Gore top threat to Bush says Republican strategist

[Jackson4Gore]

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix_u.htm

AL TOPS BUSH-BEATER BRIGADE

"AL Gore would be the biggest threat to President Bush's re-election and Hillary Clinton the next most dangerous opponent, Republican strategist Ed Rollins said yesterday at the "Is Bush Unbeatable in 2004?" forum sponsored by The Week magazine.
Of course, neither Gore nor Clinton is running. But that didn't stop former Talk editrix Tina Brown from asking Rollins, who masterminded Ronald Reagan's 1984 re-election, if New York's junior senator could unseat Bush next year."

"Six months from now, if Bush is vulnerable, then yes, she could," said Rollins, adding that Gore would be his toughest opponent and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, the weakest: "Nominating Dean would be like handing the election to the Republicans."

[Maple]

1. LOL

Oh don't look at Dean or any of those other guys...quick look over here....look at the people who aren't running, they're the ones...no no ....don't think about anyone else, concentrate on Gore and Hillary. Quick!

Flim-flam has always been in style. Especially in politics.

[annak110]

13. Yup, it's flim-flam all right

I always have to wonder, when rwnut shills pass this kind of bs around, who they think they're fooling...

[shance]

20. Defined: it means Gore is the LAST one they are now worried about

Take the opposite of what they are saying and then you have the correct answer.

[Wonk]

22. You don't think it's wise for Dems to take the advice of a GOP strategist?

Me either.

[Jackson4Gore]

24. Then how about

taking the advice of Democratic polling showing Gore the strongest candidate out of the nine combined and against Bush.

[dragonquest8]

35. You are totally wrong on this one

Gore has the best chance to beat Chimpy.

[bluestateguy]

2. sigh

I'm not going to say "get over it" in regards to the 2000 election. By all means stay mad about that. But you need to get over the fact that Al Gore will not be running for president in 2004.

[unblock]

3. you know, i've never been a "draft gore" guy, BUT:

if the democrats actually thought about MARKETING and tried to do it right, a draft gore campaign, properly done, could actually work really well.

gore's biggest problem last go round was unfair treatment by the press. now, this is a two-way street, of course. gore got bad treatment in part because he didn't give the press enough of what they wanted. face it, the only gore stories that sold papers were the sniping and tweaking anti-gore stories.

but, a late-season draft gore campaign, hero riding in to save the day, talking big about american ideals (NOT POLICY!) and restoring the vision of the founders, etc., now THAT's a story that will sell papers!

[Ferretherder]

6. Here, here!

I second that analogy!

[Cha]

4. With all due respect and props to Al Gore....

I wouldn't trust ed rollins as far as I could throw him.

And I wouldn't believe a word he says or any other republican.

[goforit]

5. Gore is great/Kucinich is great/Dean is great!!.....Any can beat Bush!

I certainly would like to see Bush/Cheney arrested first.
Then I would consider elections later.

[jmags]

7. Now more than ever I think Dean's our guy.

[Capn Sunshine]

8. WHEN ED ROLLINS SPEAKS

Believe the EXACT OPPOSITE.

I KNEW it. DEAN SCARES THE SHIT OUT OF THEM!
:nuke:

[Jackson4Gore]

9. If you think the country will elect someone like Dean

you dont know much about politics. You can say Dean is a lefty, but he is. A democrat like him will never be elected. We need someone who is left/center like Gore or Clinton or even the way Bill Bradley was. Someone with the views of Dean just does not go well with moderates and swing voters.

I doubt Dean scares anyone.

[ibegurpard]

12. Nothing against Gore

Considering that he was my preferred candidate before he dropped out but if you think that Dean is a "lefty" then you really don't know much about his positions on many issues and have just bought into the media spin on him.

[Jackson4Gore]

17. Actually I do know about Dean

I know that he is for gay unions. He favors partial birth abortion. He is very anti war. Those are some pretty lefty stands on some conterversial issues.

[ChrisNYC]

21. So did Clinton

Partial birth abortion is only a controversial issue because the GOP lies about it. No one does it by choice -- it's a medical necessity procedure which is why it's so laughable that the GOP wants to pass a ban with an exemption for medical necessities -- that will cover 99.999% of partial birth abortions.

And you are actually criticizing Dean for being anti-war? Give me a break. The American people were lied to and Dean was smart enough to see through it. Too bad Al Gore wasn't.

