Gore in '04

[Ronn_Bman]

What are your thoughts on Gore in 04? (catchy isn't it?) It isn't like missing out in 2000 is the end of Gore. Even if he doesn't win in 04 he could run again later. Keep in mind, he received more popular votes for president than anyone in history. (or was it second most behind Reagan ).

I'm not a Gore supporter, but I do pay attention to history, so here's a little presidental trivia about those who won the popular election but lost the electoral college...

Andrew Jackson won the popular election in 1824, but lost the electoral college to another president's son, John Quincy Adams. Four years later, Jackson ousted Adams and served two terms as president.

Rutherford B. Hayes lost the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden in 1876, but was given the electoral college in a compromise(Florida was the deciding state). He choose to only serve one term and retired. Tilden refused to be considered for nomination in 1880 & 1884.

Grover Cleveland won the popular vote in 1888, but lost his re-election bid in the electoral college, that same year, to Benjamin Harrison. Four years later, he defeated Harrison and became the only president to serve non-consecutive terms. He is also the only president before or since FDR to win the popular vote three times.

In short, all presidental candidates who won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college, and ran for president again won the office. The public's way of saying, we told you so! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[skywalker]

I believe that the Democratic Party will be endorsing Thomas Daschle for the 2004 election. I think Mr. Gore has lost the support of most of the Democratic party.

[Silver Cheetah]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
What are your thoughts on Gore in 04? (catchy isn't it?) It isn't like missing out in 2000 is the end of Gore. Even if he doesn't win in 04 he could run again later. Keep in mind, he received more popular votes for president than anyone in history. (or was it second most behind Reagan ).

I'm not a Gore supporter, but I do pay attention to history, so here's a little presidental trivia about those who won the popular election but lost the electoral college...

Andrew Jackson won the popular election in 1824, but lost the electoral college to another president's son, John Quincy Adams. Four years later, Jackson ousted Adams and served two terms as president.

Rutherford B. Hayes lost the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden in 1876, but was given the electoral college in a compromise(Florida was the deciding state). He choose to only serve one term and retired. Tilden refused to be considered for nomination in 1880 & 1884.

Grover Cleveland won the popular vote in 1888, but lost his re-election bid in the electoral college, that same year, to Benjamin Harrison. Four years later, he defeated Harrison and became the only president to serve non-consecutive terms. He is also the only president before or since FDR to win the popular vote three times.

In short, all presidental candidates who won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college, and ran for president again won the office. The public's way of saying, we told you so! [img]smile.gif[/img]

---

To be honest, I don't know too much about Gore, except that I adore his book Earth in the Balance, which looks at the environmental crisis. Earth in the Balance seemed to provide a pretty balanced view. He wrote it when he was a senator, in 1992. (For any that don't know, Gore was a journalist before he won his seat in 1976.)

I'd rather the US had Gore than Bush, I must say... But then I would say that, as there is not a single bone in my body that resonates with the Republican way... (Some might say there isn't too much difference between Gore and Bush, - I believe there is. In the UK, our own 'left wing' party has moved further and further away from any serious left wingism, just as has happened in the states, however, there are still some differentiating aspects, although right at this moment I am hard put to it to think what they are... )

[Gaelic]

Hopefully we get neither Gore nor Daschle in '04. Both are not cut from presidential timber and would do more harm to the US and the world in a month than 100 W's could do in 100 years.

[skywalker]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaelic:
Hopefully we get neither Gore nor Daschle in '04. Both are not cut from presidential timber and would do more harm to the US and the world in a month than 100 W's could do in 100 years.

---

And "W" is qualified. I think you jest!

[Silver Cheetah]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaelic:
Hopefully we get neither Gore nor Daschle in '04. Both are not cut from presidential timber and would do more harm to the US and the world in a month than 100 W's could do in 100 years.

---

hahahahahhahahahh Sound of a whole contingent of Cheetahs laughing uproariously in the bushes...... heheheheheheheh you are a very funny person, Gaelic, you know that......?

