Skip to comments.A Gore/Clinton ticket in 2008 (sweet)
Posted on 04/24/2005 8:00:19 AM PDT by bitt
I realize we have not even arrived at the point where we can seriously consider the midterm elections in 2006. But even the thought of them, and then beyond, forces me to seriously consider 2008. If the midterms go as I expect, then 2008 is inevitable.
Everything I said seems to be coming true. Kerry lost because of his own arrogance and the Democrats inability to respond to the shoot from the hip, hard line, inflexible Republican style. It was not yet fashionable to embrace the Tortise while the Hare was making his dash for the second of many finish lines.
As much as I wanted to embrace a change in 2004, I knew it wasn't in the cards under any circumstances. Had Kerry been elected, aside from not having Bush, what would have been different?
Would he taken the oath of office and declared all American troops in Iraq would immediately come home? I don't think so.
What would he have done to control the price of a gallon of gas at the pump? Would he have slapped down the forces who are profiteering and collecting windfall profits by manipulating supply and demand? I doubt it. I beleive he would be just as silent as George Bush.
And what about the declining dollar? What would he have done to address the fact the value of the dollar has dropped 52% since the day Bill Clinton left office?
How would have a John Kerry Administration in the White House addressed reducing the trade deficit?
Bush hasn't done anything. What would John Kerry have done?
Right now Alan Greenspan is reluctant to admit that in our current situation either the value of the U.S. dollar will decline a whole lot more, or the trade deficit has to be drastically reduced. Knowing full well one inversely affects the other, what would John Kerry have done to save us? How would he have addressed the fact of life that both cannot continue rising?
How would a John Kerry presidency addressed the economic fact of life, the fact that U.S. interest rates WILL RISE in 2005? And what about 2006?
What measures would he have taken to deal with the Chinese? How could he have motivated China to make the currency exchange rate of the yuan flexible rather than its current status as being linked to the dollar?
I could never really get my arms around a John Kerry presidency. I didn't see anything changing. What's more, George Bush created this mess. I always thought he should be forced to live with it. And isn't it funny how things work out?
A recent Democracy Corps Survey indicates 86% of those surveyed voted in the 2002 midterms and 83% expect to vote in the 2006 elections. What was not only interesting but noteable was the fact a healthy majority, 56% of them, now feel the nation has gone in the wrong direction since the 2002 elections.
The five main reasons they give are: The Iraq War; Bush's leadership and direction; Jobs, income, and the cost of things; Health care problems; and, Retirement issues and Social Security.
While these concerns can be easily hung around the neck of George W. Bush, when asked about the 2006 elections, 47% of those surveyed indicated indicated they would vote for a Democrat over a Republican. Conversely, 42% said they would vote for a Republican over a Democrat.
That has to be disturbing news for Republican incumbants in Congress. Right now 55% of those surveyed believe the country has been taken in the wrong direction while only 41% believe we are on the right track.
This is where I want to go in another direction because a question asked in this survey may just give us a bit more insight into the 2008 election than we might realize.
When asked if the Constituiton was changed so there was no longer a term limit on Presidents and there was a choice between George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton defeated Bush 53% to 43%.
And while this theoretical concept might be fun, it is also indicitive of the perception of the American voters regarding the two names.
People like myself who never voted for Bill Clinton, when forced to make a mental comparison between him and George W. Bush, now view his Presidency and the direction in which he took the nation in a very favorable light. That has to certainly be a plus for Hillary Rodham Clinton, not only for her incumbancy as a Senator in 2006, but also for a possible run for the presidency in 2008. A Clinton presidency, regardless of which Clinton it might be, has a strong appeal to a large segment of the American voting public.
The thought of Hillary Clinton running for President is as frightening to some as it is intriguing for others. I would dare say the idea of the possibility of her occupying the Oval Office would serve to polarize the nation in a way we have never seen. It would insure the largest single turnout for any election in our history.
Would she win?
I don't think so.
Enter Al Gore and as he does, do not be too quick to dismiss him.
Richard Nixon lost a very close race, a race that perhaps he actually won, to John Kennedy. That was 1960.
Let us not forget Al Gores loss to George Bush in 2000. The similarities are there including the fact both men ran for the presidency following eight years as Vice President.
Nixon, like Gore, did not run four years later. Also, the Republicans in 1964 as the Democrats in 2004, did not win the White House. When Nixon reemerged on the political scene just after the midterm elections in 1966, all the negatives that once surrounded him seemed to disappear. Might it not also work the same way for Al Gore?
Of course it can and probably will. That opens up the possibility for a spirited race between him and Hillary for the top spot on the ticket.
