how bummed are you that Gore isn't running in 08?

[garybeck]

Personally I'm pretty bummed. He's been my #1 choice all along. We would finally get an environmental president. Now that he's out of the race, I guess Dean is my second choice, but having lived in Vermont while he was governor I've been disappointed by his all talk and no action history.

[rndmprsn]

1. sorry to give you more bad news...dean isn't running in 08 either..

or at least thats what he said when he took the DNC job.

[losdiablosgato]

114. I am glad we need new blood and new ideas

[Renew Deal]

2. Not at all

I want some new blood in there. There are other good people that can run.

[drummo]

18. New blood = no credibility

In order to know how to govern at the federal level you have to have experience in the federal government. A lot.

If you don't have it you'll screw it up.
Like Reagan with Lebanon.
Like Clinton with Somalia, health care.
Like Bush with al Qaeda, budget.
Like Carter with ...well virtually everything.

All governors. All amateurs.

And when it comes to those in the Congress those who didn't vote for the IWR will not run.

That leaves Clark who is not new blood -he ran and lost in 2004- and flip-flopped on the IWR, anyway.

[Burning Water]

34. New blood

can be perfectly acceptable. Repeating the same mistakes for 25 years does not make one an expert. Just an observation. Nothing against Clark, or any body else. Everybody makes mistakes, even if they actually are an expert.

[drummo]

39. And what were those mistakes during 25 years

which Gore repeated?

And please don't talk about being stiff and similar nonsense
because I was talking about governance not campaign style, moreover Gore was elected and re-elected during those 24 years.

Of course just by being in the federal government will not make you an expert. (see Dan Quale)
Butif you are not in the federal government for long enough to know how the government actually works you sure will not have the necessary experience to run the federal government.
That's why governors screw up in their first few years -- sometimes in their entire term.
Remember Clinton's "I'm still relevant" comment?

When there are so many problems which only the federal government can fix new blood would be a disaster.

[Burning Water]

40. I t was a general

observation that applies to anyone, including Gore. I had nothing specific in mind, but I'm sure I could think of some if I put my mind to it. So could you. I'm not talking about mistakes in policy positions, either although there probably are some. I'm talking about mistakes in technique.

Anyway, we elect a president to set the direction. He has aides and staff and government departments to carry his policies out. He does not have to be an expert in any particular area; certainly no one is an expert in all areas of governance. He just needs to know where he wants to take the country.

[drummo]

53. Re:

I t was a general observation that applies to anyone, including Gore.

No it doesn't apply to Gore. Since you said just because someone makes the same mistakes over and over again does not prove that he has federal experience. But in the Gore's case you cannot say that "making the same mistakes repeatedly" somehow deprives him from his federal experience. He has that no matter what mistaked he made and how often.

I had nothing specific in mind, but I'm sure I could think of some if I put my mind to it. So could you.

I certainly could name mistakes Gore made during those 24 years. But none of those mistakes invalidates the claim that Gore has federal experience while a newbie doesn't. And that was the whole point.


I'm not talking about mistakes in policy positions, either although there probably are some. I'm talking about mistakes in technique.

Since "technique" is a very vague term, nothing proves that a newbie would be a better president -- or even a candidate -- just because his technique would be different. Not the least because you cannot possibly know what technique that newbie would use in the course of his campaign or presidency -- unless you have a crystal ball.

Anyway, we elect a president to set the direction.

No. We elect a president to govern. The vast majority of the job has nothing to do with direction but managing the federal government. This is the least noticable part of the job, you can almost never hear about it in the news because it's boring and dry. But it is happening every day. And only when a big bang happens do people realize why this hidden part of the presidency is so important. Having federal routine can literally save lives.

For example, the way someone manages a disaster like Katrina has nothing to do with "vision" or "going left or right" or "direction". But it has a lot to do with how much someone knows about the government, particularly red tape, which arguably killed an unknown number of people during the Katrina crisis.
As Jim Lehrer said in the first debate in 2000:
" We've been talking about a lot of specific issues. It's often said that in the final analysis about 90% of being the President of the United States is dealing with the unexpected, not with issues that came up in the campaign."

Thanks. But I don't want another newbie "dealing with the unexpected".

He does not have to be an expert in any particular area;

He does have to be an expert in every area where he makes decision.
Bush was not an expert in counter-terrorism. What did that give us? 9/11.
Enough is enough. The man in charge should be an expert. If that's too much for someone he should not run for the job. Period.

certainly no one is an expert in all areas of governance.


If you don't know how international trade works how can you sign a law
which affects international trade?
If you don't know the connection between income taxes and the economy how can you sign a law which affects taxes?
If you don't know how a weapon-system works how can you sign a law which gives millions of dollars for that weapon system?
If you don't understand the potentials of stem cell research if you don't understand how that works
how can you sign a law which gives or denies federal funding for stem-cell research?
If you don't know now how many federal agencies exist let alone what they do how can you sign a budget which gives money to those agencies?
If you don't know where to find the dots inside the government how can you connect the dots?
If you don't know how the dots are collected how can you know how to improve that?

And so on.

Name one area where the president calls the shots or at least exercises influence and you think it's fine if he doesn't know much about that area?

No knowledge no power. Period.

If knowing the government and public policies from a - z is too much for you don't run for president. Simple as that.
The standard should be extermely high since the consequences could be extremly big. Again, think about 9/11 and Katrina.

He just needs to know where he wants to take the country.

1.No president can "take the country" anywhere. Not one man can do that. He simply doesn't have the power to guide 300,000,000. people And we are not sheep, anyway. I decide what direction to follow not someone else be it Bush or Gore or Clinton.

2.As I said earlier the vast majority of the job has nothing to do with any direction but the day-to-day management of the federal government. It's foolish to listen to fancy slogans about this or that direction while ignoring the "burocratic" requirements for the job.

