What does it mean to be "stupid"

[Cleon]

Gore doesn't stand a chance in a general election, for precisely this reason. He's already given his wigged-out, shouting at the top of his lungs speech. He never gave any speeches like that before his 2000 run, but he cannot take it back now. People might like that kind of behavior in their talk-show hosts, but they won't vote for a potential President who does the whole angry-throbbing-forhead-vein thing. He might be an effective campaigner for some other candidate, but he's lost his shot at the oval office.

Yes, apparently people prefer a candidate who stutters, screws up basic words, and generally doesn't have a clue what's going on.

 

[Dcdrac]

i would ahve voted democrat if i still lived in the US and had the right to vote, but now i would certainly vote for non of the above now.

 

[Ladewig]

Don't forget, he's also the one that got more votes than the guy he lost to. That means that the voters have already, by and large, expressed a preference for him to be president. Not so crazy as it may seem.

Haven't you been listening? "Everything changed on 9/11" (tm) The Republicans have said it like a bazillion times.

On its face, I agree with you that it is not crazy, but given what Karl Rove and his minions have been up to since 9/11, I think a large number of people in the middle (those that decide presidential elections) really believe that had Gore been president on 9/11 things would be worse for America.

As for the opening post being an example of stupid, I say no. I'll go further and claim that a much better example of stupid is those Republicans suggesting that the Consitution be changed to allow Schwarzenegger to run for president.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, apparently people prefer a candidate who stutters, screws up basic words, and generally doesn't have a clue what's going on.

Complain all you want to, but bitterness towards the electorate for their choices doesn't help you persuade them. And you can badmouth Bush too, but he never shouts in anger during his speeches, and he doesn't hurl personal insults at his opponents. People do care about that kind of thing in a president, and if a politician is too stupid to figure that out, or doesn't respect voters enough to act accordingly, then they simply don't deserve to get elected. It's like dressing in a suit for a job interview: the suit is irrelevant to most jobs, but if you don't take the interview seriously enough to dress up, people won't hire you, and that's the right decision on their part. Gore blew his chance already. If he never planned on running again, then screaming may have been a good career move for a future activist/public speaker. But he if wants to run, it's going to come back to bite him.

 

[Cleon]

Complain all you want to, but bitterness towards the electorate for their choices doesn't help you persuade them.

It's not bitterness so much as contempt.

And you can badmouth Bush too, but he never shouts in anger during his speeches,

That's a good thing? I'd prefer a politician who actually shows some passion.

and he doesn't hurl personal insults at his opponents.

And when he referred to a reporter as a "world-class @$$hole," that was what, exactly?

 

[fuelair]

Quite right. That Gore couldn't win Tennessee is the biggest indictment against his electability I can think of. Even so, his candidacy would not be within the realm of the ridiculous either.

As an ex-Tennessean (If you know what "Pardon-me-Ray" is sung to and means then I'll accept you have some ability to speak about how valuable Tennessee's vote is re:intelligence), Tennesseans don't connect much with over-all electability - or intelligent voting.

 

[Trantor]

I don't think that Gore is interested in returning to politics. I may be wrong and perhaps someone will convince him to run again, but he seems to like his role in the Global Warming fight. I've seen him in several interviews lately and he keeps saying that he plans to stay out of politics in the future. I do think that Gore is a pretty smart guy. Maybe Hilary will be the first woman President, Bill will be the first "first Man", and Gore will our new Global Warming Guru - appointed by Hilary and Bill to save the Earth. Just a thought.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's not bitterness so much as contempt.

Contempt is an even bigger turnoff. How many times have you been convinced to take the side of someone who acts contemptuous towards you? A lot of people voted for Bush. Instead of trying to get them to vote for who you want them to vote for, you're stuck on denigrating their past decision. That's not effective.

That's a good thing? I'd prefer a politician who actually shows some passion.

Passion is not synonymous with anger, bitterness, and personal hostility to political opponents. I think it's a very good thing for a president to avoid displaying those qualities. And we usually do elect presidents who don't display those qualities.

And when he referred to a reporter as a "world-class @$$hole," that was what, exactly?

[pedantic]It was "major-league", not "world-class"[/pedantic]. And it was a gaffe. But the public reaction would have been quite a bit stronger if he had said that in a context where he intended an audience to hear.

 

[Ladewig]

or doesn't respect voters enough to act accordingly, then they simply don't deserve to get elected.

I agree. Dick "Go F*ck yourself" Cheney doesn't deserve the post of vice-president.


__________________
In June of 2004, after arguing about Halliburton during a photo-op on the senate floor, Mr. Cheney told Senator Leahy to "go ◊◊◊◊ yourself"

 

[Ladewig]

double post
_____________

 

[Ziggurat]

I agree. Dick "Go F*ck yourself" Cheney doesn't deserve the post of vice-president.

