THEY'RE OFF, IT'S OVER, YOU LOSE
Gore gets Nobel Prize. For one year of attempting to erase a lifetime of some of the most retrograde politics the Democrats have seen since William Jennings Bryan. Parents Music Research Council. Ed Koch dragging him around NYC by his dick. NAFTA. Lieberman. Leon Fuerth and a neo-con plan to have Israel take over all of Middle East. Death penalty and "war on drugs" zealot. Yeah, he's changed. He's pissed off he got robbed. So was Edwards. And Edwards today? Back to the same Southern bullshit he was always slinging. How fast will it take Gore to return to the "moderate" (read: RIGHT-WING) politics that has characterized his entire career?
He doesn't have time to build an infrastructure to contend for presidency as a Democrat.
Only scenario we see here is Howard Dean starts to mix it up in public with all the DLC cunts, leaves DNC chairmanship, letting Harold Ford, Jr., come in welcomed with open arms by Clinton, Obama and Edwards and "necklace" the three of them with the wars they all seem to want. Meanwhile, Dean's now free to take his formidable Rolodex over to Gore and stitch some kind of 3rd party run in general election.
Can Howard Dean even trust Gore? What does Dean do the first time Gore wobbles on Iraq and IRAN? But let's say, unlike Edwards, Gore's the real thing now....
In that scenario, it plays out kind of like Connecticut 2006 only with the more liberal guy in the 3rd party. Giuliani goes to about 12% and the Republicans back Clinton, leaving Gore as the Lamont figure. It sez here that 2000 showed us all how little Gore really wants to be president because it was his for the taking had he announced after Academy Award. Had he announced in January 2007, Clinton might not have even bothered coming in. But that would have taken the huevos of a -- yes -- Fallon or Uribe and if there are two things Gore has always lacked they are huevos.
So, even in a 3-way scenario, helmed by Howard and Jim Dean for Gore, Clinton wins.
Who knows? Maybe when Gore reverts to the Southern sonofabitch he always was, Clinton will let him be Interior Secretary or something. Perfect. President? Be real. What's over/under on how long it will take Gore to talk about a "new paradigm" and "moving beyond partisanship"? If he runs as a Democrat, two months. If he runs as a 3rd party guy, maybe never. Maybe he'll be something of a failed hero. But how much do people really change? For God's sakes, the man found a way to get to Dukakis's right in 1988 and to Bush's right in 2000. He'll have his Sister Souljah moment. Hire Rice as foreign policy advisor? Get into a shouting match with Barbara Lee at a Bay Area fundraiser? The possibilities are endless. You read it first here unless Cockburn already has something up.
Remember what we said on the New York Mets post. The Democrats break your heart in predictable ways.
But Kelso's tired of boring everybody so he will stop now and revert to plan of a little time off.
Kelso's Nuts love you.
13 comments:
"He doesn't have time to build an infrastructure to contend for presidency as a Democrat."
THANK THE BLUE SKIES ABOVE!
(Hey Kelso, read my latest post. It may cheer you up.)
P.S. You're never "boring," Brother. Tu tienes "huevos" grandes!
Read it and liked it but -- sorry, Fairlane for yet another Green Day reference -- masturbation's lost it's fun right now. I have tremendous piles of work in front of me and deadlines and I need sleep badly.
Z--I appreciate your loving support but I KNOW I'm boring. I know I lost everybody at William Jennings Bryan. I'm a little dumb but I'm not retarded. I know that Rachel Maddow is about the only pundit who knows the first thing about American history. while there's no shortage of Jon Stewart clips around (he's clever; he's a Met fan; his heart is in the right place)he's a comic not a scholar and furthermore has always deferred to guys like Dole and McCain while generally failing to give folks like Kucinich the time of day. Or he'll just cop a shit attitude with them.
I can only express myself my way. I happen to enjoy thinking about history, trying to find some patterns and dispelling myths of other patterns. I like to write about all kinds of things. That's what school was all about. That's why we read newspapers.