[Uncle Joe]

64. Well said drummo,

I remember when I had these same debates with my co-workers that supported Bush before the 2000 election. I would promote Al's expertise in so many vital subjects and Bush's lack thereof and they would reply "Bush does not have to know, he can hire the people that know". The stupidity of this thinking astounds me to this day, if you are not smart or well versed in a subject, how can you truly tell the people that are from the people that are not. This is how we ended up with the incompetent cronies running FEMA, the former Attorney General that had lost an election to a dead man, Secretary of Defense etc.

[Burning Water]

67. What a bunch of BS.

Al Gore is not an expert in everything. NO ONE CAN BE. He would not have to be if he had entered the White House. He would have appointed people to advise him. Duh! That's why they're called "advisors".

You set up an incredible number of straw men. Think how you would feel about those arguments if a Republican was making them against a President Gore. Not that a President Gore wouldn't be far preferable to President Bush, but still, the arguments you make, while quite verbose, simply do not make sense to me.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. There is a vast difference between 25 years of experience and one year of experience, 25 times. This is not a criticism of Gore, or anybody else. Just saying that being in the federal government does not automatically give a person good judgment. While not being in the federal government does not necessarily make someone incompetent at governing. Especially former governors who do have such experience on a smaller scale.

We've brought up this "competence" issue in several elections and gotten beaten. What is needed in a candidate, or a President is leadership, the ability to formulate a vision and get other people to follow. If we had a candidate like that, 2008 could be a very good year for Democrats.

[drummo]

88. I didn't say that Gore is an expert in everything. He is just an

expert in governance. Someone who prepares himself for the presidency for 40 years will become an expert in public policymaking more than anyone else.

He would not have to be if he had entered the White House. He would have appointed people to advise him. Duh! That's why they're called "advisors".

But you have to know what those advisors are talking about.
And you have to know which advise to accept.
And for that you have to understand the material.
If you don't you are a puppet like Bush.

You set up an incredible number of straw men. Think how you would feel about those arguments if a Republican was making them against a President Gore. Not that a President Gore wouldn't be far preferable to President Bush, but still, the arguments you make, while quite verbose, simply do not make sense to me.

Probably because you yourself know every little about the federal government.
And what was the straw man?

There is a vast difference between 25 years of experience and one year of experience, 25 times. This is not a criticism of Gore, or anybody else. Just saying that being in the federal government does not automatically give a person good judgment.

Nobody said it does. But sure knowing the federal government in and out is a basic requirement -- among other things of course -- for the presincy. If you don't have it don't run. Period.
And actually Gore started to learn governance much earlier than 1977.
And it's simply stupid to meassure its value the way you do since no year is like another.

We've brought up this "competence" issue in several elections and gotten beaten.

Gore was not beaten precisely because Bush was perceived as not ready for the job.
And even if your theory was true all the time I still wouldn't vote for an incompetent. The stupid masses do not determine the standard that I set for my vote.
If you are incompetent you should not be president. Period.

What is needed in a candidate, or a President is leadership, the ability to formulate a vision and get other people to follow.

Blah blah blah.
Leadership and vision are useless over-repeated platitudes.
What do they mean? You can lead a bunch of sheep anywhere you want. Even to Iraq.
And you can have the vision of a neocon about good vs. evil and look like an idiot when it doesn't work out the way you envisioned.

Comes a Katrina and you can flush your "vision" and "leadership "down the toilet if you don't have a clue about how to manage the federal government and how to use its resources.

[Alcibiades]

45. A president needs to be able to deal with Congress

and many washington-outsiders cannot, so you are partly right. Both Clinton and Carter were absolutely hamstrung by members of their own party in Congress. Yet the best president from this prespective was Johnson, and he screwed up Vietnam, so even Washington neophytes don't have a monopoly on mistakes.

Ford was a Washington insider, and a mediocre president.

[drummo]

55. Dealing with Congress is just a part of a big pie.

Managing the executive branch is the big one for presidents.

For example Congress cannot do anything with presidential directives.
But the president can screw up big time with those directives.
Like Bush did with this one:

NSPD No. 1.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-1.htm

The existing system of Interagency Working Groups is abolished.
....
The Counter-Terrorism Security Group, Critical Infrastructure Coordination Group, Weapons of Mass Destruction Preparedness, Consequences Management and Protection Group, and the interagency working group on Enduring Constitutional Government are reconstituted as various forms of the NSC/PCC on Counter-Terrorism and National Preparedness.
....

This newbie made a PCC out of the CSG! After Clinton gave its chairman a cabinet-level position!
If you want to understand the consequences of this little paragraph in a totally unnoticed presidental directive ask Dick Clarke about it:

ROEMER: OK. With my 15 minutes, let's move into the Bush administration.

On January 25th, we've seen a memo that you've written to Dr. Rice urgently asking for a principals' review of Al Qaida. You include helping the Northern Alliance, covert aid, significant new '02 budget authority to help fight Al Qaida and a response to the USS Cole. You attach to this document both the Delenda Plan of 1998 and a strategy paper from December 2000.

Do you get a response to this urgent request for a principals meeting on these? And how does this affect your time frame for dealing with these important issues?

CLARKE: I did get a response, and the response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-Cabinet level committee, and not to the principals and that, therefore, it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals' meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting.

ROEMER: So does this slow the process down to go to the deputies rather than to the principals or a small group as you had previously done?

CLARKE: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies committee didn't meet urgently in January or February.

Then when the deputies committee did meet, it took the issue of Al Qaida as part of a cluster of policy issues, including nuclear proliferation in South Asia, democratization in Pakistan, how to treat the various problems, including narcotics and other problems in Afghanistan, and launched on a series of deputies meetings extending over several months to address Al Qaida in the context of all of those inter-related issues.

