Bush, Gore, no difference
They are just puppets.
share[deleted]
"do you really think Gore would have invaded Iraq?"
Did you think Obama would order U.S. Air Force planes to bomb targets in Libya and also greatly escalate the war in Afghanistan? The point being that we'll never know what Gore might have done. Looking at it with hindsight a decade after 9/11, it's easy to criticize invading Iraq.
Democrats, led by President Johnson, certainly got us into Vietnam. Yet in the 1964 election, just one year before Johnson ordered troops into Vietnam, his Republican opponent was depicted as a war monger.
[deleted]
Yeah, that was Ralph Nadar's reason for running such a strong campaign. During the Clinton years, the Democratic Party had become a corporatist party. Ralph made the case that it was a choice between tweedle dee and teedle dum. He took Al Gore down, far more than any electoral irregularities.
I agree, Bush was a disastrous President, but by the same token, the Democratic Party has failed miserably in being a party that represents progressive ideals. They are anything but progressive, and are going to the same old bag of tricks to win elections instead of championing new, forward thinking, "outside the box" solutions. Throwing in with public workers unions, and having absolutely no answers for entitlement reform, is very callow politically and essentially a burying your head in the sand mentality.
I'm a progressive American, and the Dmeocratic Party sure as hell doesn't speak for me. They lose elections because they are cowards.
Yup. Same *beep* different suit.
Working in the movie business since -92