From Fox News Channel:

A Change of Mind

A Change of Mind
In his speech in San Francisco yesterday, former Vice President Gore said the first President Bush had ended the 1991 Gulf War too soon.

AL GORE, FMR. VICE PRESIDENT: Back in 1991, I was one of a handful of Democrats in the United States Senate to vote in favor of the resolution endorsing the Persian Gulf War. And I felt betrayed by the first Bush administration's hasty departure from the battlefield.

But this is what Gore said about that back in 1991 on the floor of the Senate, of which he was then a member: “I want to state this clearly, President Bush should not be blamed for Saddam Hussein's survival to this point. There was throughout the war a clear consensus that the United States should not include the conquest of Iraq among its objectives. On the contrary, it was universally accepted that our objective was to push Iraq out of Kuwait, and it was further understood that when this was accomplished, combat should stop."

Look, he's lonely, he wants attention, and he felt he need to force Daschle's hand. It worked. Republicans really got worked up too. They couldn't just ignore him, they had to call him a "political hack" and so forth.

I just hope he doesn't run in 2004. I like Jim's suggestion of Kerry and McCain. Or Edwards and Daschle, though the latter appears to have the calmer temperament. Bayh's cute, bland and too dull--maybe we could pair him with Gary Locke of Washington? Or maybe Dean and Feingold--naaah, they'd get less votes than McGovern. Talk about a smart and attractive lot, though, liberals though they be!

Where was all this fire and angst during the 2000 election season? As Johnny Mathis and Denise Williams once crooned:

Too much, too little, too late

He ran a horrible campaign in 2000 and I see no reason to be optismtic that he'll be any better in 2004. Though, as the infamous Rolling Stone cover showed (before it was airbrushed out during the second press run), Al sure is packing a lot of heat in those tight jeans.

Not that I'd ever vote for someone based solely on his looks or size of his package, nope, not me!

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

Count me in as one who hopes he does run in 2004. Since Schrub doesn't give a rats behind about the enviornment and its going to hell in a handbasket we are going to need someone running the country who knows something about, and will lookout for the environment. I don't know of anyone more qualified than Al Gore. Did he make mistakes in 2000, yes, but I beleive he has and will learn from them and be an even stronger candidate in 2004. Do not underestimate Al Gore, he is a very intelligent man, and if I were Schrub, I would be concerned.

Puckman, the Democrats will find someone who's at least as concerned (if not as knowledgeable) about the environment as Gore was/is. He is just not the person to be the Democrats' standard bearer. He would make a good Secretary of the Interior, though.

Jim Allen, Gore did sport quite a package, didn't he? And he was kind of buff, which the media saw fit to ridicule, even though...well, you-know-who is a fitness fanatic. I won't even surmise about the current crop of contenders in the "sack of groceries" department.

Great line from Ann Coulter in her column today about Gore's war speech, after discussing Gore's demand that it's premature to take on Iraq until we can prove that Osama bin Laden is, in fact, dead:

"Al Bore wants to put the war on terrorism in a lockbox."

I'm not much of an Ann Coulter fan, but she does come up with some good one liners.

I think Ann's on to something. In a way it's too bad Gore isn't President. If he were in charge, we could just send him to Iraq and he could bore Saddam Hussein to death.

[ September 27, 2002: Message edited by: William1865 ]

The other strong point about Gore is his strong support for us in the gay community,which was shared by President Clinton. Can Schrub say this? Not........Funny you don't hear a thing anymore about Cheneys' lesbian daughter, she must have gone back in the closet.

Gore's better than Bush on gay rights, in his own way, but he's no strong advocate for them. Apart from DOMA, recall the situation when ENDA almost passed the Senate. Enough GOPers voted for it so that it lost by only one vote. Had Dale Bumpers, the Democratic senator from AR, been there instead of out sick, he'd surely have voted for it - we know this because all Demos are supporters of gay rights, right? - and then Gore could have broken the tie. Sure, it'd probably have lost in the House, but the symbolism of its Senate passage would have been immense. But that's not the way it was, just as Gore wasn't always "there for us" in his early days. In fact, he was quite the good little Southern Democrat back in the '80s, with all the baggage that implies. He's still not someone I'd want to dance the macarena with.