CLARKE: That process probably ended, I think in July of 2001. So we were ready for a principals meeting in July. But the principals calendar was full and then they went on vacation, many of them in August, so we couldn't meet in August, and therefore the principals met in September.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20349-2004Mar24.html

Little burocratic stuff, right? Gore -- a federal veteran -- would have kept Clarke in his cabinet because unlike Bush he understood what the CSG was doing, he understood how speedy -- or slow -- the policy making process was and understood Clarke's -- himself a federal veteran -- qualifications.

This had nothing to do with Congress. All of it happened inside the executive branch ordered by the chief executive himself.

This was the directive that kicked out the CSG chief from the cabinet.

Johnson screwed up Vietnam but that had nothing to do with management problems. It was a war waged in a place over which no US president could have had control. The very decision to start a war in Vietnam was a monumental blunder. But it was not a blunder because Johnson didn't understand Washington. It was a blunder because he didn't understand Vietnam.

As for Ford, it's hard to be effective when you are president just because your boss resigned before he would have been impeached.
Moreover Ford quickly faced a very agressive challenge from the neocons (Team B) who wanted to kill détente right after Nixon left. They saw it as an opening.
It went so far that during the 1976 campaign Ford ordered his people
to stop mentioning the word détente.
Of course Ford could have just stood up to Team B, but the problem was that they created a very effective PR campaign (Committee on the Present Danger) which fooled the Rep voters with all kind of red scare, as a result Ford almost lost the nomination to Reagan who was a big fan of Team B.

More about this here:
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=apr93cahn

But again, I don't know of any big management blunder on Ford's watch.

[Alcibiades]

73. Yes of course

Absolutely right about the presidential relations with the bureaucracy. I just wanted to point out that, in my opinion, it has been Congress that has been the stumbling block for democratic presidents, and that this has been particularly galling since it was Democrats in Congress who didn't sufficiently support Carter and Clinton, a choice which led to losses in Congress for our party in both cases.

You're right to point out that Bush royally screwed up in the managment of the national security apparatus. I didn't claim this had anything to do with Congress (though it does, if Congress is exercising its oversight functions credibly). Anyway, the moves you point to were the result of ideologically driven policy considerations trumping professionalism. I assume virtually any nominee we select would draw upon experts from the Clinton and Carter eras and academia and wouldn't make such mistakes.

As for Johnson and Ford, I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were talking about managment issues to the exclusion of policy. You seem to be mainly interested in the bureaucracy, whereas I'm more of a Congress guy.

[drummo]

89. Re:

Absolutely right about the presidential relations with the bureaucracy. I just wanted to point out that, in my opinion, it has been Congress that has been the stumbling block for democratic presidents, and that this has been particularly galling since it was Democrats in Congress who didn't sufficiently support Carter and Clinton, a choice which led to losses in Congress for our party in both cases.

That's very true. Which tells a lot about this so-called party.


though it does, if Congress is exercising its oversight functions credibly

Well, as I pointed out Congress has no control over presidential directives.


I assume virtually any nominee we select would draw upon experts from the Clinton and Carter eras and academia and wouldn't make such mistakes.

Hm. Why do you assume that?

You seem to be mainly interested in the bureaucracy, whereas I'm more of a Congress guy.

Not that Congress in not part of the federal bureaucracy.
The difference I wanted to highlight is that the majority of presidential activities happen inside the executive branch without interference from the Congress.

[Silverhair]

105. Senators RARELY win POTUS elections.

Lots of Senators get the itch to run, but they rarely win.

[Uncle Joe]

43. Bush was new blood in 2000. n/t

[SunDrop23]

3. I am not...he'd never get elected. eom

[we can do it]

10. Remember - He WON in 2000.......eom

[drummo]

19. He already was. The one who will never be elected is Hillary Clinton.

[jrthin]

4. I'm not. n/t

[SteppingRazor]

5. Can't say I'm disappointed...

Like some of the other posters, I'd like to see some new blood in the '08 race.

[mattclearing]

6. Personally, I'm not, but I think he would still make a great VP pick.

An inspired choice...arguably the best Vice President we've ever had...why not take advantage of him? And if something goes wrong, there's nobody I'd rather have waiting in the wings.

I just can't stand another campaign with him. Not worth the risks.

[drummo]

20. He was elected president. He would never accept anthing less than

that.

BTW it is not constitutionally possible.

[bee]

52. Gore cant be VP again. Term limits and all... n/t

[tritsofme]

65. The 22nd amendment makes no mention of the VP

I see no reason why he couldn't be VP again, but I see plenty of why he wouldn't want to.

[gasperc]

7. never say never

I'm not so sure

[shenmue]

8. Honestly...

I am looking forward to someone else being the nominee.

[Burning Water]

9. Not a bit.

Gore had his chance and came up short. Yes, the election may have been stolen. Yes, Gore won the popular vote. No, Gore isn't in the White House. That's the long and the short of it. He didn't do what needed to be done.

[drummo]

21. Bullshit. He did much more than you or anyone else could have done.

And he won.

If your car is stolen it's not your fault.

[SheilaT]

11. Not in the least.

And it is about 18 months too early to be concerned about who the nominee will be three plus years from now. First of all we should be doing everything possible to make sure the mid-term elections are actually free, fair, and honest, although I sincerely doubt that will be the case. Then, and only then we can start thinking about 2008.

[drummo]

22. No man! It is your fucking job not Gore's. Don't just lecture

others. Do something yourself.
Gore doesn't own anything to you or anyone else.
If you want your damn vote to be counted make sure yourself that it will be counted.

[HootieMcBoob]

12. not bummed at all

as much as I respect Gore we need new blood. I don't want Kerry or Clinton to run either for that matter.

[WA98296]

13. What did Gore do to clean up voting?

[drummo]

24. What did YOU do to clean up voting?

[ultraist]

14. Not bummed at all. Never thought he would run. n/t

[ikri]

15. Gore has the right media presence

He'll be important for any campaign even if he's not a candidate.

He can get on TV (Hey, want to interview the former VP about xxx's election chances?) and shout as much as he wants. He doesn't have to worry about pissing off potential voters, he doesn't have to cosy up to the middle ground.

