How about a Gore/Kerry ticket?

Part of this is based on fairness. Both won their respective elections and were screwed out of the presidency in various ways but also, they seem to complement each other well. Both are bright and articulate, Gore's rediscovery of his charisma offsets Kerry's lack of same, both have military experiance (albeit as a reporter in Gore's case).

How about it? Would you vote for a Gore/Kerry ticket?

eom

Why would selecting Kerry damage Gore's chances?

...that the democratic party has been utterly complicit in keeping us there. Kerry had the DNC convention PURGED of any anti-war messages in 2004, and he ran a campaign that was all about how he'd fight the war differently, but that he wouldn't end it because it was oh-so-necessary to "the war on terrorism." Repackaged Bush lies.

I didn't vote for him in 2004 and wouldn't vote for him in 2008.

On the other hand, I'd LOVE to see Al Gore run-- and I hope he picks a better running mate than Kerry.

Kerry is the main reason the Senate is even talking about getting out of Iraq.

...so it certainly was not nonsense at all. Kerry is whistling a different tune these days. Good for him. He still has blood all the way up to his elbows, nonetheless. Not the kind of politician I want for prez.

take him long.

Kerry voted to authorize the war against Iraq.

Kerry utterly repudiated the anti-war sentiment among his own party during the 2004 DNC convention.

Kerry refused to discuss ending the war throughout his 2004 campaign-- furthermore, he spoke consistently about the need to prosecute it.

After losing the election, Kerry changed his tune. I'm glad he did. Nonetheless, his judgement on the matter was horrible from 2002 until after the election, most likely because he was playing the political calculus to appeal to "moderates," just as HRC is doing today. Not presidential material, IMO.

spin? Did he make the speeches and call Bush out on the war long before it started? Were those his comments at the link "Kerry's position on Iraq"? Did he win the nomination? Did he win the ant-war vote?

The spin is denial!

It's a shame people like you concocted your own reality instead of listening to what the man actually said. People like you are the ones that helped the right spread the bullshit "they're both for stay the course" lie. I bet you did the exact same thing with Gore and Bush in 2000, and voted for Nader, didn't you?

Gore hasn't changed. He's the exact same Gore he always was, with the exact same concerns. The only difference is there's not much of an attack machine to confuse you.

I cannot even believe you didn't vote for Kerry. YOU helped extend this war. YOU have blood on your hands since Nov 2004 - not John Kerry.

.

the election is the reason. kerry was happy to sit on his hands when it counted.

It became an issue long before the election, and people like Rahm Emanuel and others in the Democratic Party were all to eager to sweep it under the rug.

Are you going to tell me Kerry wasn't the Kerry in Kerry-Feingold?

of taking office.

enough to cause you to vote for Kerry, there's no help for you.

Kerry was NEVER for the war
The fact of the matter is that Kerry spoke out against the war before it started. Of the people who now say they voted for leverage to get the inspectors in etc, he is one of the few who can point to actually having spoken out before the invasion. He spoke on Jan 23, 2003 at Georgetown University. He also called for "regime change at home" after Bush invaded. He was labeled "anti-war" at least through June of 2003 - a time period when the war was popular. (If you want a refresher of what he really said in 2004 - listen to the Kerry 2004 Daily Show - currently included on their front page.)

You say he only spoke of a "he'd fight the war differently" During the campaign he spoke of two things:

- The decision to go to war was wrong. (Remember words like "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time", "we should only go to war as a last resort" (that links to his basic belief system - as the main definition of a just war)

- How he wold handle the war we were in. This was reality, he was running to be CIC, he had to say what he would do. He spoke of "No permanent Bases" and a large scale diplomatic effort. He spoke of expecting some withdrawals in 2005. (Bush said this was his plan - the media agreed - saying there was no difference.)

You seem to say that he should have been for immediate withdrawal - that would lose NOW. In 2004, Kerry's proposals were designed to try to avoid the situation we are in now. His proposals from 2004, 2005, 2006 and now have features in common. The ISG basically backed Kerry's proposals.


Kerry did not equate Iraq and the War on Terror.

- Iraq was the "wrong place" in his wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" Do you remember that he spoke of how Bush outsourced Tora Bora to the Afghan warlords who were fighting with the Taliban weeks before"?

- Do you remember his University of Pennsylvania speech where he spoke of how the war on terror should be occasionally a military effort, but mostly intelligence and law enforcement.

