Swami says......Gore-Bradley!

J

Jack 99

New member
In case you missed it, Bradley finally endorsed Gored. I don't know about you, but the suspense was killing me (how the heck do you do that rolling-eyeball smiley?!). :rolleyes: {how's that?}

I'm betting this means a Gore-Bradley ticket in November. What a pair, on one hand you have a committed Socialist, on the other, a committed Communist. We've truly reached bottom when this is the offering of a major party.

[This message has been edited by Jack 99 (edited July 13, 2000).]
 
I think he does. California may be the likeliest place for him to go find a veep, but Cals just elected that little twit Gay Davis governer. Gore's campaign probably thinks that California is locked. The rest of the west is also locked, they'll go solid Republican. Gore's already got the Southern Democrat-inclined vote (or so he thinks, I'm hoping the south tells him to shove it up his phony-southerner hiney, SOB was raised in a hotel in DC for crying out loud).

So he'll go to the northeast and mid-atlantic or the upper midwest for a veep hoping that the region will follow with the local boy. Bradley is as "good" as any of 'em and he's got a lot of national recognition, both for being a former NBA star and becuase he was plastered all over the TV as Gored's opponent. Actually makes a lot of political sense. If they're elected, I'm going to hurl though.
 
Gore has no choice but to choose a VP who is going to be very righty. It certainly will not be Bradley.

If it was, Bush would win by that much more.

I disagree that Bradly as VP would be politically wise. It would be the dull and duller; Gore is trying to paint himself in various shades of chartruese right now, not gray.



------------------

~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
I agree with Jack 99. Gore's scorched-earth campaign against Bradley alienated many of Bradley's supporters who may not vote for The Evil One without Bradley also on the ticket. Probably a good move for Al. Let's hope it's not good enough.
 
"California is in Gore's pocket"?

Like hell it is.

Boys, the Dems screwed up. Biiigtime. They tried too much social change too fast, and there's a backlash in the works.

It ain't all just guns. The first "backlash" of sorts was the Knight initiative, Prop22...which I didn't like, personally, but it *is* a "rough guage of conservatism".

Davis has made separate pledges of "no new anti-gun laws" and "no new pro-gay laws". He's smart enough to see what's up. But he royally pissed off the all-Dem legislature with BS about how they should "rubber-stamp his people's mandate", so they ain't cooperating.

Problem one, he won by the slimmest margin in history and that because his opponent was a Nazi stormtrooper from hell posing as GOP - Lungren backstabbed us gunnies no end, hell, he raided an opposition political HQ two weeks before an election once. The GOP was out of it's skull supporting him.

Problem two, the legislature isn't a "rubber stamp body".

Anyways...this coming November is gonna be a bloodbath in CA.

Jim
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jim March:

Anyways...this coming November is gonna be a bloodbath in CA.
[/quote]


Quite right. Also keep in mind that depending on what happens with the SB23 and the 120+ guns that Lockyer wants to add to Roberti-Roos, California might be too busy in a bloodbath to participate in the November vote.....


Well, ya never know.......
 
I said Gore's campaign very likely THINKS they have California locked. Hard to say, really. If we'll elect The Twit (my little pet name for Davis) we'll probably elect just about anyone.

Gore has to get quite a bit of mileage from his veep and so I think he'll go with someone with a high-profile. Bradley fits the bill pretty well.
 
As several recent articles in the Wall Street Journal have noted, the Gore minions are wetting themselves with fear that Nader's campaign is going to prevent Gore from taking California. I don't know of any prognisticators who think Gore can win the election without California.

Bradley does have attributes that would help Gore pick up some voters, but I still think Gore could well pick a woman, probably Feinstein, to sew up support with national socialists in California and women in general. I seriously doubt that the recent talk about Gephardt is anything other than disinformation.

[This message has been edited by David Roberson (edited July 15, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top