OrangeSoul Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Calling from Tokyo, the former vice president reached Howard Dean in a van somewhere in Iowa on Friday. "Now that I've made the decision that I want to endorse you, I want to do it as soon as possible," Gore said during the 45-minute call. They instantly made two decisions: Break the news in New York's Harlem neighborhood, where both were scheduled to be Tuesday, and keep it a secret until the last possible minute. Gore apparently wanted to give Dean's rivals a call late Monday night, officials said, but those plans were scuttled when the endorsement leaked. Dean kept his side of the bargain, refusing to tell even his campaign manager. Joe Trippi said he got wind that something was up Sunday when Dean ordered his staff to charter planes for Iowa. When he asked Dean what was going on, the boss said, "I can't tell you." Dean told reporters that he didn't even tell his wife, Judith Steinberg Dean, until "the last minute." Trippi said he had a feeling Gore's endorsement was the big secret, but he didn't find out for sure until late Sunday night or Monday. He said the courtship began in September 2002, when Gore gave a speech denouncing President Bush's position on Iraq. He said the address stiffened Dean's opposition, and the former Vermont governor praised Gore in conversations some time after the address. The pair had several talks in the next 15 months, with Dean peppering Gore about foreign policy. In the last six months, they talked to each other every two weeks, mostly by phone. About a month ago, Gore and Dean met privately in Tennessee for about 90 minutes. In deference to Gore's penchant for secrecy, Trippi didn't mention the meeting when he met a top Gore adviser, Roy Neel, later in the day. In recent days, Dean sent Gore a draft of a foreign-policy speech he plans to deliver Monday in California. Gore took it with him on a trip to Tokyo. When Dean took the call from Gore, he expected another session in which the former vice president would offer advice and suggestions. Instead, he offered his support. "I've decided I want to endorse you," Gore told Dean, according to Trippi. The former vice president suggested they go to Iowa, site of his 2000 caucus victory over Bill Bradley. They didn't see each other until moments before Tuesday's announcement in Harlem. They hugged and shook hands, their alliance no longer a secret. http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/...itics-headlines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FearMeAll Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Lieberman looked pretty angry on the democratic debate. Oh well, Dean will get the nomination and lose the presidential race anyway because he has to big of a lefty going on, he needs to swerve that thing to the middle, and thrust all of his efforts that way or all of his attempts at presidency will be f***** up, as Kerry would say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro P. Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 i'm still wondering why the Dems even care about Gore, he's proven he can't win and is obviously just a follower and not a leader, so whats the big deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotix Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Lierberman is a Republican with a (D) next to his name, and dragged down Gore's ticket in 2000 more than the running mate should. More evidence is shown in his crappy campaign this year that is going no where. He couldn't even have been bothered to give up his Senate seat when he was Gore's running mate. Didn't want to lose anything in case the election didn't pan out. Lieberman, the candidate who runs his campaign on how he is like Bush. What a doofus, if people like Bush so much they are going to vote for him anyway and not him. They'll choose a Republican over a Republiclone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Veteran Posted December 10, 2003 Veteran Share Posted December 10, 2003 Anyone else hear Dean when he introduced Gore? I've searched all over for a speech transcript but couldn't find one. He said something to the effect of 'I had no idea who I'm about to introduce would be here.' Which we now know was total BS. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotix Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Anyone else hear Dean when he introduced Gore? I've searched all over for a speech transcript but couldn't find one. He said something to the effect of 'I had no idea who I'm about to introduce would be here.' Which we now know was total BS. :rolleyes: He was telling a joke and got lots of laughs, and it's typical for the humorless Republicans to get upset over it. Dean: "When we set this event up, I had no idea that we were going to have the elected president of the United States here!" (LAUGHS) "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier ? so long as I'm the dictator." ?George W. Bush, Dec. 19, 2000 Ha-ha:woot:oot: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Veteran Posted December 10, 2003 Veteran Share Posted December 10, 2003 He was telling a joke and got lots of laughs, and it's typical for the humorless Republicans to get upset over it.Dean: "When we set this event up, I had no idea that we were going to have the elected president of the United States here!" (LAUGHS) Thanks, my apologies and concession on that line of thought. :blush: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 i'm still wondering why the Dems even care about Gore, he's proven he can't win and is obviously just a follower and not a leader, so whats the big deal? yeah, the guy who got the majority of votes... thats asinine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aem4162 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 i'm still wondering why the Dems even care about Gore, he's proven he can't win and is obviously just a follower and not a leader, so whats the big deal? bull****ing****, hiro. he won the popular vote and for all we know he won florida but jeb bush and katherine harris made sure that the vote count was a fiasco. he may have lost in the electoral college, but popular vote should've won out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Veteran Posted December 10, 2003 Veteran Share Posted December 10, 2003 bull****ing****, hiro. he won the popular vote and for all we know he won florida but jeb bush and katherine harris made sure that the vote count was a fiasco. he may have lost in the electoral college, but popular vote should've won out. We don't elect US presidents by popular vote, what's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 We don't elect US presidents by popular vote, what's your point? Her point is that it was stated that he cant "win" and he is not a "leader" that is NOTwhat I would call somebody who won the poplular (and the electorial college by some (me) but lest not get into that)... read the quotes please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotix Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 bull****ing****, hiro. he won the popular vote and for all we know he won florida but jeb bush and katherine harris made sure that the vote count was a fiasco. he may have lost in the electoral college, but popular vote should've won out. Don't forget daddy's appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. Surely they were objective. Not. 7 of them were appointed by Republican Presidents. Electoral College is a piece of crap that allows the person without the most votes to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro P. Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 bull****ing****, hiro. he won the popular vote and for all we know he won florida but jeb bush and katherine harris made sure that the vote count was a fiasco. he may have lost in the electoral college, but popular vote should've won out. contrived conspiracy theories don't help your case, popular vote means jack, get over it and MOVEON(.org) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro P. Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Electoral College is a piece of crap that allows the person without the most votes to win. funny no one has seemed to mind it for the last 200+ years. the founding fathers are out to get you!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotix Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 funny no one has seemed to mind it for the last 200+ years. the founding fathers are out to get you!!! Nobody minded slavery either for a long time. Or the lack of equal rights for women. The founders weren't perfect, and mixed stupid ideas with some good ones. The U.S. Constitution can be amended to do away with the Electoral College. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro P. Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Nobody minded slavery either for a long time. Or equal rights for women. The founders weren't perfect, and mixed stupid ideas with some good ones. The U.S. Constitution can be amended to do away with the Electoral College. so California and New York could elect the President every 4 years? great plan there einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotix Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 so California and New York could elect the President every 4 years? great plan there einstein The person with the most votes of U.S. citizens should win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FearMeAll Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 The person with the most votes of U.S. citizens should win. you know that would upset the fabric of what state government as well as representative government is about don't you? You are taking powers away from states if you do that, and no state would go along with your proposal, ever. Next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro P. Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 The person with the most votes of U.S. citizens should win. looks like someone sleept through Civics 101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotix Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 looks like someone sleept through Civics 101 Amend the U.S. Constitution. That's what I've talked about. The electoral college weakens votes in New York and California and gives more weight to South Dakota and Alabama. That is not fair or equal representation. Which is why I support a Constitutional Amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro P. Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Amend the U.S. Constitution. That's what I've talked about. The electoral college weakens votes in New York and California and gives more weight to South Dakota and Alabama. That is not fair or equal representation. Which is why I support a Constitutional Amendment. i think your the only one that thinks thats a good idea, maybe thats a sign :whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mAcOdIn Veteran Posted December 10, 2003 Veteran Share Posted December 10, 2003 No I think the electoral college shouldn't exist either. Not only would it mean that hwo the people vote for actually gets elected but it'd also solve the underhanded and cheap tactic of redistricting states to rig elections(for further proof look at the new redistricting of Texas for example which is being done early by all the Republican reps to guarantee a republican victory next year, and is why all the democrats left the state earlier this year). I fail to see how the electoral college is good actually and why anyone would defend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro P. Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 I fail to see how the electoral college is good actually and why anyone would defend it. because, as i said large states such as Cali and NY would decide every election, why would people in South Dakota or Rhode Island even bother going to polls? the electoral college ensures every states voice counts, not just those with the largest population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mAcOdIn Veteran Posted December 10, 2003 Veteran Share Posted December 10, 2003 Stop looking at the country as a bunch of states and as a freaking country dangit. If 51% of Americans vote for a candidate then that candidate should win, no matter what state they're in. This isn't rocket science here it's numbers and ensuring every citizens vote counts the same no matter where they live. It means that a republican who lives in a predominately democrat district vote will count, instead of being thrown out because his neighbors voted against him like the current system. It means an end to stupid tactics from which ever side that controls the state at that time of rigging future elections by redistcricting. And mostly though it's just a more common sense approach than the electoral college. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FearMeAll Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Stop looking at the country as a bunch of states and as a freaking country dangit. it is a bunch of states though, with a bunch of state governments that are all connected to the central government, hence that is why the US is a Republic. The founding fathers viewed the US as a bunch of states glued together by the central government, to change that would mean to change the US from a Republic to a chaotic mess. Read the Federalist papers, especially by Madison, and you will see what I am talking about. The state governments are there to keep the central government from getting too powerful, and the central government keeps states from seceeding and so forth. so I don't think I will ever "Stop looking at the country as a bunch of states and as a freaking country" because that argument is flawed as it is opposite to the fabric of American government. The idea that you would want to alter the system onto which the US has survived for the past 200 years just to possibly get a democratic candidate in power is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts