Why DID Al Gore Lose in 2000?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ May 28 2006, 06:40 PM) [snapback]262137[/snapback]</div>

NONE. Carol Moseley Braun left the Senate in Jan. 1999; Barack Obama began serving in Jan. 2005 (it's a very exclusive club.)

 

Gore and Kerry lost because you say 'they were losers'. That's it. Simple. They couldnr have beaten themselves out of a wet paper bag...

Well, on this Memorial Day weekend, just remember that these two 'losers' served in Vietnam. Actually served in Vietnam like you. Which you (and Gore and Kerry, the two 'losers') should be very proud of..
For serving the least amounts of time in veitnam.... <_<

I would have to agree with daniel on the fact that it does seem both paries are corrupt. :angry:

Next election Im voting green. (Non- Repubilan , Non-Democrat) Although we would need a indepndant house to get anything done..

Below is a brief History of Mr. Gore & Mr. Kerry's Veitnam service.
Sorry its long but good reading... B)
*******************************************************
Did Al Gore serve in Vietnam? Yes, he did. He spent five months there as a reporter/journalist.

"Mr. Gore enlisted in the Army on Aug. 7, 1969, reporting to Fort Dix, N.J. He was based at Fort Rucker, Ala., working as an information specialist. For a reason neither he nor the military can explain, Mr. Gore would remain at Fort Rucker for a lengthy period awaiting orders." "When they finally came, he would spend less than five months in Vietnam, arriving on Jan. 8, 1971, to write newspaper and magazine articles. He was discharged on May 24, 1971." (The Washington Times National Weekly Edition Nov. 28 - Dec. 4, 1994)

A five month stay in Vietnam is less than half the normal tour. Gore asked for and received an "early out" that May at a time when the 20th Engineers were standing down as part of a gradual U.S. troop reduction. (Washington Post. 12/31/99 pg. A1)

I know what people are thinking. They're probably thinking, "So? Your point is....?" The point is, I believe that Gore has misrepresented his Vietnam activities. Gore stated that he was "shot at" and that "I spent most of my time in the field" (The Washington Post, 2/3/88). In a March 1988 Vanity Fair article, Gore described his travel to various firebases where members of his engineering company were at work: "I took my turn regularly on the perimeter in these little firebases out in the boonies. Something would move, we'd fire first and ask questions later." Gore also stated to the Baltimore Sun that, "I pulled my turn on the perimeter at night and walked through the elephant grass, and I was fired upon." (reported in the Los Angeles Times 10/15/99 and The Washington Post 12/31/99) Gore had an M-16 rifle assigned to him, which he carried on only a few occasions. However, Gore refers to having an M-16 assigned to him, as well showing photographs of him with the rifle in political ads, as if carrying or using the rifle was something he did on a regular basis. (The Washington Post 12/31/99, The Washington Post 6/27/99)

According to Michael O'Hara, Gore's closest army buddy, "We never pulled guard duty in the field because we weren't part of those units. The only place we stood guard was back at Bien Hoa," the secure base where Gore lived. "It was the equivalent of being a school crossing guard. I know guys that didn't even take their rifles with them." (The National Review, November, 1999) Other soldiers with long experience in Vietnam said that Gore was treated differently from his fellow enlistees. H. Alan Leo, a photographer in the press brigade office where Gore worked as a reporter, said soldiers were ordered to keep Gore out of harm's way. "It blew me away," Leo said. "I was to make sure he didn't get into a situation he could not get out of. They didn't want him to get into trouble. So we went into the field after the fact [after combat actions], and that limited his exposure to any hazards." (Los Angeles Times 10/15/99) Leo described his half-dozen or so trips into the field with Gore as situations where "I could have worn a tuxedo." (Newsweek, 12/6/99) Gore's story changed to the more "accurate" version in his October 1999 interview with Talk magazine, though he wasn't asked why the story has now changed.

In Gore's first debate with Bill Bradley in October, 1999, Gore emphasized numerous times that he "came back from Vietnam." Do people really believe that this wasn't mentioned to give to give the impression that he went to Vietnam and fought for a period of time? Why else would he continually mention this?

Other statements about Gore's service also lead to the conclusion that he served in a combat role. In a Hardball rebroadcast on September 6, 1999, Chris Matthews, when speaking to Pat Buchanan, stated, "He [Al Gore] also fought in Vietnam, I mean, he served in Vietnam in a military capacity." This comment was preceded by a discussion of the baby boomer generation, and Pat Buchanan's comments about how many baby boomers fought in Vietnam. In November 1998, Gore attended an unveiling of three new postage stamps which recalled the fighting men of World War II and those who supported them on the home front. Gore is referred to as a Vietnam Veteran. (http://caller-times.com/autoconv/newsus98/newsus145.html) Yes, Gore is a Vietnam Veteran, but if Gore is at a ceremony which honors those who have fought in combat, and he is then referred to as a veteran, does this not imply that he too, fought in combat?