- Or his Matt Bai NYT magazine interview where he spoke of that type of effort having the goal of reducing terrorism to a "nuisance" rather than the pervasive fear it was in 2004. (Amazing that conservatives like George Will now credit Kerry with being right on this.)

- Kerry's book, "The New War" written in 1997 spoke of the dangers of non-state criminal (and terrorist) actions.

- Kerry actually wrote legislation in the early 1990s that dealt with international money laundering that helped drug and terrorist rings. They were implemented only after 911 - and they are about the only successful thing that has been done on the war on terror

As to Kerry "purging the DNC of an anti-war message", all I can say is - you need to rethink the purpose of the convention.

- Kerry had 3 hours on network time (down from the 9 hours in 2000) to introduce himself to the American people. He did mention his own anti-war protests immediately after the sentence he had on fighting as a young man. He also criticized Bush for going to war before the diplomacy was exhausted and when it was not a war of last resort. The candidate himself spoke partially an anti-war message.

- What you are likely complaining about is that he did not give anti-war activists the right to take over part of his convention. Are you old enough to remember 1968? How quickly would Kerry doing that have translated to how can you trust him with the country when he can't even control his own convention.

:bounce:

:thumbsup:

Now that is a ticket to get excited for!

I would vote for a Gore/Anyone ticket. Al Gore is the man that can get our country back onto the right track.
GORE 2008!!!!!!!!

combinations that would be just bizarre:

Gore/Lieberman or Gore/Nader - guaranteed to start a flame war :rofl:

Gore/HRClinton - watch yer back, Al :scared:

Gore/WJClinton - I don't know if it's legal, but I like it :bounce:

Gore/Kerry - Why would Kerry want it? Veep seems like a demotion from Senator-for-life.

Gore/Edwards - could be the one.

We need to build our slight majority there.

Many potential nominees' seats are probably a lot safer for Democratic succession than senators from other states. Massachusetts, certainly, leans Democratic. New York. Illinois. California, etc.

I would be more than comfortable with Gov. Richardson as he probably has the most real world experience of any currently declared candidate. Former Senator Edwards also doesn't threaten to rob the balance. (He already did that.)

If the GOP wants to replace a couple of their Senate seats, then I have no problem with that. Of course, they would follow the pig principle of Holy Joe and hold on to the seat if they lost the Presidential run.

for Gore's veep and Gore wound up choosing Joe Lieberman.

I wish he hadn't.

to the wooden and boring Gore.

People are so fucking gullible. Even "enlightened" DUers.

Two great men with major minds.

Nor Gore, of course.

(nothing against President Gore, but I still love my JK) but I hate it when these polls show up.

instead of candidates that ARE NOT?

on the year when this is basically ours to take. Sigh.

why is Bush in the WH?

It's been throughly proven that Gore won the popular vote and it's been equally as throughly proven that he would have won the electoral college without the criminal tactics of the GOP in Florida. Kerry's case isn't as proven but the evidence strongly suggests he won both the popular and electoral college too.

Gore, fine- but no Kerry for me, thanks.

He broke his pledge to count every vote, despite every warning he received. Too many, myself included, know that and will never work for him ever again.

Someone else mentioned take no senator, we need what we have for a majority. I would offer we will win more senate seats in '08, but.... the point is a very salient one. That said:

Gore & Edwards, Obama, Fiengold, Sanders, even Maxine Waters, John Conyers.

For me a list of Gore VP picks are just huge.


Al Gore & Ted Kennedy. Puts a Kennedy in the executive branch again, and gives Kennedy a carrer ending curtain call. There are problems with Gore running with Kennedy, true, but I like 'em.

did NOT "fold"???

in the face of clear evidence that he got more BALLOTED votes in Florida than Bush did (had every vote been counted, NOT INCLUDING voters excluded from the polls, Gore won by 60-600 votes, a fact that Dems KEEP IGNORING BECAUSE GORE REFUSED TO REQUEST A STATEWIDE RECOUNT)!!!

Why does Gore get a pass for caving in numerous times, sending Lieberman out to speak on his behalf, etc., when there is hard evidence he won, the ballots were counted,

but Kerry is evil for "caving in"
when there is no hard evidence he came anywhere near winning Ohio in 2004?

FORGET votes that never got tabulated or counted, the voters who were taken off the rolls, they are irretrievable. You can't assume how they would have voted. Gore won, Kerry did not, Gore betrayed his supporters.

