Flashback: The Original Finger that won Bush the 2000 Election

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Woe to the boastful Finger!

[Ben.]

Woe to the boastful Finger!

Are you suggesting that Clinton lost the 2000 election?

Unlikely his approval ratings where very high on leaving office and he would no doubt have won a third term had the constitution allowed, although not in the blow out fashion he did in 1992 and 1996, even against Bush he would probably have won by a solid margin.   

[Nym90]

I agree that the Lewinsky scandal cost Gore the election.

It caused Gore to get the idea that he should run away from Clinton rather than embracing his record, and this caused him to lose.

If Gore had run as a "Clinton 3rd term" and had Clinton campaign for him, he would have won. But the whole Lewinsky thing somehow gave him the absurd idea that he should run away from a President with a 55-60% approval rating.

[Sam Spade]

Actually, I personally have a totally different opinion.  I think running away from Clinton gave Gore the only chance he had to win. 

I was watching C-Span a couple of days ago, and Peter Hart (Dem pollster) was doing a focus group of Ohioans post-election 2004.  None of these people were what you would call hardcore Dems or Reps and all of them were fairly normal (not like NY leftists, for example).   They divided about 11-9 for Bush in terms of who they voted for.

What was amazing was that even now, 4 years after the fact, three out of the 20 members of the focus group gave one of their main reasons for voting for Bush as a desire to pay the Democrat party back for Bill Clinton.  I was personally shocked by this.

When you think about it, every person Bill Clinton has campaigned for since 2000 has lost, period.

Gore lost by 537 votes in Florida in 2000.  That's much closer than any of the people Clinton has campaigned for have gotten to winning.

It's also why my gut tells me that Hillary needs to off Bill somehow in order for her 2008 Presidential aspirations to come to fruition.

[Nym90]

Actually, I personally have a totally different opinion.  I think running away from Clinton gave Gore the only chance he had to win. 

I was watching C-Span a couple of days ago, and Peter Hart (Dem pollster) was doing a focus group of Ohioans post-election 2004.  None of these people were what you would call hardcore Dems or Reps and all of them were fairly normal (not like NY leftists, for example).   They divided about 11-9 for Bush in terms of who they voted for.

What was amazing was that even now, 4 years after the fact, three out of the 20 members of the focus group gave one of their main reasons for voting for Bush as a desire to pay the Democrat party back for Bill Clinton.  I was personally shocked by this.

When you think about it, every person Bill Clinton has campaigned for since 2000 has lost, period.

Gore lost by 537 votes in Florida in 2000.  That's much closer than any of the people Clinton has campaigned for have gotten to winning.

It's also why my gut tells me that Hillary needs to off Bill somehow in order for her 2008 Presidential aspirations to come to fruition.

A poll with a sample size of 20 is hardly accurate, and Clinton campaigning for candidates likely has little effect positively or negatively, unless you can prove definitively that all such candidates started going down in the polls at the exact time that Clinton started campaigning for them.

All that aside, why would a President with a 57% approval rating at the time of the election be an albatross for his VP? Don't say "because he was impeached" because presumably those 57% are already taking this into consideration in their approval or disapproval.

If the election had been a referendum on Clinton, Gore would have won. Instead it was largely a referendum on Gore.

[opebo]

The Middle American working class are rewarded for their prudish disapproval of blow jobs with a massive reduction in their living standards.  Hilarious!

Btw, jmcfst, is that particular sexual practice allowed by your church?   

[MODU]

The Middle American working class are rewarded for their prudish disapproval of blow jobs with a massive reduction in their living standards.  Hilarious!

Btw, jmcfst, is that particular sexual practice allowed by your church?   

Hey . . . no fair!  Now how am I suppose to concentrate for the rest of the day at work? 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The Middle American working class are rewarded for their prudish disapproval of blow jobs with a massive reduction in their living standards.  Hilarious!

Btw, jmcfst, is that particular sexual practice allowed by your church?   

My church only teaches the restrictions taught in the bible, and there are no sexual acts forbidden in the bible between a husband and a wife.

[opebo]

The Middle American working class are rewarded for their prudish disapproval of blow jobs with a massive reduction in their living standards.  Hilarious!

Btw, jmcfst, is that particular sexual practice allowed by your church?   

My church only teaches the restrictions taught in the bible, and there are no sexual acts forbidden in the bible between a husband and a wife.

Well, I know nothing about the Bible, happily, but according to the well-known Monty Python song, its a sin to 'waste' any sperm.  What is your church's position on this issue?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well, I know nothing about the Bible, happily, but according to the well-known Monty Python song, its a sin to 'waste' any sperm.  What is your church's position on this issue?

There is not a restriction against "waste" in the bible. 

The only restriction of any kind was an OT restriction for a man not to expose himself to the blood of his wife's period.  But that had to do with external ceremonial "uncleanness".

[opebo]

Well, I know nothing about the Bible, happily, but according to the well-known Monty Python song, its a sin to 'waste' any sperm.  What is your church's position on this issue?

There is not a restriction against "waste" in the bible. 

The only restriction of any kind was an OT restriction for a man not to expose himself to the blood of his wife's period.  But that had to do with external ceremonial "uncleanness".

OT?

[DaleC76]

Old Testament

[opebo]

Old Testament

Oh that.  Have you ever seen Monty Python's The Meaning of Life?  Not their best film, but a good song about the the views of the Church about sperm.

[MODU]

Old Testament

Oh that.  Have you ever seen Monty Python's The Meaning of Life?  Not their best film, but a good song about the the views of the Church about sperm.

It is the view of the Roman Catholic church, not "the Church."  Catholicism has many more "rules and regulations" which do not come directly from the Bible.  This includes all of their various Saints to whom you are suppose to pray to/through.  These views are not shared by "Christians" as a whole.  That is why you normally hear of Catholic and Protestant "Christians."

[opebo]

Old Testament

Oh that.  Have you ever seen Monty Python's The Meaning of Life?  Not their best film, but a good song about the the views of the Church about sperm.

It is the view of the Roman Catholic church, not "the Church."  Catholicism has many more "rules and regulations" which do not come directly from the Bible.  This includes all of their various Saints to whom you are suppose to pray to/through.  These views are not shared by "Christians" as a whole.  That is why you normally hear of Catholic and Protestant "Christians."

Yes, I know all about that.  But the humorists' basic point about the absurdity of religion applies throughout christianity.

[MODU]

Old Testament

Oh that.  Have you ever seen Monty Python's The Meaning of Life?  Not their best film, but a good song about the the views of the Church about sperm.

It is the view of the Roman Catholic church, not "the Church."  Catholicism has many more "rules and regulations" which do not come directly from the Bible.  This includes all of their various Saints to whom you are suppose to pray to/through.  These views are not shared by "Christians" as a whole.  That is why you normally hear of Catholic and Protestant "Christians."

Yes, I know all about that.  But the humorists' basic point about the absurdity of religion applies throughout christianity.

Yeah, and those that get their "knowledge" from such sources simply show how uninformed they truly are.  Stereotyping is basically intellectual laziness.  As the guy on the radio up here says . . . "Not a sermon - just a thought."