John McCain’s Acceptance Speech
John McCain has accepted the nomination of the Republican Party for president. His speech, like Barack Obama’s a week before, was long for my tastes and contained far too many bromides that could have been in any convention speech of his party in recent years.
McCain continued a strategy that I’ve disagreed with but that has gotten him this far in building so much around his Vietnam experience. His repeated professions of love for his country, accompanied by chants of USA! USA! USA! put me in mind of the Olympics. As I keep reminding myself, though, I’m not the target audience.
McCain’s speech wasn’t as funny as Sarah Palin‘s and his delivery wasn’t as good as Obama’s. Despite having delivered big speeches, including convention speeches, for years, he seemed to have difficulty dealing with unexpected applause.
He’s not selling himself as an orator, though. He did what he had to do: Delivered a competent speech, contrasting his service and experience with that of his opponent, while emphasizing that he understands the need to deal with the country’s problems. The speech won’t generate a groundswell of support but will likely both steady the base and appeal to moderates.
Update (Alex Knapp): My main problem with this speech, as with Palin’s, was not so much the delivery as the writing. This one was particularly bad from that angle–there was no narrative or flow to the thing. It jumped from biography to patriotism to attacks to policy to patriotism to biography. It was disjointed and I think that made it more difficult for McCain to do what he needed to do. It was also surprisingly short on detail–I think the most time was spent talking about education reform and energy (with no mention of solar even though he mentioned other alternatives, which I thought strange).
However, I thought McCain handled the protesters well. (Note to everyone who thinks about protesting an event like this: you always make yourself look like an idiot and end up hurting your own cause. Plus, it’s rude. Stop it!) And while I think that a lot of the promotion of McCain’s history as a POW this election has bordered on tasteless, I thought that it was well handled in this speech. Personally, I’m not sure he needed to bring it up at all, but he did it with a lot of grace and that portion was by far the most effective part of his speech.
All in all, I’m not sure if the speech made much of an impact on voters, but I don’t think it hurt, either. At this point, most people are pretty familiar with John McCain, and he didn’t really give them anything different.
I dont know what I was expecting – putting Sarah Palin on the ticket sold me already. But as the son of three generations of West Point, and an survivor of a near death experience, I found McCain’s telling of his war story (as opposed to proxies) particularly poignant.
Yeah, it was flat in many other areas, and he reminded me why I so dislike some of his sought after legislative record. But then, as a libertarian, he reminded my why he earned my support in 2000.
The most powerful aspect though was the subtle, but pervasive contrast that he will work for America, opposed to working for a legacy.
It turns out John McCain was a POW. Who knew? He never talks about it.
Palin’s messaged seemed to be “vote for me, I have a nice family”. McCain’s seems to be “vote for me, I was a POW”.
Not much about how we are going to deal with the many serious problems this country is facing.
“I know how the world works”.
Thats Bushs’ line…
Hummm, and Obama’s message seems to be, “vote for me, I am hope and change built upon Chicago politics.”
Yeah, change (and dollars) those who bank with Obama can count.
I think the USA! USA! chants had nothing to do with Senator McCain but were the crowd’s response to the obnoxious protestors that periodically popped up.
Substanceless speech delivered badly and at great length. The 9/11 video was tasteless in the extreme. Bounce? I doubt it.
Gotta love those progressives that are convinced that their free speech preempts anyone else’s.
Even is all else fails, I’ll cast my vote with the adults…
That sounds pretty elitist. There are a lot of hard working Americans in Chicago. Where do you get off looking down your nose at them?
My cousins live and work in Chicago. Hard for me to look “down my nose” when they gripe about how rampant the corruption is when they have to deal with on a regular basis.
In fact, I sympathize – I worked in NYC for a while!
Everybody knows that NYC and Chicago are terrible, repulsive cities. That’s why nobody lives there!
Real Americans are much more strongly attracted to lean, well-run cities like Wasilla, Alaska!
Agree, both Obama’s speech and McCain’s were too long. And the bromides were flying as high, and were as smothering as the balloons that trapped MSNBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell.
On a maudlin scale of 1 to 10 I would give Obama a 2 or a 3, while McCain broke the bank with his prisoner of war fugue…
That said, the tenor and direction of the campaign has been set. Problems and their solutions will be mutely recognized, and discussed only from a view point that McCain’s solutions (never to be presented) are better than Obama’s.
