Matthews: Gore is "the Hindenburg"
On the December 21 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asked Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley if former Vice President Al Gore was "in fighting weight" and then said of Gore: "He's the Hindenburg."
From the December 21 edition of MSNBC's Hardball:
BLANKLEY: If you're a contender, one of the lesser contenders, you want to stay there in case the front people fall apart. And the other person we haven't mentioned is Al Gore, who's probably going to get an Academy Award for his documentary.
And if he then came out of an Academy Award and announced, "Now I'm going to run," then I would have to say --
MATTHEWS: Is he gonna -- is he in fighting weight?
BLANKLEY: You mean his tummy size?
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
BLANKLEY: I don't know. He can get down. Like me, he knows how to get up and down.
MATTHEWS: Fifteen pounds? He's the Hindenburg. I don't think he can --
SWEET: If we're kind of spinning scenarios here, that's the big question mark. If Gore got in, that would change everything --
MATTHEWS: I mean, the strongest ticket would be Al Gore and [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL]. I think that would be an awesome ticket.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Perhaps we may see this headline on a liberal misinformation website as "another point of view".......
"Matthews; Gore and Obama would be "an awesome ticket"
IF Matthews had GUSHED that John McCain & Rudy Giuliani would be an awesome ticket the THREAD here would be:
**Matthews gushes about Republican ticket**
He's gushing about a Democratic ticket, SO it's OK I guess ;-)
I could do without the jabs about Gore's weight though. Unnecessary, IMO.
You are correct. And we will no doubt be reminded that this is a conservative misinformation website and if we want liberal bashing, well, we should just look elsewhere.
This just illustrates that Matthews, who is a favorite punching bag that many here view as some conservative extremist, skews and strokes both sides all the time.
And his comment about Gore's weight was dumb.
...where there is such things is "time" and "history," where things that happen at one moment can be compared to, perhaps, different things at other moments.
With this magical "time" device, it might then be possible to get a full picture of a person's behavior in different moments and situations, thus obviating the need to make sweeping conclusions based on one single statement on one single day.
If anyone has ever said Tweety is 100% consistent in every single thing he says, that person is a fool. No one is perfectly consistent. However, he has a pattern of statements trashing Gore (and Hillary, OT) that far outweigh anything said here. BTW, "awesome" does not always mean "good."
Click the "Chris Matthews" link on the main page to get a sense of how this "time" thing works. It's fun!
Yes, imagine a world where pundits and TV personalities are treated fairly and objectively considering all the remarks and comments they make on their particular shows every day.
Where items simply cherry-picked to stir up rage in liberals are highlighted, while the compliments and positive comments about liberals are shunned to paint a distorted picture of that person's ideology.
As for clicking on this page to find out more about Matthews, I don't think that's necessary - it's highly one-sided.
Start your own site then, and make everything just the way you want it. No one's forcing you to be here, though you act like it.
Besides entertaining you (and reading your entertaining posts), I am here for your enlightenment.
>>"I am here for your enlightenment"<<
Give me a heads-up on when that starts.
a sense of humor. Then you'll realize all this has been going on w/o you.
Jokes about peoples weight and how ugly they are stopped being funny for me about third grade. Perhaps YOU ought to UPGRADE yours.
You couldnt enlighten a garden slug. I could find more enlightenement from a Bazooka Joe bubblegum comic. I was hoping you were here to GET enlightenment. You could definitly use some.
that's what you were reading.
I had to raise the intellectual level a bit. David Hume, the Upanishads, and Noam Chomsky would have been a shock to my cerebral cortex after the dumbing down of your inanity so I had to EASE back up. Starting with Bazooka Joe was a pretty big lurch compared to you but I had to start somewhere
or some other excuse to be a hores's george all day long. He beleives his scolding tone and posting of his outrage and horror at the very words of his hero's (like BS loving Tucker) are posted as showing them as foolish as he is. Poor poor little tommy
.........understand this?? (as if.........)
He beleives his scolding tone and posting of his outrage and horror at the very words of his hero's (like BS loving Tucker) are posted as showing them as foolish as he is.
sense of humor. Just takes time to understand it.