I think Gore was maybe against "gay marriage" but I think he is alot stronger of gay issues than what you mentioned. While on the subject of Demos, I see the headlines on msn, where Ted Kennedy has blasted Bush on his Iraq policy. Its about time a Democrat stood up and opened his mouth about this!

From the Daily Howler--it appears that Brit Hume bowdlerized Gore's exact quote, making it appear as though he flipflopped. The media then ran with it....

Daily Howler site

THE SLANDER THEY LIKE! What Gore said was perfectly accurate. But Brit Hume told a story he liked:

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2002

RETELLING THE STORY THEY LIKE: What a week to be eaten up by time-consuming obligation! But before we run to our latest meeting, we want to direct your attention to one prime attack that has followed Al Gore’s Monday speech.

Starting in 1999, the press corps—typing RNC spin—invented a story it very much liked: Al Gore is a great big liar. Al Gore has a problem with the truth. And the treasured theme has been dragged out again in the wake of Gore’s speech this past Monday. Was Gore correct in his seminal claim—the claim that a War on Saddam would harm the War on terror? Spinners don’t want to bother with that. Instead, many ran to a treasured claim—Al Gore is lying again. In particular, they claimed that Gore was lying about his reaction to the Gulf War in 1991.

On Tuesday evening’s Special Report, Brit Hume spun the spin quite nicely. First he played video from Gore’s Monday speech:

GORE (9/23/02): Back in 1991, I was one of a handful of Democrats in the United States Senate to vote in favor of the resolution endorsing the Persian Gulf War. And I felt betrayed by the first Bush administration’s hasty departure from the battlefield.
“All right,” Hume remarked, continuing directly. “Hasty departure from the battlefield.” Then he quoted something Gore said back in 1991:

GORE (4/18/91): I want to state this clearly. President Bush should not be blamed for Saddam Hussein’s survival to this point. There was throughout the war a clear consensus the United States should not include the conquest of Iraq among its objectives. On the contrary, it was universally accepted that our objective was to push Iraq out of Kuwait, and it was further understood that when this was accomplished, combat should stop.
Hume implied that Gore had contradicted himself. “How do we explain that, as against what he said yesterday?” he asked his crack, “all-star” panel.

But, as is so often the case in these GORE LIAR tales, Hume was quoting selectively. Here is the fuller text of what Gore actually said on Monday:

GORE (9/23/02): I was one of the few Democrats in the U.S. Senate who supported the war resolution in 1991. And I felt betrayed by the first Bush administration’s hasty departure from the battlefield, even as Saddam began to renew his persecution of the Kurds of the North and the Shiites of the South—groups we had encouraged to rise up against Saddam.
Absent-mindedly, Hume forgot to include the highlighted passage. When the highlighted statement is omitted, Gore’s comment on Monday seems to contradict what he said in 1991. With the highlighted passage left in, the statements are not contradictory.

(More on the Daily Howler site)

You can call a duck a cow, but it's still a duck, fantomas, and Albert Gore Jr. is a proven pathological liar. Even the lovable Susan Estrich admitted as much on FoxNews last night.

The tobacco speech at the Democratic convention about his dead sister? A lie. He continued to be the good soldier for tobacco for years after her cancer death.

The cheaper medicine for his mother-in-law's dog? Made up. Totally.

His Buddhist temple fundraiser excuses? Transparent lies.

He and Tipper the model for the "Love Story" characters? Only if Tipper's dead of cancer and no one told us.

I'm not even going to fault him for the internet comment, because those remarks were based on a truth: when in Congress, Gore did take the lead in steering funding for the development of the internet. He certainly didn't "invent" the internet, but he was an important player in its development.

And this latest flap is an indication of Gore's lies. To say he now felt "betrayed" by the George H.W. Bush administration's pull-out in Iraq (under strong pressure from the Democratic-controlled Congress) is trying to re-write history. Gore's quote from 1991 speak for itself and no amount of "spin" is going to change the fact that Gore is lying in 2002 about his complete position in 1991.

