Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 12/11/03 8:32 am:
>>>The problem is that Dean didn't make these exact statements, and later admitted that his choice of language was poor and didn't accurately reflect his policies<<<

Steve, which is it. Either he didn't really say it, or he made a mistake in saying it. If he didn't realy say it, what was he admitting when he made a mistake. And if he did say it but didn't really mean it, do you want such a person dictating the Government's policies with a slip of the toungue?

>>>Mind you, this "spread the word" thing looks like a typical Republican "dirty trick" <<<

You mean as opposed to the dirty Democratic trick of claiming that Bush lied when he got us involved in the war? Or the dirty Democratic trick of claiming that the Bush tax cuts would hurt the economy (it actually grew 8.2% in 3rd quarter 2003 due to the tax cuts, not 7.2% as oriinally reported). Or how about the dirty Democratic trick of claimng that Bush was responsible for the 'leak' of a "CIA agent's" name to the public... a pure lie on several levels. I could go on.

No. This is not a "Republican dirty trick". It might be a dirty trick if he had never used that terminology. But he did. He even 'corrected himself' for 'misspeaking', which is an admission that he did indeed say it. Though I note that he didn't actually APOLOGIZE for it.

>>>1. No presidential candidate in history ever received more votes than Al Gore did in 2000.
2. No president who didn't get the plurality of the vote when elected ever got re-elected (the other failures were Benjamin Harrison and Rutherford Hayes, both Republicans)
3. No president who suffered a net loss of jobs during his term has ever been re-elected. The last time this happened was during Hoover's presidency. <<<

Then you're about to witness the first time.

Also, we do not know if there will be a net loss by the time the election occurs. Jobless claims are down for the 4th straight month, and the increase in jobs has started. By the time August 2004 rolls around, we may very well see an increase, or perhaps just a net-zero over the past 4 years in terms of job loss.

But even if there turns out to be a net loss of jobs, I believe that enough people are concerned about SECURITY issues to ignore it. Especially since Dean is coming off as so anti-war, anti-security, and anti-soldier... and now, pro-terrorist.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 12/11/03 1:59 pm:
Tomder55,

>>>I don't think that is the issue . I think Gore fully expects Dean to lose the general election ,but is hoping to wrestle the party chairmanship away from the Clintons control ( Terry McAuliffe). Gore ,with a Dean nomination will appoint a party chair ,and be in a better position to take on Hillary in 08. <<<

Whether I am right and this is playing into the Clintons' hands for Hillary to run in 2008 or whether you are right and he is setting HIMSELF up for a 2008 run, either way he's throwing away the 2004 race on purpose.

There is one point that I should make. To my knowledge there has not been a case in the last 50 years where a politician lost the GENERAL election for President and was then nominated for the spot again in a later election. A a general rule, especially with the big money involved in politics today, nobody is willing to trust someone who has a history of losing. So I question whether Gore can posibly get the nomination in 2008, having lost in 2000. On the other hand, there are those who would argue that he didn't lose in 2000.

We'll just have to wait and see.

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 12/11/03 5:17 pm:
how about Richard Nixon ?

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 12/11/03 5:26 pm:
actually now that I think about it the comparison to Nixon is frightening . Nixon was a two term VP to a president .Then he lost a close election. He then sat out in 1964 .In his place a conservative pulled the party right of center ,and was trounced . He then ran as a reinvented Nixon ,and the general election 8 years after he had lost it. (I'm gonna have nightmares tonight)

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 12/11/03 5:46 pm:
Yeah, Nixon was the last one. That's who I was thinking of, but I forgot the year.

I stand corrected... 40 years, not 50.

And elections cost a lot more now than they did back then. I think that either party would think twice before trusting millions of campaign dollars to a guy who has a record of losing the general election.

In other words, I think Gore shot his load in 2000. Now the gun's empty. Only, like an old gunfighter, he doesn't know enough to stop pullig the trigger. He's gonna go down fighting no matter what... and he's taking the Democratic party with him.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 12/12/03 9:39 am:
Stevehaddock

>>>As for Bush's chances in ཀ, take a look at the polls - he and "a Democrat to be named later" are in a statistical dead heat. <<<

REALLY?!? Please read today's NY Post. According to the Post, an American Research Group poll showed that Bush v. Dean, Bush wins 57% to 30%. In a race of Bush v. a Dem to be named later, he wins 51% to 34%. I guess you think a 17% spread is a statistical dead heat. Those of us who live on planet Earth, though, see double digit leads as 'significant' to say the least.

>>>First, did you even read the website I directed you to? <<<

Yes I did. Then I went ahead and checked the sources on this 'correction' that Snopes refers to.

Check out CNN's report of his statement.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/elec04.prez.dean.mideast/

In his 'correction' he insulted Joe Lieberman for taking issue with his remarks, calling him "despicable".

He then called on George Bush the 'swallow his pride' and send Bill Clinton to make peace in the Middle East... obviously because Clinton was so damn successful at it during his presidency.

He also said that he didn't "believe stopping the terror has to be a prerequisite for talking. You always talk." Again, because peace talks while under fire were so damn successful under the Clinton administration. Dean's great idea for Mid-East peace is to cow-tow to the terrorists.

He further stated that "enormous" numbers of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories would have to be dismantled. Is that the 'even-handedness' he was speaking of? Oh... I'm sorry, he didn't mean 'even-handed'. He meant 'that we have to trust both sides'. So exactly which Palestinian dwellings is he planning on dismantleing as part of his policy of fairness?


He further said:
"When you're at the negotiating table, you don't sit down and blame people when you're negotiating," he said. "There's a difference between our policy in Israel -- which has always been supportive, including the willingness to defend Israel -- and what you do at the negotiating table, which clearly has to have the trust of both sides."

In other words, Dean is saying, let's break 50 years of US policy of supporting Israel, and instead not support them, but rather be 'even-handed'. And he believes this won't be detrimental to the USA's relationship with Israel?

Get real, Steve. His policies are anti-Israel. His apology was just as anti-Israel. And his stated policies are bad for the USA.

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 12/12/03 11:51 am:
I did not try to imply that he would be successful in his effort(nor do I believe that history predicts future events ) . But I do think as you do that an attempt in 08 would be made for personal vindication . He seems to have a bur in his butt over the Clintons .

I will be interested how McCain-Feingold affects future elections regarding the influence of big money .