NCAAbbs

Reading the Cheney thread, I started thinking about the differences between Gore and Cheney and how they handled the position.

Gore was an after thought (if even that) during the Clinton years. His lack of personality was completely overshadowed by Bill, maybe the greatest politician of our time, Clinton. Gore, honestly didn't seem to even have a purpose.

Cheney, on the other hand, is the opposite of that. Even when he doesn't do anything, he is villified by the democrats as the enemy. When Cheney speaks, it makes news. It wasn't the same for Gore.

Oh well, just some random rambling.

I give Al Gore the edge in fundraising



I do give Al Gore a thumbs down on the committe he chaired on Airline Security safety. Based on 9/11 I think we can say the findings and implementation of that committee were a failure.

I forget who it was that said when offered the Vice Presidency, "I do not wish to be buried before I am dead."

The media and dems have done a fantastic job of hyping Cheney has having all this power. In the end he has very, very little. He provides advice to the president and that is truly the extent of his power.

Gore was an empty suit for 8 years just waiting for his time. Pretty well useless.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:The media and dems have done a fantastic job of hyping Cheney has having all this power. In the end he has very, very little. He provides advice to the president and that is truly the extent of his power.

Gore was an empty suit for 8 years just waiting for his time. Pretty well useless.

You could say the same thing about Gore as you did Cheney. He had ideas of how to utilize NIST...that came to naught. He was concerned about the environment...with naught to show. He was going to revitalize the US energy policy...meanwhile the US addiction to oil peaked during that time, (but it was Bush's fault)

Neither has done much, b/c that is what the job entails. However, because of that, the news media can portray one as a hero and the villify the other.

The role of the VP is largely determined by the president. Clinton wanted Gore in a minimal role compared to Cheney who obviously is a big decision maker in the current adminstration. Many times the VP is the guy that meets with lesser heads of state or attends funerals, the VP's prior to Gore filled the same roles under Reagen and Bush41.

JTiger Wrote:The role of the VP is largely determined by the president. Clinton wanted Gore in a minimal role compared to Cheney who obviously is a big decision maker in the current adminstration. Many times the VP is the guy that meets with lesser heads of state or attends funerals, the VP's prior to Gore filled the same roles under Reagen and Bush41.

You call Cheney a big decision maker. Can you give me some proof of that, or are you just spouting the liberal blog talking points?

GrayBeard Wrote:You call Cheney a big decision maker. Can you give me some proof of that, or are you just spouting the liberal blog talking points?

OOooo, pick me, pick me!!!

RebelKev Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:You call Cheney a big decision maker. Can you give me some proof of that, or are you just spouting the liberal blog talking points?

OOooo, pick me, pick me!!!

You

GrayBeard Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:You call Cheney a big decision maker. A)Can you give me some proof of that, or B)are you just spouting the liberal blog talking points?

OOooo, pick me, pick me!!!

You

I'm going with B, Alex.

Wrong. You didn't answer in the form of a question.

Much of the incriminating things you here about Cheney comes from ex-staffers of the State Dept. Powell's guys. It's obvious there was a power struggle between Powell and Rumsfeld/Cheney and Rumsfeld/Cheney won.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...Id=4987598

Do you (I Love Rummy and Cheney crowd) ever watch PBS. Ever listen PR. Did you read "State of Denial". Cheney has his fingerprints over a lot of the pre-war planning of Iraq. This will be investigated under subpoena........ I think that is why there were paper shredding trucks at Cheney's last week.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/10/30...2.html?p=7 - 36k -


Now if you think Cheney isn't the most powerful v.p. in our lifetimes and possibly ever all I can say is damn.... just damn.........

just high clicked on the shredding link.. I just googled paper shredder and Cheney led me to this site. I read it somewher else though. Did you read some of the comments below? GD there hilarious. Some of you guys should read huffington post to stay "fair and balanced" Many of post from right wing nutjob sites. I think this may be their equivalent.

Machiavelli Wrote:Much of the incriminating things you here about Cheney comes from ex-staffers of the State Dept. Powell's guys. It's obvious there was a power struggle between Powell and Rumsfeld/Cheney and Rumsfeld/Cheney won.

I think that should effect how much credibility you give those folks.

Quote:Do you (I Love Rummy and Cheney crowd) ever watch PBS. Ever listen PR. Did you read "State of Denial". Cheney has his fingerprints over a lot of the pre-war planning of Iraq. This will be investigated under subpoena........ I think that is why there were paper shredding trucks at Cheney's last week.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/10/30...2.html?p=7 - 36k -

Huffingtonpost?

Quote:Now if you think Cheney isn't the most powerful v.p. in our lifetimes and possibly ever all I can say is damn.... just damn.........

The most powerful VP in our time is like someone bragging that they're dating the thinest woman in the room because she weighs 300 when all the others weigh 350.

From my perspective I always thought you guys gave Powell the shaft. He was right on alot of the things about Iraq. (The barn or something like a Hallmark store comment) You kick him to the curb in 04'. He was the ultimate soldier takin the sword in the U.N. prewar invasion talk. I don't know he's a guy who could win in 08'.

I thought JTiger's post was good, and about as non-partisan as it gets. It's true that the office of VP carries very little official power, but both Cheney and Bush give the impression that he is in Bush's inner circle.

As for why he's unpopular among Democrats, "last throes," "pretty well confirmed," and "f*** yourself" come to mind. But "vilify as the enemy" is too strong IMO. The right wingers are the ones that associate those who disagree with them with terrorists, and say they hate America. To me, the enemies are clear: al-Qaeda and the governments who support them. Bush had widespread support from 9/11 through the Afghanistan invasion.