He can go on TV and radio throughout an election and work as an attack dog for another candidate. Wes Clark and John Edwards can fill the same role assuming neither are running for president.

That's his strength, that's where he can do the most good.

**Edited for a stupid spelling mistake**

[drummo]

16. It's not sure at all that he will not run. It is just that NOW he

has no plans or expectations to run again.

But it's 2005, for goodness sake.

Noone will say now that I will run for prez.

It's way too early.

[foo_bar]

36. you're right

Gore says, "I have absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a candidate again. I don't completely rule out some future interest in politics, but I don't expect to have that."

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7000501228

He never said he wouldn't run, just that he's managing expectations.

[An Unabashed Atheist]

17. Not at all.

Not bummed at all.

Gore isn't a liberal. He's a populist. I dislike populists more than conservatives. Populists are all about big government, which I disdain.

[drummo]

25. Bullshit. Gore is not for big government. Have you ever heard about

REGO?

There are plenty of ways to reduce the size and cost of government.
And Gore knows about that as much as anyone. Certainly more than you do.

Just because someone wants to stop Enron before they can steal your money does not mean that they want to increase the federal workforce or increase government spending.

And Gore is as much of a deficit hawk as he is populist. One doesn't rule out the other. So what makes him pro-big government?
Not his record. Not his platform. Nothing.

[An Unabashed Atheist]

29. He's a big-government populist

Here are some of his big-government positions, according to OnTheIssues.org

Favors
Require companies to hire more women & minorities

Favors
Permit prayer in public schools

Strongly Favors
More federal funding for health coverage

Favors
Death Penalty

Strongly Opposes
Absolute right to gun ownership

Favors
More spending on armed forces

Strongly Favors
Seek UN approval for military action

Favors
Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it

Those positions, among others, spell out Big-Government-Populist

[drummo]

47. None of this supports your claim

Permit prayer in public schools

And tell me how many federal employees does it take to permit prayer in schools?
How much money does it cost?
And if you say that he wants to enforce laws againt drug use is big-government populism why don't you say that enforcing laws against school prayer would be big-government populism?
You can't have it both ways.

Require companies to hire more women & minorities

Again, how how many federal employees would that take?
How much money would that cost?

Favors Death Penalty

Yeah that's indeed a populist position, man.
So much that every Republican I can name favors it. I guess they, too, are populists.
In fact name one Dem pol, who is not a far-left liberal, who opposes the death penalty. According to your "logic" they too are big-government populists.
And the majority of Americans are big-government populist, too. Since they favor the death penalty. But then why are you living in a country where most people are "big-government populists"?


Absolute right to gun ownership

Just ask the voters in the South how populist that position is.
And "absolute right to gun ownership" would mean that every 5 years old and every criminal would have the right to own guns -- any kind of gun, including RPGs or anti-tank missiles.
If you like that why don't you go and live in Somalia?
That's the place for you.

More spending on armed forces

Now finally that's indeed makes the government bigger.
But how much is that "more" and why would less than that be a "non-populist" position? Should we pay for the military at all? If the answer is yes how much would you tolerate and why that much?
And again, most Reps favor more military speding. That will hardly make them "big-government populists".

Strongly Favors Seek UN approval for military action

That's total bullshit. The source doesn't know what he is talking about.
Gore supported many military actions during his 24 years without any push for UN approval. Did he want UN approval before the invasion of Grenada? Or the bombing of Lybia?
And again: since when is being pro-UN a popular position in the US? What does that have to do with populism?

Favors
Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it

Of course he wants to enforce those laws. By the same token you could say that Gore is a big-government populist because he favors enforcing laws against theft.
Most Americans do not want to make drug use legal. In your world they are all "big-government populists", I guess. But then again why are you living in the US?
And how many more law enforcement agents does Gore want the government employ to enforce those law? Unless you know that number you don't have a case. You cannot have big-government without big government workforce.

Those positions, among others, spell out Big-Government-Populist

And since you will never find a Democratic presidental candidate who
will not have these or very similar positions, or will not favor enforcing other laws you'll never find a Dem candidate whom will not be a "big-government populist" according to your absurd definition. But then what are you doing here on DemocraticUnderground?

BTW why is OnTheIssues.org a credible source at all? Certainly what they say about Gore and the UN has nothing to do with Gore's actual record, why should anyone believe them on other matters?

[An Unabashed Atheist]

66. My philosophy

I'm a libertarian. I vote Democratic, because I hate the Republican Party. However, I am committed in my small-government philosophy.

I think taxes and spending should both be halved.

I think US funds should be used EXCLUSIVELY to solve US problems, rather than wasted on foreign aid.

I think the government's duty is to protect me from you, you from me, and us (as a country) from foreign aggressors. Nothing else.

No public health system. No welfare. No subsidies. No corporate welfare. No "laws to protect you from yourself." No "laws that are for your own good."

The Democrat that best reflects my philosophy is Zoe Lofgren.

[NYCGirl]

74. You sound just like

Pat Buchanan.

[An Unabashed Atheist]

101. Only in a few respects

RE: Pat Buchanan

I don't think Pat and I are all that similar. I support gay marriage. I support unrestricted abortion. I oppose prayer in school. I am a hardcore atheist. On those counts, Pat and I are total opposites. He's an activist, Christian, morality-police style conservative. I'm a libertarian.

[drummo]

108. Do you oppose prayer in school? That's big government.

Otherwise who would enforce a ban on school prayer? You?

[An Unabashed Atheist]

110. School Prayer

Yes, I oppose school prayer. Just like I oppose the idea of high school students bringing Hustler magazine to science class.

Generally, I'm a First Amendment purist. However, the First Amendment is limited with respect to "public behavior." If you want to pray at home, that's your right. If you want to read Hustler magazine at home, that's also your right. But, you don't have anymore right to pray in public than to watch XXX-rated videos in public.

