Robert Novak reports in the Chicago Sun Times that Former Va. Governor Mark Warner's pullout from contention for the 2008 democrat presidential ticket was done in part so as to make room for another Al Gore run for the Presidency!
Oh would it be that this is true!!
Posted by leo at October 23, 2006 01:26 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/crawford.cgi/7875
Comments
Well, Al Gore did win the poplular vote in 2000.....
Posted by: Wade at October 23, 2006 01:48 AM
Wade,
Yeah - but there were all those precincts that had 100% turnout and 99% of their votes for Gore...some of us suspect that Gore's popular vote victory had no controlling legal authority.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at October 23, 2006 01:56 AM
I suspected Gore would run in 2008 as far back as 2001 - and when he endorsed Dean during the 2004 primaries, I knew it for certain. Gore has scratched the far left's back, and his reward will be enthusiastic far left support in the early primaries - perhaps enough to ensure that Hillary can't get the nomination. The only way I can see a Gore run de-railed is if Obama runs (and now that I've thought about it, I don't think Obama will - though he'll accept a VP slot).
Posted by: Mark Noonan at October 23, 2006 01:59 AM
Speculation by whom? Novak is making up stuff--not sure if that's him speculating or just trying to make a word quota/sell papers. The last Gore talked about this (and yeah, with Obama reconsidering Gore might too) Gore was adamant that he'd not run again--much to the dismay of many Dems.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politics/story?id=2037158&page=1
But who knows, if there aren't any better Dem contenders he might feel like he needs to do it for the party.
Posted by: Nate at October 23, 2006 02:20 AM
Gore running for prez, again? Sounds more like The Nightmare Before Christmas 2008!
Gore and Kerry both running. I hate re-runs.
Posted by: Freedom1 at October 23, 2006 02:22 AM
Which one of these two Democrats would you rather have in the White House? Al Gore or Hillary, Billary Clinton. Does it even matter?
Posted by:
Denny at October 23, 2006 02:31 AM
I can't wait for Al Gore to explain to Mr. and Mrs. midwest and South that his worth just "happened" to increase to over $200,000,000 in the last 3 years with his Apple and Google stock.
Yup, he's a regular guy next door.
Posted by: Warriornation at October 23, 2006 02:44 AM
Wade, the purpose for the Electoral College is precisely what was seen in 2000. Yes, Gore won the popular vote, by numbers. He carried some heavily populated states, like California, but lost many in the heartland.
Without the electoral vote, our politicians would be selected for all by the larger states with those in smaller states having little say in the election.
Seems our Founding Fathers were pretty darned smart in that too.
Posted by:
Lew Waters at October 23, 2006 03:10 AM
If Gore runs again,he "gets it" this time around-
the country does'nt want the muted version that
his wimpy DLC handlers convinced him to present
in 2000. Although he won,it was'nt by enough to
overcome Karl's dirty tricks. The country has
seen the "real" Gore in his outspoken speeches
and enviro movie. He's not far-left, he's near-
left, as in near to this country's actual values.
Glad to see the rapid demonizing by you guys.
of Gore. It tells me that he's a real threat
to y'all..
Posted by: PukeOrDie at October 23, 2006 07:21 AM
Wade, we do NOT KNOW who won the popular vote in 2000. As has been pointed out before there were numerous votes not counted to the vote total, such as many absentee & military votes, that could easily have affected popular vote. What was stated is “of the votes that WERE counted, Gore had a majority”, big difference. So in truth we do not know who won the popular vote in 2000. In 2004 however the numbers were far in excess of the number of uncounted votes that we know for sure that Bush won the popular vote then.
Posted by: DM at October 23, 2006 08:57 AM
Well, Al Gore did win the poplular vote in 2000.....
This is a common Donk talking point, Wade. The fact is that Gore did indeed win the OFFICIAL POPULAR VOTE However, if you dig a little deeper, you'll find that the vote totals by state for Bush and Gore don't add up to the total votes cast. In California alone the discrepancy was over 700,000 votes. In some instances, the main difference was the Nader votes, but in many cases it was absentee votes that simply weren't counted because they wouldn't have altered the outcome. Officially Gore won the 2000 popular vote by 533,895 (50,989,897 - 50,456,002). Unofficially, we'll probablly never know the truth, unless someone with way to much time on their hands decides to go around the country and tally up the uncounted absentee ballots. The fact remains, however, that had Gore not lost his own state of Tennessee by over 80,000 votes, he would have been President.
