Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:00 pm Posts: 5364 Location: Wrigley Field Gender: Male
It'd be an interesting story--two men, probably the last two major candidates who could declare, waited to do so to build up their image in the media, and then did declare, making their platform rhetoric match the most popular views amongst constituents on each issue that all of these other candidates have been debating. Gore would actually be a rather capable president--he's been reading Habermas since at least 2005! Thompson? It'd be like Schwarznegger running, but losing instead.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
LittleWing wrote:
Haha, you said capable president and Gore in the same sentence!
Honestly, Gore would be a capable president. It's not like he has a lack of experience or anything. The question is whether he would do the things that you as a voter want him to do.
Unless Hillary Clinton's campaign stalls big time (which, according to her second quarter fundraising estimates, doesn't seem very likely), I don't see Al Gore getting into the race. He hasn't said "no," but from recent interviews it seems that he's come to personal peace with the 2000 loss and I don't think he would toss his hat in unless he knew that, at the least, he would be assured the DNC nomination.
That being said, a Gore/Obama ticket would be unbeatable.
I don't get this big hoopla about Fred Thompson. I vaguely remember his stint as a Senator and my fondest memory of the man was playing an air traffic controller in the Die Hard series. He doesn't seem to have much charisma and phyiscally he looks like McGruff the crime dog. I guess there's something to the guy that other conservatives know that I'm missing....I don't see him as the great savior that everyone is making him out to be.
As far as a worthy opponent in a debate against Al Gore, I think that Newt Gingrich would make a much worthier opponent. He has his faults, but he is a smart guy and knows that successful campaigns are built on solid, well-constructed ideas and not an array of talking points.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:01 am Posts: 19477 Location: Brooklyn NY
LeninFlux wrote:
Unless Hillary Clinton's campaign stalls big time (which, according to her second quarter fundraising estimates, doesn't seem very likely), I don't see Al Gore getting into the race. He hasn't said "no," but from recent interviews it seems that he's come to personal peace with the 2000 loss and I don't think he would toss his hat in unless he knew that, at the least, he would be assured the DNC nomination. That being said, a Gore/Obama ticket would be unbeatable.
I don't get this big hoopla about Fred Thompson. I vaguely remember his stint as a Senator and my fondest memory of the man was playing an air traffic controller in the Die Hard series. He doesn't seem to have much charisma and phyiscally he looks like McGruff the crime dog. I guess there's something to the guy that other conservatives know that I'm missing....I don't see him as the great savior that everyone is making him out to be.
As far as a worthy opponent in a debate against Al Gore, I think that Newt Gingrich would make a much worthier opponent. He has his faults, but he is a smart guy and knows that successful campaigns are built on solid, well-constructed ideas and not an array of talking points.
Unless Hillary Clinton's campaign stalls big time (which, according to her second quarter fundraising estimates, doesn't seem very likely), I don't see Al Gore getting into the race. He hasn't said "no," but from recent interviews it seems that he's come to personal peace with the 2000 loss and I don't think he would toss his hat in unless he knew that, at the least, he would be assured the DNC nomination. That being said, a Gore/Obama ticket would be unbeatable.
I don't get this big hoopla about Fred Thompson. I vaguely remember his stint as a Senator and my fondest memory of the man was playing an air traffic controller in the Die Hard series. He doesn't seem to have much charisma and phyiscally he looks like McGruff the crime dog. I guess there's something to the guy that other conservatives know that I'm missing....I don't see him as the great savior that everyone is making him out to be.
As far as a worthy opponent in a debate against Al Gore, I think that Newt Gingrich would make a much worthier opponent. He has his faults, but he is a smart guy and knows that successful campaigns are built on solid, well-constructed ideas and not an array of talking points.
I miss your Hillary bashing
Ha, well be careful what you wish for.
If anyone is looking for the ultimate weathervane match-up in 2008, how about a Hillary Clinton vs. Mitt Romney battle royale?
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:01 am Posts: 19477 Location: Brooklyn NY
Hillary as President is still pretty thrilling, as it would piss off so many people. Although I wouldn't be surprised if Edwards ran away with this thing in the primaries.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:38 am Posts: 5575 Location: Sydney, NSW
Isaac Turner wrote:
he's been reading Habermas since at least 2005!
_________________
Jammer91 wrote:
If Soundgarden is perfectly fine with playing together with Tad Doyle on vocals, why the fuck is he wasting his life promoting the single worst album of all time? Holy shit, he has to be the stupidest motherfucker on earth.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:57 pm Posts: 3332 Location: Chicago-ish
Isaac Turner wrote:
It'd be an interesting story--two men, probably the last two major candidates who could declare, waited to do so to build up their image in the media, and then did declare, making their platform rhetoric match the most popular views amongst constituents on each issue that all of these other candidates have been debating. Gore would actually be a rather capable president--he's been reading Habermas since at least 2005! Thompson? It'd be like Schwarznegger running, but losing instead.
Reading Habermas since 2005? I know Theory of Collective Action is a a long boring book, but 2 years to read it? come on Al, I had 4 weeks.
If there's one thing that I'm willing to cave in on, and say that America needs, it's a statesman. However, America needs a truly conservative president. Someone that can reign in the president, bring progress to Iraq, repair ties with other nations, make progress with rogue nations and in the middle east.
We need a conservative that will be liked by others. I don't think Fred Thompson is that man. I think Fred Thompson has the ideas and the political stances. But in the eyes of the world, he's just gonna be viewed upon as another Bush.
Gore scares the shit out me. But then again, most of the Democrat hopefuls except for Richardson scare the shit out of me. But then again, most of the Republicans are essentially worthless too.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
LittleWing wrote:
Haha, you said capable president and Gore in the same sentence!
Haha, what an ignorant statement!
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