"Poor poor little tommy"
Actually, you're the one who is poor. All you do is come here and personally attack people without offering anything of substance on the actual issues. If anyone's a troll, it's you, not Tommy. Tommy makes valid points without using the personal attacks that you constantly use. You need to grow up and have some respect and common courtesy.
Thanks for your complimentary words. I would say the same for you.
As for zero and some others, substance and reasonable discussion is not why they are here. Rather I would suspect it's to just to show off and make the rest of us appear look stupid.
...just this morning had a series of virulently racist posts deleted, you really aren't in a position to lecture anyone on respect and common courtesy.
That said, and back on topic, this is obviously a relatively innocuous statement made by Matthews, but it does pile on top of an accumulation of snide comments about the physical appearance of various Democrats. It's hardly worth mentioning on its own, but it is another straw on the camel's back. Just as O'Reilly's sexist remarks about boob jobs the other day speaks to a larger pattern.
"As someone who...
...just this morning had a series of virulently racist posts deleted, you really aren't in a position to lecture anyone on respect and common courtesy."
That's ridiculous. I just read through all the posts I've commented on and none of my comments have been deleted. THAT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE AND YOU KNOW IT. I've never said anything racist about any person or any group of people. The issue of race hasn't even been a topic in any of these posts.
...at least two of your posts in the O'Reilly/Kwanzaa thread have been deleted, along with all the responses. They were there late last night, and now they are gone. As I said then, both posts were probably the most racist things I've ever read on this site.
If it wasn't you, then I apologize. I am positive that Solon was one of the others who responded, so he can either back me up or correct me.
That wasn't me. I didn't post any comments on that particular thread. It might have possibly been a poster named truth bearer. He's a conservative with a username similar to mine.
...It may have been truthbearer (obviously I don't know for sure, so I'm certainly not going to make the mistake of falsely accusing someone a second time), but I hope you'll forgive me for accusing you. Despite Tommy's claim, the posts did exist and I doubt very much that they were deleted by a glitch, as they were the most blatantly racist comments I've ever seen here. Again, I'm very sorry. I obviously didn't pay enough attention to the screen-name.
That's all right. Next time just make sure that you're right before accusing me or anyone else of anything.
if you never bother to?
But that doesnt sound like TD. As much as we disagree I dont remember anything like racist views from him. He may be ultra conservative and bash liberals but I dont really remember that sort of bigotry from him.
The above poster's stock in trade is taking poster's comments out of context and posting them incorrectly, or out and out lying, on a completely unrelated thread topic. It is a dishonest and unfair tactic done to provoke and give a false impression on purpose.
Best to ignore.
...whole pages of comments are missing. I have seen this bug on MMFA before.
It's probably best to withhold judgment until the facts are known.
...maybe you'd like to back up your claim that I take poster's comments out of context, post them incorrectly, and out and out lie? Please provide us with at least one example of me doing that.
This is just like when you wanted to give Michael Savage credit for not apologizing for his hatespeech. * - clams casino / Thursday December 21, 2006 03:56:55 PM EST
Very first post in the thread: [link to mediamatters.org]
Tommy: "Give him his props though, MMFA has their views and he has his. Both are upfront and honest about it, and that is admirable no matter which side you are on."
How was I misquoting you? By saying "credit" instead of "props"?
You took what I said completely out of context. Read the entire exhange and the topic content.
Seems to me Clams called it right. He didn't say you thought Weiner was admirable, but that "being upfront and honest" is.
I agree with Clams, it's not admirable. FWIW, I don't even particularly believe those are Weiner's honest view, I think he just exaggerates to be inflammatory. And I find that the opposite of admirable.
He wrote, "This is just like when you wanted to give Michael Savage credit for not apologizing for his hatespeech".
This was a topic about Savage and this website. I was specifically commenting on that. It was overall statement on Savage's right to express his viewpoints, and others to call them on it. The impression that Clams wanted to leave was that I condone his hate speech, which I do not. That was made very clear in the subsequent posts.
I see no light between Clams's position and what I just stated.
I don't see where he tried to saddle you with Weiner "Savage's" views. He says explicitly: "...I never implied that you called Savage's views admirable."
Tommy, you have a tendency to dig your heels in sometimes.