Posted by: Retired Spook at October 23, 2006 11:00 AM
Please report any inappropriate comments to abuse (at) blogsforbush (dot) com. Be sure to include the title of the blog entry, the name of the commenter, and the text of the offending comment.
Post a comment
Well, Al Gore did win the poplular vote in 2000.....
Wade,
Yeah - but there were all those precincts that had 100% turnout and 99% of their votes for Gore...some of us suspect that Gore's popular vote victory had no controlling legal authority.
I suspected Gore would run in 2008 as far back as 2001 - and when he endorsed Dean during the 2004 primaries, I knew it for certain. Gore has scratched the far left's back, and his reward will be enthusiastic far left support in the early primaries - perhaps enough to ensure that Hillary can't get the nomination. The only way I can see a Gore run de-railed is if Obama runs (and now that I've thought about it, I don't think Obama will - though he'll accept a VP slot).
Speculation by whom? Novak is making up stuff--not sure if that's him speculating or just trying to make a word quota/sell papers. The last Gore talked about this (and yeah, with Obama reconsidering Gore might too) Gore was adamant that he'd not run again--much to the dismay of many Dems.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politics/story?id=2037158&page=1
But who knows, if there aren't any better Dem contenders he might feel like he needs to do it for the party.
Gore running for prez, again? Sounds more like The Nightmare Before Christmas 2008!
Gore and Kerry both running. I hate re-runs.
Which one of these two Democrats would you rather have in the White House? Al Gore or Hillary, Billary Clinton. Does it even matter?
I can't wait for Al Gore to explain to Mr. and Mrs. midwest and South that his worth just "happened" to increase to over $200,000,000 in the last 3 years with his Apple and Google stock.
Yup, he's a regular guy next door.
Wade, the purpose for the Electoral College is precisely what was seen in 2000. Yes, Gore won the popular vote, by numbers. He carried some heavily populated states, like California, but lost many in the heartland.
Without the electoral vote, our politicians would be selected for all by the larger states with those in smaller states having little say in the election.
Seems our Founding Fathers were pretty darned smart in that too.
If Gore runs again,he "gets it" this time around-
the country does'nt want the muted version that
his wimpy DLC handlers convinced him to present
in 2000. Although he won,it was'nt by enough to
overcome Karl's dirty tricks. The country has
seen the "real" Gore in his outspoken speeches
and enviro movie. He's not far-left, he's near-
left, as in near to this country's actual values.
Glad to see the rapid demonizing by you guys.
of Gore. It tells me that he's a real threat
to y'all..
Wade, we do NOT KNOW who won the popular vote in 2000. As has been pointed out before there were numerous votes not counted to the vote total, such as many absentee & military votes, that could easily have affected popular vote. What was stated is “of the votes that WERE counted, Gore had a majority”, big difference. So in truth we do not know who won the popular vote in 2000. In 2004 however the numbers were far in excess of the number of uncounted votes that we know for sure that Bush won the popular vote then.
Well, Al Gore did win the poplular vote in 2000.....
This is a common Donk talking point, Wade. The fact is that Gore did indeed win the OFFICIAL POPULAR VOTE However, if you dig a little deeper, you'll find that the vote totals by state for Bush and Gore don't add up to the total votes cast. In California alone the discrepancy was over 700,000 votes. In some instances, the main difference was the Nader votes, but in many cases it was absentee votes that simply weren't counted because they wouldn't have altered the outcome. Officially Gore won the 2000 popular vote by 533,895 (50,989,897 - 50,456,002). Unofficially, we'll probablly never know the truth, unless someone with way to much time on their hands decides to go around the country and tally up the uncounted absentee ballots. The fact remains, however, that had Gore not lost his own state of Tennessee by over 80,000 votes, he would have been President.