But America likes a winner so you guys show a peculiar loyalty to Gore.

for quietly accepting the theft of democracy. As a black american it is really hard for me to overlook what they did.

in 2000, 2002, and 2004 - the Dem PARTY. And after 2000 election fraud, the DNC's Office of Voter Integrity PROMISED Dem voters and Dem candidates they would act to counter the election fraud tactics of the RNC for those 4 years they were charged with doing so.

That was Terry McAuliffe and Donna Brazile.

How did they do? Did they do their job for Dem voters and candidates?

Thanks for providing a reason for your disapproval.

and would have some value with some voters, just less with me. Though Gore/Kerry would have a certain, Gottcha value, he he he.

A Gore/Kerry win would give the nation a way of saying that the nightmare is over now, we can put it behind us and get on with cleaning up.

Our party and Republicans were not going to allow what happened in 2000 ever happen again. Just take a look at the recent jail terms and resignations asked for in Ohio. These were all people involved with counting the votes in Ohio or setting up a fair system for voting in 2004.
Edward's is lying when he says he wanted to count the votes and Senator Kerry didn't.

Even as the only alternative to the Republican ticket???? I chose the "only because I wouldn't vote Republican" option. I don't particularly like that ticket, but it would certainly beat Rudy or McCain, and I don't buy the idea of a protest vote meaning anything in this upcoming election. Who would you 47%(as of my checking the poll) vote for???

would vote for the previously hyped smooth talking, smear proof, inevitable nominees who seemed to have disappeared now that the primary circus is underway.

I'd LOVE to elect Al Gore. I will never trust John Kerry again.

When did you trust him?

eom

came remarkably close to winning- personally, I think he did win. Also, what about the fact that Senator Kerry has been ahead of the curve and leading on the issue of Iraq especially.Much of what he talked about and warned us about has come to pass. I would call him a visionary.

But whatever,you will probably not listen to reason at all. You would rather blame him entirely for the outcome and not even consider what he was up against. I don't know where you lived in 2004, but where I lived, I was constantly subjected to color codes warnings, news coverage of new threats from terrorists, rosy reports from Iraq and a republican smear machine the likes of which I never encountered before- complete with character assignations, ridicule, lies and intimidation.
I will always believe Senator Kerry's campaign was a very good one- especially since he did it mostly on his own without much help from other Democrats within the party.
Gore was said to have run a bad campaign in 2000. It was said it was his to lose. He didn't even win his home state of Tenn. he retired from the public for two years. Now, all of that is forgotten and he is viewed as a hero.

Senator Kerry never had the luxury of retreating from public view, in fact he didn't want to. He had made promises in 2004 that he was determined he was going to fulfill. So he kept fighting for what he believed in and he kept fighting for us. All the while, he was a major target of the press and even some ungrateful bloggers.
Frankly, I am tired of hearing all the negative and ungrateful bullsh*t from those who want to blame him for just about everything that has happened since 2004. He deserves better treatment.
As for you, I hope you get the candidate you deserve.

In your historic perspective there is no reward for earning the best record on corruption and open government issues.

Your narrow view of the IWR as the reason we invaded Iraq trumps the last 40 years?

Take Kerry out of the picture of the last 40 years. There would have been no IWR, because there wouldn't have been a vote for ANY resolution. The New World Order that would have been in its second decade of existence by now wouldn't NEED the input of congress.

Your loathing for the best government corruption fighter and open government lawmaker we have had in tis nation for the last 4 decades is just out of proportion.

Had more lawmakers like Gore stood with Kerry over Reagan and Bush on IranContra, BCCI, and CIA drugrunning there would be no Bush2, no 9-11, and no Iraq war today.




http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/10/int04054.html

(...)

Robert Parry:

(...)

And the Democrats -- the accommodation Democrats -- decided that they would simply agree (about Iran-Contra machinations) that Oliver North did it, Reagan was just inattentive, and Bush really wasn’t involved. They kind of bought the cover story. And that cover story basically held for quite a while, until Lawrence Walsh was able to break through and find out that there had been this major cover-up, which doesn’t occur really until 1991 or so.

Another scandal breaking out in 1991 after the Persian Gulf War was known as Iraqgate. And Iraqgate was in a sense the opposite side of the coin from Iran-Contra because, while one part of the Reagan Administration was helping the Iranians in the mid-'80s, another part was helping the Iraqis, who were at war with the Iranians. Essentially the United States was playing both sides in providing sophisticated equipment, including material that could be used for weapons of mass destruction, to Saddam Hussein. Now this was also an embarrassing set of facts that George H.W. Bush did not want to have out. He had been calling Saddam Hussein worse than Hitler at that point. And so the idea that he had been secretly involved in a program in the 1980s to assist Saddam Hussein was information that they wanted to keep under board.