Joe Biden's been lying to the American people even worse on this subject of whether we should've taken out Saddam in 1991. (At least Gore did vote in favor of the Gulf War resolution, unlike Biden, even if former Sen. Alan Simpson's story of Gore's vote manipulation is true -- and it probably is). But that's not excuse for Gore.

There are a handful of Democrats expressing principled opposition to President Bush's Iraq policy. Carl Levin. Or Ted Kennedy. While I disagree with Ted Kennedy's remarks yesterday, they were principled and consistent with Senator Kennedy's well-established and legitimate values.

Gore has no principles. He's proven that over and over again. He makes Bill Clinton look like a rock, relatively speaking.

Thank GOD Antonin Scalia and four to six other Supreme Court Justices stopped the Florida Supreme Court from stealing the election for Al Gore and installing this pathological liar in the White House.

whoa charlie! Strong words!! I will say that I respectfully diagree with your assesment of Al Gore. Patholgical liar? Thats pretty harsh. Al Gore is no different that anybody else in politics. Sometimes they have problems in telling the truth. No different than anyone else, but not patholigcal. I disagree. Name me one politican who hasn't lied, and I will tell you I have some ice for sale in Antarctica. As far as "stealing the election" I will disagree with you there as well. The only one who stole this election was George Bush, who was hand appointed by the Florida Supreme Court. Don't forget, it was Al Gore who won the popular vote nationwide.

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
it appears that Brit Hume bowdlerized Gore's exact quote, making it appear as though he flipflopped

---

No surprise here -- Hume is a known Bush sycophant -- big tennis buddy of Bush the Elder.

[quote]Originally posted by puckman1:
whoa charlie! Strong words!! I will say that I respectfully diagree with your assesment of Al Gore. Patholgical liar? Thats pretty harsh.

---

Not harsh enough, puckman (although you are someone whose words I will always respect, even when you're WRONG )

Here's a great dissection of two of the biggest lies Gore told in his San Francisco speech, from Mickey Kaus, now writing for slate:

[quote]I'm surprised that I haven't seen anyone pounce on Gore for what to me was the second most obvious factual distortion in his San Francisco piece. (The first was his statement that "those who attacked us on September 11th" have "thus far gotten away with it." Michael Kelly did that one.)
Gore said:
Now, the timing of this sudden burst of urgency to immediately take up this new cause as America's new top priority, displacing our former top priority, the war against Osama bin Laden, was explained by – innocently, I believe – by the White House chief of staff in his now well-known statement, and I quote, "From an advertising point of view, you don't launch a new product line until after Labor Day," end quote. [Emphasis added.]
This, of course, gets Card's well-known statement wrong. What Card actually said, to Elisabeth Bumiller of the NYT, was:
"From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."
Gore's error isn't trivial (sorry, Somerby) since it distorts Card's statement in at least two ways that benefit Gore: 1) It makes the Bush administration's attempt to convince Americans about the war seem shallow and superficial, a case of mere "advertising." 2) Since "after Labor Day" is the traditional campaign season, Gore's mistatement makes Card seem more election-focused than his actual statement did. It's not as if Gore didn't have plenty of time to get this short quote right, especially if he was going to boast of his accuracy with his pompous "and I quote" and "end quote." ... Card's statement, of course, doesn't quite support Gore's insinuation that the Bushies timed the Iraq talk for political reasons. It does imply the Bushies timed the Iraq talk for September, but Card's point is that this timing was designed to best galvanize support for the war (by avoiding the August doldrums when nobody's paying attention) rather than to, say, squelch unexpected internecine Republican squabbling or win the mid-term election. It's a benign answer to the question, 'Why the Iraq fuss now, in September, rather than in August?' Maybe that's why Gore felt Card's words needed a little tweaking. ...

---

I consider Albert Gore Jr. to be the worst despicable scum in America. Because he came soclose to be elected president, he's far more dangerous to the public at large than your average child molester/serial killer.
I despise him more than Hillary Rodham.
I despise him more than Alec Baldwin.
I despise him more than the Nebraska Cornhuskers football team.
I even despise him more than Bud Selig
(Although that last one is close.)