This of course isn't meant to be misleading -- right? I am sure he assumes everyone will realize that he served by spending five months writing articles. When Gore talks about "serving in Vietnam" and "carrying an M-16" and "being shot at" I'm sure he isn't expecting that people will assume he fought in combat, right?

Sure, and I have a private jet in my backyard. Really. A water jet on my sprinkler system! I am sure that by saying "jet" everyone assumed I was referring to my sprinkler, right?

People have also e-mailed me and claimed that Republicans such as Dan Quayle dodged the draft while Gore served his country. "Quayle and others just served in the National Guard," they cry. "They got preferential treatment because of who they were!" First, many people legally signed up for the National Guard instead of waiting for their draft notice. It wasn't just a "way for the rich to avoid serving" as some people often conclude. In fact, some National Guard units were called into combat. Company D, the most highly decorated Army in Vietnam, was a National Guard unit from Muncie, Indiana. Obviously, the chance of being called to Vietnam if one was in the National Guard was slim, but some units were called. I doubt those in Company D, who lost their lives in Vietnam, would be considered draft-dodgers. In addition, if one voluntarily enlisted in the Army, rather than taking a chance and waiting for a draft notice, he usually was not sent into combat and was instead given behind-the-lines jobs. According to Army historians, the fact that Gore enlisted, avoiding the vagaries of the draft, increased the likelihood that he would get the job he wanted. In practice, they said, the military favored those who joined voluntarily. (Washington Post 12/30/99)

Secondly, if people believe that those who enlisted in the National Guard "got in" because of preferential treatment, then they should acknowledge that Gore may have also received preferential treatment. If people conclude that entrance to the National Guard was based on preference, then they should acknowledge that it may not just be a coincidence that Al Gore, son of Senator Al Gore, landed a spot as a journalist for five months.

I must emphasize that the issue is not the fact that Gore served in Vietnam as a journalist, but that he and others, I feel, have tried to misrepresent his level of service. It is also hypocritical to on one hand, paint anyone who served in the National Guard as a draft-dodger who obtained preferential treatment, and on the other hand, deny that Gore could have benefited the same way.
*******************************************************

John Kerry's service in Vietnam lasted 4 months and 12 days, beginning in November 1968 when he reported to Cam Ranh Bay for a month of training. His abbreviated combat tour ended shortly after he requested a transfer out of Vietnam on March 17, 1969, citing Navy instruction 1300.39 permitting personnel with three Purple Hearts to request reassignment. So far as we are able to determine, Kerry was the only Swift sailor ever to leave Vietnam without completing the standard one-year tour of duty, other than those who were seriously wounded or killed.

It is clear that at least one of Kerry's Purple Heart awards was the result of his own negligence, not enemy fire, and that Kerry went to unusual lengths to obtain the award after being turned down by his own commanding officer.

John Kerry has long insisted that using the three-injury loophole to leave combat early was his own idea, but Kerry's fellow Swift officer Thomas Wright, who served on occasion as the OIC (Officer in Charge) of Kerry's boat group, contradicts that claim. Wright reports that he "had a lot of trouble getting Kerry to follow orders," and that those who worked with Kerry found him "oriented towards his personal, rather than unit goals and objectives." He therefore requested that Kerry be removed from his boat group. After John Kerry qualified for his third Purple Heart, Thomas Wright and two fellow officers informed him of the obscure regulation, and told him to go home. Wright concluded, "We knew how the system worked and we didn’t want him in Coastal Division 11."

Constructing a complete picture of Kerry's service is difficult due to gaps in the Naval records provided by the Kerry campaign. These gaps include missing and incomplete fitness reports, missing medical records and missing records related to his medal awards.

For this reason we call upon Senator Kerry to authorize complete access to all his military records by filing a standard Form 180, a simple two-page release form.

Swift Vets and POWs for Truth is in the process of researching John Kerry's time in Vietnam by conducting interviews with eyewitnesses to his activities, and we plan to add material to this section over the next several weeks as it becomes available. We will report the true circumstances of Kerry's medal awards and injuries, describe other controversial missions, and provide in-depth analysis of his fitness reports.



If people want to talk about draft dodgers, perhaps they ought to start a discourse about Bill Clinton.

 

The right-wingers are still "swift-boating" John Kerry, while the chickenhawk whose daddy got him into the National Guard so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam (and who then subsequently went AWOL from his guard unit) is in the White House, sending our troops to die in an unneccessary war of his creation. Pathetic.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ May 28 2006, 03:00 PM) [snapback]262079[/snapback]</div>

Um, you aren't paying attention. I keep saying that if Gore had won his HOME state, that would have made a difference. Then Florida would not have mattered. But continue.