The theme will be that of character and personality. McCain, the warrior, learned to love his country in the cauldron of a beastly prisoner of war camp, and found humility and the ability to public confess his mistakes (never to be named). Obama, why he is an upstart, and a would be rock star…
The line I loved best was that he would bring Democrats and Independents into his Administration. Go to it, Barney Franks for head of the Drug Enforcement Agency, Jimmy Carter Ambassador to Israel, and Senator Leahy as Attorney General… Does he really believe that a sincere voice will blunt the brewing scandals of this Republican Administration?
My read, when he bowed the Christian Right (SCOTUS nominations, prohibition of abortion), when he resumed his extended Sarah Palin riff, and all but declared victory in Iraq, he fed the base, but he starved the moderates and independents.
Point, and sarcasm noted Jeff.
Yet my cousins actually live in Evanston and Cary. In fact my sisters, who earn livelihood from NYC actually live in Stony Point (NY) and Bridgeport (CT). Yep, Americans yearn to actually live in these wonderful metropolises.
It’s certainly evident to me that the politicians have chosen their strategies and stuck with them. That doesn’t really surprise me.
What has surprised me was both candidates went contrary to their platforms by choosing VP’s who are very obviously opposite what they were selling.
I’ll be interested to see if they change their strategies in the post convention leg of the run to bring to light why exactly they had done so.
Disagree. Palin is very much in the wheelhouse of McCain’s message. Biden, however, does not comport with Obama’s initial hope of change.
We got to know McCain, the man, in tonight’s speech. And that makes it a successful speech in my eyes. He is an honorable man with a strong character and good values. And since the president is just a man, this speech finally decided my vote. I will be supporting McCain on this election.
I think the most interesting thing about the reaction to McCain’s speech has been the lack of reaction to McCain’s speech–Palin’s speech drew instant reviews (both raves and rants) that are still coming hard and fast; it’s almost as if the man himself were an anticlimax after Palin.
Perhaps in the reform arena, although that’s debatable, but in terms of foreign policy experience – where his attacks on Obama have been most prevalent – it certainly was a stretch. Joe Lieberman would have been better, but securing the base was probably more important. Palin has seemed to succeed there at least.
McCain’s campaign is built around his authenticity as a person. What you see is what you get. This speech was vintage McCain. If you like him, vote for him. If you don’t, don’t.
Can’t get much more authentic than that.
Perhaps in the reform arena, although that’s debatable, but in terms of foreign policy experience – where his attacks on Obama have been most prevalent
But he doesn’t need her to have foreign policy experience. He has enough bonifides on that one compared to his opponent.
She is complimentary to his theme, she doesn’t really fill out his weak areas IMO. She also makes a good attack dog, which is often the role of the VP.
I don’t think McCain was looking for or felt he needed a running mate with foreign policy experience.
Actually, that’s not true. He ticked off a list of things he wants to do that will cost money, where the money will come from given his support for the Bush tax cuts remains problematic. And killing programs and earmarks, given the near certainty he, if elected, would face a Democratic Congress and Senate, is pie-in-the-sky.
But, for me, the most surprising thing he offered was wage insurance. If you’re a displaced worker who has to take a lower-paying job, the government will make up the difference between what you make at the lower-paying job and what you made at the higher-paying job as you retrain. Just think about that a moment. I myself cannot conceive of a more liberal economic policy. I think it went right over the heads of the convention delegates.
Warhorse vs. My Little Pony
well in the the first place most of them are Bear fans, in the second place most of them are Cub fans……….
Dude why?
What the heck is going on with the GOP on education?? Ronald Reagan had it right — the education of our children is better handled by local communities and not bureaucrats miles away in Washington, DC. This No Child stuff and McCain’s vague policy proposals last night on education do nothing more than add a layer of fat and extra spending. What does it even mean for the federal government, which owns no schools, to offer choice? People already have the choice to go to private schools, does he mean we should raise taxes to pay for it? People also already have the choice who to elect to local and state offices who make decisions about public schools using real world facts like budgets and student-teacher ratios and just not empty rhetoric. If a majority of a community or a state wants to have public school choice they can elect people to implement it. I’m sure his audience doesn’t think it means that the federal government would mandate that the suburban public schools have to open up their doors to any inner city kid that wants to come, whether there is room for him or not. What the heck does he really mean? Or is it just an election year pander to the religious right?