Gee, I'm becoming a stylistic trendsetter, eh puckman? Now if you guys would only adopt the content of my postings as well!

At any rate, Hume was wrong and he should admit it. His epiphany came during the Clinton years when some lie or other from Team Billary led him to turn right on his road to Damascus. He had a personal tragedy in his life shortly thereafter: his gay son committed suicide. He always seemed, to me at least, more vociferous in his style since that unhappy event. Although I admire his tenacity, sometimes he seems to be on the verge of breaking when he gets going on Fox News Sunday. Whoa, Brit!

[quote]Gore said:
Now, the timing of this sudden burst of urgency to immediately take up this new cause as America's new top priority, displacing our former top priority, the war against Osama bin Laden, was explained by – innocently, I believe – by the White House chief of staff in his now well-known statement, and I quote, "From an advertising point of view, you don't launch a new product line until after Labor Day," end quote. [Emphasis added.]
This, of course, gets Card's well-known statement wrong. What Card actually said, to Elisabeth Bumiller of the NYT, was:
"From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."
Gore's error isn't trivial (sorry, Somerby) since it distorts Card's statement in at least two ways that benefit Gore: 1) It makes the Bush administration's attempt to convince Americans about the war seem shallow and superficial, a case of mere "advertising." 2) Since "after Labor Day" is the traditional campaign season, Gore's mistatement makes Card seem more election-focused than his actual statement did. It's not as if Gore didn't have plenty of time to get this short quote right, especially if he was going to boast of his accuracy with his pompous "and I quote" and "end quote." ... Card's statement, of course, doesn't quite support Gore's insinuation that the Bushies timed the Iraq talk for political reasons. It does imply the Bushies timed the Iraq talk for September, but Card's point is that this timing was designed to best galvanize support for the war (by avoiding the August doldrums when nobody's paying attention) rather than to, say, squelch unexpected internecine Republican squabbling or win the mid-term election. It's a benign answer to the question, 'Why the Iraq fuss now, in September, rather than in August?' Maybe that's why Gore felt Card's words needed a little tweaking.

---

The two versions, in my mind, mean the same thing. Whether you say "advertising" or "marketing," whether you say "launch a new product line" or "introduce new products", makes no difference to me. Mickey Mouse...umm, Kaus is desperately stretching.

And as far as this is concerned:

[quote] "those who attacked us on September 11th" have "thus far gotten away with it."

---

We've been told that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were behind the attacks. So as long as he's not behind bars or proven to be dead at the hands of our military or our allies, and if, as has been reported recently, al Qaeda is reforming in other countries, then guess what? Thus far they HAVE gotten away with it!

Poor Al!: At the end of Gore's economic address, he was asked "why he was not wearing his wedding ring."

Gore's face "turned scarlet as he confided that he had 'gained so much weight' that once he had taken off the ring 'I couldn't get it back on again'"

(from today's NYTimes)

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:

I despise him more than Alec Baldwin.
I despise him more than the Nebraska Cornhuskers football team.
I even despise him more than Bud Selig
(Although that last one is close.)

---

Charlie, one note: I bet if you met Alec Baldwin in person you might like him. He's an NYU alum, and I briefly spoke with him during an event there several years ago. He's much nicer, wittier, and more handsome (and I'm not really into guys who look like him) closeup. He reminded me of...yes, I'll say it, Clinton! (I've been told Beatty--Warren, not Ned!--has this effect up close.) I wouldn't put Baldwin, Billary Rodhamclinton or the Cornhuskers in the same category as Selig, though. He's unspeakably repellent!

The return of Gore

[quote]I consider Albert Gore Jr. to be the worst despicable scum in America. Because he came soclose to be elected president, he's far more dangerous to the public at large than your average child molester/serial killer

---

So, tell me, why should we take anything you write seriously ever again? Why Jim & Cyd annointed you the Baseball Guru of Outsports is baffling enough, but really, you're just talking rubbish.

Tell the parents of Polly Klas that the incompetent Al Gore is worse than the scum that raped and killed their daughter. Try to convince the loved ones of Ed Gein or The Green River Murderer or..... that Al Gore is worse than the scum that killed their sons/daughters.