(...)

You also had, in the 1992 campaign, another scandal, which was directly involving George H.W. Bush -- it became known as Passportgate. Going into the fall of 1992, with Bill Clinton ahead, George H.W. Bush was rather desperate. They were looking for what they called a silver bullet to take out Bill Clinton. The outgrowth of this pressure was to search Bill Clinton’s passport file to see if there had been some possible letter denouncing his citizenship. That was the rumor. There was no such letter, but they found a tear in the corner of the passport file. And from that, the Bush Administration formulated a criminal referral to the FBI and then leaked it. The Senior Bush began using that to raise suggestions that he was unpatriotic. And Clinton’s numbers started to fall. It was a very effective dirty trick.

(...)

But after Clinton won in 1992, he and other winning Democrats basically decided to not help or shelve those investigations. At that point, we forget that Lawrence Walsh, the Independent Counsel who was a Republican, wanted to pursue George H.W. Bush because he had found out that George H.W. Bush had been withholding documents that had been long requested for the investigation. Bush also refused to submit to a second interview, which Walsh had postponed until after the '92 election, so Bush would not be distracted. But then after Bush got voted out, he issued pardons for six of the Iran-Contra defendants, which effectively crippled Walsh’s investigation.

Bush was allowed essentially to walk off into the sunset with his reputation intact-- when there was a potential from all four of these investigations to have implicated the Senior Bush in misconduct -- his alleged involvement in the October surprise, his involvement in Iran-Contra, his involvement in Iraqgate, and his involvement in the Passportgate affair. But Clinton and other Democrats felt that it was important to try not to stir things up, to see if they could work with the Republicans cooperatively and with the new Administration coming in. It turned out to be a gross misunderstanding of the situation.

(...)

after learning about that ticket.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Are you wondering why this country has already suffered six years of George Bush? I believe it's all the BS (like the bonesman BS) spewed by some people in lieu of facts.

wonder how seriously Kerry took the whole deal.

Kerry and his campaign put a lot of effort into pursuing the recount and taking legal action. How many times did Edwards speak out about this after that alleged incident? I even remember Teresa Heinz Kerry speaking up about election fraud.

was effectively over.

has nothing to do with it. If the votes and evidence brought the truth to light, conceding is not a legally binding action.

Bush then?

neither is Gore. It really is tragic.

There's a difference. Gore was also gaining net counts as more areas were recounted multiple times. Kerry mainly lost votes by voter suppression due to long lines. These were votes not cast - thus not countable. In addition he lost votes to a Caterpillar ballot - and just like the votes Gore lost to a butterfly ballot - making a case that the votes were obviously counted for a candidate the voters did not intend to vote for did not and could not change anything. There was no smoking gun in 2004 (when it needed - and maybe not even now) that there was any machine fraud.

What was Kerry supposed to challenge on:
- exit polls?
In a Republican controlled state, then before the Supreme Court that ruled on the more obvious Gore case?

Conceding allows those who don't follow politics carefully to quickly become convinced that the candidate who conceded lost, and anything beyond that will be rejected. The media will carry that in the following days and set it in concrete.

I remember going to bed that night having been told that they would be back the next morning and would count every vote. Instead, we woke up to the concession speech. That took the wind out of most folks who would have readily hit the streets to fight the bastards. Now there was no leader who would take us to the streets. That, to me and my friends, was absolutely unforgiveable. Treasonous was how we considerd it! Kerry knew exacly what was at stake and he walked away. Screw him for that!

I helped lead the movement to oppose paperless electronic voting in that election cycle and was very close to others in the leadership. Ellen at VotersUnite! personally coached Kerry's lawyers a couple months before the election and was astonished at how ill-prepared he was. That had a serious impact on their inability to understand and be prepared to block the steal.

Also, from those who I spoke to, I disagree with an earlier post that Kerry supported the recount. My understanding was that they were not at all cooperative with the recount and the challenge.

legally binding. Those who don't follow politics would come around. They do on everything else they don't follow when the facts come out. What are you disagreeing with, the facts are here.

but what happened is that the common belief system became that Kerry lost, and many (most) folks went back to their lives.

For those who wanted to fight, the concession was like being hit in the gut. There was little to fight for. Look at the preface to Mark Crispin Miller's Fooled Again for a reminder of how people felt about Kerry at that point.