Dig in heels? Then be accurate. I am talking about his assertion here. He conveniently left out his "I never implied that you called Savage's views admirable." - yes, that was in the original thread, but not in his misrepresented summation he posted yesterday on a completely unrelated thread. That in itself, is lazy and cheap.
If you're intellectually honest, you don't just do a "drive-by" by summarizing something someone said, completely out of context, and inserting in a completely unrelated topic and thread days or weeks later. It's intentionally meant to deceive and leave a false impression. Clams does it all the time...........for reasons he will have to explain to you.
I can see that the phrase "you wanted to give Michael Savage credit" independent of context might give the impression you were a Weiner supporter. I don't know the context of that comment, so it's hard to say. I guess to a certain degree I have a "if you lie down with dogs" response to your complaint about being associated with Savage.
Also, please don't accuse me of being "drive by;" I followed a link you put up, on an OT issue moreover. I do the best I can to not go off half-cocked.
The drive by comment was not referring to you. It is when someone posts a summarization of what someone else posted on a previous topic, on a new and unrelated topic. It is irrelevant to the current topic, however put there dishonestly as it is out of context, to leave a false impression.
Most don't do that, some do. It's reprehensible.
In any event, Have a nice Christmas.......thanks for the back and forth.
...we can all go back to yesterday's Tucker b.s. thread and see that you aren't telling the truth.
[link to mediamatters.org]
There you wrote, "It is an eye-opener. But he deserves a little credit for his candor - can you imagine Limbaugh or Hannity admitting such a thing? Never."
Comparing that to your Savage comment was completely valid. There is a direct parallel there. I can't believe that you are able to sit there and repeatedly misrepresent, deny and lie, when we can all go back and read exactly what everyone wrote. And in neither instance did I imply that you praised the content of their comments--in fact, I explicitly acknowledged that the first time around regarding your Savage comment.
Let's all continue posting on this same thread until the frame is so ridiculously attenuated that no more than a single word will fit on every line...
Have I said lately how much I hate this posting system? Haloscan sucks, but it sucks less than every other system.
tommy the troll. you had no problem at all 'interpreting' Dan Rathers comment and adding words to it yesterday, but now suddenly interpreting your nonsense is a 'bad thing'. As soon as you can drag your self out of George's george maybe you can post something worth reading.
you recently admitted that you do it just for the sake of stirring things up (I believe someone else rightly pointed out that this is the definition of a troll). * - clams casino / Wednesday December 20, 2006 06:40:55 PM EST
...unfortunately I don't have time to play this game with you all day. I'll find it later if necessary, but after your recent hiatus you posted in a thread that you liked to see me get "huffy" over your posts, and that you enjoyed stirring things up. Someone else responded that that was the definition of a troll.
A number of posters (zerosum in particular) picked up on this and have since been calling you a troll and a self-confessed troll with some frequency since then. I'm sure you noticed this.
So now you're using zerosum as an arbiter of the truth.
That speaks volumes.
You admitted to pushing buttons for the sake of pushing buttons, then somebody pointed at that that was the definition of a troll, and since then zerosum (and others) have been calling you a troll. Zerosum's credibility doesn't play into it at all. I didn't misquote or misrepresent any part of the entire exchange. You're playing a shell game...with transparent shells.
how...expected of you.
"..unfortunately I don't have time to play this game with you all day"
...but I actually have better things to do than to sift through the past week's threads to disprove your lies. If there's a shred of doubt left, I'll do it later, but as can be plainly seen from the Savage example, it's you who is misrepresenting the words of others in order to support your false accusations.
It's Christmas. We have our battles, for sure. Maybe we are both very stubborn or like to push each other's buttons, I don't know. And we will have our battles in the future, no doubt.
But for today, truce. If I offended you or accused you unjustly, I apologize. I am not being a jerk here, or sarcastic. All this acrimony, even anonymously on a blog, is not good for the heart so close to Christmas. So, no hard feelings on my part.
I hope you have a nice Holiday......
"They were there late last night, and now they are gone".
...I obviously wasn't the only person who read those posts, and all it takes is for someone else who read them to step up and confirm that they were there. And again, if it wasn't truthdetector, the I will apologize endlessly, but there's absolutely no reason for you to jump in with your own assumptions and lies about me. Unless you'd like me to once again link back to the threads where you called me a racist, lied about it and then called me a liar for suggesting that you called me a racist. Pot meet kettle.
very often and have yet to see him do anything more then claim he is 'misunderstood' and how he is doing all this trolling and lying for 'our sakes'. How convient...