I happen not to know too much about celebrities and I don't like to write either erotica or about my sex life. I'm no good at it and all it can do is piss my male readers off because they'd think I was showing off in some stupid way. It's not showing off because the culture where I live is different than American culture. If you are in a certain crowd and present yourself a certain way, sex is as commonplace as breathing. We do a lot more sex than talking about it here. And sure it has something to do with power and who you were seen talking to a what club and whose poker game you play in. That's real life but better than "The Rules," no? Besides, Z, you and D-CUP have the knack for erotica and telling rad stories. No es mi vaina con o sin huevos grandes.
At this stage of the game, you could put every so called "contender" in a bag, shake them up, and draw one at raondom - and there'd be no difference.
I just can't see that Gore would want to run. Why would he? His memory can't be that short.
I have hard time seeing Gore running, too. I would think his current high flying ego would not want to take the hit of presidential run.
Kelso,
Gore blew it in 2K, too, by distancing himself from a still very popular President Bill Clinton. Despite the bloviation on the part of the "Respect for the Office" crowd, no one in the country really gave a shit that Clinton got a blowjob. Personally, I was incredulous that anyone would begrudge him that.
So, yes, I think you're dead on about Gore and his centrist views and the fact that when he was active in American politics, he was a politician, which by definition is not different than a willow that sways in the direction of the strongest breeze.
D-CUP/MATHMAN/SPARTACUS:
It's worse than you can imagine. I read Gore and Lieberman's plans for the Middle East. Made Bush/Cheney look like peaceniks.
I was in the Russian oil business when Gore was VP and believe me we were thrilled to have "our" man in Washington -- Al Gore, Jr -- so very close to PM Viktor Chernomyrdin. The two of them cooked up some marvelous shit to find market access for Western Siberian crude, believe.
EARTH IN THE BALANCE is a text-book on the environmental okey-doke. How to seem like an environmentalist without actually being one. Gore? An environmentalist? The man who single-handedly created a pollution disaster in the Juarez/El Paso/Las Cruces area because of Nafta.
Until 2002 he never met a war he didn't like. His environmental record in the Senate is a joke. And every rotten thing Clinton did like tossing 25mm kids off welfare in an economic boom, the Defense Of Marriage Act, the Effective Death Penalty Act, etc., all had Gore's malign fingerprints on them.
Besides, this is not the NOBEL ENVIORNMENTAL PRIZE, it's the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. If any American was going to get it, how that American wasn't Scott Ritter is beyond me.
I actually have come to like Gore more than I did in 2000. I like that he was angry enough to tell Lieberman to take a hike. To support Dean early. And to speak (albeit tepidly) against the Iraq War. I don't trust him though. And while I like his views better than Senator Clinton's, I still think she's the better CANDIDATE.
If Gore really wanted to win this thing, he would have announced in Dec 06 or Jan 07 hoping to keep Clinton on the sidelines. It's better all around that he just keep doing whatever it is he's doing, managing money, making documentaries, doing corporate speeches, whatever, then fucking up an un-loseable election.
Best source if you want to cut through the hype on Gore is Alexander Cockburn.
Gore? MidEast? I must follow up. I have no info on this but Kelso seems to know and you have lead me to good places before.
FranIam:
Google Leon Fuerth. Also visit Counterpunch and read Alexander Cockburn's AL GORE: A USER'S MANUAL
Got it and Hillary's Turn too. Thanks man.
FranIam:
I am amazed that you'd actually take the time to read these books. I'm flattered that you think so highly of my opinion.
I just make it a rule never to read any politician's "own" book. I like to read the unauthorized stuff, especially about Democrats. Woodward is definitely someone to avoid. He's all about access and money and being a member of the club. George Will is a must to avoid, of course.