Sure, sure. What ever. Hey, I understand that the dead vote each year in Chicago as well. Listen. I happen to work the streets. As a minister, I see more of the ghetto then most want to. And I can tell you: A huge chunk of them did not even bother to try to vote on election day. Not worth their time, they said. And then, lo and behold, when the press comes around, they start singing another tune, about how they tried to get out to vote, and they were stopped...If this really happened, like you think it did, then how come there were no riots? As in riots in the streets over this grave misjustice? Yeah. Think about that. Get back to me on it.

And you can get married in Florida at the age of sixteen as well. My point? Florida is a messed up state, you ask me. But I am guessing no state is perfect.

My point is, if you can't win at home, you can't win in other states. Or at the very least, will have a hard time with that. Gore barely came into Florida. That is a fact. And so, he did not win the state. That is also a fact. YET, if he had just won his home state, well, then he would have won. At least that is the way it's played out.

Sure you do. Everyone here (myself included), needs to get off their lazy butt. If you think that by marching is going to do anything, you live in a dream world. A world where money does not buy politicians.

Money talks, bull hockey walks. And part of getting off the lazy butt, is putting money where you want it to go.
Maybe no one has talked to you in simple, honest terms. The system? It's corrupt, yup. How did it get that way...hmm. Let's think about that. Oh, yeah, it got that way because people are corrupt. Simple as that. If you can't see that, then again, you live in the dream world.

Now, I think that if we, those who don't like Bush, can start to spend money on the guy we like (be it who ever), now, then that person will move mountains to do our bidding. And then, when our corrupt guy gets in, you have to hope that he has a tad bit more sanity then Bush, and maybe, just maybe, starts to move things in the direction we want.

And so, in that order, I say, stop whining about Gore losing. Again, if Gore is your man, then pay him off. Get him on board. Tell him, via your money, to run again.

Stop living in the world where some honest guy will materialize. Ain't gonna happen. Hell, Gore is all about money as well. Don't think he is not. Guy makes tons of money off his cause.

See, you can cuss me out all you want. Pay little attention if you wish. But the cold hard fact is, I am speaking a truth that no one wants to. Why do you think Bush is where he is? Do you think it's because he doesn't have money? Please.

I am not living in some dream world, where everyone cares about the environment, and helps each other, and takes care of each other.

No, I live the world where you see people not put away simple things, like shopping carts, because they are too lazy. I live in the world, where someone will zig zag in and out of traffic, just to get one moment ahead of you. I live in the world where grown men have sex with teenage girls, and there are other people who make money off this.

To just name some of the evils I see every day. And frankly, I lost my rose colored glasses a long time ago. And I want the world to change. I do. But to change it, I have to invade it. Change it from the inside out. And if that means I have to be cynical, mean, and a bastard to some, so be it.

At the end of the day, I rest knowing at least I am being brutally honest, and that's fine. You don't have to like me. I don't care.

But I do care about others, and I will fight to change things. Even if that means getting off my lazy butt.

 

Sure, sure. What ever. Hey, I understand that the dead vote each year in Chicago as well. Listen. I happen to work the streets. As a minister, I see more of the ghetto then most want to. And I can tell you: A huge chunk of them did not even bother to try to vote on election day. Not worth their time, they said. And then, lo and behold, when the press comes around, they start singing another tune, about how they tried to get out to vote, and they were stopped...If this really happened, like you think it did, then how come there were no riots? As in riots in the streets over this grave misjustice? Yeah. Think about that. Get back to me on it.
And you can get married in Florida at the age of sixteen as well. My point? Florida is a messed up state, you ask me. But I am guessing no state is perfect.


What type of minister are you?

Peace --

Marjorie.

 

TJandGENESIS
And you can get married in Florida at the age of sixteen as well. My point? Florida is a messed up state, if you ask me. But I am guessing no state is perfect.

Teen Marriage Law Trends

Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland and Oklahoma allow pregnant teens or teens who have already had a child to get married without parental consent. However in Florida, Kentucky, and Oklahoma, a teenage couple must have permission from a court. Maryland and Georgia require that the minor (teen) be at least 16.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ May 28 2006, 08:38 PM) [snapback]262190[/snapback]</div>

Thank you for the information about Gore and Kerry's service record. They did serve less than a year according to the articles you quoted, but they served. In Vietnam. In the jungle.

I have a favor though...can you also post Bush's service record for all to see? It is a fair request since Gore and Kerry did go up against George W. Bush.

We on PriusChat after all, want to be fair and balanced right? You report, we decide.

Thanks!!!

