PDA

View Full Version : Gore to run again?


Dave Lane
05-09-2006, 10:32 PM
It is sometimes said that good ideas have many fathers but bad ideas are
always orphans. And so it is with the retrospective of the decision to go
to war in Iraq. As everyone from the White House and Secretary of Defense
to members of Congress and the media engage in revisionist history
concerning who said what and who knew what about the decision to invade
Iraq, it is important to hold everyone's feet to the fire.

The integrity of our democracy requires it. The American people should
demand it. Joe Scarborough, the self-styled straight-talking host of
Scarborough Country, contributed to annuals of revisionism last Thursday
(May 4, 2006) when he suggested that Al Gore was a Johnny-come-lately in
his opposition to the War in Iraq. Nothing could be further from the
truth.

The truth is that, on September 23, 2002, in a speech at the Commonwealth
Club -- long before the invasion of Iraq and before members of Congress
voted to give President Bush authority to invade -- Vice President Al Gore
unequivocally and emphatically stated his opposition to a War in Iraq and
set forth a multitude of reasons why.

Among his reasons were that

1) We should focus our efforts on building a multinational coalition to fight terrorism and the enemies who were
responsible for 9/11 and not become distracted;

2) A war with Iraq had the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism
and weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century;

3) Although Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction would continue for as long
as Saddam was in power, the existing U.N. resolutions passed 11 years ago
were completely sufficient to contain that potential threat; and,

4) We should focus on stabilizing Afghanistan so that terrorists would not be
able to slip back across the border and set up camp there again.

Al Gore
told the truth despite the political costs. In contrast, members of
Congress checked President Bush's poll numbers before deciding whether to
vote to authorize a war in Iraq. Al Gore took the unpopular position, but
clearly the correct one. He took no small amount of flak from his own
party for raising the pressure on them not to issue a blank check and to
at least require the administration to put forth the an assessment of how
it thought the course of a war would run. Instead, Congress rushed to vote
yes, to show its patriotic bona fides -- just in time for the November
election. Not that you would know any of this by reading or listening to
the mainstream press such as Scarborough Country. They gloss over or
ignore Al Gore's courageous and insightful (and early) opposition to the
War.

I have to say I agree with his points...

Dave

Taco John
05-09-2006, 10:37 PM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=139157

banyon
05-10-2006, 12:21 AM
:shake:

Taco John
05-10-2006, 01:23 AM
I actually think Gore is in the best position to win this thing right now...

McCain has lost a lot of his lustre, though I sure wouldn't count him out. Guliani is dead in the water because his base is split on him due to his liberal stance on some hot button issues. Hillary is a fundraising lame duck... She'll never get enough votes to win the entire thing because she'll energize the enemy base more than she'll energize her own.

If I were forced to bet on a candidate to win it all, I would say Gore has an early edge, with McCain a very close second... Behind, only due to the national mood towards Republicans right now... That could/will obviously change from being so negative between now and then.

oldandslow
05-10-2006, 08:40 AM
TJ...

I tend to agree. I thought Mark Warner might have the ability to derail the Hillary express, but he is not raising the money.

Gore, on the other hand, will raise the funds.

banyon
05-10-2006, 08:49 AM
Gore does not have the requisite charisma to win the 8% in the middle who don't follow issues or make up their minds until the last week by choosing "which guy I'd rather date".

oldandslow
05-10-2006, 08:53 AM
Gore does not have the requisite charisma to win the 8% in the middle who don't follow issues or make up their minds until the last week by choosing "which guy I'd rather date".

However, there might be a "sympathy vote" cast by those 8% since he won the popular vote last time but was denied due to the EC.

There might even be some "buyer's remorse" at play.

Cave Johnson
05-10-2006, 09:24 AM
Gore does not have the requisite charisma to win the 8% in the middle who don't follow issues or make up their minds until the last week by choosing "which guy I'd rather date".

Date/have a beer with after work.

Cave Johnson
05-10-2006, 09:25 AM
TJ...

I tend to agree. I thought Mark Warner might have the ability to derail the Hillary express, but he is not raising the money.

Gore, on the other hand, will raise the funds.

I'm on the Warner bandwagon. God forbid if the Dems nominate another Senator.

oldandslow
05-10-2006, 09:32 AM
Right now, I am in the "anybody but Hillary" camp.

patteeu
05-10-2006, 01:10 PM
Could there be anything better for Republicans than having Al Gore and Hillary as the favorites to win the dem nomination? I guess maybe having John Kerry or Howard Dean in the mix might be, but it's a close call.

I must confess that I respect Hillary more than I do her husband.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-10-2006, 01:13 PM
Gore does not have the requisite charisma to win the 8% in the middle who don't follow issues or make up their minds until the last week by choosing "which guy I'd rather date".

There is one thing that Gore has not lacked since the 2000 election and that is charisma.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-10-2006, 01:15 PM
Could there be anything better for Republicans than having Al Gore and Hillary as the favorites to win the dem nomination? I guess maybe having John Kerry or Howard Dean in the mix might be, but it's a close call.

I must confess that I respect Hillary more than I do her husband.

Hillary would be a disaster for the Democrats. Gore wouldn't. In many ways, it might be reminiscent of Nixon's run in 1968 as the other party tears itself to pieces due to arrogance within its own power base, split directives on foreign policy, and facing a competant (although considered bland by the populace) running mate who ran when he was VP 8 years before and lost a very controversial election....Deja vu??? :hmmm:

Dave Lane
05-10-2006, 01:39 PM
I like Wesley Clark personally.

Dave

Cochise
05-10-2006, 01:39 PM
Nobody wants to see the Buffalo Bills again.

If the Dems are smart, they choose an outsider. Someone who's never had a job in Washington.

Cochise
05-10-2006, 01:40 PM
I must confess that I respect Hillary more than I do her husband.

Despite my general disapproval of Bill, I would rather have him in charge way more than his wife.