Oooohhhh, riiiggghhhttt. Those aren't the AVERAGE cases--the "average" molestation/serial murder is so much more pleasant for the victims.



[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

At the risk of appearing reasonable, just a quick comment on some of these posts. There are very few people whose political views are at odds with mine whom I actually dislike. In fact, I LIKE people who can argue their views forcefully and convincingly, yet maintain their couth and cool, even if I end up losing the debate or suffer a few scrapes along the way. But what I decry is the ever-decreasing stock of such people and their replacement by tired idealogues whose lack of originality is matched only by their lack of social skills. I don't think it's asking too much to want both.

Unfortunately cartoons are pretty shallow and work both ways,

for real depth you have to Get Fuzzy!

I was also impressed by Senatory Kerry who was on "Hardball" from the Citadel yesterday. He too is asking qlot of questions. He too, is very worried about the state of the U.S. Economy. Its good to hear the Dems finally speaking up and out on alot of subjects, not just Iraq, which is dominating the news.

Get Fuzzy kicks ass. Bucky Katt: A God.

He actually reminds of some NBA players, with his eerie 3rd person talk about himself.

I'm surprised noone has mentioned the most important policy concerning gays that has been approached by Al Gore.

He has made a mild but serious commitment to allowing gays to serve openly in the military.

Though few gays might be persuaded to join just because of such a change, the acceptance of gays already in service would eventually bring about a sea-change in the attitudes in society toward gays.

ENDA and civil rights may be more important but the military is where the president has more authority and I think Gore realized that when he formulated his policy.

[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
So, tell me, why should we take anything you write seriously ever again? Why Jim & Cyd annointed you the Baseball Guru of Outsports is baffling enough, but really, you're just talking rubbish.

---

What I write about baseball is for entertainment purposes. If you're not entertained, then so be it. Why did they "anoint" me the baseball "guru"? Beats the hell out of me. I guess there was a vacancy and I was the only applicant.

[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
Tell the parents of Polly Klas [sic] that the incompetent Al Gore is worse than the scum that raped and killed their daughter. Try to convince the loved ones of Ed Gein or The Green River Murderer or..... that Al Gore is worse than the scum that killed their sons/daughters.

---

Attacking the straw man again, are we? I simply said Al Gore was more dangerous. I'm making no judgments as to who will occupy a lower circle of hell. A very bad person leading a nation can do far more damage than a serial killer. Stalin, for example, killed 30-80 million people. That's a few more than Richard Allen Davis or Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy. While I am not equating Al Gore with Stalin (although liberals and euro-weenies love to equate George W. Bush with Hitler), I point this out merely to illustrate that a national leader has the means to harm society (and cause actual deaths) far beyond the number of innocent lives snuffed out by a serial killer.

So if you got Marc Klaas's number, send it to me, I'd be more than happy to explain this position to him directly. He'll understand.

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

CITT, point taken; I still think it's an absurd bit of hyperbole, but, point taken. I obviously misunderstood the point you were trying to make amidst your seething hatred of Gore. And sorry for misspelling Klaas, I got the spelling from a very quick Google search. *Ding!* Wrong answer.

[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
CITT, point taken; I still think it's an absurd bit of hyperbole, but, point taken. I obviously misunderstood the point you were trying to make amidst your seething hatred of Gore. And sorry for misspelling Klaas, I got the spelling from a very quick Google search. *Ding!* Wrong answer.

---

Cheap rhetorical ploy on my part to add the "sic" to your quote. It's a subtle way to try to argue greater intelligence.

I hate making easily fact-checked errors like that. I'm always suspicous when, say, somebody is ripping Paul McCartney for his descent in to bourgois domesticity in his songwriting and they write something like "John Lennon, who co-wrote Yesterday...." based on the songwriting credit of Lennon/McCartney. Kind of undercuts their arugment for me.

As long as we're being all kissy-huggy here, sorry for the rip about your baseball coverage. I think Jim & Cyd offered me the job but I don't follow baseball closely enough anymore to have done the subject justice. I think I'm still bitter because you said Jim Thome looked like a farmer once. Or am I confusing you with some other poor, misguided soul?

