The unsettling post below got me to thinking: How can Obama be replaced legally in 2012?
Of course, it is far too early to speak seriously about that election. Back in 2005, did anyone see Barack Obama coming? But early predictions are fun to make, so let's indulge.
If Obama gets his shit together, we need not speak of replacement. But I don't see any fecal firming. I see three more years of political diarrhea. Sure, he'll have his ups and downs, as all presidents do, but the downs will be numerous enough to alienate the Dems and the middles.
To my mind, the closest historical parallel is 1968, when an unpopular LBJ withdrew from the race, leaving the field free for his veep, Hubert Humphrey. People forget that Humphrey -- once he started to distance himself from Johnson's war policies -- nearly beat Nixon.
We might also look back at 1980 and the Kennedy challenge. History would have been more pleasant if Carter had stepped aside.
Whom will the Republicans field in 2012? Today, they have no-one of Nixon's caliber. (I can't believe that I just used the phrase "Nixon's caliber" non-ironically.) Ike's veep was smart, canny, well-known and a skilled debater. In 1968, the former red-baiter was able to repackage himself as a cautious, cool-headed centrist; the public did not yet know of his crooked ways.
Nowadays, the closest thing the GOP has to a Nixon is, god help us, Romney. His Mormon background will continue to make him unpopular among the all-important evangelicals.
The Bush brand has, I hope, run its course.
The conservative movement has been commandeered by the kind of people who think that "Has George Noory fallen under alien mind control?" is one of the burning political questions of the day. The GOP has become the Crazy Person's Party, and I don't see the crazies tolerating any more McCains or Doles: That type of more-or-less sensible Crusty Old Fart no longer has a place at the table.
Palin? Perhaps. She retains a certain "tin foily" charm. Quite a few independent female voters loved her. But her resignation from the governorship struck many as cowardly.
The loons have made it clear that they favor Huckabee -- and that, I fear, is what they are going to get.
As a president, he would be the most dangerous man in American history -- far worse than Dubya. As a candidate, his extremism makes him beatable. (Of course, people said the same things about Reagan in 1980.)
Republican wackiness is the one thing the Dems have going for them. Americans dislike Obama's incompetence, but many of them also don't like the right-wing's rhetoric of paranoia, brutishness, treason and supernaturalistic mumbo-jumbo. Conspiranoia worked well for the Republicans in the 1993-1998 period, and it seems to be having a similar impact now. But I suspect that the tactic has its limits, and will soon become self-defeating.
The average American wants a return to normalcy. We want to party like it's 1999.
So let us presume the GOP chooses Mike Huckabee, the Crazy Person's candidate, the man favored by Chuck "secession" Norris. What about the Dems?
The future of civilization depends on making sure that someone other than the current screw-up stands between Huckabee and the White House. (If the current screw-up stops screwing up, ignore the previous sentence.) If Obama steps aside, who would take his place as the party standard-bearer?
The 1968 parallel would suggest a Biden candidacy. I still like Biden, but I seem to be the only one left. He has not made a good impression on the nation. Besides, he would bear the Obama taint.
In 1968, RFK would have defeated Nixon handily. Humphrey might have done so as well, if he were a senator and not LBJ's veep. RFK combined the appeal of the outsider -- he had positioned himself as a Johnson opponent and a friend to minorities -- yet he also reminded the electorate of better times and a better presidency.
The Dems need someone like that. Who?
The obvious choice would be Hillary. She has demonstrated that she is the fiercest political warrior in America today. But in accepting the Secretary of State position, she tied her future to Obama's. Yes, she is a good SOS, and she'd make a fine president. But consider: Afghanistan. Iran. Pakistan, Russia. Al Qaeda. Israel. Within a year -- maybe two -- foreign affairs will bite Obama on the ass, and I don't see how Hillary's rump will escape the same dental markings. Conceivably, a well-timed resignation over a matter of conscience could rescue her political chances -- but that gesture could also backfire.
I believe that Americans will want someone who reminds everyone of the prosperous Clinton years, yet who has no links to the present administration. We also need someone who will provide a reassuring contrast to the Crazy Party Candidate.
The choice is obvious: Al Gore.
The Nobel Prize winner who sounds like everyone's high school science teacher. A calming choice for un-calm times.
2012: Al Gore versus Mike Huckabee. Mr. Rationality versus Mr. Wacky. What do you think?
34 comments:
The Dowds and Matthews (and zombie Russert?) would pick up were they left off in 2000, telling any lie they could make up about Al Gore. The one thing that muzzled them in 2008 was fear of being labeled racist.
That Hillary Clinton did as well as she did speaks volumes about her savvy and popularity, what with the DNA squirt fest at MSNBC and the banshee at the NYT.
Twelve years late is better than never? I think it is highly unlikely. Aside from his Obama endorsement, Gore seems to have no interest in politics whatsoever at this point.
Hillary 2012!!!!!
I absolutely can't stand Al Gore. (Voted for Harry Browne in 2000.)
Sethe, Gore ruled out a run in 2008 but did not rule out a run in the future.
It's very possible that Obama will not run in 2012 because he's like GW, who does not like to work. GW wanted vacations and Obama wants speeches. Being president is hard work. Obama will fail as president because of economic, not foreign policies. GW was reelected in 2004 because Americans do not punish presidents for bad foreign policies. LBJ would have won if he had ran in 1968, imo. If Obama does not run in 2012, Hillary will run and win.
did a quick google and found this:
According to public disclosure information, Gore was worth somewhere between $1 million and $2 million in 2000. Not quite eight years later, Gore is estimated to be worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million.
If he's done that well, why go back to politics?
Annon12:44 That's just the tip of it. The UK carbon market just started to buy outside emission reductions (meaning hundreds of millions for Gore's CO2 companies), and he just started another new company; V-vehicles (which i think would look much better as V_Vehicles), with partners TBoone and Kliner/Perkins ...probably going to launch natural gas plug in hybrids that get 150mpg, and 100% electrics with KP's emerging ultracapacitors. That 100m is going to be $1B+ in the next four years if he stays out of politics.
Hey Joe, if we gotta go back to Arkansas halcyon, why not seek out some feminine Lincoln mystique as well? I would vote for Blanche! She's the chair of Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. Can easily pick up Gore's green mantle (without needing to resort to Van Jones). And she's even got that 'crazy' sibling that all good Dems need (Blanche's sister directed Madonna's Like a Prayer video, Like a Virgin, and also directed Pet Cemetery).
The sad truth is that neither party is awash with stellar candidates. Each side is represented by the most mediocre people imaginable.
We will probably be stuck with some fundie lunatic like Palin or Huckabee from the GOP side or another 4 years of President Do Nothing to choose from.
It is a continuous deflated electorate who are left with such dismal choices whose only claim to the title is the amount of money they can scoff up to help them outrun each other.
God save us from another election made up of the most disenguous people offered up by either side.
The dems have their fair share of "loons" too. did you hear the dem rep on the house floor apologize to "the dead and their families" for the lack of health care--likening it to the holocaust.
The attacks of racism border on lunacy too.
Uppitywoman notes the rise of Liz Cheney - she could be a real sleeper: not Palin and not Huckabee, but snarly like her father.
Hard to believe, but after 4 years of Obama, I think some Repugs would go for that combination!
not Gore...
he kinda gives me the creeps.
I'm hoping Hillary finds a way to survive the Obama administration.
You are kidding, right?
There is almost no one in either major political party right now that I can admire or look up to -- but I do admire, look up to, respect and support both Hillary and Bill Clinton.
They are survivors, but that's just one part of my admiration for them. They are hard workers, and they devote their formidable energies to doing GOOD things, good things for people who aren't even ranked among the rich and powerful. Both of them care and work for the little people, the regular people, people like us, us.