In 2004 Al Gore supported Howard Dean. Dean didn't win the top spot but he is now the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Will Gore have Dean's support?
Bet on it, and at the same time bet on Gore quietly picking up additional support in all quarters. By the time we get to the nomination process it will be Al Gore who will be standing head and shoulders over all others, and that includes Hillary Clinton.
While the idea of being the first woman President of the United States might still be out of her reach, she could become the first woman Vice President of the United States, and a single heart beat away from the Presidency. Why wouldn't she take it?
It would be a difficult thing for anyone to turn away from, let alone a driven person like the Senator from New York and former First Lady of the United States. What's more, a Gore/Clinton ticket would almost surely convert to a win. Hillary Clinton has always liked to win and in winning she will make history.
I recognize many will scoff and laugh at this idea. Maybe they are correct.
But then, maybe they aren't and maybe, just maybe, once more I am alone calling what will really come to pass.
In the meantime I'll keep smiling.
Bud Beck, also known as Harold Thomas Beck is the former host of the Bud Beck Show and the author of: Ripe For The Picking (The Story of the Kathy Wilson Murder), Cornplanter Chronicles, The First Terrorist Act, and Tyrannus Bush?
"Is the country moving in the right or wrong direction?"
There are plenty of people like me who would answer that
"The WRONG Direction!", and that's why I support the President.
Gore/Clinton ---- Soulman/Soulless
Ha. I saw Al Gore in the Nashville airport a few weeks ago. He's a shell of a man. I've seen two-day-old corpses that looked better.
And, though I hate to use labels like this, Al Gore is a dunce. He just isn't very bright, and the key Democrats that would be necessary for his fund-raising can see that.
It's always fun to expect history to repeat itself. But I think the Nixon thing was a freak of unlikely circumstances coming together. And Nixon, though fairly amoral, was not stupid.
Man, if the Democrats are reduced for hoping for a Gore comeback, they've really sunk to the depths.
"Hillary Clinton has always liked to win and in winning she will make history."
Being the crass opportunist that she is, she'll take what she can get.
And, once she's a heartbeat away from the presidency (as well as an impeachment scandal away from the presidency), I wouldn't want to be Al Gore.
Exactly. They always assume (wrongly) that when people surveyed say the country is moving in the wrong direction itmeans that people think that the Democrats would provide the right direction which couldn't be further from the case. I think that Republicans are going to pick up seats again precisely because the Democrats have failed to do anything. Where is their Contract with America? Where is their support for the interests of the common man? All they do is gripe and provide no solutions beyond what they always propose, bigger government and higher taxes. Does anyone think that the Democrats would be more fiscally responsible? I certainly don't and I can't think of a more wrong direction than that proposed by the left.
A Gore/Clinton Ticket 2008 = Gore/Bush ticket.
If this indicative of 'rat thinking heading into 2006, I believe we will be OK. Frankly, this is unrealistic. The Nixon/Gore comparison has a certain surface validity but Gore does not play the same role in the Party now that Nixon did in the 1966 election cycle.
Back then, following the 1964 debacle, Nixon was the political leader of the GOP and he worked tirelessly for 1966 candidates. The GOP did very well in 1966, although remaining in the minority they recouped much of the damage from 1964. Nixon thus was both the titular and political head of the party. The nomination in 1968 was his for the asking.
Gore is in no such position now and if he is to earn IOU's in 2006 he will have to get busy soon. Even so, he will not be uncontested in 2008, as Nixon was in 1968.
This is in short, a fairytale spun by a Hillary suck-up. Not to worry..
Let's go back a few years, and see the sheer folly of trying to predict a nominee (or even President) at this early stage:
1956 - JFK wasn't on the radar screen as Presidental material. Nixon was an unwelcome part of the Ike administration.
1960 - LBJ was brought onto the ticket to gain support from the south. He was elected in '64 based on the unwillingness of many people to endure another change in the White House.
1964 - "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore." Actually, that was 1962, but his career seemed to be over after losing the California governorship. RFK seems to be the front-runner, and no one besides the Palestinians can forsee RFK's assassination. HHH doesn't enter the '68 race until late, and few if any forsee the George Wallace candidacy.
1968 - George McGovern WHO?
1972 - Carter wasn't on the radar in '72 either. Come to think of it, neither was Ford.
1976 - AT LAST! Reagan comes away as the clear front-runner for the 1980 nomination, much to the dismay of the moderates.
1980 - Mondale is the front-runner due to his being Carter's VP.
1984 - Bush 41 is the front-runner by virtue of being VP. How many of the pundits could even spell "Dukakis"?