[drummo]

111. And who would enforce a ban on school prayer if not the government?

[An Unabashed Atheist]

115. Government

Don't get me wrong...I am not an anarchist. I think there are legitimate purposes for government. However, I think there are VERY FEW legitimate purposes for government. The government should not be involved in social welfare, public morality, health care or nanny-style parenting. The government should protect me from you, you from me, and us as a country from foreign aggressors. That's it. Apart from those basic purposes for government, people ought to be responsible for themselves.

[drummo]

91. This is not philosophy. This is an obsession with ideology.

I think taxes and spending should both be halved.

Why halved? How did you do that math?
And exactly which of these agencies should cut their spending?
Be precise. If you can't you are not credible.

Here's the list:
http://www.firstgov.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml

Do you even know how much they spend now? And why that much? Or what they are actually doing?
Do you know exactly how much less revenue would cutting all taxes by half produce?
Let me tell you it would require to cut spending by much more than just 50%.

I think US funds should be used EXCLUSIVELY to solve US problems, rather than wasted on foreign aid.

Aha. You think you are living in a vacuum.
Sorry the fact is that first and foremost you are living on a planet. And only then in a country.
And what happens, say in Afghanistan, can deeply affect what goes on here. Need explanation? Go to New York City.

I think the government's duty is to protect me from you, you from me, and us (as a country) from foreign aggressors.

One way to do that is to prevent you and me from obtaining a gun.
Otherwise you may shoot me and then I will not be protected from you.
But you are against any gun-control, as you demostrated in your previous post.

Even if Gore would be for big-government (which he is not, he actually cut the governemnt workforce and spending in the 90s) that has nothing to do with populism. You mixed these two utterly unrelated label into
one total nonsense: big-goverment populist.
Why don't you call him a Nazi communist? That would make just as much sense.

No "laws to protect you from yourself."

Sure, but it's the "government's duty is to protect me from you, you from me."
And they should do that without making any law.
What are your smoking, buddy?

No public health system. No welfare. No subsidies. No corporate welfare.

I often wish that people like you could test your "vision"
in the real world for,say, a month. That would give you a lesson for life.

The Democrat that best reflects my philosophy is Zoe Lofgren.

It's not a philosophy. It's an unworkable idiocy.

[An Unabashed Atheist]

99. Answers

"Why halved? How did you do that math?
And exactly which of these agencies should cut their spending?
Be precise. If you can't you are not credible.
Here's the list:
http://www.firstgov.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/i...
Do you even know how much they spend now? And why that much? Or what they are actually doing?
Do you know exactly how much less revenue would cutting all taxes by half produce?
Let me tell you it would require to cut spending by much more than just 50%."

First, I would abolish ALL foreign aid, both political and humanitarian.

Second, I would halve the US military budget.

Third, I would bring home all foreign-based troops and dismantle all foreign-based military bases.

Fourth, I would dismantle welfare.

Fifth, I would dismantle Medicare.

Those would be good places to start.

"Aha. You think you are living in a vacuum.
Sorry the fact is that first and foremost you are living on a planet. And only then in a country.
And what happens, say in Afghanistan, can deeply affect what goes on here. Need explanation? Go to New York City."

I live in New York City.

Some foreign events affect us; many don't.

The Rwandan genocide would not have affected the US. The Kosovo genocide would not have affected the US. The North Vietnam vs. South Vietnam conflict would not have affected the US. That's the test. If it affects the US, the US should get involved. If it does not affect the US, the US should not get involved. Each and every country ought to be responsible for itself.

"One way to do that is to prevent you and me from obtaining a gun.
Otherwise you may shoot me and then I will not be protected from you.
But you are against any gun-control, as you demostrated in your previous post."

Yes, I oppose gun control, except background checks, which I support.

However, your argument is fallacious. Outlawing alcohol also would serve the purpose of protecting me from you, and you from me. After all, alcohol directly contributes to impaired driving, brawls, domestic abuse, etc. When it comes to the debate between freedom and security, I always side with freedom.

Should there be laws to prevent people from shooting each other? Of course. But don't ban guns (including assault weapons). Gun control, with the exception of background checks, only serves to punish responsible and irresponsible gun users equally. I say the government should wait for somebody to be irresponsible with a gun before punishing that person.

"Sure, but it's the "government's duty is to protect me from you, you from me."
And they should do that without making any law.
What are your smoking, buddy?"

I don't get your point here.

Yes, the government should protect me from you, and you from me.

And no, the government should NOT protect me from me, nor you from you. In a free country, people have a RIGHT to make destructive and damaging choices with respect to themselves. So, if a person wants to visit a prostitute, or take drugs, or drive without a seatbelt, or eat to morbid obesity, the government should never interfere.

"I often wish that people like you could test your "vision"
in the real world for, say, a month. That would give you a lesson for life."

Some people are capable of being responsible for themselves. Some people aren't. It's always been that way. Government nanny-ism just disguises it.

RE: Pat Buchanan

I don't think Pat and I are all that similar. I support gay marriage. I support unrestricted abortion. I oppose prayer in school. I am a hardcore atheist. On those counts, Pat and I are total opposites.

He's a conservative. I'm a libertarian.

[napi21]

23. I'm not bummed at all. I think Gore is smart enough to know he

wouldn't win.

[drummo]

28. He already won even after almost everyone predicted a Bush landslide.

Don't misunderestimate him.

He is the biggest workhorse of politics and he won all of his campaign by simply working around the clock, visit even more places, meet with even more people, no sleep for days.

Noone expected him to win in 2000. How do you think he did it?

[napi21]

30. No matter how you feel about the SC ruling, or fraud...

it doesn't matter! The winner is the one who appears in the winners circle.

Now, before you smack me upside the head, I didn't think the SC should have gotten involved in the election process at all! My suggestion was "Recount the whole state of Florida!" But nobody seemed to want that, including Gore!

By fraud, criminal action,, or intimidation, the "declared winner" is in the WH, unfortunately.

[drummo]

50. The winner is the one who won the most votes both nationwide and in FL

If you don't get that you don't get democracy.

By your standard we shouldn't hold elections at all. After all even if you don't get enough votes you can be the winner. So why don't we just flip a coin? Yo can win or lose that "race", too.

My suggestion was "Recount the whole state of Florida!" But nobody seemed to want that, including Gore!

That's not true. Gore proposed full manual recount but Bush didn't want that. And the reality on the ground was that full manual recount of all 6 million ballots couldn't have happened without the agreement of both sides. And Bush -- and let's not forget the Republican controlled election machinery -- would have never agreed because they were afraid such a recount would show Gore really won.

Under Florida law you couldn't request a full-scale manual recount of all ballots in the protest-phase. You should have gone to each county and convince them individually that there was enough justification for a manual recount. The problem was however that in most counties there was no such justification at all because the number of rejected ballots was very low and did not indicate either fraud or some technical problem.

The other option would have been to wait until after the protest-phrase and then go to Sander-Sauls (himself a Republican thug) and ask for a complete manual count by proving that the certified result was wrong. But the problem with that was that without recounts Bush's margin would have been even bigger, K. Harris would have certified him as the winner by more than 1000 votes and after that for Gore it would have been impossible to challenge the result without looking like someone who wanted to steal Bush's victory.

Moreover keep in mind that under Florida law Sander-Sauls had the option to come up with "any remedy" including a full-scale manual count of all ballots, regardless of whether either side requested it specifically or not. But he failed to order that. Guess why?

Sander-Sauls was at a Rep party after Bush's "victory".
He had issues with the Florida SC, as well. He was not willing to take the case after the FSC ordered to count those 60,000 undervotes.
There is no way that this man would have given Gore a full manual count if he had requested it. There is no way that he would have given anything Gore wanted, for that matter. He wanted Bush to become president just like the Supreme 5.

Remember that this was not just a legal battle. For the Bush gang it was primarly a political battle, waged on the streets on the TV screens on the radio and the Internet. And the judges operated in that political environment. Noone -- not even a totally impartical judge -- would have been able to ignore the pressure coming from the Rep thugs.

Gore couldn't have possibly get a full-manual count in the prostest phase, not the least because many counties were controlled by Reps.
And remember the mess in Palm Beach, Miami Dade and Broward? Imagine a similar mess in 67 counties! Don't tell me they would have finished the count before K. Harris' deadline. Palm Beach and Miami Dade couldn't.
Volusia and Broward could. What would Duval or Hillsborough have done, which were controlled by Reps? Not to mention the other counties.

And there is no way that Gore could have gotten a full-scale manual count from Sanders-Saul. And since the Reps did everything they could to delay the process -- remember how their lawers had dozens of witnesses -- there was no way that the case would ended up in the FSC early enough to still have time for counting 6 million votes. Even finishing the count of those 60,000 before Dec 12 was problematic let alone 6 million.

It's not enough to say "I want a full-scale manual recount". You have
to be realistic and act according to the laws.

By fraud, criminal action,, or intimidation, the "declared winner" is in the WH, unfortunately.

That is the case but I was not talking about the winner of the presidency. I was talking about the winner of the election.
The two are not one and the same. Just like they are not one and the same in Zimbabwe and many other places where the loser of the election got the office. But that alone will not make then the winners. It will make them thieves, nothing more.

[Cocoa]

26. Gore running would have made it a harder decision

so it's kind of a disappointment, kind of a relief.

[calmblueocean]

27. Transcendentally bummed.

Gore is more qualified and more deserving of the office of president than any other human being on the planet. I read "Earth in the Balance" recently, and was astounded at how bold and prescient that book was. I remember when Gore said of Bush and his warmongering cronies:

"How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace! How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison!"

Show me another candidate with that kind of conviction that has enough experience to get himself elected. The loss of Gore as our president is a profound loss for this country. Simple as that.

[Supersedeas]

49. Yep...yep...yep

[bunny planet]

31. Very

I'm still holding out hope that he will run.

[sendero]

32. Seriously bummed..

.... since there are only 1 or maybe two Dem contenders who are as worthy as he.

[garybeck]

75. mee 2

[Jane Austin]

33. Not at all.

I really, really like Gore, but thanks to the media and his own persona, he just didn't click with the American people.

I think we have good, progressive people out there who can be effective and still click with more people.

[Larkspur]

35. Who are those "good progressive people that click with more people?"

[Jane Austin]

37. We shall see, as the months unwind.

For me, it's Clark, but we'll see if others emerge.

[Larkspur]

54. Clark isn't for me. The only other Dem besides Gore that I would support

for Prez in '08 is Feingold.

[drummo]

57. Clark could click with more people than Gore?

Sure, that's why he is president now, I guess.

[Jane Austin]

71. Don't forget your sarcasm emoticon!

n/t

[drummo]

85. It's not sarcasm. Clark was a big loser in 2004. He was a terrible

candidate.

[FrenchieCat]

112. That's your opinion.....

while mine is different.

Your opinion is not worth more than mine.....

Gore wasn't the best candidate I ever saw back in 2000. In fact, he was pretty terrible as well.

see my post here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2164619&mesg_id=2179984

[drummo]

56. He clicked with almost 51 million American people.

Actually that's just the certified result.
According to the MIT 4-6 million votes were thrown out in 2000.
Do the math.

That's more than Clinton ever got, more than Bush got in 2000.
Could Bush click with the American people?
Could Clinton click with American people? He would have lost to Bush in 2000 according to every poll -- except one in Oct,2000 and even that was within the margin of error. (44-41)

The facts do not back up your claim. You just repeat media spin.


I think we have good, progressive people out there who can be effective and still click with more people.

Even more? Kerry clicked with more people. So he won, right?
And Kerry didn't have Nader or Clinton's lies about his neck.