 

...simple.

he didn't get enough votes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(marjflowers @ May 28 2006, 10:37 PM) [snapback]262204[/snapback]</div>

The kind your mother warned you about.

The kind that is willing to sit down with the tax collectors, and the sinners, and share a beer with them.

The kind that is not ashamed to admit that he follows Christ.

The kind that is not going to hate you based on your color, race, creed, or if you go to bed with Steve if you are a guy, or if you go to bed with Eve if you are a woman.

The kind of preacher that knows no one is perfect, not me, not you, no one.

The kind that is sick and tired of the corrupt world we live in, and wants to see a change, and is not afraid to get his hands in the mud to clean it up.

That kind.


Hope that doesn't frighten too many. But it might.

 

wooo a bunch of Liberal's........(44%) i love it! -count me in

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ghostofjk @ May 29 2006, 02:33 AM) [snapback]262295[/snapback]</div>

Why certainly, I wouldnt want to force you or anyone to read my post, I must have forgotten our last conversation regarding the links.. I wont do that again masa ghostofjk.. I promise!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ May 28 2006, 03:40 PM) [snapback]262137[/snapback]</div>

Let's count 'em: ... Errrm, zero. None at all.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(imntacrook @ May 28 2006, 12:19 PM) [snapback]262092[/snapback]</div>

That happened under Reagan's watch. In case you forgot, in those days the United States Government deliberately ignored those atrocities and supported Saddam's regime behind the scenes during the Iraq-Iran war.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ May 29 2006, 02:33 PM) [snapback]262403[/snapback]</div>

so what? political topography is ever changing, never constant. hindsight sure is always 20/20...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 29 2006, 09:54 PM) [snapback]262559[/snapback]</div>

Squid, that's a pretty weak response to the point raised. Hindsight?! America has a long history of supporting brutal dictators in full knowledge of the atrocities they commit for the sake of "regional stability." Just what hindsight are you talking about?

When the American government supported Saddam in the past, they knew full well of his extremely repressive policies against his own people and that Iraq had already been making use of chemical weapons against its enemies. So you tell me specifically what "hindsight" was missing when President Reagan and Donald Rumsfield gave Saddam the chemical weapons he used on the Iranians after meeting with him in the middle of the Iran-Iraq conflict and telling Saddam that the United Stated hated the Iranians too (nudge nudge wink wink). What is it that you think they could not have possibly imagined happening as a result?



Do you really mean to tell me that you think that poor old President Reagan simply did not have the benefit of history to tell him that deciding to pump up repressive dictators around the world so that they can commit even worse atrocities just might come back to haunt America at some point in the future, so therefore he can't really be faulted for any shortsightedness?! Does your wordview really not include any such thing as 1) morality, or 2) common sense?!

 

Third party candidates have, as their only hope, the role of "spoilers". This is usually expressed by saying that the third party influences the major party closest to them, and causes a shift in the platforms. But it is really a "spoiler" role. Ralph Nader is the reason Gore did not have a decisive win over President Bush. And life-long Democrat Ross Perot is the reason President Clinton got elected. Foolish people voted for them instead of the candidate with the best chance of winning who was closest to their views.

The adult thing to do is to realize that perfection, while always something to strive for, is not something you can actually acheive. You will never have a "perfect" candidate. Adults will realize this, and choose to vote for the candidate and party with both the most chance of winning AND the closest platform to their own views.

Al Gore is a fine candidate, and I don't think the Democrats can do much better with anyone else. Evan Bayh is another candidate who is in his category, but I don't think anyone in the Democrat party has the experience and depth that Al Gore has. Bayh would make a perfect VP choice.

I would never vote for Al Gore, as I'm a hard core, confirmed Republican, and he is far too liberal for my tastes. But I don't think he would be a bad President. While I am a Republican, I am primarily an American, and our choices have historically done well for our country. The people have a wisdom that transcends my temporal politics, it seems. That's an unusual view in this age of hyper partisanism, where vitriol takes the place of discourse, but there you have it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Subversive @ May 30 2006, 12:11 AM) [snapback]262620[/snapback]</div>

Please...

It's a business like any other... Relationships are maintained for mutual advantage from whatever standpoint at that point in time. Morality and common sense? ha! From WHOSE standpoint? YOURS? The US as a whole? You call my point weak, but to claim something totally objective as morality and common sense?

 

Katherine Harris. Go back and look at the original timeline and you'll find that what happened in the first 48 hours was critical, and never properly legally addressed.

But that is all besides the point - if we didn't have an electoral college, then Bush would have won anyway, and we'd still be in this hole.

Dave

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveSheremata @ May 30 2006, 11:44 PM) [snapback]263215[/snapback]</div>

Gore won the popular vote by 540,000 votes. If we didn't have an electoral college, Gore would have won.