[w4rma]

Al Gore: I would Never Start This War

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=21239

Al Gore has never been a supporter of Iraq war
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3451987&thesection=news&thesubsection=dialogue

[Jackson4Gore]

34. Dont even compare Gore and Dean on the war

Dean took more hostal stands than Gore. But they both were against it, just in different meanings.

[w4rma]

36. Gore's and Dean's positions on the Iraq were pretty much the same (quotes)

...
Among key passages in Mr Gore's speech were: "I am deeply concerned that the policy we are presently following with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism."

And: "There's no international law that can prevent the United States from taking action to protect our vital interests when it is manifestly clear that there's a choice to be made between law and our survival ... I believe however that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq."

And: "In the immediate aftermath of September 11, more than a year ago, we had an enormous reservoir of goodwill and sympathy and shared resolve all over the world. That has been squandered in a year's time and replaced with great anxiety all around the world, not primarily about what the terrorist networks are going to do, but about what we're going to do."

And: "President Bush now asserts that we will take pre-emptive action even if the threat we perceive is not imminent. If other nations assert the same right then the rule of law will quickly be replaced by the reign of fear."

Since making that speech, Mr Gore has withdrawn as a 2004 presidential candidate and made fewer public pronouncements. But a Gore supporters' website carries a report that he told a closed symposium in Athens this month: "I would never start this war if I were President."
...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3451987&thesection=news&thesubsection=dialogue

...
Howard Dean: I can't speak to his motives, because I can't read his mind.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, though, and presume that he believes Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to our security.

I happen to disagree with that; I think we had Saddam pretty well contained. My problem with the war in Iraq isn't with motivation; it's with justification.

I don't believe the President was able to show that Iraq was an imminent threat to our security; his whole rationale for using force was based on the idea that they might be a danger to the United States at some point in the future.

Frankly, I've never understood why he was concentrating on Iraq, which had been successfully contained for twelve years, while every day a country like North Korea develops its nuclear capability.
...
...
Howard Dean: It is undeniable that Saddam Hussein is a despicable tyrant. In my opposition to the war, I have never suggested anything to the contrary.

Of course, in and of itself, Saddam’s departure is a good thing.

But the costs of the war - some known, some unknown - and what I considered to be an insufficient justification for unilateral action led me to conclude that this was the wrong war at the wrong time, and my view has not changed.

The jury is still out on whether or not the operation will be seen as successful one; we’re not quite sure what we have created in the Arab world. The reconstruction effort has gotten off to a very rocky start.

What we have created in Washington, though, is a dangerous new doctrine of preventive war that could cause serious problems for us down the line.
...
http://www.liberaloasis.com/dean.htm

[w4rma]

25. He was anti-IRAQ war (so was Gore). Otherwise he's an owl.

You are correct about civil unions (I haven't researched Gore on this, but Kerry's position is the same as Dean's). Note that is NOT marrage and he says that he will leave the decision to individual states. Gore's position on Partial birth aboriton is the same as Dean's. Partial birth abortion is not a scientific term. It is a buzz phrase.

...
LiberalOasis: What do you think were the motivations for the Bush Administration to go to war with Iraq?

Howard Dean: I can't speak to his motives, because I can't read his mind.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, though, and presume that he believes Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to our security.

I happen to disagree with that; I think we had Saddam pretty well contained. My problem with the war in Iraq isn't with motivation; it's with justification.

I don't believe the President was able to show that Iraq was an imminent threat to our security; his whole rationale for using force was based on the idea that they might be a danger to the United States at some point in the future.

Frankly, I've never understood why he was concentrating on Iraq, which had been successfully contained for twelve years, while every day a country like North Korea develops its nuclear capability.
...
Liberal Oasis: You've taken some flak for saying, following the downfall of Saddam Hussein, "I suppose that's a good thing.”

USA Today's Walter Shapiro said it was an "off-key note" and "even Democrats who doubt the strategic wisdom of the war have to agree that Saddam's ouster was unquestionably a good thing."

Senator Evan Bayh said in response, "equivocating about whether Saddam's departure is a good thing or not doesn't help the Democratic Party." What's your response?

Howard Dean: It is undeniable that Saddam Hussein is a despicable tyrant. In my opposition to the war, I have never suggested anything to the contrary.

Of course, in and of itself, Saddam’s departure is a good thing.

But the costs of the war - some known, some unknown - and what I considered to be an insufficient justification for unilateral action led me to conclude that this was the wrong war at the wrong time, and my view has not changed.

The jury is still out on whether or not the operation will be seen as successful one; we’re not quite sure what we have created in the Arab world. The reconstruction effort has gotten off to a very rocky start.