Comparing Gore to a serial killer and then suggesting that he as a leader of this country might do more harm than a serial killer or a child molester sounds like a mentally ill person living on the streets ranting and raving having completely lost their intelligence and reason. Charlie, who you despise is irrelevent, and it's now completely impossible to take you or your postings seriously on any level because you're obviously certifiable.

Adding injury to insult, you suggest that you'd explain to the Klaas family your position? You're offensive, you're rude, and you're too much of a rabid right winger to realize what horrible comments these are and how completely inappropriate...Really, brain-check, please...

And while I have reservations about Gore, I'm sure the Bush administration will tally a far higher body count than a Gore administration would have ...Not to mention the destruction to the environment, civil rights, and all the rest of the damage presently being done while we're kept occupied with the war(s)...

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: bryan d. ]

[quote]Originally posted by bryan d.:
You're offensive, you're rude, and you're too much of a rabid right winger to realize what horrible comments these are and how completely inappropriate...Really, brain-check, please...

---

I checked. It's still there. But thanks for your concern.

[quote]Originally posted by bryan d.:
And while I have reservations about Gore, I'm sure the Bush administration will tally a far higher body count than a Gore administration would have ...Not to mention the destruction to the environment, civil rights, and all the rest of the damage presently being done while we're kept occupied with the war(s)...

---

Thank you. You've just made my point.

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:

He and Tipper the model for the "Love Story" characters? Only if Tipper's dead of cancer and no one told us.

---

Just a bit on this "howler" that keeps circulating. Gore was *not* lying--it is the media that has distorted the truth. Al Gore did partly serve as the model for Oliver Barrett IV in Erich Segal's Love Story. Both Segal and Gore went to Harvard; Segal based Oliver Barrett's CHARACTER, not the story, jointly on Gore and his roommate, actor Tommy Lee Jones, who were both members of the Class of 1969.

To give the exact information, from The Daily Howler: "The New York Times, December 1997, quoted the author of Love Story, Erich Segal, who said: "When the author Erich Segal was asked about Gore's impression, he stated that the preppy hockey-playing male lead, Oliver Barrett IV, indeed was modeled after Gore and Gore's Harvard roommate, actor Tommy Lee Jones." So the author said yes, Al Gore was the role model."

"In Melinda Henneberger's 12/14/97 story, Segal had explained, in detail, that Gore and Jones had been the models for the male lead in the weepy best-seller."

As the Howler continues, with regard to Fox's Sean Hannity, who was flogging Gore on this story: "Hannity's misstatements are wonderfully ironic, because he himself routinely commits the crime which he lays off on Gore. He routinely misstates the facts of this trivial incident—and in the process he calls Gore a liar. He also embellishes facts. On Tuesday, for example, he said that Gore "told the crowd" that the book was based on his life and that of his wife. But in fact, Gore's one fleeting comment on this subject was made in a late-night conversation with two reporters—Karen Tumulty of Time magazine, and Rick Berke of the New York Times. There was no "crowd" present—Hannity was improving the story."

One less lie to add to the Gore total.

But the important thing is Republicans managed to establish the perception that Gore's a liar and cripple him politically. People like us can surf the internet and find in-depth refutations of this statement and that, but Mr. and Mrs. Joe Sixpack are probably just going to hear the basic story and say, "Yep, that Gore, he really is a liar." That's the real victory here. At least I think so. Others might disagree.

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Just a bit on this "howler" that keeps circulating. Gore was *not* lying--it is the media that has distorted the truth. Al Gore did partly serve as the model for Oliver Barrett IV in Erich Segal's Love Story. Both Segal and Gore went to Harvard; Segal based Oliver Barrett's CHARACTER, not the story, jointly on Gore and his roommate, actor Tommy Lee Jones, who were both members of the Class of 1969.

---

So "Love Story" is based on Al Gore and his Harvard roommate Tommy Lee Jones? OK. Which one did Ali MacGraw play again?

