I have no desire to see Feingold give up his Senate seat for the Vice-Presidency. I remember the story about John N Garner telling Lyndon Johnson that the Vice-Presidency wasn't worth a bucket of warm (spit or p!ss). Having heard about Garner's feistyness, I believe he didn't say spit.
I'd be livid with the Democrats if either Gore or Kerry is a nominee in '08.
Gore proved in the 2000 campaign that he doesn't have what it takes to electrify the electorate -- he is still being used as an icon of boring by comedians. Then, he WON the damn election and didn't have the balls to stand up and fight. Similarly, Kerry showed in 2004 that he doesn't work as a candidate. He easily lost the election by the margin of people who agreed with his politics but found him too "creepy" to vote for. Now both of them are "losers" in the minds of too many Americans.
I like Feingold's politics; I think he'd be a good choice for President. I don't know how he'd do as a candidate; I haven't heard him on the stump. I want a candidate who has the brains and the balls to do a good job if he wins and the TV charisma to appeal to the sheep so he can win.
I, on the other hand, would be ecstatic if Gore was the nominee, on one condition: no fuckin' handlers or consultants. Get Paul Begala and that pack of play-it-safe losers out of there. Quit trying to be as inoffensive as possible to a Republican base that will despise you no matter what you do. Tell the truth, show the evidence, kick ass, take names.
I don't believe Kerry can do that. But I do believe that, over the past several years, Gore has learned. I think he regrets how he handled 2000 a lot. And I think he can do the job.
Gore would be a fine President, but as a candidate he's so handicapped by the public perception of his past performance that even if you're right that he knows how to do it now (and I'm willing to take your word for it), it will be hard for him to be noticed because people will see what they expect.
News flash (literally): Anyone the Dems run will be The Epitome Of Evil/Incompetence/Shrillness/Psychosis. They -- we -- all support the terrorists. We don't get it, we're not serious enough, we don't want to win.
Phuque dat.
As I've been saying a lot lately, The Press Is In On It. Everybody is handicapped by public perception of their past performance. There have been numerous online and op-ed cartoon versions of how Jesus Christ would be vilified if he was a Democratic candidate. NOBODY THE DEMS RUN will be anything besides The Wrong Person For The Job according to the Repubs and the media, mm-kay? The trick is to bypass the press -- like, say, with a new movie about global warming -- and tell people directly. Tell them the truth, give them facts, and show how the Repubs and the press lie.
Fox News is In On It. If I believed the press as a whole was In On It, I would give up, because there aren't enough people who shape their opinion of the world from information disseminated through other channels to be more than a small "swing vote" factor, even if they all voted. Actually, I think there are a non-trivial number of hard-core R voters who decide who to vote for based on what their preacher or Rush tell them to vote and would still vote that way even if Fox News suddenly actually became fair and balanced instead of Fair And Balanced (TM); just not very many thinking voters.
Corporatism has undermined our press as an institution, but I insist on believing that most journalists and news organizations are trying to do a good job; it's drastic budget cuts and a fairly small but pernicious amount of meddling by conglomerate management that are the problem.
What happened in 2000 and 2004 was that an incompetent businessman was promoted by his handlers over much-more-qualified people. I think Kerry and Gore _should_ run again, with lots of finger-pointing at the Republicans over the slime that was thrown in their direction.
And if they lose again, we deserve whatever we get, because we're too stupid to live.
Well, consider - do we have any idea what his opponent said after he left? No.Nobody's listening to what he said. The opponent can have the last word, so long as you have the best and loudest word :)
Respectfully, no. You knew. I did not. You are not "we".
Fairly loudly? I am not the biggest newshound around, but I have read multiple reports on the incident, and I didn't come away with that line. In terms of messaging to the public, Feingold's message seems far more strongly stated than the other guy's - Check it out, I can't even name the other guy without going to look it up. But I know Feingold's name, and what he did.
