Carlson claimed Gore's supporters "would be terrified" if Gore ran for president; baselessly claimed "nobody" wants Gore to run
SUMMARY: Tucker Carlson baselessly claimed that "nobody, especially his friends, wants to see Al Gore run for president," but recent polling indicates that respondents would choose Gore as the Democratic nominee for president in 2008 over all other potential challengers except for Sen. Hillary Clinton. He also repeated his earlier description of Gore as a "zealot."
On the September 11 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson asserted that those who have said "in the last six months" that former Vice President Al Gore would have made a great president would not actually support him for president in 2008 because "they'd be terrified." Carlson then baselessly claimed that "[N]obody, especially his friends, wants to see Al Gore run for president." On the September 12 edition of Tucker, Carlson repeated his claim that "even the Democrats don't want" Gore as the Democratic nominee in 2008. Carlson also suggested that liberal radio host Alex Bennett, who appeared on the September 12 program, wouldn't "welcome" a Gore nomination; Carlson asked, "[Y]ou're not a masochist, are you?" In fact, recent polling illustrates that Democratic-leaning respondents would choose Gore as the Democratic nominee for president in 2008 over all other potential challengers except for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY).
Additionally, on the September 12 program, Carlson repeated his earlier description of Gore as a "zealot" and agreed with some of guest Mark Williams's smears of Gore and Clinton. Williams referred to Clinton as "the Hildebeast," and as "an amoral politician." Williams called Gore "nuts" and "out of his mind," and compared Gore to a "racehorse" who has been "drugged out or something." Carlson agreed that Williams's description "of Gore talking is exactly what I've seen a lot of the times on the road with Gore. He's a zealot."
As Media Matters for America has noted, Carlson previously called Gore a "wild-eyed religious nut" whose "religion is the environment," and once stated that "it's fair to say that Al Gore is a religious zealot." As Media Matters has also noted, Williams previously said Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) has "got to be on crack."
Three recent polls, by CNN (conducted August 30-September 2), Fox News/Opinion Dynamics (conducted August 29-30) and Cook Political Report/RT Strategies (conducted August 25-27), all found that respondents favor Gore for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008 over other potential candidates such as Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC). Only Clinton polled higher:
|
CNN Poll |
|
|
Hillary Clinton |
37% |
|
Al Gore |
20% |
|
John Kerry |
11% |
|
John Edwards |
11% |
|
Russ Feingold |
3% |
|
Bill Richardson |
3% |
|
Mark Warner |
3% |
|
Evan Bayh |
2% |
|
Joe Biden |
2% |
|
Tom Vilsack |
1% |
|
Unsure |
8% |
|
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll |
|
|
Hillary Clinton |
32% |
|
Al Gore |
15% |
|
John Kerry |
13% |
|
John Edwards |
9% |
|
Joseph Biden |
4% |
|
Wesley Clark |
4% |
|
Mark Warner |
2% |
|
Evan Bayh |
2% |
|
Other |
2% |
|
Unsure |
18% |
|
Wouldn't Vote |
1% |
|
Cook Political Report/RT Strategies |
|
|
Hillary Clinton |
32% |
|
Al Gore |
19% |
|
John Edwards |
11% |
|
John Kerry |
9% |
|
Joe Biden |
5% |
|
Russ Feingold |
3% |
|
Evan Bayh |
2% |
|
Bill Richardson |
2% |
|
Mark Warner |
2% |
|
Wesley Clark |
1% |
|
Chris Dodd |
1% |
|
Tom Vilsack |
1% |
|
Unsure |
11% |
From the September 11 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: Well, next, some political news I really don't get.
GORE [video clip]: In 2000, when you overwhelmingly made the decision to elect me as your 43rd president, I knew the road ahead would be difficult.
CARLSON: Bit of wishful thinking there on the part of Al Gore, but the former vice president turned Saturday Night Live player may not have entirely given up his dream of one day moving back into the White House.
Facing reporters in Australia last night, Gore said he does not expect to run for president again two years from now. But, he adds, he has not completely ruled out that possibility.
Here's what I don't get. Do all the people you're hearing in the last six months or so, saying, "You know, Al Gore was right, he would have been a great president?" Do they really mean it? And if Al Gore decided to run again, would they support him?