What we have created in Washington, though, is a dangerous new doctrine of preventive war that could cause serious problems for us down the line.
...
http://www.liberaloasis.com/dean.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=43435&mesg_id=43435&page=

A slogan without fixed meaning

"Partial-birth abortion" is one term that has been widely adopted by the media, despite being a political construct that refers to no known medical procedure. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act was sold to the public as banning one procedure late in pregnancy, when in fact the vague language could ban a wide variety of abortions, even before fetal viability. In coverage of three runs through Congress and attempts in some 30 states to institute a ban, the press has consistently adopted the inflammatory phrase.

In the matter's first hearing before a federal appellate court, in September 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit unanimously declared "partial birth" bans in three states unconstitutional. In the ruling, Judge Richard S. Arnold said, "The law refers to 'partial birth abortion,' but this term, though widely used by lawmakers and in the popular press, has no fixed medical or legal content." (Village Voice, 12/21/99) The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists argues that "the definitions could be interpreted to include elements of many recognized abortion and operative obstetric techniques."
...
http://www.fair.org/extra/0003/partial-abortion.html

The man behind Vermont's Civil Union law says he would recognize same-sex couples if elected president.

But, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean says he would not try to push a Civil Union bill though Congress.

Dean, who is a candidate for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination told a Philadelphia audience Saturday, said instead he would advocate that the federal government recognize state laws that granted gays and lesbians the rights and benefits of marriage.

"As president of the United States, I will recognize civil unions, which will then allow full equality under the law as far as the federal government is concerned," Dean said in a speech to the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association convention in Philadelphia.

Dean said it was not the federal government’s role to become involved in marriage statutes. He pledged that if elected he would do all he could to undo the Defense of Marriage Act, passed during the Clinton administration, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing marriages between any couples except one man and one woman.

He made a point of emphasizing he was not advocating full marriage rights. Nor was he pressing other states to enact civil union legislation.

"What I am not going to do is tell every state they have to pass civil unions," he said.
...
http://www.gaypasg.org/Press%20Clippings/September%202002/Vermont's%20Dean%20Would%20Recognize%20Civil%20Unions%20If%20President.htm

[Jackson4Gore]

31. Dean is for PBA

Here is the definition:

‘Partial-Birth Abortion’ refers to a late-term abortion method which induces a breech delivery and collapses the fetal skull before completing delivery. This procedure is banned in 24 states, but pro-choice advocates, including President Clinton, have sought to overturn state laws with a federal ruling. In April, the Supreme Court rejected a Nebraska law banning partial birth abortions. In June, the Court said that the Nebraska ban was unconstitutional because it had no exceptions and barred second trimester abortions.

I read and Howard Dean would not ban this, which means he supports it. Gore however does not support it.

[w4rma]

33. PBA does not exist in medical terminology. It is NOT a scientific term.

...
In the ruling, Judge Richard S. Arnold said, "The law refers to 'partial birth abortion,' but this term, though widely used by lawmakers and in the popular press, has no fixed medical or legal content." (Village Voice, 12/21/99) The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists argues that "the definitions could be interpreted to include elements of many recognized abortion and operative obstetric techniques."
...
http://www.fair.org/extra/0003/partial-abortion.html

[w4rma]

19. Whoah there. Dean's record is that of a moderate.

Dean's positions are conservative AND liberal AND moderate. He's no liberal, he's a centrist.

This is why Dean scares them. And the other reason Dean scares them is that his campaign has a network that can bypass the mainstream corporate media to get information out to the public through:

Final 2nd Quarter People-Powered Howard Report: $7.6 Million Raised

Howard Dean today announced that 73,226 Americans joined together to raise over $7.6 million for the Dean for America campaign in the second filing quarter which ended on June 30. A total of 83,041 individuals have contributed to the campaign overall.

"This campaign is about bringing people back into a political process that for too long has been dominated by Washington insiders out of touch with real Americans,” said Dean. “Behind each of these contributions are the stories of Americans who want to take their country back, and they are making a huge difference."

Fundraising Facts:

**Of the 83,041 donors overall, only 891 have maxed out, enabling over 82,000 of them to continue to contribute funds to the campaign in the future.

**The average donation to the campaign was $88.11, demonstrating that Americans are participating directly in their democracy, giving what they can to reclaim their government.

** Over 62,000 donors gave for the first time to Dean for America this quarter, demonstrating the momentum and growth of the campaign.

