I see you used that..

Post #30,393 by bepatient 3/1/02 5:00:30 PM Reply	I see you used that.. ..as an opportunity to try and redirect the discussion. If he was "so great a politician and campaign strategist" Better? And the electoral college is not an additive situation. Maybe if you took Buchanan off of the ballot in FL then you would have had AL in the WH. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #30,402 by Brandioch 3/1/02 5:39:18 PM Reply	You're starting to catch on, Bill. I see you used that.. ..as an opportunity to try and redirect the discussion. If he was "so great a politician and campaign strategist" Nope. No attempt to redirect at all. That was what >YOU< were trying to do. Yes, he was a "great" politician. And, like I said in the other threads, politicians have adulterous affairs, lie, cheat and steal. And he managed to convince people that he was a better choice than the alternative. That is what makes him a "great" politician. And the fact that he beat your boy in TWO elections makes him a better campaign strategist than your boys. Bill, you're still stuck in binary mode. I can think that he was a BETTER choice than your boys, without condoning his personal life or even all of his policies. It's just that your boys had MORE things "wrong" with them (my personal opinion). And, since Clinton was re-elected, that seems to be the belief of a majority of the voters at that time. Being better than the alternative is NOT the same as being a "great guy". And I can think that it was a witch hunt by a bunch of sanctimonious ass holes to find something on him even while I know that he deliberately lied about cheating on his wife. And I know that, while I don't agree with his lies about sex, most of the people in this country really don't care that someone will lie about an affair. So, Larry Flint puts up money to dig into the sexual history of anyone trying to hang Clinton and shows the hypocrisy for what it is. And no one is surprised that a politician told a lie. It's called "karma". Or "your reap what you sow". All those years and all that money and the ONLY thing they could get on Clinton was that he liked being sucked by an intern. Okay, all the guys that do NOT like getting blow jobs, please raise your hand. Have I made my point, yet?
Post #30,414 by bepatient 3/1/02 8:21:23 PM Reply	So, which was it? Was he a great politician...or just better than the other guys? (they're not mine) Considering how he was treated by his own people...I'd have to lean in the direction of just better than the other guys. After all, you would think Al would have had some use for a great politician in his campaign. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #30,520 by Brandioch 3/3/02 3:33:56 PM Reply	Didn't I make that clear? Was he a great politician...or just better than the other guys? (they're not mine) He was a "great" politician. He was better than your guys. Considering how he was treated by his own people...I'd have to lean in the direction of just better than the other guys. Okay, then what's your opinion of Newt's political skills? I think his "Contract with America" was a GREAT piece of fiction. After all, you would think Al would have had some use for a great politician in his campaign. Al desperately needed a great politician in his campaign. But he wasn't politically astute enough to manage it. He didn't want Bill's sexual habits to "pollute" his campaign. Like I said before, Al could have run a flawless campaign with just one message: "You're going to get 4 more years of what you've just had EXCEPT the only one that's going to be on her knees in th Oval Office will be my wife Tipper."
Post #30,533 by Ashton 3/3/02 5:26:38 PM Reply	Cackle.. Cackle.. umm glorp?
Post #30,684 by wharris2 3/4/02 2:46:41 PM Reply	"My boy"? And the fact that he beat your boy in TWO elections makes him a better campaign strategist than your boys. (I realize the post isn't directed specifically to me, but it does seem to be directed generally at Republican-leaning people.) George Bush lost out because he sponsored some bonehead laws, made some broken promises, and seemed to be clueless about the economy. He was a left-leaning "New Republican". Helping people with disabilities makes sense, but the hydra that is the Americans with Disabilities Act, until recent court cases have reigned it in a little, was a monster. And of course there's the famous "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" pledge - if he hadn't been so gleefully smarmy about it, or if he'd shown some spine and vetoed the most publicised bills, he may have been able to get over that one. Oh, yeah, and the "Thousand Points of Light" - the American public didn't want a thousand points of light, we just wanted relative peace and to be otherwise left alone. As late as the week before the election, on the Today show or one of the other morning shows, he was trying to say the economy was fine. Statistically, we were coming out of an economic downturn - but Bush certainly came across as there having been no problems at all. Not to mention that he's just a boring public speaker. Al Gore has a (deserved, IMO) reputation for having a wooden personality, but Bush was as bad - against a moderately charismatic Democrat, he would have had problems but against the kind of charisma Clinton can turn on, I think he would have had problems even without the mistakes he made. I've had the dubious priviledge of hearing him speak twice and he was just flat both times. Whatever else you may think about him, you've got to admit that Clinton can turn on the charm. Then the Republicans had to go trot out Bob Dole, the Senator from Archer-Daniels Midland. Holy cow, what a boneheaded choice. I disagree with Pat Buchanan in many ways, but at least he can speak in public and has some visible principles. Dole was a "default choice" with little or no visible personal principles and his own funny speaking mannerisms. And then they had to trot out the second George Bush! No wonder the Republicans almost lost the last Presidential election. Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt
Post #30,694 by Brandioch 3/4/02 3:14:29 PM Reply	That's politics. George Bush lost out because he sponsored some bonehead laws, made some broken promises, and seemed to be clueless about the economy. In a nutshell, I agree. Oh, yeah, and the "Thousand Points of Light" - the American public didn't want a thousand points of light, we just wanted relative peace and to be otherwise left alone. Fat, warm, dumb and happy, the best way to keep the voters. Not to mention that he's just a boring public speaker. Al Gore has a (deserved, IMO) reputation for having a wooden personality, but Bush was as bad - against a moderately charismatic Democrat, he would have had problems but against the kind of charisma Clinton can turn on, I think he would have had problems even without the mistakes he made. And, if he were a better politician (either old Bush or Gore) he'd have dealt with that problem. Al kept trying to do it but it always seemed as if he were re-defining himself when he did it. It didn't seem to come naturaly for him. And Bush just didn't seem to be in touch at all. Perception is everything in politics. Whatever else you may think about him, you've got to admit that Clinton can turn on the charm. And that gives him a tremendous advantage when it comes to politics. And he usually plays to that advantage. Ronny had the same skills. Perot had it too, to a degree. His use of charts and graphs was a great idea. Make the message simple and colourful and easy enough for people to follow. Then the Republicans had to go trot out Bob Dole, the Senator from Archer-Daniels Midland. Hmmm, given that, in the past, we went from winner becoming president and 1st runner up becoming vice-president to President and Vice on the same ticket....... I'm betting that the first party to craft the President & Vice team will win. You match speaking skills and personalities and give the public ONE option early on. I think it will eventually happen. Long range planning is where the future is. Start grooming your teams years in advance. And have exit strategies for with controlled turn-overs. The Vice-President is expected and groomed to take over the President's job after 8 years and during those 8 years, the new Vice-President is being groomed and publicized for the job. If you plan 12 to 16 years out, the opposition wouldn't even stand a chance. Dole was a "default choice" with little or no visible personal principles and his own funny speaking mannerisms. I'm sure he's fine in person and away from the media. Or maybe he isn't. :) But if he'd been groomed and trained and so on, he'd be a far better candidate than he was.

Welcome to IWETHEY!