It’s strange because it’s not true. Speech … “We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas.”
“We believe in a government … that doesn’t make your choices for you, but works to make sure you have more choices to make for yourself.”**
**Advertised offer good on select models only, choice not available to pregnant women or gay people, please see dealer for details
Fence, Do you have school-age children? The choice he’s talking about is voucher programs. You realize we pay for ALL childrens public schooling through tax dollars right? Sure I can put my kid in a private school. But, I still have to pay the taxes for public school whether my kid is in public school or not PLUS pay 10+ grand a year for private school tuition. Which really takes the choice away from most of us. I can’t afford to do it. The vouchers let you put your tax money towards a private school education.
What happened to the long-held conventional wisdom that the VP doesn’t determine the presidential election? Palin was the highlight of the convention but she’s not at the top of the ticket.
McCain failed last night to make a clear distinction of how he would lead, compared to Obama, and more importantly what goals, aspirations he wanted to pursue to specifically deal with all of our challenges. His acknowledgment of these areas was nothing more than traditional rhetorical platitudes.
While she might be the more exciting part of the ticket, when voters get into the booth, they will be faced with the prospect of voting for her, not McCain.
Victor,
It may be in the prepared remarks, but I didn’t see him actually SAY it. I’ll have to double check the video–I may have simply missed it.
hcantrall, yes, I do have school aged children, although I don’t see why I’d need to to understand the economics and policy choices.
Paying for vouchers will require raising taxes. If you want to do that, fine, as long as McCain has to go on Fox every day and say “Read My Lips, More School Taxes.” So now we just have two Democratic Parties that only differ in their hobby of what they like to do on Sunday mornings.
Your tax dollars will remain used for the public schools whether your kids go or not, so the vouchers will just be more spending on top of that. I’m not stating that as my opinion, just the reality of what would happen whether we like it or not if the funds for the vouchers are paid by the federal government while the public schools are funded by state or local. So more taxes would be needed. And it sounds like they won’t be mostly from you, if you, as you say, can’t afford private school tuition without that government handout subsidy.
As for your comment that “The vouchers let you put your tax money towards a private school education.” Uh, “your tax money” is a non-sequitur. Tax money is taken by the government for public causes like defense. There is no point to taxing you to then give it back to you to do something you could have done on your own, like send your kids to private school. Instead, the obvious shortcut is to tax you less so you can afford more of what you want in the first place. But if you think the taxes you pay for public schools are too excessive and are the cause of your inability to pay for private school, then your gripe is at your local level, not DC. Don’t come to DC asking to raise someone else’s taxes because you disagree with the way your local government spent yours. Fix your problems at home instead.
And perhaps the biggest irony of funding vouchers from DC would be that since we are running such huge deficits already, the cost of the vouchers would be eventually saddled on the very kids we are supposedly trying to help with our education policies.
So while we may agree on certain points about whether vouchers are a good idea, my big point is that this should be a local, rather than a federal, issue. The GOP used to stand for that. Ironic that McCain makes this proposal in the same speech in which he recognizes that the GOP has lost its way for doing this very sort of thing.
Clear thinking, Fence! Thanks for torpedoing that perennial stupid idea.
What I found strange was the lack of nuclear in the list. Palin also neglected to mention nuclear when she was talking about energy policy. Has something changed that I’m not aware of that is making Republicans back away from that? It was one of their energy policies I strongly agreed with.
I thought each state got some money from the federal government to fund their educations systems. It was my understanding that the federal vouchers would give a portion of that funding directly to the parents, bypassing the state and local governments. Though that doesn’t change the gist of your argument, as even if the federal government won’t raise your taxes, by decreasing what goes to the state and local level they will force them to increase your taxes.
Federal funding for schools is only about 9% on average, varying by state and town. It’s not enough to really help, but it is enough to inject a lot of stupidity into the education system.
He talked about nuclear both immediately before and immediately after:
Palin mentioned it, too:
Thanks, I guess I just wasn’t paying enough attention to either. I was actually interested in their energy policies, so I made it a point to listen for them, but I guess (at least in Palin’s case) they had already mentioned nuclear before it caught my attention.
Does anyone know what “We have to catch up to history” mean? After all, this is coming from a man who apparently can’t use a computer. Should he catch up with the 90’s first?
Also worth noting that with all the GOP talk about Democrats raising taxes, the GOP is raising taxes too. They are simply raising those of our children and grandchildren.
Anjin
A little off subject but I heard a piece from the Laura Ingram show this morning. Howard Gutman a member of Obama’s National Finance Committee was using Palin daughter Pregnancy to attack Palin. He also use d her Down Syndrome baby to attack her as a bad mother since she is spending time running for office instead of taking care of the baby. I have been running around so I not sure if there is a transcript of the show yet.
So are you going to write letters now to have him fired or are you going make excuses? Then again the way your mind works, you probably believe calling Bush “Hitler†isn’t a personal attack.
Why don’t you write the letter? That way there will be no questions about anjin’s handling of the matter.
Just to give a little background info, the NFC is a fund raising group with 281 members (according to the list I found from March). I don’t believe that NFC members are paid by Obama’s presidential campaign, or even how much direction they receive from his campaign.
While they do not officially represent Obama or his campaign, they certainly present themselves as unofficial representatives while drumming up contributions. I’m not sure that Obama can “fire” Howard Gutman, since again I don’t think he is employed by Obama or his campaign, but he can probably have him at least removed from the official NFC membership.
One I’m not the one that said I would .Two I also didn’t rant and rave that it wasn’t anyone from the Obama campaign doing such things or for that matter any Democrats doing such despicable acts. Three demanding names of Democrat Strategist that someone saw on the O’Reilly Factor while insinuating that if you can’t name names it didn’t happen. Four I think it will backfire on the Obama campaign more than it helps.
If you have no evidence to show that an event happened, the logical belief is that it did not happen. If I suggested that a Republican strategist did the same thing, you wouldn’t accept it as fact without evidence either.
In order for something to “backfire” on the Obama campaign, it must originate from the Obama campaign. Again, there are accusations but no evidence, so logic dictates that I don’t accept that it happened.
“If you have no evidence to show that an event happened, the logical belief is that it did not happen.â€
So if there is an eye witness to an event there is no evidence? If a tree falls and you don’t see the tree or other evidence, it didn’t happen? Right. I understand questioning the eye witness recollection or having doubts what they said did happen but to say it didn’t happen is ridiculous.
The two of you didn’t just question my recollection which is fine but said if I was unable to give names then it didn’t happen. I guess you use your faulty logic above. This time I remember not only the time, show and event like last time but also gave names. Laura has only put a link to the interview on her paid site but I bet she will put at least part of it on the free site in the coming days.
I suspect in the end it won’t matter since liberals ignore any facts that they don’t like.
Oh as for your pretention that Obama has no a little influence on his NFC.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_at_suntimes_reques.html
As the member of the National Finance Committee for the campaign, he helps make decisions on how the campaign will utilize its funds and how the fundraising will be run. He also performs special projects such as arranging meetings with constituents and senior advisors.
RE: USA USA, the delegates were instructed to chant USA whenever a protester started misbehaving. Kinda clever I think. Notifies security and drowns out any controversial shouts that might otherwise be heard on television.
If the witness says “I saw somebody commit the crime, but I don’t know who”, then there is no evidence of specific guilt.
We’re not questioning whether or not the exchange you mentioned took place, we’re questioning who it was that was involved in the exchange. Your testimony proves that something happened, but not who did it. You have not given enough evidence to associate Obama, his campaign, or the Democratic party with the crime.
I found a synopsis of the exchange on another site which strongly supported your claim, which is why I’m not questioning it.
So, write a letter. Like I said, he can at least remove the man from the NFC.
My previous thread never accused Obama’s campaign or Democratic leadership of quilt unless you think any Democrat consultants action is their responsibility. I don’t. Now a member of the his Finance committee that raises, coordinate campaign spending and is often a spokesman for Obama, does reflect on Obama.
Do I expect Anjin to keep his promise even if I supply a link when it is release for free of the interview? No. I don’t expect liberals to keep their promises and I see no reason I should keep their promises for them.
Wayne, lets make a deal. You document, I write. And I will need something a little more concrete than the say so of Laura Ingram. Interesting that you cite a hate-monger to accuse someone of being a hate-monger.
When I click on the “Howard Gutman” link on her homepage, it goes to Obama’s site. This is an attempt to create a linkage between Gutman and Obama in Google search results, a hackers trick. Don’t you know when you are being played?