[Jane Austin]

68. However much they clicked with people, it wasn't enough.

n/t

[drummo]

86. It was enough. But if a car is stolen it is not the driver's fault.

[venable]

96. that's not necessarily true

[drummo]

98. Sure if the driver cooperates with the thief.

But Gore didn't cooperate with anyone who stole his victory.

[win_in_06]

38. I'm not convinced that he won't run

[Connie_Corleone]

41. Not bummed at all.

He barely won in 2000. I want someone new, not someone who barely won or who can't even win the popular vote (Kerry).

[drummo]

59. In this blue-red country you cannot get more than someone who

barely won. Unless something really dramatic happens.
Most in the South simply do not support the Dem agenda. That's it.

BTW 2000 was not that close at all.
Gore won 292 electoral votes (he won Florida he should have got those 25 e-votes) and he got more than 500,000 more votes than Bush.

That's a better margin than Kennedy-Nixon. But sure you wouldn't say Kennedy barely won therefore he shouldn't have run again.

[Totally Committed]

42. Personally, I don't think we've heard his last word...

I know what he's saying now. But, I just don't believe it's written in stone. Yet.

TC

[Uncle Joe]

44. I am not really bummed, I think Al will run or be drafted. n/t

[Alcibiades]

46. Not bummed at all

The fact that Gore lost his home state says something about the candidate. If we go with a southerner (which I think is a good idea) we should go with one who can at least carry some southern states!

That being said, the Bush record at this point is so spectacularly bad that we could run just about anybody. (OK, not true, there's plenty of folks who will never vote democratic no matter how bad the republican record is, but it should be true.)

[drummo]

62. What kind of homestate?

The fact that Gore lost his home state says something about the candidate.

1.No, it says something about Tennessee not Gore. It is an extermely fundy state. So much that Gore no longer goes to church there, it's so scary. It had a Rep governor and two Rep senators in 2000, just like Utah or Wyoming. Clinton's job approval number was just 50% -- well below the national average. He personal approval rating was a pathetic 34%.
Only 21% of voters identified themselves as liberal while 35% as conservative. That's almost as bad as Arizona and Kentucky and worse than Virginia.
No Dem would have won TN in 2000, especially not someone who was Clinton's veep.

2.What kind of homestate? Gore was born in D.C. He spent most of his childhood and teenage years in D.C. He spent most of his pre-veep adult years on D.C. and Virginia -- except when he was still a journalist for a few years in the early 70s, but who remembered that? He spent most of his veep years in D.C.
The last time he served the state was in 1993. Again, who remembered that? And TN in 1993 was not the TN in post-Monica 2000.
He was no longer the Senator from TN. He was Clinton's vice president.
That was a killer.

3.James Polk, another Tennessean, lost his homestate and became president. It told nothing about him as a candidate other than he could win without his homestate.

And if there hadn't been fraud in Florida Gore would have become president just like Polk.
And then you wouldn't have the opportunity now to say "the fact that Gore lost his home state says something about the candidate" because with a President Gore in the White House noone would take such an assertion seriously.

If we go with a southerner (which I think is a good idea) we should go with one who can at least carry some southern states!

Because of the culture war you will not find any pro-choice pro-science Dem who can carry his homestate in the South. Unless Bush and the Reps screw it up even more.
But John Edwards didn't help Kerry in North Carolina. Would you blame him for that?
Trust me: there is nothing to be done with the fundies. They are unpersuadable just like bin Laden.

[Alcibiades]

82. Let's not split hairs

Because I really don't have time.

1. If Tennessee is so freaky, why did Clinton carry it twice? Gore's father was a long-time Tennessee pol. Folks in the Volunteer State know where Gore is from. He should have won it. It's silly to argue no dem could win a state in 2000 that a dem won in 1992 and 1996. A Democrat also won the governorship in 2002.

2. Odd how being Clinton's Veep was fatal, given that Tennessee went for Clinton twice.

3. Students of presidential politics generally recognize that the political landscape of America is different today than it was in the 1840's. That being said, Polk barely won, so I don't consider this a real refutation.

Good point about the fraud in Florida, but the election should not have been as close as it was. With a better candidate, it wouldn't have been so close. As far as the counterfactual goes, well, yes, but a lot of things could prevent one from taking me seriously. That's OK, I'm not that hung up on it. This is America, everyone is entitled to an opinion, including the opinion that they are expert at politics. I have my delusions....

As for having the "opportunity" to say that the fact that Gore lost his home state says something about Al Gore, it's not an opportunity I relish, believe you me. Whatever the people of Tennessee think of him, we all agree the country would have been better off if he had won by a fraud-proof margin in 2000.

While I admit the southern bench is thin, there are some possibilities: Mike Easley of my own state of North Carolina, Brad Henry of Oklahoma, Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, to whom I've already alluded, and Mark Warner of Virginia. I don't think being "pro-science" is a prerequisite for the presidency, but all of the above support Roe, which is a prerequisite for the nomination of our party. And, of course, there's General Clark.

As far as Edwards goes, I have to agree with myself: the fact that he could not put North Carolina into the win column for Kerry does say something about him. I blame the top of the ticket--Kerry was too New england for us. In Edwards' defense, I think he was badly used by the Kerry campaign. They should have used him here more.

As far as the culture war and the fundamentalists goes, do you think that's all we got down here? Hold on a second while I hop off my sister so I can lern you sum about this here thing we call the "New South." Take North Carolina, one of the fastest growing states in the country. Our growth is coming not only from all the inbred babies my sister's been spewing all over the place, but also from people coming from out of state. The main state they have been coming from has been New York. Trust me when i tell you that when these folks from up north come here, the first thing they do is register Democratic. We also have a large African American population. 9 out of 10 or more of them vote Democratic. Then we got folks like me, what I call "Andy Griffith Democrats," people who ain't never voted Republikin, who's kinfolk ain't never voted Republikin, an whose younguns ain't never gonna vote Repulikin. Then you add up them alcoholics. Most folks don't know this, but we have a lot of drunks down here. We are not all evangelicals and don't all go to church, on account of the fact that some of our heads hurt so bad on Sunday mornings. Y'all add all them folks together, an then all y'all gots to do is send some dopey good ol boy down here like Clinton, and you'd be surprised at how well the Democrats can do in the South. I'm not talking about some fantasy where we sweep the south, but at least we can peel off a state or two.