“We are building the greatest grassroots campaign of the modern era,” said Campaign Manager Joe Trippi. “These supporters are not only donating money, they’re flyering in their neighborhoods and collecting signatures for ballot access, they’re engaged in a way they never have been before. This is people-powered Howard.”
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000691.html

[annak110]

14. Sounds like he does scare them

and that makes me more interested in Dean.

[depakid]

10. Well, there you go- who do they fear?

Howard Dean-

His negatives don't even register and he slays their 4 horsemen:

Ignorance;

Avarice;

Intolerance; and

Apathy.

[Jackson4Gore]

11. Probablly none of the current people

except Graham or Kerry if they gain momentuem. But their main fear is Gore, most definitly. I have a presidential simulator game and I match up Gore and Bush and it has an interesting begining to the election. Bush about 47% or 48% popularity compared to Gore's 44% with Nader getting 3% or 4% while about 5%-7% undecided. Bush would have 279 EVs while Gore would have 259EV. I think that is a very likely scenerio if Gore decided to run. Those numbers would cahnge throughtout the campaign, but starting out the numbers would be close to what is above.

So yes Gore could win, espeacially if he was out campaigning getting his message out.

[depakid]

16. Gore has high negatives

Whether he deserves them or not is irrelevant. Unfortunately.

Howard Dean may fly off the handle from time to time- and he may admit (as ANY honest, intelligent person does) that he doesn't know the answer to every question posed- but that's a strength. I mean, hey, this is a guy who is (and appears) genuine. Even to people who don't agree with him on all of the issues.

Gore on the other hand, doesn't evoke that sort of response- and again I'll say unfortunately. In 2000, he cared too much about numbers, consultants and, I suppose, his definition of morality.

In the end, it didn't fly, and it won't fly high enough again- which is why Ed Rollins is baiting people this early in the campaign. He's a little dutch boy, trying to put his finger in the dike.

And it won't work....

[Jackson4Gore]

18. If you are saying Gore is not the strongest against Bush

you need to put down the pipe! Also do you think Gore's "negatives" are worse than Bush's now?

[ChrisNYC]

Yes, I'm saying Gore is not the strongest

Because Gore excites exactly no one. He was one of the most boring canidates in history, and despite the fact that he was infinitely better than Shrub, he was hardly an exciting canidate. He has name recognition with moron Americans, which is all he offers at this point. Whoever the nominee is will have that by next November, and hopefully a personality too.

[w4rma]

30. I'm going to disagree, ChrisNYC

He won the election and he would probably win it again if he ran, IMHO. Just before he dropped out of the race, folks were ready to back him by a very large margin. If he had decided to run, he would be the nominee, right now, and noone could stop him. He didn't though, and I think that it is too late for him to run in 2004 as politically aware folks are already lining up behind other nominees and this hobbles his chances at winning the nomination.

Note, that I have been one of the most vocal Al Gore supporters on this board since a few months after the board started up. But a few months after he declared he wasn't running I got behind Dean, because I think he has the best chance of winning and fending off Republican attacks once in office.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ChrisNYC]

27. SORRY -- DU IS GOING CRAZY

[Melinda]

28. Hiccups Chris, or are ya REALLY pounding your point home?

:evilgrin:

Oh, and President Gore STILL excites me.

[haymaker]

38. Your OPINION

is noted.

[Yupster]

29. Presidential simulator

Tell me about it?

I used to have a cmputer game called president elect that sounds like what you're describing, but mine was from about 1985, and I've never found an updated version.

[Jackson4Gore]

32. The one I am using is an updated version

of President 2000 with all 9 candidates and other candidates. I will provide the download if I can find a place to share it with yall at.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

15. Gore would slaughter Bush

Imagine Gore-Clark. I think it can happen - if Gore declares Demos will fight to give him money.

Although the (Kerry/Clark/Edwards) exacta box also looks unbeatable.

[CMT]

23. either they underestimate Dean or they are afraid of him

there certainly are enough of the GOP bigwigs from Rove and Rollins on down saying that "If you nominate Dean we win big" You'd think if they really wanted Dean they wouldn't be trying to convince Dems that he is a sure loser.

But anyhow I think any of our candidates could beat the loser in who occupies the White House.

[haymaker]

37. dems4america,

yeah, right. While most, or many here would love to see Gore get back in, the all knowing,all omniscient blather about Dean is just that. Funny thing, Rush says the exact same thing. So does Hannity. So does O'really. So does Heugh Hewitt. So do all the highly paid whores. I guess I should start believing them.