Yes, as Secretary of State, Hillary is obligated to represent the views of the president; many of her views may coincide with Obama's but many may NOT. Nevertheless, she is a team player and will not undercut the person she has agreed to represent. I respect that, even though I do not respect or admire Obama (she may have the same feelings I do, you know).
BUT -- and here's the main issue -- if Hillary Clinton wants to remain active in politics, she MUST be part of the Obama administration, and she is smart and wise enough to know that. She cannot go into some sort of self-imposed exile and just wait for a time when she might be able to be a player again. It just does NOT work that way. She must remain on the national scene.
In meetings with Obama, she is listened to and she may very well be keeping him from doing even insaner things than he is doing. I have read in many articles that Obama does, indeed, rely on her knowledge and judgment. So, I think Hillary is doing this country a major service right where she is.
As First Lady, United States senator and as Secretary of State, Hillary has consistently and bravely championed issues important to women, and she has defended women's rights all over the world with her strong advocacy. That matters.
I am hoping the day can still come that she can be our president. If I cannot have that hope, it will be a very bleak landscape for me.
Hillary Clinton is one of the hardest working, smartest, most experienced people we Americans have in our political life, and we ought to cherish our good fortune that she is still on the scene.
kidding? Hell no. Jeez, what's with my readers? Gore used to be tremendously popular around here.
Joseph, Gore just is unlikely to run. He shows no signs of interest. Whereas, Hillary just recently made a joke about liking the sound of "president" and people applauded. Two news stations last Sunday also posed the questions of the day, Will Hillary run again? She's gonna run again.
It's disheartening to see Liz Cheney emerging, but I've noted that, too. One really eager-beaver-to-be-prez left off the GOP list is Newt "blowjob" Gingrich. He's everywhere, and he's trotted out his daughter, too.
Mittwit is my least favorite. And his "Mormon background will continue to make him unpopular" amongst more than the evangelicals. I would think that the recent spotlight put on child rape by Roman Polanksi's capture would extend to distaste for cults like the Mormons who not only expel their young men from their closed society so that they can pick off the young women for their harems, but even those who pretend to have joined the rest of civilized society maintain their belief in a "heaven" that consists of god-men pumping away at harems to populate their "planets" with "spirit babies."
I don't think any American should be complacent about mainstreaming a rape cult-ure "religion." Even tho somehow "Big Love" was allowed as "entertainment." What next? MANBLA as a sitcom?
Hey, Anonymous 4:09 AM: That Democratic "loon" is Representative Alan Grayson, a single-payer supporter who is a master of rhetoric and relishes a good fight. Republicans demanded he apologize for giving a presentation about their health care plan, which he explained as "don't get sick; if you do get sick, die quickly." Hence his "apology." If we somehow get health care, he will deserve a large part of the credit.
—g.
The Dems could run their own whackadoodle ticket-- say Alec Baldwin and Bill Maher. What about Clinton/Gore? Al could make money while doing the Veep thing and Hillary would be a great executive. I'm not sure about the Constitutional angle on the Veep, tho the Presidential ban on three terms is well known.
Otherwise the Dems need a military/entertainer ticket to furnish grit and name recognition.
I am afraid you are correct about Huckleberry Half-Truth being the GOPer standard bearer because he has proved already that he is no Paul Harvey.
Eyes on MN:
R- Tim Pawlenty
D- Al Franken
Pawlenty's hat-tricks include eliminating the state's budget deficit w/o raising taxes ($4.5 billion deficit transformed into a $2.2 billion surplus.) Plus, he's an R who graduated from a non-ivy league college and has some green ethanol cred going on, the right biz ties, etc. Watch this guy.
Gore? Meh. Commenter rense has the absolute skinny on why no more Gore with his Kleiner-Perkins p$eps.
Al Franken? We can dream, it can happen?
