Gore Campaign Calling Nader Gay?

Format C:

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,662
0
0
Can anyone find any other sources to substantiate this story?

Article

<< &quot;Look, he?s never been married.&quot; one Gore operative whispered to stunned reporters earlier this week. &quot;Who is going to be sleeping in his bed at the White House if he?s elected president? I?m interested. Aren?t you?&quot; >>

If this is true then these guys not only deserve to lose the election to anybody-else-but but also need a good ole fashioned arse-whoopin to boot. This is getting ridiculous.
 

PCAddict

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 1999
3,804
0
0
Good point. That's another thing that could backfire. Gore's homosexual supporters might get pissed because of the implied &quot;gay bashing&quot; they are looking to do to Nader in the press.
 

PCAddict

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 1999
3,804
0
0
What get's me is that you guys are only to happy to vote for either Beavis or Butthead.

Who is John McCain then? Mr. Anderson? Stuart? Because that is who I really want. I feel he is a better man for the job than Bush because he is smarter, and more experienced. He got my vote in the primary, although he had conceded to Bush before the PA primary was held. However, I absolutely despise Al Gore, and will not &quot;waste&quot; my vote and therefore help Gore by voting for anyone but Bush. I personally am hoping that Bush makes the right Cabinet choices. That is what will make or break him as president, IMHO. He has a chance to put the right people in place around him.

FWIW, I'd vote for Colin Powell in a heartbeat if he ran.
 

Format C:

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,662
0
0


<< On the Republican side for spreadiong that rumor? >>

The article clearly states that the statement was made to several reporters. How can that be a &quot;rumor&quot;?

In case there's any doubt in anyone's mind, not that it matters or anyone cares, but I'm going to vote for Bush also. I also agree with many people here that voting for someone, or WRITING IN someone, who has no chance of winning is at the very least foolhardy. Our political system is totally dorked, possibly beyond repair, but a virtually meaningless vote certainly doesn't help at all. The system is broke and it needs fixing but until we can reach a point to do something about it we've got to work with the choices we're given. Sadly thats either Democrat or Republican.

Politically, my views are more towards the Libertarian platform, but they have NO chance of winning in the foreseeable future and I'm not willing to endure endless cycles of &quot;maybe next time&quot;. I've been around long enough to see what both of the major parties are all about and between the two I could never vote Democrat in a national election. I want the Federal Government to be as small and as out of my life as possible, and that certainly won't be the case under Democratic control.

Is Bush a good man? Probably so. Is Gore a good man? Probably so. Will either of them make a GREAT president? Not a chance. Will either of them make a GOOD president? Not too sure about that one either. I suppose it all depends on your definition of good. Personally, if the next president stays out of my wallet and out of my life and doesn't bankrupt the country or get us all killed, then I guess I'd have to call that good. I just happen to believe that in the current political arena Bush, or any Republican, fits that description a lot better than Gore, or any Democrat, and those are the only two REAL choices this election offers.

One thing also that I can't get out of mind is the Clinton legacy. IMO, Gore is part of that legacy and I've endured eight years of the crap and I don't want no more, period.
 

ICyourNipple

Member
Oct 9, 2000
173
0
0
If you vote for a &quot;lesser evil&quot; you are telling Washington you want &quot;evil&quot; in the White House.

I will say this in every thread someone says &quot;wasted vote&quot;. Hell, if telling a lie enough times gets people do believe, who knows what can happen when you tell the truth! :Q
 

squirrel dog

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,564
48
91
With the demo group registering retarded people and prison convicts and 'helping them' to vote for algore,the gay thing with nader,and the 26 yr old deal with bush,they demos make me want to vomit.I will NEVER vote demo again.
 

ride525

Golden Member
Oct 14, 1999
1,379
0
0
This story from Drudge seems pretty lame.....I don't see names assoicated with many of the really potentially damaging quotes...

C'mon.....let's bring up something with substance......

You should change the title......it's misleading.....let's get some hard evidence of this.....that the Gore campaign is really doing this.....

This story is from Wednesday.....if there was ANY truth to it, you know the media....and Bush's campaign would be all over it...
 

reitz

Elite Member
Oct 11, 1999
3,878
2
76
I agree with Red here. I probably invalidated my absentee ballot when I voted for McCain last week. I can honestly say that I am proud of who I voted for, and that I truly believe he would have been a great leader. When was the last time you were able to say the same?

<< Our political system is totally dorked, possibly beyond repair, but a virtually meaningless vote certainly doesn't help at all. The system is broke and it needs fixing but until we can reach a point to do something about it we've got to work with the choices we're given. Sadly thats either Democrat or Republican. >>

We'll never get to that point if the public keeps voting for the parties responsible for the current situation. While I disagree rather strongly with both the Green Party and the Libertarians, I support what they are trying to accomplish. It's no longer an &quot;endless cycle&quot;, as evidenced by the fact that Ralph Nader is seriously harming Gores chances to win the election.