1988 - Bill Clinton was simply a long-winded convention speaker who did well on the Tonight Show.
1992 - Bob Dole the front-runner after Bush '41's defeat.
1996 - Gore front-runner due to being VP. Ann Richards finds out about Dubya, but few are talking about him being President.
2000 - Who is this junior Senator from Mass who looks like a member of the Adams Family?
So here we are, with the pundits talking about who's gonna be the nominee. Aside from VPs and former VPs, few can predict anything here, if history is our guide.
Gore has not been doing what Nixon did. Nixon worked his tail off on the rubber chicken circuit thereby building grass roots support. Guinrich is a more apt comparison to Nixon than Gore.
Their will never be a Gore-Clinton ticket, even the alphabet wouldn't tolerate it.
Al Gore? Stick a fork in him -- he's done.
Gore is toast ...no, moldy bread
"Nixon was a decent guy who largely did a good job. To his everlasting shame he is regarded as a crook and a screwup for doing things the democrat way."
I'm disagreeing w/ you.
1. This guy was a social lib, who brought about massive inflation w/ his economic policies. To cover that, he tried Wage and Price controls, which led to massive shortages of almost everything. Carter's economic "malaise" was due to Nixon's policies.
2. Second, this guy's paranoia got the best of him. Nixon was rightly impeached for using the tools of office (IRS, FBI, et al) along with his CREP (plubmers, burglers, etc) to negate a fair election. Granted, it had been done before, but that "been done before" excuse should never be used as a legal defense.
You are correct that Nixon did some great work in his area of Cold War operation, and was a helluva baseball expert. He was certainly one of the best policians of our era.
Hillary played second fiddle for eight years, she is not about to do it again. It is first chair for her or nothing.
I guess I will disagree with both of you. Nixon started the process of sucking up to China and see what that got us. Talking about China, time to move this thread back from Nixon to Hillary Clinton.
I don't think Hillary would ever play second fiddle to Algore.
Ice Tea Break/Ice in Veins
Iced Tea - revisited:
David Limbaugh (archive)
March 28, 2000
We can all snicker about Al Gore's fantastic delusions about inventing the Internet and his connections with the Love Canal and "Love Story." But the growing evidence of his personal corruption is not a laughing matter.
I'm not sure which is more cynical -- Gore making campaign finance reform the centerpiece of his campaign or his iced tea defense (i.e., his statement to FBI investigators that he may have been in the bathroom during discussions about illegal hard-money solicitations from the Oval Office).
His assertion that he is particularly qualified to lead the charge for reform because of his own campaign finance "mistakes" is as laughable as a felon running for prosecutor on the theory that he is intimately qualified in criminal matters.
Gore's iced tea whopper takes me back to my brief stint as a criminal lawyer early in my legal career. An appointed client, accused of stealing a TV, protested that he had not stolen the television set the police caught him carting down the street on a dolly at 3 o'clock in the morning. He had just left his girlfriend's house when a stranger approached him on the dark street and made a gift to him of the TV. My client would have been better off entering a plea than to try to sell that tale to the jury. But so far, Al Gore has no reason to fear his jury -- the American people. He and Clinton have yet to pay for any of their outrageous behavior, let alone their outrageous whoppers about their outrageous behavior.
I admit I'm alarmed at how lightly we are treating Al Gore's corruption. We now know that there is no real remedy for gross presidential misconduct by a Democratic president. Democratic congressmen and senators constitute an absolute shield for their miscreant presidents. And the electorate has no stomach for removing felonious presidents from office. Elections are the only way to keep misfits out of that office, so we better start paying attention during the campaign season. And we better insist on character being a major issue -- for both congressional and presidential candidates.
The level of corruption pervading the entire Clinton/Gore administration is staggering. After sitting on the allegations for over a year, the Clinton/Gore Justice Department just opened an investigation last week into whether e-mails from Gore's office and other parts of the White House were hidden from criminal and congressional investigators who had subpoenaed them. Is it a coincidence that Justice was finally motivated to act at the same time a congressional inquiry opened in this matter?
How far will Gore go in straining our credulity? Consider:
He just unveiled a proposal to finance American elections with a public-private endowment fund after raising $2 million of soft money for the Democratic National Committee last week.
In an effort to establish credibility for his finance plan, he said, "I know firsthand what is wrong with the way we fund our political campaigns." Yet, when pressed by FBI agents about his knowledge about the nuances of the law, such as the distinction between hard and soft money, Gore told them that while "he had been a candidate for 16 years," the details of donations are "a science he did not involve himself in." So does he have firsthand knowledge or not?