The exchange is being reported on several blogs, at this point I’m willing to accept Wayne’s description of events, if not his immediate conclusions.
I am a liberal, do you include me in that sweeping generalization?
If he did actually go after Palin’s family, I suspect that he will be gone in short order. Will keep my eye open for some documentation, if it is out there, I suspect it will be everywhere very soon. When I see it, I will be writing my letter. It’s very bad form to attack someone via their family, very bad indeed.
Here your documentation.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/06/obama-fundraiser-palin-putting-career-above-family/
Problem with sweeping generalization is it almost always catches a few that don’t deserve it. As for you I am not sure. I just notices how often liberals make promises but it is the conservative that tend to follow through. Gore’s green lifestyle compare to Bush’s. Liberal administrators that move to my old hometown convince enough people to raise real estate taxes to pay for pet projects then move out of town leaving those who were against it to pay the bill. The examples go on and on.
It states that Obama has already denounced Gutman’s statements, and that Gutman has already apologized for making them, as he should. It also notes that Fox isn’t clear on what role Gutman still has with the campaign, and as I pointed out earlier, he was never a hired employee, so he can’t exactly be “fired” in the traditional sense.
I await what official action Obama plans to take about his role in the NFC.
Those examples aren’t exactly not following through with promises, but rather not living up to expectations. It’s still bad, mind you, but hardly lying.
A Volunteer can still be fired, services discontinued or whatever you want to call it.
The reason Fox News isn’t clear on what role Gutman still has with the campaign is because Obama’s campaign hasn’t made it clear. They could have dismiss him from Obama’s National Finance Committee and said there is no place for him in Obama’s campaign. They didn’t so most likely he is still with the campaign.
They could have said that Gutman misspoke, accept his apology and considered the matter done but they didn’t. This of course would be against what Obama said earlier.
Personally I don’t care much either way. I am not much for throwing people under the bus on their first mistake. Mostly I was just playing gotcha and seeing if you two would stand by your principles or make excuses. I’ve seen Michael admit to mistakes but don’t recall the same for anjin. Although the “so he can’t exactly be “fired” in the traditional sense†may be technically true in a sense but is slick talk. Obama can have Gutman off his NFC and keep him away from his campaign
Gore promise to do all he can to combat global warming but doesn’t follow though in the place he has the most control, personal lifestyle.
Saying you will do you pay property taxes and help pay for the new school then moving is leaving the burden on someone else.
Saying the taxes payers need to give more by increasing welfare programs then avoiding taxes with offshore account is putting your promises onto someone else.
Should say
Saying you pay property taxes and will help pay for the new school then moving is leaving the burden on someone else.
Add on
What is ironic is the biggest supporter for raising taxes are usually the ones that leave in short order.
That would have been dishonest, so good on them for not taking that route. Gutman made a mistake by taking that line of discussion, the Obama campaign called it what it was, and Gutman apologized.
The reason I made the clarification wasn’t to remove any responsibility that Obama has, but rather to head off any criticisms of “He just took his name of a list, he didn’t fire him”, which is sadly what I expected to see if Obama did remove him from the NFC.
Well yes and no. He can take him off the NFC, but Gutman’s appearance in question was completely voluntary, and there’s nothing (short of a restraining order) to stop him from going on TV as a “Former Obama NFC member”, or some such title, and saying more stupid stuff.
Well that’s not exactly true. Your personal lifestyle may be the easiest to change, but it is usually not the most you can do. Gore’s jet may produce a lot of greenhouse gas, but if using it results in a single medium sized company reducing their energy usage, the net cost may be better than if Gore hadn’t made the trip. It’s the difference between being pragmatic and being idealistic.
But surely they did pay property taxes while they lived there, and surely they never promised to stay there until they had paid an equivalent amount of property tax to pay for their share of the school. Again, that was an expectation, not a promise.
They can’t prevent Gutman appearing on his own but they can prevent him from appearing as a member of Obama’s campaign. They can disassociate from him, his advice and money that he raises.
Dick Morris is a “former†Clinton advisor but very few if any would say he speaks for the Clintons now. Someone who is a member of the campaign and says awful things are generally kick off the campaign or else people assume the campaign at least in part endorses those sentiments.
I can’t believe you defend Gore’s lifestyle. Your example is like a cop saying “don’t mind me committing rape once a year since I “might†prevent more rapes then I commitâ€.
