It looks like after complaining about everyone talking about personalities or character, that's all you're willing to discuss.
I believe your analysis is flawed in many ways. Primarily in the way in which you dismiss Gore's lies as "metaphorical and allegorical communications". I may have bought this line of reasoning if it had been one or two lies. But in the case of Gore, it's happened so often I believe it's pathological.
Think about it...He knew he was on the hook in regard to embellishing the truth, and yet was unable to prevent himself from lying repeatedly during the debate. To me, that demonstrates a seriously disturbed individual. And certainly not one I would trust with America's nuclear codes.
Secondly, John McCain was a good person who seriously mishandled his election process. He focused way too much on campaign finance reform. A reform, that if passed, would never have held up at the Supreme Court. Limiting free speech, by giving it all to the mainstream media, would have been a disaster for third party nominees and conservatives.
The last thing we need to do is give more power to the mainstream media. McCain/Feingold is simply that. A power grab by the mainstream media. And it's the primary reason they gave him so much positive news coverage during the primaries.
Bush better managed and executed his election run. And he posted every one of his contributions on his website. Those contributions stand in stark contrast to your analysis of fat-cats being the only supporters of his campaign.
On the other hand, Gore never has shown us a detailed breakdown of his contributors. Which I have little doubt include big labor, big environmental zealots, and big lawyers. He's the antithesis of the "big and powerful against the people". He represents the *big and powerful* government lobby groups. Who's sole goal is to strip individual liberty from Americans. And replace it with an all powerful central governmental role in our lives. |