While taking up the reform mantle and proclaiming his own integrity, he staunchly defends his campaign coordinator Tony Coelho. Coelho is not only the original poster child for harvesting soft money, his career has been shrouded in charges of corruption. Though Coelho is currently the subject of a criminal investigation involving his activities while serving as U.S. commissioner general of Expo '98 in Lisbon, Portugal, Gore says, "Tony Coelho is doing a terrific job day after day. He will continue to do a terrific job."
The National Journal reports that "Gore was in such a hurry to announce that he was bringing Coelho aboard that he decided to go ahead without a routine background check; he instead relied on Coelho's 'nothing there' assurances."
Clinton and Gore ran in 1992 on a promise of "fixing" the campaign finance system, then egregiously exploited loopholes in the system and never seriously attempted reform.
Al Gore has even developed Bill Clinton's insufferable habit of rubbing our noses in his corruption and daring us to hold him accountable. At Saturday night's Gridiron Dinner, Gore, in a mocking reference to the Buddhist temple event, quipped, "Oh, before I forget to ask, this isn't a fundraiser, is it? My antennae go up whenever I'm in a room where everyone's dressed the same."
Very funny, Al. I agree. If you manage to get elected with this kind of behavior, the joke is on us.
To give credit where credit is due, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that had Nixon been elected instead of Kennedy, and executed the Vietnam War as he did when he finally was elected, the results would have been entirely different.
Nixon took the war to the enemy as wimpy @$$ Kennedy and Johnson should have done but did not, because they were intimidated by Russia and China to the point of becoming bed wetters and pants pissers.
The anti-war punks and punkettes had a full head of steam by the time Nixon came on board, and every thing Nixon did right was condemned to hell by the MSM and the halfwitted hellions throwing tantrum fits on the evening news. It was the wrong time to do the right thing when he got there.
Kennedy and Johnson are the dog shit on Nixons shoes, that has everyone accusing Nixon of stinking.
That's why I described him as amoral. Not immoral, not someone who was evil (the way liberals often describe him). But when the chips were down, his "morality" played second (or third, or fiftieth) fiddle to political pragmatism.
Granted, he's not the only politician to do that, and he doesn't hold a candle to Clinton. Nevertheless, if he had been less paranoid and/or more principled, he would have gone down as a modestly successful president. (Not my opinion - I gave up on him over wage and price controls. But the liberal historians would not have minded that.)
I rate him above Clinton because he at least finally had the shame to resign.
It's much easier for them to blame the messenger instead of the message. If Gore couldn't win, it's not because he stands for unpopular positions, it's because Gore couldn't close the deal. They may claim the SCOTUS robbed him, but they secretly believe he's a LOSER.
I can confidently predict that Gore will never run again.
That's one heart that wouldn't beat for very long!
I'm hoping for a Kerry/Gore ticket. Put the losers on the same ticket--that would be sweet.
There seem to be three groups vying for control of the 'Rat Party: the Clintons, the Kennedy/Kerry faction, the Dean/Gore faction. JFK took Johnson as VP, so a Gore/Kerry or Kerry/Gore pairing is not out of the question. But a Gore/Clinton is hard to imagine, and would be fatal if it ever happened.
Nixon wasn't impeached.
Nixon was impeached? That's news to me.
Sorry for the double post. Computer malfunction or operator error. I'll take computer malfunction. LOL!
Nice summary. I can't give you definitive evidence for this but there is a lot of people who believe that LBJ blackmailed himself onto the 1960 ticket. JFK went to the LA convention planning on Symington and LBJ sort of popped up at the last minute. Sort of fits with the historical facts that the Kennedy's and the Johnson's hated each other. Good account of this in "Dark side of Camelot" by Hersh.
I agree - and I love how they use false numbers to make it appear the dems are doing so good - like 86% of those surveyed .. so what was the size of the group surveyed - 3 reporters from the WP.
And .. BILL CLINTON NEVER, EVER GOT OVER 46% IN ANY ELECTION. He never, ever got over 50% = and Bush did in 2004 (53% - I believe) - and in 2000 Bush got 48%. Still more than Clinton got in either of his elections.
I still marvel at how the dems continue to use the old playbook - and quoting Carville's organization as someting credible is just too funny.
Best news yet for the reps.
But I don't believe it for a minute , Hillary is more of a man than gore is , she needs to pair up with Pelosi .. .. ..
Barf time. It's ridiculous.
Albert Gore III and George Clinton? Heck yeah, it's way better than the last two Rat tickets!
I can hear the slogan now:
Presidential Funk: Let's Get America To A New High!