As others have said, Gore didn't have as big of a role in the Clinton administrations. Plus he's about as interesting as a rock. Even so, he did take an awful lot of heat over a statement about the internet that he never even said.

Gravy Owl Wrote:As others have said, Gore didn't have as big of a role in the Clinton administrations. Plus he's about as interesting as a rock. Even so, he did take an awful lot of heat over a statement about the internet that he never even said.

Really?

Quote:During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

....now, I don't know what you do for a living, but I'm a network engineer. Unless he was working for f'n DARPA in the late 60's, he didn't create ****, nor did he take the initiative to create ****.

Gravy Owl Wrote:http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

I got that from Snopes, dipsh-t. It clearly says he stated it. Can you not read?

RebelKev Wrote:

Gravy Owl Wrote:http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

I got that from Snopes, dipsh-t. It clearly says he stated it. Can you not read?

Still haven't had your distemper shot have you fido.

Chill out.

Kev won't calm down. Everything is f this, or f'n that. That's his schtick.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Kev won't calm down. Everything is f this, or f'n that. That's his schtick.

I met a new yorker once that was that way, very guido. If that's his thing that's his thing.

JTiger Wrote:I met a new yorker once that was that way, very guido. If that's his thing that's his thing.

Racist.

JTiger -

Re that kid in your signature. What's on his shirt? What kind of gun is that?

In case any rational people are reading this, I'll remind them that "invented" is the word that Gore was lambasted for supposedly saying. Beyond that I recommend that you read the article.

Gravy Owl Wrote:In case any rational people are reading this, I'll remind them that "invented" is the word that Gore was lambasted for supposedly saying. Beyond that I recommend that you read the article.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/invented

Quote:Synonyms: be created, be developed, be invented, become available, come on, come onstage, come out, enter, oblige, perform, play, present oneself, take part

Joo Got Own3d, Mang.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:JTiger -

Re that kid in your signature. What's on his shirt? What kind of gun is that?

I have no idea. I thought the picture was funny with the kid acting all hard, with a Tweety clock in the background. Very gangsta.

RebelKev Wrote:

JTiger Wrote:I met a new yorker once that was that way, very guido. If that's his thing that's his thing.

Racist.

Is guido a race?

JTiger Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

JTiger Wrote:I met a new yorker once that was that way, very guido. If that's his thing that's his thing.

Racist.

Is guido a race?

Kind of a mutt bred race.

The article you quoted specifically addresses this issue.

[quote="snopes.com"]Clearly, although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the I also invented the microphone technology that we now know as the Internet. To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign. Gore never used the word "invent," and the words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings

Gravy Owl Wrote:Here's another synonym for create: invest. Now, I wonder why the people who mangled the quote didn't uniformly choose that one.

Oh SHWAEET! Now I can say I created Home Depot because I invested in them. WHOOOOHOOOOO!!!!!!

You need to keep things in context. As a Net Eng, I know what he "should" have said, he just tried to over-embellish his importance.

RebelKev Wrote:Oh SHWAEET! Now I can say I created Home Depot because I invested in them. WHOOOOHOOOOO!!!!!!

My point exactly. Invent, create, and invest have similar meanings but are not identical in all contexts.

Quote:You need to keep things in context. As a Net Eng, I know what he "should" have said, he just tried to over-embellish his importance.

Obviously in hindsight he would've worded it more carefully. Still, what he actually said was relatively innocuous. It wasn't a good story until somebody twisted it. It's not hard to make somebody look bad if you take them out of context AND replace some of their words.

GrayBeard Wrote:You call Cheney a big decision maker. Can you give me some proof of that, or are you just spouting the liberal blog talking points?

On yesterday's McLaughlin Group, Pat Buchanan refered to Cheney and Rumsfeld as the duumvirate of power behind Bush. Of course Buchanan isn't a party-line Republican, but he certainly isn't a liberal. Also:

wikipedia.org Wrote:After taking office, Cheney quickly earned a reputation as a very "hands-on" Vice President, taking an active role in cabinet meetings and policy formation. He is often described as the most active and powerful Vice President in recent years. Some, like Kenneth Duberstein (Reagan's last Chief of Staff), have likened him to a prime minister because of his powerful position inside the Bush Administration. Bush himself has described the relationship between him and his vice president in the language of corporate governance: the president likened himself to a chief executive officer and Cheney to a chief operating officer.

Does anybody disagree with this? I realize that may sound rhetorical, but it's an honest question.

Gravy Owl Wrote:Obviously in hindsight he would've worded it more carefully. Still, what he actually said was relatively innocuous. It wasn't a good story until somebody twisted it. It's not hard to make somebody look bad if you take them out of context AND replace some of their words.

Dude, there's no way you can get around NOT being called on it. He was on a congressional committee that authorized the funding for the main hubs, being in a few major cities. These created the backbone. However, he was not the only congressman/woman, and he couldn't have created something that was created a couple of decades earlier. Instead of saying, "I took the initiative in creating the internet", he should have said, "I worked on a committee that appropriated funds to build the internet into what it is today".

Not even I, who think there's a reason Gore rhymes with Bore, could have had a comeback.

RebelKev Wrote:Dude, there's no way you can get around NOT being called on it.

It was poor, ambiguous wording that exaggerated his role.

On one hand, that's not unusual for politicians. I think it's at least possible that what he actually said would've flown under the radar. Its ambiguity made it uninteresting. Most people are smart enough to know what he meant. That's probably why it was mangled.

OTOH, I couldn't have had any problem with an uproar if it had been honest. It would've been appropriate for his controversy to be so dull.

Summary: he did deserve to be called on what he said. He did not deserve to be called on wording that he never used and was clearly not what he meant.