A-way out west here, at least prior to this most recent apocolypse in both parties, the rumblings had been around Brian Schweitzer. He did get himself bumped up from vice-chair to chair of the Democratic Governor's Assn last christmas, and has been popping up quite a bit in and around the national Dem scene this year.
No question a run is in his sights: what do folks think of him as a contender in 2012?
I hate making posts like this, but since Mr. Cannon has indulged me in the past...
I feel strongly that at this time, the GOP plans to nominate Joe Lieberman in 2012. As for VP nom, no clue, though I think it will be a new face and not Palin.
As for who the Dems need and will probably go with, Bob 8:52 has nailed it, IMO. Military background/entertainer image for our pres/vice combo. (And yes, I feel I know who the candidates will be, but I'm not gonna say at this time. (What can I tell you, I love both those guys, and don't want any negative energy going toward either one.)
And I do think the Democrats will pull out reelection in 2012, although just barely. With the real Roosevelt figure in our midst leading the charge. Hope everyone here sticks around to help it happen.
Before the last cycle, many of us urged Gore to run. He responded to me and I got the impression that he would never run again. He seemed to imply that he could accomplish much without the restraint of gov't. Almost the way I thought Republicans wanted to govern until the extreme religious - issue oriented factions took over. I'll join and vote for the first candidate that says he or she is agnostic.
My prediction: Jeb Bush will run against Obama. Thanks to Obama being the Worst Democrat Ever™--and possibly to a new generation of vote-flipping software--Jeb will "win," and go on to preside over the end of the Republic.
Incidentally, the Jeb Administration will vigorously prosecute the many crimes of the Obama Administration. Republicans do not share the Democrats' reluctance to prosecute.
I say Obama will be the candidate, despite his ineptness, because any Democrat who tries to replace Obama will be kneecapped, so to speak. Obama and his gang would never harm a hair on a Republican's head, but they will do anything to hurt a fellow Democrat. All perspicacious lefties (i.e., PUMAs and their ilk) know this.
Obama will bring the Dems down in the same way Bush II brought the Pubs down. Also spracht Perry.
Petraeus is waiting for his (smarter) McArthur moment. If he succeeds in Afghanistan (which is very possible), all the others are dead meat.
Okay, Bob, I'll say it:
Wes Clark/Al Franken?
Wes Clark/George Clooney?
Wes Clark/??
Anon and St x2 -
Gore could easily structure his business interests so that income loss wasn't a factor(one example of this is how Cheney took "deferred compensation" from Halliburton).
Conservatives would of course try to saddle Gore with conflict-of-interest issues, however, these would be phony since he advocated for the climate in and out of office, and long before he ever made any money off of it...but since they control the MSM, they might make that stick anyway.
(And of course they'd have to ignore the history of Cheney's very real conflicts of interest, but then, for conservatives and other right-wingers, ignoring facts which destroy their arguments is essential to their existence.)
I would still go with Hillary, though. Even though she's Sec. of State, given her, shall we say, contentious history with Obama, trying to tar her with the Obama brush would be so ludricrous it's not very likely anyone would ever even try it, let alone succeed at it...just as - as Al Franken once noted - trying to paint Bill as any kind of fascist was so ridiculous that only a few loonies ever tried it, and none even remotely succeeded.
Her success, though, would depend significantly on how far the Obamanation and its supporters in the DNC had progressed toward their inevitable collapse.
Sergei Rostov
"Commenter rense has the absolute skinny..."
Oh, please. Any poster with "Truth" in his nym and promoting RENSE is a cult nutcase.
Go peddle it elsewhere. Your dismissal of him is just yet more credit to Al Gore. Anyone a rense-truther endorses is at a disadvantage, so please, line up with the LaRouchie nuts and continue to badmouth Gore. It puts him squarely on the side of integrity, opposite truthers and rense nuts.
It's too LATE to talk about 2012.
Basically, it's now or never. The U.S.A. and it's unique Constitution are on the very edge of destruction.