No, of course they wouldn't. They'd be terrified. Nobody, especially his friends, wants to see Al Gore run for president. So let's just stop pretending.
From the September 12 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: Now clearly, we all agree that there is -- there are things to be afraid of. We disagree about what they may be. Here's one I think we can all agree is, frankly, a terrifying prospect. It comes from our old pal Pat Buchanan [MSNBC political analyst and former presidential candidate]. He says this about Al Gore. He proclaims that if the former vice president ran for the Democratic nomination right now, Pat Buchanan predicts, he would beat Hillary Clinton to win the nomination. Now whatever you think of Pat's politics, he's a pretty, I think, smart prognosticator. The idea of Al Gore, I think both of you -- Mark, we'll start with you -- you agree even the Democrats don't want that.
WILLIAMS: You know, if he does, I mean, from Pat Buchanan's lips to God's ear because that would be the Talk Show Host Employment Act of 2008. You know, Rush Limbaugh and I and guys like me are lighting candles every Sunday praying for just such an event. You know, the Hildebeast is just an amoral politician. Al Gore is nuts. I mean I've met the guy. I've talked with the guy. I stood 10 feet from him at a MoveOn.Org thing I crashed in D.C., watching him bellow and sweat like a racehorse on -- you know, has been drugged out or something. He wasn't, but he looked like a racehorse, his nostrils flaring. The guy's nuts, and he's angry. He was up there talking about how President Bush is agitating for the assassination of judges, and then he said, "If the Supreme Court doesn't get its act together, people just may rise up against them." I mean, the guy's out of his mind. It would be very entertaining. I think the Hildebeast would take him down. I just wish the Republicans had somebody other than, like, [Sen.] George Allen [VA], who's a great guy, but I wish we had a little more to choose from on the Republican side.
CARLSON: Alex Bennett, what do you think? And be honest, here. I know we're on television, but tell the truth. The idea of Al Gore getting the nomination again, you don't welcome that. You're not a masochist, are you?
BENNETT: I absolutely am a masochist. If I were really a masochist, I'd want Hillary to run.
CARLSON: Well, that's actually probably a good point.
BENNETT: I don't think Hillary can win.
CARLSON: Why?
BENNETT: Because I think she's got too much baggage. I think it's going to go all the way back to the Clinton administration. And her -- it's just not gonna happen. OK? I think that Al Gore has a slightly better reputation now than he did years ago. He somehow has gotten people to understand him a little more and to kind of feel sensitive towards him because he's not a close-up, fuzzy person. And I think the movie helped. You know, the book, certainly being on top of the best-seller lists, hasn't hurt either. I think he's the best of the lot so far, and that's a sad thing to say about the Democrats.
CARLSON: But will you concede something that Mark said? Mark obvious -- I believe him when Mark says he's been around Al Gore because his description of Gore talking is exactly what I've seen a lot of the times on the road with Gore. He's a zealot. He really is a -- he's a podium pounder. He's a very intense, almost religious figure. Does that make you uncomfortable as someone who's uncomfortable with religion?
BENNETT: No. Conviction does not make me feel uncomfortable. Knowing what a guy's about and not having him sell me a bill of goods, and then do something else afterwards is not something I want in a candidate. And I feel that with Gore, what you see is what you get. And it's not a bad person. It's a fairly good human being who has the best instincts at heart. And I think he wouldn't be a bad choice for the Democrats. I wish there was better. That's all I'm saying.
CARLSON: I'm on your side, Alex Bennett. I hope he's in -- Mark Williams, I think we can all agree: Al Gore, please run soon.
IMHO, the farther removed from 2000 we get, the better Gore looks as a candidate. I think he would be a solid favorite if he ran. I don't understand Carlsons opinion on this.
I think Gore would be a formidable candidate if he ran again. He appears to have learned a lot from the 2000 campaign and seems a lot more comfortable in his skin.
I'd predict a real knock-down, drag-out battle between him and HC if he ran, but I don't think it would hurt the eventual winner. I think he/she would simply come out looking stronger.
I hope Liriano is as healthy as they say.
Off topic but my spys at work informed me that Lieriano grabbed his elbow and walked off the mound in the 3rd inning. Bad news.
The last thing I read on Gore was that he hadn't ruled out another run for the Presidency. I would suggest the Democratic leadership should do some arm-twisting on this and get him firmly in the "I'm running" column.
we have an intelligent, competent, passionate, and compassionate man in the White House. That would just be terrible.
