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!
Posted on 04/24/2005 8:00:19 AM PDT by bitt
Iced Tea - revisited:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl000328.shtml
David Limbaugh (archive)
March 28, 2000
Phantasma-Gore-ia
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.
Ditto Lieberman.
Ditto Kerry.
Ditto Edwards.
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!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.