I read them last night. I THINK it was RepublicHater or some name like that. Solon's response was something about the KKK....is that what you are referring to?
My turn to apologize IF I got it wrong too, BUT I'm 99% sure.
I remember making the KKK comment I believe it was RH.
perhaps that is why TD, dorr, and tommy the troll are so stirred up today, one of his accounts got suspended maybe?
And I'm truly sorry for getting the poster mixed up with Truth Bearer. I honestly don't pay much attention to screen names. In a nutshell, the poster was presenting Ron Karenga's criminal background as a representation of African or African-American culture.
happens sometimes. just the opposite of the way Al Queada was not in Iraq until we invaded and occupied. funny how that works ain;t it tommy the troll?
It's fine if you don't want to use MMFA to debunk MMFA - that only makes sense - but provide some backup for your argument, other than gross assertion.
Coming to a liberal site to complain about the liberal content is kind of like blaming the sun for shining...
we see this as a mission. You people need help, so we come to you, selflessly, to give of our time and goodwill.
You gotta admit, talking to us beats preaching to the choir all the time.
And running this gauntlett keeps us in shape, too.
...but we expect to bring your "A" game.
I'd prefer a mean or snotty comment to a weak or intellectually dishonest one.
to an "A" opponent.
I just have more respect for my own intellectual integrity.
I would match you snide comment for snide comment if I wanted to play Pop Warner... I'm here to learn, if I can.
and there is no dirth of snideness in your posts.
But it's OK. I can take it, unlike some others.
The word is "dearth." If you want to use a grown-up vocabulary, make sure you are grown-up enough to use it properly. Otherwise, feel free to continue making your little schoolyard taunts and insults as if they were valid debating tactics.
So as he says try to bring your A game. It will most likely be pretty far down the alphabet for us but at least you can TRY, its all we can ask
Actually we are glad to perform the service of educating you rightwingers as YOU are the ones that need help...desperatly
PLEASE explain how Matthews description of a Clinton-Obama ticket as "awesome" could be MISCONSTRUED as something bad? He OBVIOUSLY meant FORMIDABLE. Nothing BAD about that.
And we are AWARE of Matthews jabs against Gore & Clinton. IF you watch his program [I do] you'd be AWARE that he has also jabbed at Conservatives as well. It just doesn't get HIGHLIGHTED here.
but you really would not like being right next to it. Awe is not automatically good no matter what the current slang is.
"Formidable" was actually how I read it, not "awesome" in the sort of 80s skate-punk sense. I think it was an analytical point, not a value judgment on his part.
I think John McCain and Mitt Romney would agree that Gore/Obama would be an awesome ticket. I think anyone on the right would agree. I don't get your point here.
Also, where has anyone argued that Matthews is conservative? I have not. Certainly that allegation does not appear in this post. I think he is a p!ssed-off ex-Democrat McCain supporter who takes every opportunity to slam the party and people that "betrayed" him in his view.
Which is his right. It's his show. MMFA is just highlighting it.
Sometimes what we WRITE here in cyber-space isn't cleary understood.
You wrote: "BTW, "awesome" does not always mean "good."
Well the OPPOSITE of Good is Bad.
I was merely pointing out that Matthews had NOT meant it as a "bad" thing when he referred to Clinton-Obama as an "awesome" ticket.
Glad to see we both thought he meant "formidable"
You wrote: "I think John McCain and Mitt Romney would agree that Gore/Obama would be an awesome ticket. I think anyone on the right would agree. I don't get your point here."
Mmmmm I don't think I even TRIED to make a point here, OTHER than the one I made already. Which was that Matthews meant "awesome" as a "good" adjective, NOT a bad one.
You wrote: "Also, where has anyone argued that Matthews is conservative? I have not. Certainly that allegation does not appear in this post. I think he is a p!ssed-off ex-Democrat McCain supporter who takes every opportunity to slam the party and people that "betrayed" him in his view".
I pointed out that Matthews jabs at BOTH Democrats & Republicans. I don't see anywhere that I was arguing about him being a Conservative OR Liberal.