And so very, very unlike the last five and a half years.
you just described the Jimmy Carter years.
Jimmy Carter was indeed all of those things. It is unfortunate that there are no Republicans with those qualities.
Gore would beat Hillary in the primary. Gore has finally learned to speak what he thinks. Hillary still acts as if she isn't quite sure what she thinks.
More lies from Tucker.
The polls clearly show former VP Gore has support. I know I want him to run. Americans realize that Gore was elected in 2000 and if he had been in Office instead of Bush we wouldnt be in the mess we are in today.
can't even outpoll Hillary Clinton.
He comes across as a raving lunatic. You could run any combination of Gore, Kerry and Hillary -- hell, you could run all three at once and they couldn't win.
You need to dig deeper into the talent pool.
If you want a better candidate then the three you name...
He [Gore] comes across as a raving lunatic.
Only to pinheads. I'm not naming names though. Leatherhead.
like the right wing has anyone decent to offer for president.
GMAFB. Until the right wing offers up a decent alternative, keep the holwing down to a dull roar, would ya?
I know you aren't calling anyone a raving lunatic, man you're as mad as a hatter.
If there is ONE person who wants Gore to run for president in 2008, then that proves Tucker wrong. By the polling data, two years before the 2008 presidential election, Gore has a 15-20 percent following. Interesting how "nobody...wants to see Al Gore run for president" if 15-20 percent of those polled would like to see it.
Hhhmmm....
CSL
that "nobody" supports Dick Cheney either.
Does that count?
Carlson's ability as a pundit is exceeded only by his ability to dance.
he was a better dancer than he is a pundit. That's saying a lot since his dancing was less than stellar.
In Tucker's fantasy world, no one wants to see Gore as President.
In the real world, no one wants to see Tucker dance.
minutes, I thought I had a personal injury case against 'Dancing with the Stars' for allowing Tucker to dance. Fortunately, I have cable.
I think old Tuck had visions of credibility sinking and intentionally danced badly (if not, oh my gawd). Also (and Tommy and JLyon, you may commence typing) but didn't old Tuck have a lot of junk in his trunk? Snap!
His dancing prowess matches his political prophesying, not professional and unbelievable. Tuck the celebrity, he resembles Tim Meadows' "Ladies Man".
tho it was more like twitching.
He was a smarmy little mouthpiece with a bowtie before; now he's a smarmy little mouthpiece without a bowtie. And, once again, watching the opposition coach us in how we should beat them is ludicrous and insulting. And pulling this oh-no-don't-go-in-the-briar-patch routine ("I think we can all agree: Al Gore, please run soon") is the moxt noxious of all. Who on their side could possibly run against Gore with any credibility? Frist? Santorum? Oh, bring those debates on.
I've given up expecting these people to have shame, scruples, or ethics. But at least a modicum of intelligence would be good.
talk shows are claiming they hope Al Gore runs so they will have an easy target then thst simply means they are worried about it. They know Gore won the last time he ran.
Why wouldn't people vote for Gore. Gore DID win the 2000 presidential election... so we know he has a good track record.
Plus, if Gore were to win the White House we could rid ourselves of this damn ManBearPig infestation we are suffering.
Run Al, Run!!!
I'm sick of presidents. I'm sick of people running for president. All millionaires fighting over who gets to sleep in the big white mansion, get their arse kissed daily, grab perks out the yazoo and blow up the toy soldiers. There has to be a way to handle the executive branch better.
I oppose making one man "head of state" in a republic. The less opportunities for people to play imperator the better. His title should be "head of government" only. "We, The People" should be down as "head of state" on the books, if only for the symbology alone.
How's that for a truly democratic republic? Compared to 4 different 24/7 tv channels devoted to coverage of El Presidente. It's not republican to place one man over the nation. Nor is it democratic to only allow two factions to have control to the exclusion of all other ideas. The USA is neither democratic or republican right now. It's plutocratic and sliding fast into a theocratic nightmare.
If God is blessing America, why this?
a helluvan assessment - with which I concur.
we live in an oligarchy
Republicans have been pushing Hilary as the inevitable Dem nominee for years now. This is the imaginary Dem party that conforms to their fantasies.