I voted for McCain because I can not, in good conscience, vote for either of the morons that are running. Gore will embroil us in conflicts around the globe, further infuriating nations that have a right to be free of American meddling. He will put American lives on the line for regional conflicts where our interests are not at stake. He will continue to let the Chinese get away with whatever they choose, and he will turn a blind eye to Russia's arms dealings. He will continue to tarnish the United States' reputation on the world political scene. He claims that he will be a new &quot;Peace broker&quot;, but who is going to let peace be dictated by a nation that shoves its troops into every little &quot;hot spot&quot; on the planet?

Bush, on the other hand, is a bumbling moron who is not qualified to lead this country. What has he, himself accomplished in Texas? He has proved that he is just as much of a lying scumbag as Gore and Clinton. He has never been honest about his drug use, he never disclosed his DUI conviction, and he's currently facing allegations of doctoring his military record. While I don't believe that past mistakes should keep a candidate from office, his refusal to bring the issues out in the open before they were &quot;exposed&quot; by the Democrats shows a complete lack of intregrity on his part. The whole &quot;truth and integrity&quot; bullsh!t message of his campaign has accomplished nothing other than to show his hypocracy. From his bailouts to his shady stadium deal, he has not done anything on his own. He is not a man of ambition and vision, he is a puppet, handpicked by the Republikan party. A vote for Bush is not a vote for the man himself; it is a vote for the Republikan party, as they are the ones who will be running the country if he wins.

For a long time, I was supporting Bush because I despise Gore so much. After some more thinking, and in light of the current news involving Bush, I really can't say which one is the less dangerous candidate. I am half-heartedly supporting Bush, but only because there is a chance that he will chose advisors that are at least half-competant to run this country. Regardless of who wins, though, the United States will be worse off in four years. The Republikans had a chance to nominate a true leader, a man who actually had the respect of the American public, and a man who would actually have done some good for the country, but they chose their own hand-picked puppet instead. I can not in good conscience vote for either candidate, so I chose to excercise my right to &quot;waste&quot; my vote. I am not helping either candidate win, but at least I voted based on my ideals.

I am registered Republikan only because their platform is a closer match to my own views, and Pennsylvania does not have an open primary. I despise both parties, though. They don't care about the country, and they don't care about what is best for me; they care only about their respective parties. Unless Americans start to show their dissapproval by voting for a third party, both parties will continue advancing their own interests and leaving behind what the public really wants and needs.
 

Format C:

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,662
0
0
I wholeheartedly agree with just about everything Reitz has said. However, like it or not, either Bush or Gore WILL be elected on tuesday. You can choose to support one of the teams on the field or keep rooting for one thats not even playing. Suppose you went to the super bowl and sat next to someone cheering on a team other than the two in the game? What would you think of them?

There are many many potential candidates better suited and more qualified for the job that I would have rather been able to choose between but the fact remains they are not among my choices. The choices are either Gore or Bush. If you're not going to choose between one of those two then you may as well not choose at all because it will accomplish nothing other than making you feel better, and that won't change anything in the political arena.

Red, I keep hearing this bit about the special interest groups controlling each party. What exactly is a special interest group? If you mean a group of like minded individuals that agree to promote their agenda with their dollars and with their vote, then how is that any different to any of the so called third party groups clamoring for change?
 

BassWriters

Member
Jun 25, 2000
65
0
0
I would have no problem with special interest groups if we had decent politicians who didn't grant them any favors. You could throw all the money you want at John McCain, and I don't think it would make a difference. He would still vote for what was in the best interest of the people, not the interests that financed his campaign. You can't say the same thing about 99% of the current elected officials, or the two potential presidential candidates.

That's the problem with special interests owning both candidates. Our candidates are two weak to turn them down when their interests go against the American people's.
 

Windogg

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,241
0
0
I'm not an algore fan by any means but I give the article no weight whatsoever. The Drudge Report is bad journalism at it worst. He has supposidy bornken come big stories like Monica Lewinsky. So what? You piss at a barn long enough and you'll hit something eventually.

Windogg
 

Russ

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
21,093
3
0


<< On the Republican side for spreadiong that rumor? >>



Red,

Do you even bother to read the material, or just make assumptions simply because it's the Drudge Report?



<< The SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE advanced questions about Nader?s private life after California state Assemblywoman Carole Migden raised the issue in an interview. >>



Well, here's a clue: Migden is a democrat.

Russ, NCNE
 

Russ

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
21,093
3
0


<< you know that I would never consider Drudge a credible source >>



That's the point. The original source was NOT Drudge. Your claim is that this is just the &quot;Republicans&quot; spreading rumors. The rumor started with a liberal democrat Assemblywoman.



<< Even if it is true, who cares? I sure don't and why should I? >>



I couldn't care less if he's a homo. What I care about is the sleazy democrat tactic of trying to make this an issue because Nader's campaign is hurting Bore.

Russ, NCNE