And it allowed the media to continue to reinforce the common belief that Bush won, and BushCo proceeded with business as usual. They were never placed on the defense when kerry walked away.

Make sense?

Kerry was against making that case?

Edwards and Kerry BOTH fought as long as they could based on the LEGAL EVIDENCE they had. When there wasn't any legal evidence to continue in court, they had no choice but to concede - BOTH of them.

This internet myth that somehow Edwards wanted to continue and was fighting Kerry over this, sure has a long shelf life, even though Edwards would have CERTAINLY explained by now what evidence he would have used to CONTINUE fighting.

risked losing his house, went out campaigning within a month of cancer surgery - did a fantastic job on the debates etc.

When your thinking about your idiotic insinuations, maybe you should ask yourself why, if this were true - the deal included every shred of Kerry's life being smeared - from his character, his war service, his protesting, his entire political career, his wife, his marriage, even his children. Not only that - they didn't stop after 2004.

So, explain how a man who really is a genuine war hero, who impressed the nation and the Senate as a 27 with his brilliant denuniation of the Vietnam war, who then had a virtually scandal free 3 decades in public service with a reputation of being very intelligent married to a woman who was a very well respected philanthopist and envivonmentalist would agree to this deal?

Not 150,000. And with all the investigations that have happened since - where's the evidence of theft??

He joined law suits, he did what he legally could. There just isn't any evidence and that's all there is to it.

Bush asked for a statewide recount, Gore refused.

With a statewide recount Gore would be president by 600 votes.

When the CBC objected to the Senate certification
of Bush because of voting rights violations that
the REPUBLICANS had successfully challenged during
RECONSTRUCTION,

Gore told them no Senator would support their objection and to shut up.

(shades of Hayes/Tilden, no?)

has and there are MANY Dems who supported the 'bonesmen' Bush over the last 30 years which allowed a Bush2 to exist.

The Dem PARTY lost 2004 - Bush didn't win it and Kerry didn't lose it.

The RNC dragged Bush back into office because the DNC didn't spend its four years securing the election process by countering the RNC's tactics of vote suppression and stealing.

Kerry WON at every point he controlled and dominated his matchups against Bush. How did the DNC do against the RNC? How did the left media do against the RW media machine?

Gore\Kerry... Gore\Clinton... No.

If for no other reason, too much ego at the top of the ticket.

And this last 'experiment' in co-administration is killing us.

:shrug:

And the restoration order in this country, and of the will of the American people, are very important considerations. In that sense, it doesn't much matter what I think about either of them. If they ran together, I would support them with the utmost enthusiasm. Because it's right. Because it's just. Because the people voted for them before, and were criminally deprived of their leadership.

If you look at Gore as an individual, he is head and shoulders above everyone in the field, on all measures as a candidate, and even more so as president. He is not only passionately committed to constitutional government, and decent government, and is way ahead of all others on the most important issue of the century, global warming, he has also developed into a brilliant speaker. It doesn't come across so much in his movie, but it sure does in his taped speeches over the last several years. He has eight years in the executive branch, and that or more in the senate. His qualifications and experience are unmatchable. And, finally, he conveys something...assurance, confidence, a bigger view of things, gravitas. The others may have these qualities, but he CONVEYS them very well. I think he would be a comfort to a broken nation, and would help us recover, just because of who he is and how he communicates that. I wouldn't like a Kerry/Gore ticket. Gore would have to head the ticket. I have some issue problems with Gore. He has said nothing about Bushite controlled electronic voting with its 'TRADE SECRET' code. This country is not mobilizing to solve global warming, and is instead wasting its resources and many lives on a corporate oil war, and this is why. The people cannot get their will enforced. They cannot elect the best leaders. It's seems obvious to me--a no brainer. Why hasn't he said anything? Also, NAFTA. Just how much he is still in thrall to the global corporate agenda? I imagine he's thought about all this quite a lot. He is highly intelligent, and has spent his years out of politics analyzing national and world problems. But he hasn't said anything, and he's gone rather easy on the global corporate predators who are causing much of the problem with ungodly profiteering and powermongering. To give him the benefit of the doubt, if we really are going to solve global warming--and I have no doubts about our ability to do that--he will be compelled to work with the very corporations that are the chief culprits. For a cause like this--saving the planet, which is in extremely serious peril--I would forgive him a lot.

