The Bosque Boys

21/03: Al Gore to the Rescue?

Category: Frivolity

Today on Sean Hannity's radio show, wild-haired pollster John Zogby floated the idea of Al Gore as a compromise candidate for the Democratic nomination. The Zogby plan: Jimmy Carter and some other party wise men convince Barack Obama to release his delegates to Al Gore in exchange for the VP slot. The powers that be assure Mrs. Clinton that she would ascend to Senate Majority Leader as part of the deal, and everybody leaves happy.

Really? Al Gore? Really?

One of the most unelectable figures in the history of American politics?

Is John Kerry not available?

What about Walter Mondale? Ted Kennedy, maybe? Unfortunately, Ed Muskie passed away, but I think George McGovern is still alive. What about him?

We appreciate you thinking out of the box, Zog--but perhaps you should go back to the drawing board on this one.

Comments

Andy Taylor wrote:

Oh, you mean the guy who actually won the 2000 Election by over 600,000 votes and they still stole it from him?

21/03 06:46:06

A Waco Farmer wrote:

Yes, Andy, that would be another way of saying the most unelectable figure in American history.

21/03 09:06:05

memomachine wrote:

Hmmmmm.

1. I can't say that I've ever heard of a government that needed a constitution in order to justify "keeping" or "bearing" arms. Frankly I'd have to point out that quite a few nations that don't even bother with having a constitution, have been able to navigate that rocky business of purchasing highly powerful weapons.

It would be interesting to see a nation-state that required a law for it's army to be ... well ... *armed*. But that's rather unlikely. It appears the only time something this idiotic comes up is in front of the US court system.

2. I'm constantly amused by liberals who simply cannot accept that Al Gore lost in 2000 because of the Electoral College.

There's a certain flavor of someone sitting in a dark corner, muttering imprecations and endlessly chewing the same mouthful of stale vomit.

3. Liberals have made a great process out of having several states reform their Presidential Electoral College laws so that the winner of the *national* popular vote will get these state's Electoral College votes rather than the candidate that won those specific states.

Really silly business because it takes most of the incentive away to actually campaign in those states.

Another is that liberals did this in the expectation that they would always win the national popular vote.

Yet considering the polling of both Hillary and Obama, along with the fratricidal hate coming from both camps for the opposing candidate, it's starting to look like McCain will be the beneficiary of this silliness.

If there's one thing that liberals never can understand, it's the Law of Unintended Consequences.

21/03 12:32:26

Fen wrote:

Andy Taylor: <i>you mean the guy who actually won the 2000 Election by over 600,000 votes</i>

More silliness from the Left. The electoral college determines the winner, not the popular vote. You might as well complain that your NFL team "won" because, while they had fewer points, they had more total yards. What is lost on you is that, if the winner was determined by total yards instead of total points, both teams would have played the game differently. Same with the elections: both campaign strategies would have been entirely different.

"and they still stole it from him?"

No, the facts are that Democrats tried to steal Florida in 2000 and got busted.

23/03 15:42:25