A military coup? I doubt it. More likely, and more hopefully, some thinking adults will sit Obama down and tell him that his "I'm Mr wonderful" act is being rewritten.
His teleprompter will get new lines. We will stop this copy of Nazi euthanasia being pushed as health care reform. We will reinstate the Glass-Steagull legislation, separating needed banking functions from this "counting our bankrupt casino chips as assets" crap . We will put this insane IMF "Globalist" free-trade Wall St and London bailout of the worldwide oligarchical corporatist monetarist system at U.S. taxpayer expense into bankruptcy, establish fixed exchange rates. Build nations and give our children a future... We can go back to the kind of physical, mental and spiritual development we had under great Presidents and leaders such as Lincoln, FDR, and Hamilton. We can build bases on the Moon and travel to Mars and beyond. We can feed the world's population and it can grow.
We can exert ourselves and fight for human dignity or we can be trampled into the dirt by scum typified by Dick Cheney and Tony Blair who bring death and suffering while telling the sheep what they want to hear on TV.
Losing your home, standing by helplessly while family and friends are virtually murdered by lawless tyrant greedy fools has a way of waking people up,
I pray it's not too late.
There is no way in hell Obama will step aside, and the Obamacrat party likes Soviet-style elections - only one candidate on the ballot.
If a Democrat were to give Obama a primary challenge it would have to be someone who is an outsider to Washington.
I can think of someone who has the experience to be President and who is a genuine populist and a reformer. He has executive experience at running a large state. He also has experience at running for POTUS.
He is literally about as far outside Washington as an American politician can get without leaving the lower 48 states.
There is a pretty good chance that he will be getting a lot of news coverage next year which will boost his name recognition and image.
Best of all he's a native Californian.
His name is Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Moonbats for Moonbeam 2012
BTW - if they try rigging the nomination like they did to Hillary last year Brown won't give a shit about party unity - he'll run as an independent.
Brown can out-green Nader and unlike Ralph he has actually won an election. Several of them even.
once again, the reactionary Zee has to jump up and fire off against something she doesn't understand, once again....
I took it as a cute name-calling by Truthy (and seriously Zee, if you can't understand that Truthy is taking the piss, you a) haven't clicked on his name and b) have NO sense of humor.
Personally, I am intelligent enough to understand that he was talking about me (This time appearing in the roll of Stella Stella -- because of my love of Blanche Lincoln. Get it? Blanche, STELLA!!!) and truthy commented on what i said, not my sig., and he called me Rense in a tongue in cheek way. You don't see me acting like an anal 90's feminist who just got called a 'girl' And I'm the one called rense! And not because of what I said, and not because of the info about Gore and VV and KPR (thats easy enough to find on reuters, treehugger, cleantechnica, et cetera, and who knows or cares if its on Rense). Zee, none of that came from Rense.
He called me Rense, because I sometimes like to link my name to David Dees illustrations. And it just so happens that Rense gives Dees some free webspace. So there's the Rense link.
Am I not allowed to like Dees artwork anymore, Zee? Because it offends your staunch zealotry and absolute lack of a sense of humor? DO YOU EVEN KNOW DAVID DEES' ARTWORK? DO YOU REALLY HATE IT ALL THAT MUCH? I mean, JeesusKKCrist Zee, you took his sig. (Too Truthy) and can't see the joke in it, then his comment and nickname for me being the Rense guy (not for the content but for the url link to the artwork) and then not only dismiss what he and I have to say (personally I am sure you didn't realize he was talking about ST3LL4 ST3LL4 when he said rense. did you? no I'll put money down on you didnut know that)
if this was the first and only time Zee that you take a reactionary fundamentalist tone while attacking me (and/or other people) i wouldn't say anything, but you are really coming off as exactly the kind of person people vote against. Is that your goal? To be holier than everyone and winning nothing? Cause you're doing a brilliant job on that front, honey.