I was RESPONDING to what you wrote in a post [to Tommy I think]
You wrote: "However, he has a pattern of statements trashing Gore (and Hillary, OT) that far outweigh anything said here. BTW, "awesome" does not always mean "good." Click the "Chris Matthews" link on the main page to get a sense of how this "time" thing works. It's fun!"
I simply pointed out that I watch Chris Matthews AND he "trashes" both sides. BUT only the "trashing" of Democrats gets HIGHLIGHTED here. No surprise since this is a Liberal website...BUT still worth pointing out.
Hope that clears things up :-)
I think in part I was responding to someone else's posts somewhere else.
I hate that I have to compose my post on a blank screen; really, even Haloscan would be better than this commenting system!
you assumed val meant the OPPOSITE when there are many shades of gray, awesome (if I remember correctly, i will look it up later) in fact derives from a root word meaning fear, or terror. Which is why part of the invation of our new colony of iraq was called 'Shock and Awe' since it was meant to inspire fear in the populace. So really good and bad are bad descriptors of the word awesome.
"So really good and bad are bad descriptors of the word awesome"
PANIC TOMMY TROLL RUN IN CIRCLES!
LOL you are just pathetic. I guess i should not be surprised at your shallowness of thought and inability to read.
and yes look it up descriptors is a real word I use every day in my work. You are probably unfamiliar with anything technical and are unaware of the use of lots of big words.
Save the Whales.
impertinent at this point.
as all of your posts seem to be. BTW your 'mission' will continue to 'fail' as long as you continue to post.
falling on deaf ears, mostly.
When was it that you were on topic?
how quickly you fall even further.
with a proficiency matching yours.
Read your own posts, Zedrow.
He is just an idiot. What was the point of calling Gore the Hindenberg? Why is it an acceptable level of discourse on what is supposed to be a political talk show? Why do we get nonsense about how Bush shines with a sunny nobility but Gore is the Hindenberg? What is the substance there? And why SHOULDNT we CRITICISE the jr high level of attacks?
is a bit of a flaming gasbag himself, and he calls Gore "the Hindenburg?"
Dirigible, heal thyself.
That's exactly what I was thinking. The real bias here is Mathew's opinion that Gore and Obama would make an "awesome" ticket. So thanks Media Matters for pointing out that Mathews is VERY FAR from the conservative partisan that you make him out to be.
I don't see the awesomeness (or lack thereof) of a Gore/Obama run as a partisan issue at all, really. It seems like an analysis that could be debated. How would they stack up against other likely running mates: McCain/Santorum, say, or Giuliani/Romney.
If you have a different take than the Philly Blowhard, please share it!
dishonesty and ignorance
It's pretty funny that you're calling me ignorant when you can't even spell the word "posts"
But the one thing I never do is try to play grammar or spelling-cop since it something only some without anything rational to say does. After all everyone hits the wrong key sometimes and there is no spellcheck or preview here. But then when it all gets right down to it, you don't have anything to say not fed to you in a bottle to regurgitate, so no big shock there for anyone.
An imputation MMFA does not make. The fact he is descending to third grade level stupity is not a conservative thing. It serves a conservative purpose therefore it is conservative bias being pushed. I dont see, nor did MMFA ever say Tweety was a conservative. This black/white Manichaean worldview is not serviceable. It is possible for outright liberals to push conservative bias. I have seen it. It is, again, the issue itself that is definitive not the personality.
"It serves a conservative purpose therefore it is conservative bias being pushed"
Exactly what conservative purpose did Mathew's comment further? Also, Mathews was Media Matters Misinformer of the Year in 2005, which I found kind of ridiculous. Media Matters obviously believes that Mathews is a conservative, or is at least on the Bush adminstration's side.