When they say they will pay taxes too and share in the burden, it is inferring that they will help pay for the school also. That is like saying you will help clean up and repair the park then show up and pick up a piece of trash and leave. Technically did you help? Yes but most people would say you weasel out of your promise. I understand that sometimes unexpected circumstance happens. It is amazing that it is the liberals who like spending other people money who tend to disappeared.
Not at all, it’s more a case of “It takes money to make money”. Unless you think a carbon footprint is comparable to rape.
“Unless you think a carbon footprint is comparable to rapeâ€
No just that trying to excuse your bad behavior because you try to prevent others from the same bad behavior doesn’t fly. Now if there was a surprise emergency Global warming meeting that the only way he could get there is by private jet then it would be excusable. However there are many aspect of his lifestyle that he could change to help with his “carbon footprint†but doesn’t. Even some of his PR stunts he doesn’t carry through. Example claiming he had solar panels on his big houseboat.
“It takes money to make money”
Quite right but I thought it was about saving the environment. Not really, I knew better.
The thing is that having a carbon footprint isn’t “bad behavior” like rape is. Any rate of sexual assault > 0 is “bad behavior”, but any new rate of CO2 production < the old rate is “good behavior”, even if the new rate is > 0.
The fact that Gore produces CO2 in the course of his efforts to reduce the production of CO2 isn’t “bad behavior” as long as there is a net negative change in CO2 production as a result of it (Note: I’m not saying this is necessarily the case for Gore, but rather stating it as a general rule).
A more tangible example would be using a diesel trunk to bring seedlings to a reforestation project, the diesel produces CO2, but doing so allows for a net reduction in CO2.
What net rate of production of CO2 is considered a bad behavior?
Gore is telling us to reduce our carbon footprint, yet refuses to take simple steps that would result in a reduction of his own footprint.
Although none of this addresses that fact that you asking me to follow through on Anjin promises.
Your diesel truck example is a good one. I agree with it but for someone to drive that same truck or RV across country as a luxury is something else entirely. Gore lives in luxury.
Any positive change in the net rate is bad behavior, any negative change is good behavior. A net rate of 0 is the ideal, but not one that is practically achievable in any known time frame.
Yeah, we did get off course a bit.
I wasn’t disagreeing with that, just the contention that he can accomplish more by focusing on his personal CO2 footprint.
A net positive change would be good but I wouldn’t consider it as necessary good behavior. Someone who has a 365 times larger “personal†footprint than the average person and reduces it down to 364.9 is a net positive which is good but I wouldn’t consider it good behavior.
“I wasn’t disagreeing with that, just the contention that he can accomplish more by focusing on his personal CO2 footprintâ€
I believe if Gore lead by example he would be more creditable and therefore accomplish much more.
I doubt it. Celebrities don’t have to be credible to effect change, they just have to be famous. Just look at how much money Bono has raised for 3rd world debt relief compared to how much he’s given himself.
Come on Michael someone who is credible is almost always more effective. Are there exceptions, of course but exceptions by definition are rare.
Almost always, yes, but I would argue that people who are famous are almost always more effective than people who are credible.
Those who are both are more effective than those who are only one or the other. Gore is famous\infamous. My argument that you disagree with was if he was both he would be more effective than if he was just famous\infamous.
I’m not disagreeing with that argument, just it’s premise, that if Gore were to focus on making his personal life “green”, he would be both.
I think that the amount of effort he would have to put into his personal life in order for it to provide him credibility, would preclude him from maintaining his public life to the degree necessary to provide celebrity.
Gore is famous because he is a former VP not because he lives the lifestyle of a Rock Star. To a great many they won’t consider his crisis message until he starts to act like it in his personal life. It seems more likely that he is just out to make a buck and stay in the spot light. It is about like someone screaming “bomb get out†in a crowded movie theater then stays seated sipping their soda while continuing watching the movie.
So, what is Dan Quayle up to? Being a former VP isn’t enough to keep you at celebrity status. Gore is relevant precisely because he lives the lifestyle of a rock star.
Quayle got out of the public spot light. The MSM slam him all the time while fawning over Gore. Wonder why! Gore also lost a close election. Carter still gets press and he doesn’t live a rock star lifestyle. He is pretty much senile on top of that. I can’t believe you think Gore is relevant because he lives a rock star lifestyle. Maybe you need to talk to your wife again. Maybe she can talk some sense into you.