I have a lot of problems with Kerry. And I won't go into them here. Most have been discussed ad nauseum here at DU. But I am convinced that he was elected. I also think he has a lot of potential--he's very bright, and very good on policy (except for his war vote), and he is capable of taking over the presidency if he has to. He would be an active VP capable of taking a lot of responsibility on major issues. I think Gore--having been VP himself--would use him well and give him a lot to do. Oddly, I think if Kerry ran at the top of the ticket with someone else in the VP spot, he might well lose--even though he won before. Just a feeling.

But it's the TEAM--the two of them--that has the magic. The "Restoration Ticket." One elected in 2000. The other elected in 2004. People would dig it. This ticket would blow the rigged voting machines right out of the water. I predict a huge landslide--by 60% or more.

I think Gore with someone else as VP would win--and probably win big. But the CELEBRATION there would be at a Gore/Kerry ticket, with everyone knowing just what it was about--that the people of this country are restoring THEIR choices, after this horrible interregnum--brings tears to my eyes just thinking about it. Can you imagine? A cry of joy will rise all over the nation.

And can you also imagine the entire team that these two would put together?--all the best minds and most talented people in the country would be asked to help, and would be willing to help. We have huge problems to solve. They would surely attract the people to solve them.

This is what I love about the Gore/Kerry ticket. It would be a way of wiping the slate clean. Of course, Bush Junta crime cannot be wiped out that easily. But that would be the feeling. It is a psychological thing, but one that is very, very important. We are demoralized country, with a people who have all along tried to do the right thing, and have been disempowered and disenfranchised. We need a boost. We need hope. We need energizing. We desperately need great leadership. And placing these two at top of our government power structure--where they should have been all along--will give us a sense of renewal and accomplishment.

I'm not saying others cannot provide the great leadership we need. And there are others whose ideas are closer to mine politically, in some respects. I'm just saying this ticket has extra special qualities, as an idea in itself: restoration.

You got the idea I was thinking about when I first posted this and put it much more eloquently than I could. Putting these two in office says "the Long Night is over, democracy is restored".

teach about religious fanatics taking over England and running it like the Taliban?

Any Brits here? Do they teach that in schools over there? If so, how?

I'm about fifteen years out of school so this may be out of date but when I was in school, that was only touched on briefly because our history curriculum was so dire, we barely learned anything further back than WW1. I was intending to teach history at one point (still get the hankering now and then) but ended up studying law and working in computers.

Like I said, that may have changed since then. Also, the general gist of it is well known and part of our public psyche.

we leave out the ones that are hard to explain.

Are you saying the Cromwell thing is well-known and part of the public psyche?

It's almost universally known that Cromwell existed, led a revolt and cut off Charlie's head but the reasons are less widely known. Cromwell has entered the public psyche as a regicide but not the fanatical zealot he actually was.

Of course, the further you get into adulthood, the more it's assumed you have some idea but no, it's barely mentioned in schools when I was there.

probably in Britain like here, they have censors comb textbooks to make sure that they won't offend anyone anywhere ever--and they won't allow anyone to stay awake reading them either.

It's a combination of three things.
1. Self-censorship to avoid offense. Not really a big issue here but it happens.
2. The dumbing-down of the education system. I despair of our education system frequently.
3. The fact that Britain is just not very religious these days. About a third of the kids I went to school with were athiests, most of teh rest were only nominally Christian. Religion just isn't a big deal here for the most part.

of course it could be taught as minimally and blandly as our revolution here: "some blokes disliked the king and chopped his head off and ran things until they died. Then we got another bugger on the throne."

Sadly, the teaching of history has been pretty much reduced to that.

They weren't quite as bad as the Taliban. People generally got something approximating a trial before execution for a start.

:D

Love the Witchsmeller Pursiviant pic BTW.

I am a lifelong Black Adder fan. :D



My favorite episode is probably the one with Dr. Samuel Johnson "Ink and Incapability":


E: (to Prince) Oh, well, in that case, sir, I hope you will not object if
I also offer the Doctor my most enthusiastic contrafribblarities.

J: What?

E: `Contrafribblarites', sir? It is a common word down our way.

J: Damn! (writes in the book)

E: Oh, I'm sorry, sir. I'm anus-peptic, phrasmotic, even compunctious to have
caused you such pericombobulation.

J: What? What? WHAT?

G: What are you on about, Blackadder? This is all beginning to sound a bit
like dago talk to me.

E: I'm sorry, sir. I merely wished to congratulate the Doctor on not having
left out a single word. (J sneers) Shall I fetch the tea, Your Highness?