Your imaginary, amazing mind reading powers. MMFA does NOT call Matthews a conservative. He can be a moderate Dem which is what I see him as and still push conservative bias and misinformation. What conservative purpose does belittling a prominent Dem serve? Are you kidding me? It is a longstanding tactic to belittle someone to marginalize them. This is the basis of the logical fallacy known as the ad hominem. Literally AT the man. You cannot show what MMFA THINKS about Matthews short of coughing up a quote of theirs CALLING him a conservative. nor can you KNOW what you claim. What you THINK is obvious is completly irrelevant. MANY people who are NOT conservatives show up on this website. It doesnt matter that Matthews was the misinformer of the year for his foolish man crush on Bush and absoluty bizare statements about him and his longstanding tactic of belittling prominent Dems. I dont think he is a conservative. I agreed with the citations of Matthews. So it doesnt naturally follow that just because he makes weird comments that further a conservative bias he is necessarily a conservative. It says something that he compares Bush to Attica Finch and Gore to the Hindenburg. What it says is he is furthering a conservative storyline, what his motivations are I neither know nor care.
Matthews could whip THE KING AND HIS COURT, all by himself.
Any takers?
Is small and quick but he lacks heft. I say Spongebob could take him in five
is not in the same league with THE KING. Talking SERIOUS softball here (pitching from second base, etc.).
The King and his Court are a famous softball team, not hardball.
Once again you show that you don't even know enough to throw an insult properly, even soft-pitch (which The King and His Court do not play).
>Matthews: "is [Gore] in fighting weight?"
Please, Chris, we want to know: is Gore a "convincing" dad? Does his hair "look great"? Is his voice mellifluous? Is he wearing earth-tones these days? We look to you for your usual weighty remarks.
Gore's girth OR that he might ignite and burst into flames? :-O
Ok, he's OBVIOUSLY referring to Gore's weight [tons Chris?] The guy [Gore] could use SOME time in the gym and a diet....BUT why must Matthews [whom I find likable & interesting just because of his sheer enthusiasm for anything political] poke fun at Gore for his weight? Can't we move beyond Personal Attacks?
Actually I believe Gore could be a formidable Presidential candidate AND could....WIN AGAIN [that concession my Liberal buds is MY Christmas present to you]
I know a bunch of Penguins that would vote for Gore.
last time, w/fake names and addresses.
or just pulling more stuff out of your george as per normal?
...is just another conservative point of faith, like how cutting taxes increases revenues. As dogma, these beliefs require no proof.
is something you don't really want to talk about. If you say you do, let's start with Cook County 1960 and Joe Kennedy buying votes.
We can also go back to Athens in 421 BC - an archaeologist found 190 pieces of broken pottery (used then as ballots) with only 14 different handwritings.
You made a comment that would only make sense if there were serious evidence of voter fraud by - or favouring - Al Gore. Care to back that up?
as soon as it started turning up evidence of fraud in Southern Ill. in favor of repukes? Please tell us all about it.
LOL as soon as reality creeps in the silly cowards go quiet :)
Even if Nixon were given Illinios electoral votes he STILL would have lost the election.
but Tricky Dickie wanted to 'spoil' it for JFK since he was a very bad loser, then when the RNC saw what was happening it looks like they cut and ran. As normal for repukes :)
you win, George.
Just checking for your spin on the facts.
read your posts repulichater oops soory you are using a new name today after your banning?
with Sy Hersch? NOBODY is dumb enough to try to disprove Joe's buying votes in that election, all your other deflections aside.
your tiresome spin on what happened to Gore in Florida.
You started this, I'm not letting you wiggle out of it.
What evidence do you have of voter fraud involving Al Gore?
"your tiresome spin"...
only what republichater/dorrknob pulls from it's george and flings at the walls.
by referring to me as "it" is obvious hatred. Your Lib friends here will hold you accountable, you can be sure.
"A bunch of 'em voted for him last time, w/fake names and addresses."
Penguin hate. I admit it.
'penguin hate.'
Maybe your mission is to simply distract and mash down on hot buttons? Suit yourself. You will find takers who will play along and I'm glad for it. Ribald gaming is amusing to observe but how do you expect to maintain any credibility?
Doesn't matter much to me, it exposes your inability to persuade. Who cares? Right? It's just an anonymous internet forum. How do you expect to maintain any credibility?
You tossed out a very dishonest accusation, were called on it, then sheepishly offered a humorous admission of guilt. That is lame. Did I mention your credibility is questionable?
thrice. Did you read my post
Give a man a chance. You asked for it, and you deserve to hear the facts, not the sloppy half-truths told to you by your Priesthood.
You never actually accused Al Gore of voter fraud. Instead you tried to establish a blurry connection between 1960 and 2000.