Didn't nobody ever tell you to CHOOSE YOUR BATTLES? Do you really need to fight with your allies? With everyone?? Big Love as entertainment? Ok that's already a stretch.. but don't you see how brain damaged you are? You're writing about who's going to run in 2012 and then forget what you're talking about. From then on its Roman Polanski, blowing Newt, and a critique of a pathetic show as some sort of harbinger. sheesh! No wonder you come back later to attack Truthy for giving me a nickname.. glad he didn't give you one Zee, cause obviously it wouldn't be politically correct to call you on your shit with a cute nickname... you seriously need to learn to laugh a little, or at least not sweat the small stuff, or something? Paxil?
Fuck You. I can like David Dees artwork if I want to. And you have no right to dismiss what I have to say based on what art I like. You can shove Lyndon up your ass Zee, my stats and info on Gore are based on a hundred sources none of which are Rense. And based on the lecture i flew him up here for and paid him for (not as much as Bill Clinton charges, but more than you would need to buy a house) and based on the Canadian talking points that i had to write for him for his meet & greet. But sure, because one commenter has a cure nickname for me that makes you think of (some of the) things you hate, sure, ignore it. He's not building a new car company, he didn't just get $82M from the state of LA to build his car company there.... FFS, like Reagan said, don't throw the water out with the baby, Zee.
"if they try rigging" against Jerry?
I know I'm going to get in trouble with Joe about this one, in the primaries in 92 'somebody' was doing some dirty games... And i knwo this because I was pals with Jerry's niece who ran his campaign (Joe you'd really hate her. She's into Rife machines). Still:
Remember the secret service agents who lied about being at "Sex + Drug Parties" at Moonbeam's mansion? (not like there was anyone else runnning, as good as he was, who also ha
d a predilection for the ladies, and who also inhaled...) meanwhile Brown was a Jesuit seminarian, no sex + drug parties... and then there's the 1,000 page faxes that Brown was getting every day that used up all his phone lines and faxes for weeks on end... oh! And don't forget the phantom operator who told ABC News that they could call back over and over again giving more $100 donations. Jerry doesn't play dirty pool. Love Bill + Hill or hate 'em (i love em) they played dirtier in the early 90s. Not saying Brown would have won regardless, but i am saying that it's not his style to fight dirty. And now we all know that whatever dirty fighting was in the 90s that is quaint now in comparison to the kool aid swigging cheetos and Huffpuss. But really, as much as I love Jerry (even more than Bill/Hillary) there's no way that he could take the nomination let alone beat the conservative nature of America.
M for M -
(not like there was anyone else runnning, as good as he was, who also ha
d a predilection for the ladies,
As of '92, Bill had had one affair. ONE. (Bill-as-womanizer was just another phony right-wing meme, shame on you.) Further, don't you think that had the Clintons committed (as you allege) such clear election law violations, it would have come up in Ken Starr's investigation, and been used instead of the whole absurd Monica thing? Sounds like sour grapes to me.
(And no, the highly dubious nature of your claims is not diluted - let alone negated - by saying how much you "love" the Clintons. That's a very old tactic.)
Jerry Brown lost the primaries because he was nutty in a way that doesn't fly well outside of California. That's all.
Sergei Rostov
Jerry Brown lost the primaries because he was nutty in a way that doesn't fly well outside of California. That's all.
Jerry Brown isn't nutty, that's just how the media portrays him. The proposal that caused Mike Royko to call him "Governor Moonbeam" was for the state to launch into orbit its own emergency communications satellite.
Guess what we ended up doing after Brown left office? Compared to what has happened to this state under 3 Republican and 1 DINOcrat successors, Jerry's two terms easily qualify as "the good old days"
Brown didn't lose the primary campaign in 1992 - he was beaten by a better candidate.
Something I'd perhaps heard before, but forgot until recently hearing it again, is that Joe Biden, like Cheney and Rumsfeld, is part of the shadow government, the continuity of government group.