Much of Gore's "image" issues and the reason he can be made the butt of political fodder is of his own doing. Perhaps not lately when he seems to have calmed himself, but earlier when he couldn't seem to make a speech without his veins popping out and yelling. It may be his passion and that is fine, but whenever a politician speaks too angrily or yells, (i.e. Howard Dean when he lost a primary), they open themselves up to being poked at. It goes with the territory.
I think that Gore realized that recently and when seen through the prism of a possible future presidential bid. He went from liberal activist to serious statesman, real fast. I have no issue with him and will look at him seriously if he is the nominee vs. the others.
Let the pundits do their thing.
Not the "Howard Dean Scream" BS again.
You missed my point. I wasn't commenting on whether or not Dean deserved the flack he got from his speech, I just commented on the events and the attention he did get from his speech - right or wrong, he was poked fun at.
Calm yourself,
If Al Gore has such support, why does Hillary Clinton outpoll him by nearly double?
If Al is such an intellect with unquestionable leadership abilities, why would he poll so badly against someone who polls so bad that 36 percent of the voters say they would vote for anyone but her?
Leather. It's not difficult to read the results of the polls properly, you know. Give it a try.
The point that Tucker was trying to make (what I got out of it, anyway), is that Gore seems to be the underdog in polls taken TWO FREAKIN' YEARS before the elections. It's spin. It's only for right wing propaganda.
If nobody wants Gore to run for president, then wouldn't he have polled EVEN LOWER? No. Just because Hillary happened to poll higher than Gore doesn't mean squat right now. What the polls DO show is that the American people haven't forgotten about Al Gore. For Tucker to say otherwise is just Tucker being Tucker - lying.
Just like Rusty said earlier, it looks as though Gore is polling higher than Dick Cheney these days. What does that say?
The political seasons grow shorter every campaign it seems like. After the '00 election the news shows were doing the same thing and now after '04 nothing has changed.
The front runners now will most likely not be the anointed one. If past precedent is any indication the winner will come from behind in the field.
Since Hillary is making noises about possibly not running in 2008, I think Al Gore would be MORE than a feasible choice to win the Democratic nomination. I would SUGGEST Warner, Bayh or Vilsack as his running mate.
I don't AGREE with Gore on every issue, BUT I do believe he's HONEST and a man of strong convictions. I ALSO believe he, MORE than any other of the possible candidates [from either party] has the power to restore the goodwill towards the U.S. around the world which was needlessly squandered by the CURRENT administration.
I don't know where Carlson gets this crap about even Gore's supporters being "terrified"...pure bunk. I'm a Republican/Conservative, and I'm NOT terrified of a possible Gore Presidency.
"I don't AGREE with Gore on every issue, BUT I do believe he's HONEST and a man of strong convictions. I ALSO believe he, MORE than any other of the possible candidates [from either party] has the power to restore the goodwill towards the U.S. around the world which was needlessly squandered by the CURRENT administration."
And what's sad is that while he is clearly one of the best-qualified people to run this country, all we'll hear from the rabid right (not including you, obviously) are lies about how he claims he invented the internet and other nonsense. His honesty, conviction, obvious intelligence and diplomacy are going to take a far back seat to BS.
I would much rather see him run than Hillary for four reasons:1)he has a rightful spot there, since he was robbed in 2000;2)Hillary has too much war baggage;3)Hillary has, if anything, a disadvantage over how the right-wingers will smear her, she is a much more divisive figure;4)America may not be ready for a female President (sadly) - while people say they want her to run now in the actual process she could lose a lot of votes to subconcious sexism.
What I really wish is that he would have run in 2004. I think he was a much stronger candidate (at any point) than Kerry, and I think Bush would have had a very difficult time keeping his job.
You wrote: "What I really wish is that he would have run in 2004. I think he was a much stronger candidate (at any point) than Kerry, and I think Bush would have had a very difficult time keeping his job."
First let me say this... Kerry was a terrible candidate in a time when the Democrats should have crushed the Republicans. And yes, Gore may have beat Bush (some may say 'again' ;-)).
But anyway, to my real point. If you want a victory in 2008, run Mark Warner as the presidential nominee. Fairly moderate from a fairly solid red state who has shown can govern and work with Republicans. Self-made man and hard-worker.
Don't know exactly who the veep should be (Vilsack? Richardson?), but Warner's your guy. Out.