Republicans are just so brazen about everything you don't need to read much. They make no secrets about who they are. Still, I liked Chris Hedges book on war and Jeremy Scahill's book on Blackwater. Although in the Hitchens v Clinton+Blumenthal dust-up I much favored the latter side, Hitchens is so nuts but so bright that he's always a good read even if he's wrong.
Other right wing attack books like by Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Bernard Goldberg are just so inaccurate and poorly researched, if I want to read a tough take on a Democrat, I have to go to a far left source like Cockburn, Chomsky & Herman, or Doug Henwood.
Tomasky's own politics are center-left. He's a great writer and you will never read a better book on NY politics or on Hillary Clinton. He's very balanced in his writing, presents a tremendous amount of detail and is quite literary. What I like about the left wing Democratic critics is how well sourced and researched they are. The right wing books read as though they were scribbled in crayon. They don't have to worry about getting it right because they know some jobber will buy and pulp a huge order to keep them on the best seller lists. The lefties don't have that luxury so everything has to be pretty meticulous.
Other books I've enjoyed were: Lewis Lapham's Case For Impeachment about Bush. And all of the Molly Ivins collections. And Kevin Phillips is just so smart and serious that you don't even mind when he switches from populist to conservative mode. He's usually thinking about 10 steps ahead of everyone else.
If you made it over to Counterpunch, you must start reading Paul Craig Roberts immediately. He's really one of the most unusual thinkers in "journalism" today. He was an economics and finance professor. Worked in the Treasury Dept under Reagan and when I was in B-School during Bush Sr and Clinton years I always found Roberts's writings on economics and finance enlightening and I'm hardly surprised that he's become one of America's leading doves. Give Reagan credit for two hires at least: Roberts and George Shultz. Two totally legit, stand-up guys.
You've often wondered how I know some of the stuff I do and I'm always surprised when you wonder because the answer is so mundane: I read the newspapers, the websites, blogs and books.
As for the TV and Radio folks, there are a few I like. All are different. Keith Olbermann, of course. Not much to add there. Mike Malloy on Nova-M Radio or XM I think is very cathartic to listen to because he's a liberal who's always ANGRY and never wants to be FAIR. Very cathartic. Very gifted with words and well-researched.
The straight pundit I think who is head and shoulders above everyone -- in fact, the only pundit I give any weight to at all -- is Rachel Maddow. She has an Air America show and makes the usual TV rounds although I think she has a permanent gig with Olbermann but as I don't get MSNBC here, I depend on the clips. She's very, very well educated. Has a Doctorate from either Oxford or Cambridge in PoliSci, though she's an American. She's a totally out lesbian but that's not schtick or identity politics in any way. Just part of who she is. Because of her education she can read the numbers very well and interpret them in a way that's understandable for the lay person but not beneath a numbers person. She's got a very polite and charming manner and a lively sense of humor. She revels in the absurd more than in caustic put downs. And she's usually got a unique take on things. She was the one, for example, who hipped me to the idea that the 2006 results were NOT about the war -- she never expected the Democrats to live up to any promises -- but rather because the Republicans put together a platform that turned off their core supporters outside the Christian Right -- White Men. She posited that because they made the election about pot, porn, poker and penises, White men either stayed home or voted Democratic. Like Kevin Phillips, she's always about 10 steps ahead. When she interviews him, it's a superior bit of radio. She's also excellent with Pat Buchanan, who I think has a lot of hideous views but is bright and charming.
She recently had some interesting things to say about Gore, whom she likes. She thinks that in his present incarnation Gore is TOO PERFECT A CANDIDATE and that she feels is a huge Democratic liability. They look for the perfect candidate as opposed to "selling" the one that fits a la Bush.
I'm not as sold on Jon Stewart as everyone else is. I like his personality but his style is beginning to get tiresome. I don't feel I'm missing much not having Comedy Central here. In some senses, I like Bill Maher's show more because although it's funny, it really is about the people, players and viewpoints.
Post a Comment