Voters don't generally care much about the vice-president (how else to explain Quayle?). And after Edward's whole "gay daughter" fiasco, Kerry/Edwards lost any possible leverage that Cheney's impropriety might have given them.

In the end, though, I'm not really trying to argue about who deserves to be president (or vice president), but about who can actually get elected. I think Gore cannot get elected. One could think he's the best thing since sliced bread and still agree with that.

 

[Cleon]

Contempt is an even bigger turnoff. How many times have you been convinced to take the side of someone who acts contemptuous towards you? A lot of people voted for Bush. Instead of trying to get them to vote for who you want them to vote for, you're stuck on denigrating their past decision. That's not effective.

Yeah, I stopped giving a $#%^ after I was called a "terrorist support" and a "communist" for disagreeing with Dear Leader.

Passion is not synonymous with anger, bitterness, and personal hostility to political opponents. I think it's a very good thing for a president to avoid displaying those qualities. And we usually do elect presidents who don't display those qualities.

No, but showing emotion in a speech is also not synonymous with anger, bitterness, and personal hostility towards political opponents.

Given that members of the Bush administration have accused critics of "only serving to aid the terrorists," I find your criticism in this department somewhat hollow.

[pedantic]It was "major-league", not "world-class"[/pedantic]. And it was a gaffe. But the public reaction would have been quite a bit stronger if he had said that in a context where he intended an audience to hear.

Oh, it makes it better if he didn't mean to do it in front of a microphone? How does that work?

 

[Ziggurat]

No, but showing emotion in a speech is also not synonymous with anger, bitterness, and personal hostility towards political opponents.

Not relevant to my point, since Gore did display anger, bitterness, and personal hostility towards Bush in some of his speeches. He's sunk as a presidential candidate, but if he plans to do something else, that may not matter.

Oh, it makes it better if he didn't mean to do it in front of a microphone? How does that work?

More correctly, doing it on center stage to an audience would make it much worse. And I'll leave the reasoning for that as an intellectual exercise for you: can you figure out why I might think it's worse? I suspect you can, because it's really not hard, though I'm not sure you'll bother to.

 

[slingblade]

Interesting. I come from a family that has voted Democrat since I dunno when. I am about the only one who (usually) votes Republican now. I like to leave my options open, I will vote for anyone that I feel will do the best job.

Anyway, my family's sentiment is similar, lifetime Democrats who would vote for McCain in a heartbeat. What's up with that? I honestly don't get it...

I can only speak for myself, and only regarding personal opinion, but McCain seems to be one of the few pols who actually gives a crap about the same things I do. He's the only one who seems to have real compassion and a real interest in making the country better, not just in fattening his bank account.

I could easily be wrong, and probably am, but that's my take on it.

edited for clarity

 

[Ladewig]

In the end, though, I'm not really trying to argue about who deserves to be president (or vice president), but about who can actually get elected. I think Gore cannot get elected. One could think he's the best thing since sliced bread and still agree with that.

I am not arguing that he should be elected, but I will take the position that he can be elected. I don't see anything in this thread to indicate that he could not muster a large number of votes. Remember, U.S. politics is a strange place where logic and consistency are endangered species. In the early 90's many people thought a well-publicized video of Marion Barry doing drugs and a cocaine-possession conviction was enough to prevent him from ever holding office again, but less than four years later he was elected mayor.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Gore did not run in 2004. That's not his site, that's a group that tried to draft him into running (and apparently will try again in 08).

Wink wink nod nod. That's how it's done, a group pushes for you and you see how it goes, if response is favorable, you run for office. If not, you bail out and say you had no intention of running.

John Kerry has been in the Senate for over 20 years. How is that a "dead-end" career?

As far as a bid for president. Don't get me started on term limits!

Gore did not run in 2004.

He tested the water and it was too cold for him.

I guess "Moore-like" and "crockumentary" is conservo-speak for "it said things I didn't like."

Yes and no. Yes, he did and said things that I felt crossed into sedition. No, his facts are rotten. He has been taken to task many times for taking things out of context and creative editing.
Soldier sues film-maker Moore

As it happens, even climate change "skeptics" have admitted the film got the science right

Not quite, according to your link.

The former vice president's movie -- replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets -- mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

Al Gore's convenient fiction

Al Gore is no longer actively serving in Congress. Only Congress can start impeachment proceedings.

Yes. You are right here, Gore asks for both aisles of the house to look into the issues. I take it back. I was going on some news story I read about an interview with Gore that was not about this speech.

edit: grammar police!