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:


So "Love Story" is based on Al Gore and his Harvard roommate Tommy Lee Jones? OK. Which one did Ali MacGraw play again?

---

Once again, it's not that hard, CITT--the CHARACTER of Oliver Barrett IV was based on Gore and Jones. Ali McGraw played the dying girlfriend, a treacly and romantic addition by Segal that reeled in millions of readers and viewers and made Erich Segal, McGraw and Ryan O'Neal very, very rich. Just admit you're wrong here and be done with it.

Admit he's wrong? Good luck with that truly sisyphean task....

[quote]Originally posted by bryan d.:
Admit he's wrong? Good luck with that truly sisyphean task....

---

Who are you calling a sissy?

NOTE: While I do like to see people exercising their full vocabulary, the ostentatious use of the word "sisyphean," in this context, is just plain WRONG. The term "sisyphean" does not connote a task that is "difficult" or even "impossible." There is an implication of repetitive drudgery. The task is accomplished, but it must be repeated. Over and over again. Sisyphus pushes the boulder to the top of the hill. But it rolls back down and he must roll it to the top again and again and again and again. So if you were to believe that the task of getting me to admit I was wrong was "sisyphean," then you would be implying (and, I, inferring) that, at some point, I do admit the error, but that I quickly make another logical error, which restarts the ordeal of getting me to again acknowledge an error, which is then acknowledged, restarting the ordeal and so on and so on and so on. Given that I have no intention of admitting an error, this particular boulder will not reach its summit. Hence the task at hand is "impossible," the goal "unachievable," but not "sisyphean."

And that concludes today's vocabulary lesson.

Not quite, smart (and wordy, redundant and tedious) guy.

It would be a punishing task for he who must try and get you to admit you're wrong about so many things.

sisyphus

Sis"y*phus, n. [L. Sisyphus, Sisyphus, fr. Gr. ????.] (Class. Myth.) A king of Corinth, son of [AE]olus, famed for his cunning. He was killed by Theseus, and in the lower world was condemned by Pluto to roll to the top of a hill a huge stone,
which constantly rolled back again, making his task incessant.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

[ October 05, 2002: Message edited by: bryan d. ]

[quote]But the important thing is Republicans managed to establish the perception that Gore's a liar and cripple him politically. People like us can surf the internet and find in-depth refutations of this statement and that, but Mr. and Mrs. Joe Sixpack are probably just going to hear the basic story and say, "Yep, that Gore, he really is a liar." That's the real victory here. At least I think so. Others might disagree.

---

Oh thank Goddess. Now I don't have to worry about searching for the kernel of truth in a pile of political spin, think for myself, ask questions or try to come to a balanced and nuanced view of a political situation as it comes down the pike. I can just rely on the first thing I hear about it and then switch my brain off.

I'm so relieved.

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

Just saw Gore on George Stephanpoopalus' "This Week". He sure sounds like he is running in 2004. He was articulate, answered the questions posed to him, laid out what he would do if he was President, and was quite honest about any of his faults. I came away more impressed with him that I have been in quite a while. I hope he does decide to run! Go Al Go!!

[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:

Not that I'd ever vote for someone based solely on his looks or size of his package, nope, not me!

---

Suppose he could prove the looks weren't just make-up and the package not just a sock..strategically placed?

I hope he runs. I also hope McCain runs. And I'd like to see a serious third party contender as well.

The more the merrier.

BTW: when are we going to get a presidential candidate who can smack one on his boyfriend at a political convention the way Gore did Tipper?

A gay smoochdown at one of the national conventions, especially the Democratic one, would probably lead to a McGovernesque showing in a general election. Still I'd love to see someone be courageous enough to do this. Maybe Tammy Baldwin and her ladyfriend? Or Hillary Clinton and...oops, she still with Bill!

Gore really ought to stop fudging (and I don't mean dipping into it) and state clearly whether he's running or not. Kerry and Edwards are better, more viable candidates whose politics do not weathervane the way Gore's do, and Kerry is certainly articulate on international issues. One person who should definitely NOT consider running is the whiny Joe Lieberman. His brand of tepid conservatism failed miserably in this last election, though I don't think he's realized this yet.