Well, that was a real cute attempt at relativism. Since, 46 years ago, the Democrats behaved unethically it's more than acceptable for the Republicans to steal elections today. Sweet. It's that sort of decay within the loyal conservative base that will collapse the Republican framework.
Hi J2, I heard recently on the Al Franken show that there was "no chance" that Gore is running in 2008 (one of his guests said that I forget who). So my prediction appears to be in jeopardy since I am on record as saying Gore will be the next President of this great nation.
You MIGHT still be right. I have a feeling that Gore could be convinced to give it another shot. I've been hearing he isn't interested BUT he hasn't come out [yet] and said NO.
I personally believe he'd be the MOST powerful candidate the Dems could run.
Hey Bruce just in case I don't catch up with you later somewhere on these threads...Have a very Merry Christmas! :-)
Reps, Dems, Libs, Cons, Trolls, One and All..........enjoy a wonderful Christmas. Thanks for the spirited exchanges, the good, the bad, the ugly.........it all makes for an interesting and enlightening discussion.
All the best to everyone in the New Year.
Happy Holidays MMFA!
Have a Merry Christmas!
And Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays to everyone!
You too David Brock. I love this site. :-)
Please don't go on vacation for TOO long...
As always Jeter YOU have a good Holliday season yourself.
Have a Merry Christmas OR a Happy Holiday...oh heck--Have Both! :-)
to all you scary-man-in-the-sky believers from your pagan brethren and sistren.
:-) Seriously, good will to all.
your (possibly) intolerant remark, I'll just take this opportunity to ask your forgiveness for remarks I've made that may sound that way.
Kindly consider my apology, and may you have a tranquil and edifying holiday.
About Gore and Obama. He's right in this case, however; they would be formidable. To beat Gore and Obama, the GOP propaganda machine would have to go into overdrive. They would launch an avalanche of lies that would make the Swift Boat Liars look like amateurs.
his chair collapsed, LOL.
made me laugh out loud. ;-)
Gee, I thought the point of this thread was Tweety making the "Gore is the Hindenburg" crack. How it got to him gushing over a Gore/Obama ticket seems to kind of distract from the initial purpose of the thread.
Sounds like the conservative fans are kinda cranky today - and as of late with regards to some of the other items on the site.
Yeah, I know, I know.. Damned liberal media..
If the GOP slime machine decides to go with the "Gore is fat" angle, how in the name of Jeeeezzzzzuuusssss is Rush Limbaugh going to pull that off? That would require a level of shameless hypocrisy which would be a stretch even for him. This could be one more reason that they're grooming the relatively thin Glenn Beck to be their Lead Liar; he can get away with fat jokes.
all of 'em.
Sorry for the paucity of earnest research and intellectual diligence that is the standard in the posts re: this particular topic.
that is really sad
...to say you didn't try your best because the other guy wasn't trying his best.
Why is a socialist lecturing a conservative on character? It's Bizarro World!
The first time you posted it. And time has not been kind to it since then.
While I agree that Matthews has a tendency to gush about certain people he admires or wants to kiss up to, sometimes the gushing is based on fact and sometimes it isn't. For example, there is no doubt that Gore and Obama would make a formidable ticket. However, when Matthews compares Bush to Churchill, that's just total bullsh*t.
...is the Hinderburg due to our unfettered hungers for more people, more houses, bigger houses, boats, planes, and trains.
I watched this episode of him blathering on about everything and I don' t think he even knows what he says sometimes. Matthews was trying (unsuccessful) to be funny.
Mattehws is a bad person and a resembles a child...
I watch Hardball at least a few times a week and don't think I've ever watched a show where I didn't at some point have to do a double take on some nonesence that spewed from Matthew's mouth. (Did he really just say that? )
He DOES seem a bit pre-occupied with personal appearance over substance at times, doesn't he? At the same time, I guess he just realizes that a lot of not-so-savy voters DO let a candidate's personal appearance affect their vote?
But I'm not so sure his weight would be a negative for Gore. With the looks of most of the American population nowadays he looks a lot more "mainstream American" than, say, McCain or Obama. No?
Besides, just what is "fighting weight"? It looks like them Sumo wrestlers could kick anyone's butt!:)