Gore's back, and GOP is happier than Democrats

USA Today ^ | 11/19/2002 | Susan Page

[twigs]

Hillary is moving into a democratic leadership position for a reason. If Al tanks, she could be ready to "save the party." Remember the Toricelli/Lautenberg dance? If not, she's in position, collecting her chits, for 2008.

[MEGoody]

"He details statistics — divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, the average age of puberty — until his audience begins to get restless."

I bet he didn't 'detail' the number of women who commit suicide after they've aborted, or the number of women who have gotten breast cancer because of previous abortions, etc. He wants to appear all 'pro-family' but he sure has no trouble supporting infanticide.

[woodyinscc]

Gore is leftover liver, no one wants it, but he sure stinks up the fridge.

LOL He also reminds me of the egg I left in my mess kit when I was a boy scout.

[KriegerGeist]

"Who the heck is this Algore guy anyhow? Seems familiar but......."

I know how he could get recognized and possibly have a chance....[NOT!], but:

Have cameras in his home as the new MTV's reality TV show...Ozie did it, Al can too.

I can see it now..."The Algores" starring: Albie Algore (The Prince of Dorkness)and his family Tipper and the kids and dogs...

What? It could happen...

[Destructor]

Gore is cut in Bill Clinton's own graven image. He is doomed to defeat, if he actually runs!

[Exeter]

Not Adlai Stevenson, more like Harold Stassen...

[hchutch]

Furthermore, like Eisenhower, he does what he feels is the right thing - and screw the critics. He's also someone not to mess with. The Taliban have learned that lesson. The Dems still need to despite the 2002 butt-kicking.

[duckbutt]

Al Gore - -the "throwaway candidate" for 2004 - - after all, he's into recycling.....

[gridlock]

Arkancide?

I was thinking something more like the Jersey Shuffle. That said, maybe as we get close to the general election Algore would be wise to take the bus.

Hillary! cannot bear the scrutiny of a long campaign. If she is to ever to be Presidency, it must be either by elevation from VP, or through a short, compressed campaign. If she is selected as Algores VP at the next Democratic National Convention, you know the fix is in. If this comes to pass, the Republicans should immediately begin speculating loudly and publicly about when Algore will either step aside (or what-have-you), so they can say "told you so" when Hillary! winds up at the top of the ticket.

[Tom Bombadil]

I hope he runs again. I love it when he puffs up.

[notpoliticallycorewrecked]

Hillary! winds up at the top of the ticket.

This is so real that it is scary. She definately doesn't want a long campaign. There is too much info back there to answer to, as if the liberal press would go there. This would shell shock the pubbies so that we would be unable to respond.

After she is elected she would then get election reforms through that limit the total campaign time down to a month or two like in England.

[Dick Bachert]

Ohhh, for the good old days when stuff like THIS happened on a regular basis:

[gridlock]

She (Hillary!) definately doesn't want a long campaign.

Remember when she ran for NY Senate? She got Nita Lowey and all the other Democrats to drop out, so she did not have to face a primary challenge, and then she spent as long as possible on her "Listening Tour" of New York State, where she refused to answer any questions or make any public statements of any kind. Then the actual campaign was squeezed into the last 30 days.

This is the only way she can win.

The Pubbies should, no kidding, look very closely at the relevant law to find out exactly what are the limits for substituting Presidential candidates at the last minute. This information is going to be required in the fairly near future.

[lasereye]

Gore is going to run. Gore is going to be defeated.

Chances are you're right. However, if the economy defies expectations, not to mention history, and is still in the doldrums by 2004, then even Gore could beat Bush. Most everyone's assumption is that the economy will have resumed robust growth by then. Unfortunately, most thought it would have done that by now too.

Someone in the Bush administration should be looking at finding a way to jump start broadband internet. The failure of broadband to grow more quickly is a major reason tech is doing so miserably and by extension the economy is not doing better. Chances are no one at a high level in the Bush administration is looking at this.

I was a pessimist on the midterm elections because I thought a lot of middle of the road voters would buy into the idea that it was Bush's fault the economy isn't doing better. It turned out the American people exhibited surprising intelligence. However, if the situation hasn't improved by 2004, he will get blamed.

There has to be clear signs of economic acceleration by the spring of next year, and if there isn't, alarm bells should be going off in the Bush administration.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

"I'm still undecided," Googel says. "I need more time and information about what he stands for."

He stands for socialism and the American Elitists.

[Seruzawa]

I'd love to see the inside of their medicine cabinet.

Prozac, lithium, librium, zoloft, paxil, stellazine, melaril, halcion, thorazine.......

[Common Tator]

Unfortunately, most thought it would have done that by now too

I didn't. But productivity is rapidly increasing. And we will be in good but not boom times in 2004. They are not bad now except in the democratic states. The south is still in good economic shape and much of the midwest is prosperous too.

And the unemployment at the 6 percent level was considered quite good according to democratic standards. In fact the Democrats under Carter claimed that 5% unemployment should be considered full employemnt, because anything lower than 5 percent would bring on huge inflation.

The economy will never be the issue in a campaign again.

Seventy percent of the people who vote in presidential elections own stock. It is hard to play Democratic Big Bad Corporation politics on the economy when seventy percent of the voters get their economic advice from their broker.

You are living in the past. Your logic is as outdated as the partry of FDR. The days when a picture of FDR was next to the picture Jesus on the mantle are gone.

Raising Corporate taxes is not good for the voters portfolios. Democrats don't understand that yet.