:rofl:

I was raised on Blackadder. I think my favourite exchange is the one that comes just after Baldrick has offered Edmund a rat to eat. George comes in and starts going on about how much he's going to enjoy eating the rat. The phone rings and Edmund answers it with a deadpan "Hello, the Savoy Grill".

the Taliban did.

Also, they had those really bad haircuts.

no. fucking. way.

and it would cause me to lose a lot of the respect for al gore that he's earned back since picking his 2000 running mate.

I could say no f*cking way to all who are running this time and would be happy to write in Kerry's name. I can't imagine what he ever did to elicit such resentment. I suppose trying your best and still fighting for the people isn't enough for some people.

it disgusted me to have to vote for him in 2004, and i WON'T do it again,under ANY circumstamce.

You got what you deserved, Bush!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

thanks, i really needed that.

laughter really is the best medicine

you deserve Bush for spewing nonsense. Maybe you can concede that the country wouldn't be in this mess if Kerry was in the WH. Otherwise, keep your disgust and savor Bush.

but you certainly have very little ability to examine the results. Kerry has NEVER been in any way a "DINO". I am utterly amazed that people who support candidates with a fraction of Kerry's Democratic credentials throw this garbage out.

In case you missed things - Kerry has been more willing to fight the establishment than most - from VN, to the contras, to BCCI, to Alito, to Kerry/Feingold. (all against the corporate agenda) - that's a longer, more consistent record than most favorites here - including Edwards, both Clintons, Gore, Webb, Clark etc - yet I accept ALL of them as Democrats - not Dinos.

they just say they are- and i will NEVER cast another vote for ANY of their ilk.

(There are likely others - but I didn't spend a long time)

You do realize that he was the first DLC endorsed candidate for President in 1988. Gore supported the idea of backing the Contras and was the epitome of the Centrist Southern Democrat who was in the DLC. In contrast, Kerry came in via the New Democrats - was always the leftmost in terms of his voting record. In terms of corporate agenda, Kerry wrote the Clean elections legislation.

It is also clear that the DLC has no use for Kerry. Last year, they never included him among the DLCers running. Little Clarkie (I think) posted once that his office when called said he was not a member - they haven't had an updated list for years. It is clear that From never liked him and Marshall actually sounded as though he would fit in with the SBVT when commenting on Kerry's Dissent speech in 2006 - where he started out by saying he was fight to speak out in 1971 against a war that was wrong and he was right to speak out now.

PS - Edwards and Dean were DLC when they were in office too.

throw shit, and I'm not even sure why some of them are doing it. They don't fucking sound like Democrats to me. Probably from the Counterpuke bunch. Yes, Counterpuke, that disingenuous piece of shit rag whose editors are smearing Gore like their heads are up Inhofe's ass.

Kerry is a true Democratic leader, unlike some now in the running. If Edwards and Kucinich couldn't beat Kerry, and given how some people here want to smear his efforts, what the hell am I supposed to see in those who lost to him? We're in pandering hell, after six years of Bush and some are still repeating RW talking points. Go figure!

and resent the very suggestion that someone may want to support Gore and Kerry over their candidate,so the voting is not fair and balanced. Others are voting no because they are freepers or closet repubs and resent both great men.

I don't know enough about Kerry to judge but really, I proposed this as restoration, putting in the two men who won but never got to serve (Gore heads the ticket because he was first and because he's the better candidate).

do what he felt was best for this country and it's people. For him, country comes first.

I want a fighter, not someone who quits before all the votes are counted.

That's not a slight against Kerry over Gore, but to justify that Kerry beat Bush but some massive vote hijacking conspiracy was in place is desperately grasping at straws unless there's evidence.

On the other hand, Gore/Lieberman won the popular vote, and the vote tally in Florida was sufficiently close to where it was reasonable, and in many respects probable, that vote counting procedures changed the outcome of the election.

Which would have put him over the top. He said that not all the votes were counted. Here's the article that he wrote on this, right after the 2004 election.:-(

Kerry Won. Here are The Facts.
http://www.gregpalast.com/kerry-won-rnheres-the-facts/#more-1253

The no voters are not saying they'd vote Republican. They more than likely would support another Democratic ticket. Although the poll is flawed, the 37% yes votes is pretty strong support given that all except 8 to 10% are indicating they'd vote for the ticket as opposed to a Republican.

