only important thing and we gots to stay & finish the job.
If you are going to waste space with that old story, at least post a link to the complete story. Like this
Humphreys was a best a total nutjob, at worst. a total nutjob. He certainly wasn’t some innocent victim of Big Brother, so don’t try to paint him as such.
Numbering added by yours truly for ease of response.
1-8/7/2003
2-New York University, NY. Organized by the campus Democrats and MoveOn.org.
3-Main thrust of the speech you refuse to read and continue to opine on: Dubya&Co have engaged in a “pattern of distortion” in foreign, economic and environmental policy. Of particular interest to me are the six “false impressions” concerning the Iraq invasion. Care to rebutt any of them? Or does it not bother you any that you were taken into a war under false premises and outright lies?
4-Amongst other things, he didn’t talk about the Bush doll. You heard that here. Or did you have something specific in mind you didn’t want him to mention?
5-Asked and aswered in the very post you quote. At any rate, as has also been mentioned upthread, what’s important is getting the message out. Where it leads, we can only speculate on at this point. And I might be totally wrong here, but I hardly think that was the point of the OP. In fact, she’s said as much in her ensuing posts. So how about it, care to[sub]finally[/sub] talk about the speech?
6-Huh? Come again? How do we “discuss the points that were raised” while keeping the “substance of the speech irrelevant”?
BTW, if you don’t mind my asking, if not the speech, what is your continuing interest in this thread? Other than repeatedly calling Gore an idiot that is.
Take comfort in these people who do not show up in polls. This vast army of silent Bush haters. They are there. I tell you, I saw them vividly in my dream. They do exist!!
Stoid, consider the fact that a full third of young Germans believe that the US staged the 9/11 attacks, and realize that crazy people are not in any way unique to America.
And as for your repeated demands for a rebuttal to Gore’s speech (made fifteen minutes apart), I’ll leave that to folks that have already done so.
I didn’t “opine” on the speech. I opined around the speech. I stated that very clearly from the start. When presented with a reasonable argument by ‘elucidator’ I conceded that Mr. Gore may not be stupid after all. In all of these I remain consistent.
Which three years is Gore referring to? The last three complete years are 2000, 2001, and 2002. Clinton was President through all of 2000. The 2001 economy is more a result of Clinton’s policies than Bush’s, since it takes many months for new economic policies to be adopted and to affect the economy.
Ah, well. Some Dems now blame Reagan for the bad economy in 1980. Bush is in good company.
