The GOP will come after us in 2008 with LIBERALS

That is what I would do if I was Karl Rove. I would run some east coast liberals, like Romney, Pataki, or Guliani (or put them on the ticket with / under McCain). I would oppose mandatory minimums, support medical marijuana, and support gay and reproductive rights.

The conservatives would then get to choose between some Dem centrist or a third party conservative (like Buchanan or Colmbs). I would then use irrational fear, much like the Dems use against Nader, to force the conservatives to "play nice" with the GOP. Since cons fall for fear much easier than liberals, this would work for the GOP.

Liberals will still need to decide whether anything is worth standing up for in 2008. The dems will probably be so far to the right that the only excuse for liberals to vote for the dem would be that the GOP is worse. I think that this strategy, while flawed in 2000, will work in 2008.

Oh, wait...it's actually needlessly complicated.

planting stories, funding third parties, committing treason, allowing terror... these are old neo-con tricks. It is silly to think that the GOP would not run liberals if they thought that it would be the best route to victory.

from his cell in Leavenworth

They were all in it around my neck of the woods. They put Condi and Colin out front and went in through the back door at the black churches with gay marriage fearmongering. It worked. Watch out on these "liberals" because thats going to work too.

Can't we go after them with a parallel tactic?

it will keep us "in power".

The GOP gave us a prelude to 2008 at the NYC 2004 GOP convention. Liberals like Bloomie, Rudy, and Pataki all spoke there.

peace and low stress to you and yours.

I have time for only two ...

1) There was (is) a RATIONAL argument against a Nader Candidacy, based on the ability to garner enough popular support without deflating a second tier moderate/liberal candidate .... Your assertion that 'Dem's use irrational fear' to counter Nader is simply not true .... a RATIONAL argument exists ...

2) I, as a Liberal, do have ideals which I intend to live by ... I stand up for MANY things each and every day ..... I do NOT have to 'decide if anything is worth standing up for'; this is such a cynical position, it is simply unworthy of ANY 'Liberal' to have to 'search' for a single ideal to support ...

We LIVE it every day .... We DONT need to be cajoled to believe in something ....

As posted by DU'er madhound
Every time I see somebody showing off their political/Selection '00 ignorance again. OK, here goes.

First off, Gore, due to his connections with BP Oil, pissed off nearly 200,000 registered Dems, and almost 400,000 self described liberals in Florida. The reason that he pissed them off is because of his pro-drilling stance off the shores of Florida. In fact he pissed the registered Dems and liberals so much that they decided to double screw Gore and voted for Bush. Think about that for a moment, almost 600,000 votes lost, all due to the fact that Gore didn't want to cross his oily master. Whoops, there goes the election.

Secondly, the journalist Greg Palast handed the whole vote scam package to the Gore camp on a silver platter, while the recount process was still undreway. Now think about this, you've just been handed the key to not only winning the election, but to also banish your opponent and his cohorts to the political wilderness for a long time, if not forever. What would you do with that information? Well, Gore, on the advice of his handlers just sat on it. So much for wanting to win.

Third, even Al From, head of the DLC, concluded long ago that Nader didn't adversely effect the Gore campaign. From the 1/24/01 issue of Blueprint, the DLC house organ: "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race."<http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&conte ... > Get that? Gore did better with Nader in the race that he would have without Nader in the race.

Fourth, Gore and his handlers bungled the recount process, and handled the media madness poorly. Rather than jumping out in front of this and going on the attack, he decided to play defense and got his ass handed to him.

Fifth, Oh, and there was the matter of the Supreme Court and their Selection. Was Nader on the court? Did he influence the court's decision? No. And as a '04 election side note, who were the people who were crying fraud in Ohio in the '04 election? Yeah, the Greens and Nader, Kerry was mysteriously silent, and continues to be that way until this day.

Sixth, And at the end of of it all, when the votes were finally all counted(though it didn't matter then) it turns out that guess what, Gore actually won.

I'm sick and tired of Democrats using Nader and the Greens as their whipping post. The only reason that they are doing this is in order to divert blame and attention away from their own failures, both before and after the election of 2000. It is easier to scapegoat somebody that to perform the sort of in depth self analysis that is desperately needed concerning Democratic party practices and campaign strategies. So before you continue to play the Nader card, I would suggest that you stop, and take a hard, long look at the failings of the Democratic party and how they handle campaigns. The answers that you seek are there, not in blaming the person who had the least to do with the Democratic failings of '00.

in any way shape or form. No consulting, no advising, no lobbying, no campaigning, no commenting, no contact. Not even for Dog Catcher of Diona.

:kick:

Throw it BACK in their faces! I'm a Liberal and I refuse to be ashamed of that label!
What republicans deride as "civil liberties" , Liberals call CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!
Those who run from this labeling need to throw away the guilt trip!

:toast:

he is a one-trick pony and his one trick was Dumbya and that pony is headed for the pasture.

corporations and m$m, are two examples...

of the ticket....I guarantee you, the fundamentalist right would stay away in droves and deliberately throw the election to the Dems.

With Black Al Combs or Pat Bucchannan running as conservatives. If the GOP is soft on the drug war and immigration, they might be able to take the middle.

Wait and see how few neo-cons stay home in 2006. They are too invested not to vote.

political analysis by Korg, 70,000 B.C.

Is that what a Republican "liberal" is?

I am concerned that any "electable" Democratic ticket other than Gore/Feingold(?) would fall right into the Republican/MSM trap. Those two stand so far above the vast majority of potential candidates in character and strength at this point...

and are actually compassionate.

I think that Gore / Clinton would be a winning ticket. Same with Gore / Edwards. Or Gore / Kerry.

But I REALLY LIKE THE IDEA OF Gore / Richardson

:kick: