March 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« Sunday school | Main | Stating the obvious »

May 28, 2006

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Bubba

"While a Gore candidacy could not single-handedly save the Democrats from themselves any more than his movie can vanquish 'X-Men' at the multiplex, it might at least force the party powers that be to start facing some inconvenient but necessary truths."

Rich's statement is a regular hoot.

He means "the party needs to get serious if they don't want Hillary to get the nomination. It's just a call out to the "Anyone But Hillary" crowd, trying to rally the troops.

However, they need to understand that Warner, or even Edwards, would be a far better candidate to support, if keeping Hillary off the ticket is the prime consideration.

It's very questionable if Gore could win against virtually any of the serious potential GOP candidates. It doesn't help that Gore, despite Ed's claims to the contrary, hasn't been right about anything in a LONG time.

Ed Cone

Rich doesn't seem to be a true believer when it comes to Gore as a winning candidate, nor am I. You seem to be patting yourself on the back for seeing a hidden message, when the message is overt and a key point of the article.

And those are actually Rich's claims about Gore being correct on the war and warming, but he's right. More from the article:

"Mr. Gore...spoke out at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on Sept. 23, 2002. He saw that the administration was jumping 'from one unfinished task to another' and risked letting Afghanistan destabilize and Osama bin Laden flee. He saw that the White House was recklessly putting politics over policy by hurrying a Congressional war resolution before the midterm elections (and before securing international support). Most important, he noticed then that the administration had 'not said much of anything' about 'what would follow regime change.' He imagined how 'chaos in the aftermath of a military victory in Iraq could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.'"

Bubba

"You seem to be patting yourself on the back for seeing a hidden message, when the message is overt and a key point of the article."

No, I choose to CLARIFY the message, Ed.

"And those are actually Rich's claims about Gore being correct on the war and warming, but he's right."

Thus my evaluation about your opinion on Gore's claims was right on target. Thanks for the confirmation, Ed.

Mr. Sun

Great evaluation!

Bubba

Looks like Al's been Gored once again.

Key point:

"Mr. Gore's narrative isn't science, but science fiction. It also contains a large element of political fiction, relying on the hack theme of good guys versus bad guys."

The comments to this entry are closed.