More on the 2000 election

Michael Moore helped defeat Gore by deriding the Democratic Party.
A few years ago, I was reading a review of Fahrenheit 911 in a Connecticutt free newspaper I got at a tourist rest stop. The liberal author clearly stated, with insight, that Moore's statement in 2000 that there wasn't a "dime's worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans" lead to many younger voters casting a ballot for Nader — and thus aided in giving us the close election controversy and final choice of George W. Bush as President. He speculated that Moore was now trying to assuage his guilt for this past sin. 
 
When the Clintons sent Elian Gonzales back to Cuba, they gave the state to the Republicans by design so that Hillary could run in 2004. I even said to my neighbors at that time.
 
Based on past Cuban immigrant voting patterns, Gore would have had over 57,000 additional Cuban immigrant votes had Clinton not enraged the Miami voter base and the Democrats would have totally avoided a recount. If you remember, Gore was in favor of Elian staying in America, but his boss, Bill Clinton, was not.
 
It is my opinion that the Clintons figured that a Bush victory would give them a Republican with a weak economy after the Dot Com Bust to make a weak opponent for Hillary run against in 2004. They didn't figure on 9/11 and rallying around a wartime president.

But ask yourself the following question that I present to Democrats and Republicans alike: do you really think the Clintons were more interested in the political opportunities for the Democratic party in 2000 — or their own personal opportunities in 2004? A Gore victory would force the Clintons to wait at least until 2008 to have Hillary on the ballot. Would the Clintons think to put their own  good above the good of the Democratic Party? Of course. Let's try to be objective.

Any professional politician worth his or her salt knew that sending Elian Gonzales back to Cuba would cost the Democratic Party over 50,000 Florida votes in a key swing state which has a Republican governor and legislature. What type of practical politics is it to jepordize the electoral votes of one of the  two key swing states in a national election?

Do you really think the Clintons cared where Elian Gonzales sat in 2004 — or did they care more where Al Gore would be sitting when they announced the Democratic Party's Presidential Nominee at the convention? If you believe that the Clintons care more about principle than winning elections, then you are probably one of the people who don't know — or want to know j— that Hillary, while living in Arkansas, sat on the Board of Directors of Wal—Mart for many years.

Jack Kemp (not the politician)  12 27 05

Michael Moore helped defeat Gore by deriding the Democratic Party.
A few years ago, I was reading a review of Fahrenheit 911 in a Connecticutt free newspaper I got at a tourist rest stop. The liberal author clearly stated, with insight, that Moore's statement in 2000 that there wasn't a "dime's worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans" lead to many younger voters casting a ballot for Nader — and thus aided in giving us the close election controversy and final choice of George W. Bush as President. He speculated that Moore was now trying to assuage his guilt for this past sin. 
 
When the Clintons sent Elian Gonzales back to Cuba, they gave the state to the Republicans by design so that Hillary could run in 2004. I even said to my neighbors at that time.
 
Based on past Cuban immigrant voting patterns, Gore would have had over 57,000 additional Cuban immigrant votes had Clinton not enraged the Miami voter base and the Democrats would have totally avoided a recount. If you remember, Gore was in favor of Elian staying in America, but his boss, Bill Clinton, was not.
 
It is my opinion that the Clintons figured that a Bush victory would give them a Republican with a weak economy after the Dot Com Bust to make a weak opponent for Hillary run against in 2004. They didn't figure on 9/11 and rallying around a wartime president.

But ask yourself the following question that I present to Democrats and Republicans alike: do you really think the Clintons were more interested in the political opportunities for the Democratic party in 2000 — or their own personal opportunities in 2004? A Gore victory would force the Clintons to wait at least until 2008 to have Hillary on the ballot. Would the Clintons think to put their own  good above the good of the Democratic Party? Of course. Let's try to be objective.

Any professional politician worth his or her salt knew that sending Elian Gonzales back to Cuba would cost the Democratic Party over 50,000 Florida votes in a key swing state which has a Republican governor and legislature. What type of practical politics is it to jepordize the electoral votes of one of the  two key swing states in a national election?

Do you really think the Clintons cared where Elian Gonzales sat in 2004 — or did they care more where Al Gore would be sitting when they announced the Democratic Party's Presidential Nominee at the convention? If you believe that the Clintons care more about principle than winning elections, then you are probably one of the people who don't know — or want to know j— that Hillary, while living in Arkansas, sat on the Board of Directors of Wal—Mart for many years.

Jack Kemp (not the politician)  12 27 05