Agree mostly, Warner is an attractive candidate and some new blood infused into the Democratic party, nationally.
But I am not so sure he could come out of the primary process on top. He may have difficulty in the Northeast and the West. The primaries are mostly driven by the most liberal and the most conservative candidates of each party, they make the decisions and they vote. Warner may be too moderate for their tastes, especially when many Democrats want what they elected in Vermont recently.
Gore just may be what they are looking for, at the right time. He is formidable.
I agree with the new blood. I would like to see some new faces on both sides of the aisle or at least running for POTUS. Both parties could use the infusion and maybe break the entrenched power that exists.
Pipe dream I know.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you how Liberal I am and I'm a Northeastern Liberal at that; but guess what, if Warner runs he's my first choice. Nevertheless, I still sincerely believe that Gore would make a fine president and I would love to see him do a Nixon type comeback. Oh yeah I could do either a Warner-Wesley Clarke ticket or a Gore-Warner ticket.
Gore has some balls, and acts like a Democrat and not a Ultra-Liberal, I will vote for him. Almost any change is better then GWB.
That is basically the bulk of the substance of the whole discussion. The rest is just a series of baseless putdowns and a pretention to read the minds of Democrats and how they "really feel, " despite no evidence to back up what they say.
the South Park Gore episode -- lite.
If Gore looks so qualified now, they why did the Democrat Party turn it's back on him in '04? According to most on this forum the election was "stolen" from him in '00 and after all he did have more net votes. Why did you turn Al out in the cold four years later?
When Reagan lost the primary in '76, the Republicans didn't turn their collective backs on him four years later. Here is a idea. Run the Gore/Kerry ticket. You get the best of both worlds.
It's the Democratic Party.
Hog, who says Gore wanted to run in 2004? The jury was still out in the minds of many people about the Iraq war and any sitting President, even Bush, is hard to beat while a war is in progress. Now, most Americans have come to realize that the Iraq was a big fiasco and that Bush screwed up. Not that Al Gore would be my first choice, but Gore's chances are considerably better for winning the presidency in 2008 than they were in 2004. For one thing there are certainly many people who will be thinking that we would be a lot better off had we not elected Bush in 2000.
BTW, what this thing with the "Democrat Party"? It is the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, you know... has been for many years. I guess Karl Rove's focus groups told him that the DEMOCRATIC PARTY sounds too good and noble so we'll call'em something else. Kinda silly, don't you think?
And same goes for the use of thigns like "Repugs", "Shrub", "President Halfbus" (a new one I just saw), "Demoncrats", "Duhhhbuya", "Bushies", "Hillary G*d-damn Clinton", etc. It's like one big "Wow, look at me, I suffer from low intellect" sign right here on the screen before me. Out.
Con Man: I don't know if you're aware of it but George W. Bush is now saying the Democrat Party... I heard him say it several times on TV. What's funny is that you can always tell when Karl Rove is testing a new phrase because it pops up spontaneously out of nowhere and sudedenly Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hanitty and the other usual suspects start saying it. And then when Bush speaks he always ham-handedly works the new phrase into whatever he's saying... regardless whether it has anything to do with what he's trying to talk about... and he keeps saying it. Too funny... but kinda childish.
The Republick Party (I'm testing that one) has been using "Democrat Party" for at least 20 years, I read recently (can't remember where). Back when Republicks maintained decorum in public, they used "Democrat Party" only in private amongst themselves. Those days being long gone, it has now entered the Republick mainstream, all the way up to President Shortbus himself, who probably heard his daddy say it at parties back in the '80s.
Defeatocrats? Or maybe Demorats? Yeah, I like that one! :)
Republisuckmyballses
Well the phrase only recently entered their public lexicon because I had never heard it. Then suddenly I hear Rush, Sean, Delay, etc., etc. all start using it publicly around the same time and I wondered what was going on. Then I read something about it in a magazine too so apparently I wasn't the only one who noticed it. Anyway, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that it's use is the product of a Karl Rove focus group.
"Nobody, especially his friends, wants to see Gore run for president."
Tuck, how many of Gore's friends do you know? If the answer is, as I suspect, none, please STFU . . .
He could personally know the rest of the PMRC. All of them run around with Albert.
Do YOU know Tucker Carlson? Personally I mean? If not, as I suspect, you should follow the same advice above . . .
