Al Gore Attacks Bush Administration On Wiretapping

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/16/gore.constitution/index.html

Is Gore laying out the foundation for a Nixon-esque run in 08?

 

Nonsense. Gore 2008? Forget it.

Well...well, just a minute...

Al Gore received a majority of the popular vote in 2000 as agains this President and people didn't then know just what George Bush would be like as President. We know, now.

On the OTHER hand, 9/11 changed the world. If Gore wants to be the Democrat nominee in 2008, he's going to have to demonstrate a clear plan for safety, if not victory.

He'd also have to fire his "handlers"; I remain convinced that Gore LOST in Florida, not that Bush WON in Florida.

Hm. Name recognition? Check. National popularity? Sure. (He might even carry his home state this time.) No one would be scared of a "President Gore".

Well, maybe so, at that!

 

Wait a minute... didn't Al Gore INVENT wiretapping?

 

Hi BinkWile:

Here is another interesting article/link


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10864568/

I guess Arlene Specter and some other Republicans are expressing some doubts regarding Bush's eavesdropping antics.


Take care,


Abner

 

No...but they had a pretty good idea what Gore would be like as President. That was his problem.

If Gore was any kind of candidate at all, he would've blown out Bush. He was the incumbant VP during the biggest economic boom in history. You gotta work pretty hard to lose an election with all that going for you.

Like you said, had he won his home state, FL wouldn't have been an issue.

 

Including our enemies.

 

I don't think that's a fair assessment. Originally, our enemies had nothing to fear in President Bush. He campaigned as a peace president and vowed to keep us out of the business of nation building. That campaign was very domestic policy focused. 9-11 changed all that. We lack the ability to look into alternate realities to see what President Gore would have done (and making statements that he would have surrendered is ridiculous because how could you possibly know?)

Also, saying that he had to work to be defeated is another statement that I don't think is totally fair. I agree that Gore and his handlers botched the election, and didn't allow Gore to really separate himself from Clinton.

I think that the whole nation saw the democrats in a negative light from Clinton's impeachment and were dying for a change. Bush's vow to "restre dignity and honor to the white house" strcuk a cord with the American people. Gore did nothing to stop it though. So in that statement, I partially agree with you.

 

I was being facetious. I don't think Gore tried to lose the election. I think he tried very hard to win. His problem is he's a doofus, a socially inept goofball who can't carry on a conversation unless it is scripted for him. He has absolutely no chance of winning any election on a national stage in which he must think on his feet, try to appear sincere, or convince people he's just an ordinary guy. He can't do it.

If Mr. "no controlling legal authority" plans on running in 08, he better invent a new personality for himself. Oh wait...he already tried that.

I think I speak for all Republicans when I say "Oh please, oh please, oh please nominate Gore in '08!

btw...A true alpha male doesn't need someone to tell him what to wear.

 

Very true Steve. GWB quick on his feet, most definitely not. He looked like and sounded like an idiot in the debates.

Of course, he is a guy you can have a beer with. Oops, I forgot, he is a dry drunk.


Abner

 

Exactly my point. Bush looked horrible in the debates. He actually improved with each one, but he could've done alot better. But as idiotic as you say he is, the Dems can't produce a better candidate.

Of course, John Kerry would rather have a glass of wine with the French President than to stoop so low as to have a beer with a commoner. Gore might have a beer, but he'd have to have someone drive him to the tavern.

 

I partially agree with you. However, I think the common guy appeal has worn off. 2006 and 2008 will be different.

For now, I would simply say to you, enjoy being the party in control. The problem with being in control is all the blame shifts to one side when problems/scandals arise.

Take care,


Abner

 

Ab,

I think if you are counting on big success in 06 and 08...u may be surprised..

The dems need a plan to win, and Nancy Pelosi said this week that they are being successful withou a plan..I still dont see a plan from Schumers clan..And then there is Hilary.....Is it me or...did anyone notice how she talks to black people and how she talks to uppity white folks????What a pandere...

The Republicain still dont seem to have any real fight in their campaigns and I would be ready to fire all guns in states that supported bush in 04. There are alot of democratic seantors in states that bush won by a signifigant margin. That could spell a bad situation in the senate with 60+ Repubilicains....Too much power for one party....


Anyway, I hope your folks get their act together and put up a decent candidate..Conservative need to be responisble to there masses and without a Democratic challenger they are not doing their duty as conservatives..

Course now you cant tell the diffence sometimes..especially when they are handing out money....

 

Hi Lou,

You bring up some good points. However, I have learned politics are like real estate. The market goes up, and it goes down. Eventually, however, you make a profit.

This time around the Dems will do things differently. They will hit EVERY state hard. I believe the publics distrust of the many scandals plaguing the Republican party have and will take a toll. I further believe many more are to come.

As far at taking things lightly, never. The Dems are well aware of mistakes that happened in the past. In general, I further believe the American people are ready for a change. A cadre of new centrist candidates like Mark Warren will also make the Dems more diverse, and increase their chances in the public arena.

These are only my opinions of course. Only time will tell. My theory is simple, fight as hard as you can, then live with the results. Eventually, the Dems will be in power again, it's just a matter of time. Is see no reason why it can't be 06 or 08.


take care,


Abner

 

What scandals are you talking about...Plame, Katrina, Lying about WMD's, DeLay, Torture? These are all "scandals" that have been created and/or blown out of proportion by the Left? None of these have legs.

Do you know why they don't have legs?

Because the public either doesn't care or doesn't believe they are as bad as the Left makes them out to be. Even the Abramoff mess is going to catch as many Dems as it does Reps.

If you are basing your party's hopes on supposed scandals, you're making the same mistake that the leaders of the Left have made, and continue to make. No matter how bad you think GWB is, the Left is never going to win anything until they get a plan, with real solutions.

...and, of course, send up a competent candidate.

 

Why do you make these sorts of generalizations? How do you know how Kerry or Gore would act in a social setting with regular americans? Anecdotal evidence? I never felt that judgement was fair.

Also, why would Republicans "beg" for the dems to nominate Gore? Who pre-tell do they have that will be so unstoppable? I doubt centrists like Gullinani, McCain or Romney could win the nomination (and lead to a huge national victory). Instead, you'll be stuck with candidates that tread the party base, and alienate themselves to the other 50% of the country. As a result we'll continue to have close races, with elections coming down to the wire. At least people would know Gore, he could go over this time.

 

I dont think there is a good candidate on the right besides the three you mentioned. I dont think Condi is going to run, and most "Delay" style conservative know they dont have a chance nationally. I dont think the republicans will nominate a far right wing candidate in light of the current public opinion. I seems very clear that the primary process favors a more liberal candidate for the democrates which will spell a loss. Not to mention, if the Dems run Hillary people will be coming out of the woodwork to oppose her, there are strong feelings everywere concening here, but I know most conservates hate her and most dems that i know say "i couldnt vote for her" so that leaves her in a tough spot...

Plus she really is soooo likable right???

 

Good points BinkWile.


Abner

 

Why can't you recognize sarcasm when you see it?

Because he's a horrible candidate. He hasn't won an election on his own since the eighties. The Republicans could run a tree and still win. That is if the voters could tell the difference.

BinkWile, That last remark was also sarcasm. Please don't take it literally. I was simply trying to express my feelings about how poor a candidate Gore is. OK?