You are way off base calling gore a scumbag. He's a little wobbly in the head, but he is not a scumbag.
You are also off base about the governing comment. R's have cut taxes, a lot. R's are making the judicial branch much more conservative. R's are improving education, the test scores and graduation rates are much much better. R's are holding the line against the gays and kyoto/enviro whackos.
You don't know the Dean, Pelosi, hillary, kennedy, etc. rats very well if you think the r's governed like the d's.
I did not call Gore a scumbag. I said "Scumbag". Capital "S" -- Scumbag. There is only one Scumbag and that is Clinton. There are many scumbags, but there is only one Scumbag--Clinton.
My statement was In 2000, the only reason why Bush won was that Scumbag was so repulsive that conservatives rallied to defeat Gore, not to back Bush.
Even though Scumbag was finishing his eight years, the odor of his filth was still waffling in the air in Nov of 2000, and there was a high percentage of those who voted Republican because they associated Gore with Scumbag--rightfully so, since Gore refused to distance himself from Scumbag's 15 felonies and all the other corruption.
Re your "You are also off base about the governing comment. R's have cut taxes, a lot."
The "Rs" have governed like RATs fiscally. Hypothetical: ........ If conservatives were to strip away the party title and did not know what party was in power but only saw the reports of fiscal spending, new programs, global welfare etc, every last conservative would say that the RATs were in power.
This is not arguable. Don't attempt to argue the point. Fiscally, the Republicans have governed like RATs. Any attempt to even argue that point would reflect very poorly on your analytical and objectivity skills.
You also made a grave, very grave error in reasoning. You said the "Rs have cut taxes." In case you are not old enough to have witnessed much history (we do have young members here), let me point out two American government fundamental axioms...
1] tax cuts are temporary
2] spending increases are permanent
Once spending is raised, they always use that new base as the "baseline" to mark the starting point for next budget's increase. This is what makes Bush's ludicrous spending increases so horrific. It is impossible to then lower spending from that baseline (in "mandatory" spending) and next to impossible in discretionary spending. Any tax cut that does not include corresponding spending restraint is fleeting at best, and at worse, possibly more damaging to taxpayers as future tax increases could be worse than the tax rates BEFORE the tax cut. With the RATs likely to gain power, I am SURE that will happen.
You misinterpreted the Gore comment, and then you used incorrect reasoning re taxes.