I'm sick of these "his friends said this" arguments - they're no different than the "some people say" BS the rightwingnut pundits regularly toss out.
Not sure I follow, but no, I don't know Carlson personally. Did I say anything that would lead you to believe that?
I just was saying that you made an assumption (that Carlson didn't know any friends of Gore), and I made a comment saying that you didn't make a good point because it is possible that he does know some friends of Gore.
Not really sure what irked you so badly in my statement that you would feel the need to tell me to shut the f (_) ck up. If you care to explain, please feel free. Thanks. Out.
MJH was appears to be directing his "STFU" at Carlson:
"Tuck, how many of Gore's friends do you know? If the answer is, as I suspect, none, please STFU . . ."
I don't think you should really take offense unless you are indeed Tucker Carlson.
Yes, but then he said "Do YOU know Tucker Carlson? Personally I mean? If not, as I suspect, you should follow the same advice above [to STFU]. . ."
I just don't get what made him so angry.
I didn't see that. You are right. He apologizes to you below.
My bad.
My wife is extremely right wing. Went to a bible college and everything and she said she would vote for Gore. I think it was because we went to see "An Inconvient Truth".
I know I used Democrat party 10 years ago. Sounded better to me. Sen X is a Republican and therefore in the Republican Party. Sen Y is a Democrat and therefore in the Democrat Party.
then why did the DEMOCRATIC Party turn its back on him in '04?" - Hogprint
They didn't, Hogwash - Gore elected not to run.
As for Ray-gun, he was successful in '80 for two reasons: 1} he declared his candidacy early, unlike in '76, and 2} some GOP, like incumbent Ford, DID turn their backs on him, but Reagan was smart enough to choose George H.W. Bush as running mate, who was everything he wasn't - a lifelong Republican, combat veteran, and someone who had international experience.
But thanks for the advice on the Gore/Kerry ticket. I always admire how the right wing is so helpful in choosing what candidate{s} are best for the Democrats . . .
Gore "elected" not to run, because the Demorats basically shut him out. All we heard about was how it was a "new day", and Kerry was going to pick up the pigskin that Gore dropped.
Don't take it so personally. Both parties tend to turn their backs on who lost the last time around. Why didn't the Dems bring back Dukakis? Why not Mondale a second go around? Why didn't the Repubs run Dole again? Get the drift?
I got slightly out of line above.
I''ll try to explain:
I took issue with Carlson's comment that "nobody, especially his friends" wants to see AG run for prez.
That was disingenuous on two counts: namely, when he said "nobody", that's clearly untrue if, as the polls cited above state, anywhere from 15-25 per cent would support his run for the presidency, and secondly, the use of "his friends" . . .
Maybe TC knows some of Gore's "friends", maybe not . . . if he does, why not state who these "friends" are?
What irks me is this is the same ridiculous argument Sean Hannity uses when he does the "some people say" argument . . . exactly who are these "people"?
My whole point is, unless Carlson knows and/or is friends with the same group of "friends" that supposedly don't want Gore to run, he ought not be making blanket unsubstantiated statements like that . . .
I commented above without having read this. Thanks. Out.
No joke. Gore was a Boy Scout, Bush had Cheney and Rove. Virtue does not win elections, cunning and lies do. Whoever runs against the Republicans in '08 had better be ready to be a dirt-turner, master of the ad hominem attack, and defamer. This is a war. It is a war for survival. You do not win by playing fair or nice, you win by being a preemptive bastard. It bought that drunk two terms in the White House. Whoever runs in '08 needs a Democratic Rove, a pig. I'm sorry, but truth is truth.
Maybe Hillary SHOULD run...she'd be perfect.
Who do you vote for if you know you can do a better job than all the potential candidates combined? What choices are there? People who continously get it wrong? With track records of blunder after disaster after piles of corpses in their wake? They trail bad luck like a battle flag. As soon as it gets shot down, some other fool picks it up again. Who to vote for if all we're to get is this? A non-stop starvation diet of stale , destructive political ideas fed to us by rouged dolls in corporate uniforms, like some French Louis XIV farce.
And the worst part is that people eat this up like candy. Just one big endless soap opera, with scandals and crimes and psycho people who always have amnesia. If only they would turn their backs on them that leadeth us to nowhere, we'd finally get someplace.