Perhaps you feel I'm less perceptive than the average American, such that the other guy's message will come across more strongly. But sure as tootin' the basic headline isn't "Feingold's Opponent Protects the Constitution Too!"
I am not concerned with what's going around loudly among Neocons and their ilk - Feingold isn't going to change their minds no matter what he does. The question is how well this galvanizes core Democrats and swing voters.
I got the line out of the lead AP story on the incident, headlined on Yahoo. This is hardly "among Neocons and their ilk." If that's what AP is saying, then most people who hear about the incident at all will hear both about the walkout and about the followup.
It's about damn time some of these bastards started showing a little more backbone than the average jellyfish. He shouldn't be shocked that it was given little public fanfare, since that's the MO of the Religious Retch for some time now.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-19 02:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-19 02:40 pm (UTC)Though I for one will vote for him without hesitation if he runs.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-19 02:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-19 02:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-19 02:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-19 03:27 am (UTC)Ben
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-19 03:42 am (UTC)Gore proved in the 2000 campaign that he doesn't have what it takes to electrify the electorate -- he is still being used as an icon of boring by comedians. Then, he WON the damn election and didn't have the balls to stand up and fight. Similarly, Kerry showed in 2004 that he doesn't work as a candidate. He easily lost the election by the margin of people who agreed with his politics but found him too "creepy" to vote for. Now both of them are "losers" in the minds of too many Americans.
I like Feingold's politics; I think he'd be a good choice for President. I don't know how he'd do as a candidate; I haven't heard him on the stump. I want a candidate who has the brains and the balls to do a good job if he wins and the TV charisma to appeal to the sheep so he can win.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-19 02:37 pm (UTC)I don't believe Kerry can do that. But I do believe that, over the past several years, Gore has learned. I think he regrets how he handled 2000 a lot. And I think he can do the job.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-19 02:58 pm (UTC)Ya THINK?
Date: 2006-05-19 03:22 pm (UTC)Phuque dat.
As I've been saying a lot lately, The Press Is In On It. Everybody is handicapped by public perception of their past performance. There have been numerous online and op-ed cartoon versions of how Jesus Christ would be vilified if he was a Democratic candidate. NOBODY THE DEMS RUN will be anything besides The Wrong Person For The Job according to the Repubs and the media, mm-kay? The trick is to bypass the press -- like, say, with a new movie about global warming -- and tell people directly. Tell them the truth, give them facts, and show how the Repubs and the press lie.
Re: Ya THINK?
Date: 2006-05-19 08:50 pm (UTC)Corporatism has undermined our press as an institution, but I insist on believing that most journalists and news organizations are trying to do a good job; it's drastic budget cuts and a fairly small but pernicious amount of meddling by conglomerate management that are the problem.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-19 04:25 pm (UTC)And if they lose again, we deserve whatever we get, because we're too stupid to live.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-19 04:39 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-19 12:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-19 12:48 pm (UTC)Which is going around fairly loudly, which is *why* I wish Feingold hadn't walked out.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-19 02:17 pm (UTC)Respectfully, no. You knew. I did not. You are not "we".
Fairly loudly? I am not the biggest newshound around, but I have read multiple reports on the incident, and I didn't come away with that line. In terms of messaging to the public, Feingold's message seems far more strongly stated than the other guy's - Check it out, I can't even name the other guy without going to look it up. But I know Feingold's name, and what he did.
Perhaps you feel I'm less perceptive than the average American, such that the other guy's message will come across more strongly. But sure as tootin' the basic headline isn't "Feingold's Opponent Protects the Constitution Too!"
I am not concerned with what's going around loudly among Neocons and their ilk - Feingold isn't going to change their minds no matter what he does. The question is how well this galvanizes core Democrats and swing voters.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-19 02:25 pm (UTC)My view from the catbird seat...
Date: 2006-05-19 10:21 am (UTC)Res Ipsa Loquitor