To me, that augers his return to his office in 2012, or perhaps his accession to the senior position as of then (i.e., with or perhaps without BHO).
To be clear, there have been rumors of groups of rebellious flag officer cadres about to depose the president in a coup d'etat over issues of treason, for both the George W. and Clinton administrations. Possibly during the later Nixon administration as well, when we know the top brass essentially removed Nixon's discretion over the use of the launch codes, requiring a kind of second signature/prior approval from senior Pentagon officials.
Sometimes such warnings are prescient, as when in the fall of '63, the NY Times published a front page article by-lined from their top reporter, a Kennedy confidant, stating the administration's position that the CIA might undertake a coup.
Sergei, ONE affair total for Bill Clinton as of '92? I'm more a fan than a detractor of his, but even I find that assertion dubious at best. Perhaps you have some term of art in mind for the word 'affair' that excludes tryst or one-time event?
XI
That's right. There's a war on for MORONS, Zee.
With a teat-sinking missile aimed straight into YOUR craptastic bathroom window of baseless, Wicked-Witch cultist commentary... KABOOM!...splat! All over your mustard colored trousers and tightly cross-stitched girl scout sash encrusted with a couple of horribly pathetic badges that scream “Yes, give me quaaludes with liquor and do me up the ass again, Mr. former vice president! That way, I'll never know how badly you raped me and the rest of the middle class with your gang of high-tech towel snapping, job outsourcing, Googly, KP SV cronies!” Or the other badge I really like best is the one that reads “Zee doodles Hitler mustaches on the smart, pretty girls' yearbook pictures who have high-IQs”...oh yeah. Loves me that badge, Zee. You so classy...
But the truth is, Zee, many Dems, including friends and some bloggers whom I hold in the highest regard (like the proprietor of this fine establishment) may not necessarily know all things jack about the current president via proxy or his SV palsy walsies with beltway ties. And, even if some of them did, the incivil and deluded ones (most definitely not the proprietor) who choose denial, like you – would, ehm, suck it up, anyway. (I'm inclined to mean that both literally and metaphorically.) BTW, do you even KNOW the difference between a simile and a metaphor? Here, let me help:
SIMILE: ZEE has an empty, petty, literal-minded head just like a bag of rocks.
METAPHOR: ZEE's empty, petty, literal-minded head IS a bag of rocks.
Back to Gore, who I did NOT “bash” AT ALL in my comment. Not that I couldn't - I just don't feel like it right now. As a matter of fact, he might – might even be rehabilitation material, IMO. I merely expressed that I did not see the *likelihood* of a 2012 run. How is that “bashing”? Not that he's a total train wreck, but he didn't want to really be president in 2000 - and it showed, as he has had much, much bigger fish to fry. I'll give him that. I know all about his fried fish - not to mention the ones that will soon hit the grease vat. Fast forward to 2008 and he (quite successfully) got his guy in there anyway (not that a literal-minded fucktard like you would understand what “man behind the curtain” would entail.) But that's okay.
Like my intelligent and artistic, very informed friend here with the RENSE comment who YOU moronically also chose to “bash” suggested, if you can't keep it civil, try drugs or the ludes or better, yet, FIBER before you show us your best side. Jesus, you're attacky, clueless comment makes a dopey Repub look like fucking Noam Chomsky. If I were you, I would apologize to both of us and forever hold my, um, piece. Srsly.
As rense aptly pointed out, if it were not for culty, incivil Dems like you who only know how to grow tails and sprout horns, our party would be unified with (here comes the “T” word, Zee) truth and a compass to start throwing the plutocratic bums out who support middle class job outsourcing and insurance/corporate lobby welfare queens and all the other inhumane stuff. Kay? You don't have to agree with my 2012 predictions or rense's but you really do have to keep your cheeto-stained fingers off my comments before another teat-sinking missile blows through your bathroom window and rips a new one in your double-wide SO huge as to make the WTC explosions truly look like an actual inside job.
Post a Comment