George W has done more harm to the world since he got 'elected' (I use the word loosely) than anyone else in history, I do believe, and there's potential for ooh, such a whole lot more....

(Stamping all over multilateral treaties and conventions, taking actions 'most likely' to lead to another world war, public enemy number one as far as the environment's concerned.... Lovely jubbly, let's have some more! )

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:
George W has done more harm to the world since he got 'elected' (I use the word loosely) than anyone else in history, I do believe, and there's potential for ooh, such a whole lot more....

(Stamping all over multilateral treaties and conventions, taking actions 'most likely' to lead to another world war, public enemy number one as far as the environment's concerned.... Lovely jubbly, let's have some more! )

---

I know that's meant partly as a joke, but isn't it a bit much to say he's done more harm in 10 months than Osama did in 45 minutes? You don't have to like him, but his is the most prominent representative of the American people (me) to the world.

Our President is not a dictator who can just do act as he pleases, he must act in conjunction with Congress, and is held accountable to the people. I have to admit I find this a bit offensive (not in an I'm going to leave the forum kinda way [img]smile.gif[/img] ).

All you really know about Bush is what your media tells you. It's the same with the war in general. The news you see is slanted one way, and the news I see is slanted another. We're biased in different ways, for different reasons.

[Gaelic]

Actually, Bush has been quite friendly to the environment. He has reimplemented much of the Clinton last minute measures, only with proposals for streamlining of the agencies that oversee them. Thus protecting the environment while also saving money. This includes the much-lamented arsenic standards.

Bush has re-examined agreements that are out of date and has proposed taking action to bring them up to date. This includes the ABM treaty. If one elects to read beyond headlines it is clear that the US has taken no actions that violate that treaty. W has opened the door to discussion on in areas where he can serve his country's interests, which is after all his number one job, just like the leader of any other nation.

President Bush has taken the lead in begining the process of destroying one of the most evil organizations ever to exist on the planet. This mission will also ultimately destroy the Taliban which has brutalized, murdered, and oppressed the people of Afghanistan for years.

He may not read from the teleprompter very well, but the man does know how to lead. He has proven himself to be fair, just, and forthright. Bush is doing a good job overall, not just with the war on terrorism. If Gore or Daschle were in his place we would be talking ourselves back to the stone age while we pass out money to the lazy from the taxes of the hard workers.

[skywalker]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaelic:
Actually, Bush has been quite friendly to the environment. He has reimplemented much of the Clinton last minute measures, only with proposals for streamlining of the agencies that oversee them. Thus protecting the environment while also saving money. This includes the much-lamented arsenic standards.

Bush has re-examined agreements that are out of date and has proposed taking action to bring them up to date. This includes the ABM treaty. If one elects to read beyond headlines it is clear that the US has taken no actions that violate that treaty. W has opened the door to discussion on in areas where he can serve his country's interests, which is after all his number one job, just like the leader of any other nation.

President Bush has taken the lead in begining the process of destroying one of the most evil organizations ever to exist on the planet. This mission will also ultimately destroy the Taliban which has brutalized, murdered, and oppressed the people of Afghanistan for years.

He may not read from the teleprompter very well, but the man does know how to lead. He has proven himself to be fair, just, and forthright. Bush is doing a good job overall, not just with the war on terrorism. If Gore or Daschle were in his place we would be talking ourselves back to the stone age while we pass out money to the lazy from the taxes of the hard workers.

---

You wanna turn down the volume of the Pro-Bush stuff. I don't remember the law being passed that we need to blindly follow the bouncing "W".

[Gaelic]

quote:

---

Originally posted by skywalker:


You wanna turn down the volume of the Pro-Bush stuff. I don't remember the law being passed that we need to blindly follow the bouncing "W".

---

Blindly? Not at all. I have my problems with some of the things his administration has done, but not the ones publicized in the media. I don't remember a law being passed where we have to criticize him based on anecdotes and headlines that don't tell the whole story. I am not heaping needless praise on him, rather I am supplying facts where Katie Couric et al leave them out.