This is a hypothetical, but as Kerry himself has said recently, he would have been a formidable candidate. He's such a strong leader, it would have been hard to count him out if he had chosen to run. I'm convinced of that as I watch this campaign unfold.

1. GORE is the one who won, definitively, in Florida (anyone who says "if only the votes had been counted, Gore would have won" is a troll, trying to muddy the waters. The votes were counted, statewide, and Gore won, definitively.) But Gore, not Kerry, BETRAYED his followers by refusing to ask for a statewide recount and he also prevented the Congressional Black Caucus to challenge the vote certification in the Senate. Yet Gore is a folk hero with people who reflexively trash Kerry (and Nader). They are so desperate to believe in a hero...

2. What Kerry's doing now -- siding with Hillary's plan to keep troops permanently on the edges of Iraq, within its territory -- is more relevant. But most other Congressional Dems support this, so it's pointless to single out Kerry.

Democrats get to chose from the current list of candidates Clinton and Obama, who both voted against Kerry-Feingold (no, Hillary's current plan is a different animal from Kerry's); Richardson, who is praising Gonzales and reminds me of the voting machines in NM; and the rest, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel. On edit: I inadvertently left out Edwards, and he has his own set of issues.

I'm not impressed.

Kerry would have stood out as the most experienced and knowledgeable among them, with the ability to speak to all the issues intelligently and effectively, had he entered the race. What could they bring to the table to counter his record? A lot of personalities were hyped leading up to the start of this campaign. Given there is still a full year to go in the primary and considering the pre-campaign hype, there are an unusual number of posts around the blogosphere about disillusionment over the candidates' preparedness, speaking abilities, missteps and infighting.

I would take Kerry any day over any Democrat, and definitely over the current lot of candidates.

and if you question why - go to Johnkerry.com - then to the multmedia section - and see the Faneuil Hall speeches - that were written (obviously) as the basis of his campaign. There were possibly others intended, but these represent what you say - he was incredible on each major issue.

The one thing he didn't have - media hype. He didn't have it in 2004 either though.

Kerry/Feingold had a provision to keep over the horizon troops while their was a regional need.

Also, in the NYT article, Hillary tried (only semi-successfully) to say that her comments were consistent with the Reid amendment that Kerry and others worked on. She has a more pro-war stance.

Kerry disagreed with Hillary's NYT comments when asked about it on Hardball - he didn't say "I disagree with Hillary", he said that even in 2004 debates he said he was against permanent bases in Iraq - and proceded to say why it was a very bad idea.

So, you did two things here:
- You ignore that Kerry, with setadeadline.com and Kerry/Feingold has been a leader in the faction that is trying to get us out.

- You took the victory that part of the party had in getting 48 votes behind something that was very musch like Kerry/Feingold - and gave it to Hillary.

What is your agenda?

Gore is my top pick though. I hope he runs.

Remember, if Gore had not refused to call for a statewide recount and told the Congressional Black Caucus to shut up, he'd be president.

those were mistakes on his part.

But I will still support a Gore presidential bid if he decides to run.
Gore still won the popular vote, something Kerry didn't do in 2004 even though Shrub was in the beginning stages of his downfall.

Kerry didn't run a good campaign in my opinion and the White House was ours for the taking in 2004. Kerry blew it, imo.

I'd even give Gore a pass if he did not utter the words "SINGLE PAYER UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE."

Gore could pick Obama as his running mate, though.

Gore has been forgiven. :hide:

I voted yes, I'd vote yes for that ticket in either order.

and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about: he's unforgiven.

this, this and this?

short, conceding Kerry.

Come on. Can you imagine all the jokes that would be repeated on late night TV?

ETA: On a serious note, neither of them would be my first choice because they didn't stand up for (mainly black) voters who were disenfranchised.

won the electoral vote with Ohio, it's not clear that he beat Bush in the overall popular vote. That said it would be a good ticket.

Kerry's ship has sailed.

over Lieberman, haha

Roberts is probably about the best we could have expected from Bush, but Alito is a fascist in all but name since he refused affirm that our constitution calls for checks and balances. If the left wing of the court or a swing justice dies or retires, Bush could appoint someone else in the same vein as either of those two, and the Democrats will probably roll over. One one more Alito, and we'd have a court that would uphold suspending elections and declaring martial law the next time a republican is elected.

For all the grief a republican congress would have given Kerry, he could not have picked someone worse for the Supreme Court if he threw rocks off an overpass and appointed whoever he hit.

both are great men and we deserved them

read my sig line