[drummo]

90. Yes, let's just look at the hard facts.

If Tennessee is so freaky, why did Clinton carry it twice?

Clinton carried it in 1992 and in 1996. That was BEFORE Monica/impeachment. TN changed a lot in the 90s. So much that by 2000 they had a Rep governor and two Rep senators like Utah or Arizona.
Clinton's margin in 1996 was smaller than in 1992, even though he was running as an incumbent president. Since in 1992 Gore was perceived neither as a liberal nor as a liar and he was still a popular Senator (he won re-election by a landslide, winning all counties for the first time in the 20th century) he helped Clinton.

But Clinton got fewer votes in 1996 than he got in 1992 and he increased his share only by 0,92% while the Rep candidate increased it by 3,16%.
The trend continued. In 2000 Gore actually got more votes than Clinton either in 1992 or 1996 and got bigger share of the vote than Clinton in 1992 but his share went down compared to Clinton-1996 while the Rep increase was 5,56%.
In 2004 the gap was even wider between Kerry and Bush: Bush increased his vote share by 5,65% while the Dem share decreased by 4,75%.

1992
William Clinton 933,521 47.08%
George Bush 841,300 42.43%
H. Ross Perot 199,968 10.09%

1996
William Clinton 909,146 48.00%
Robert Dole 863,530 45.59%
H. Ross Perot 105,918 5.59%

2000
George W. Bush 1,061,949 51.15%
Albert Gore Jr. 981,720 47.28%

2004
George W. Bush 1,384,375 56.80%
John Kerry 1,036,477 42.53%

Look at these maps which show the clear shift to the right between 1992 and 2004:
(the blue is Rep color on these pictures)

1992
http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/img.php?year=1992&st=TN&type=map

1996
http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/img.php?year=1996&st=TN&type=map

2000
http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/img.php?year=2000&st=TN&type=map

2004
http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/img.php?year=2004&st=TN&type=map


So trust me TN is freaky. This much:

We passed the Southern Baptist Convention building. Earlier in the day, Gore had made a point of telling me that he and Clinton used to pray together in the White House. I asked him which church in Nashville he and Tipper attended now.
There was a pause in the front seat.
“We’re ecumenical now,” Gore said, finally.
Tipper said with a laugh, “I think I follow Baba Ram Dass.”
“The influx of fundamentalist preachers have pretty much chased us out with their right-wing politics,” Gore added.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040913fa_fact

Need more evidence?

Gore's father was a long-time Tennessee pol.

OMG, when was that? The last time he was a Senator was in 1970!
And why did he lose? Because he was perceived as too liberal: pro-civil rights, anti-war and an elitist. Sounds familiar?

Odd how being Clinton's Veep was fatal, given that Tennessee went for Clinton twice.

But not in 2000. Look at Clinton's numbers in TN in 2000. Look at the data don't just speculate.

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Clinton is handling the Presidency?
50% Approve (well below the national average which was above 60%)
47% Disapprove

Is your opinion of Bill Clinton as a person:
34% Favorable
62% Unfavorable

Approval of Clinton job/ Opinion of Clinton as a person (combined)
33% Approve/favorable
16% Approve/unfavorable
1% Disapprove/favorable
45% Disapprove/unfavorable

http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.asp?office=P&state=tn

Students of presidential politics generally recognize that the political landscape of America is different today than it was in the 1840's. That being said, Polk barely won, so I don't consider this a real refutation.

I just said that just because someone loses his homestate does not mean he can't be president.
And Gore "barely" won, too. If he had been lucky enough (for example no butterfly) he would be in the White House today and you wouldn't make this entire homestate argument because it would look ridiculous with a President Gore in place.

Good point about the fraud in Florida, but the election should not have been as close as it was.

1.It wasn't that close at all. Gore defeated Bush by a wider margin than Kennedy defeated Nixon. Noone said Kennedy was a loser just because he barely won.
And Gore should have won 292 electoral votes, because he won Florida. That's not that close at all.

2.What makes you think that it should have been a bigger victory?
Clinton himself was losing to Bush in the 2000 hypothetical polls. And he was an incumbent president no the JUST vice president like Gore.

With a better candidate, it wouldn't have been so close.

Show me another candidate who would have been able to erase 20 point deficit as Gore did. Not even Bush Sr was that much behind Dukakis when he started to campaign. Clinton was not that much behind Bush Sr, either.
You misunderestimate him just because he is not in the White House -- which is due to fraud not to Gore's campaign.
Gore is one of the best campaigners you can find because he does it with more dedication than anyone else -- including Clinton. Before election day he didn't sleep for 4 days. That's not something every candidate could do or would be willing to do.
Gore's above average competitiveness and energy is the only reason why he won his first race in 1976 and that's why he won in 2000, too.
Just like in 2000 in 1976 he started way behind in the polls. But he came back from death and won a close election. Same as in 2000.
He believes with hard work you can achieve anything. But of course hard work cannot neutralize fraud and a dishonest Supreme Court.

As far as the counterfactual goes, well, yes, but a lot of things could prevent one from taking me seriously. That's OK, I'm not that hung up on it. This is America, everyone is entitled to an opinion, including the opinion that they are expert at politics. I have my delusions....

The question is not whether someone takes your comment about Gore and TN seriously today but whether you would make this argument at all if Gore was in the White House.
And I'm sure you wouldn't because what would be your point?
Would you say: OK, Gore is President but that he lost TN says something about him as a candidate.
It wouldn't make any sense.

As for having the "opportunity" to say that the fact that Gore lost his home state says something about Al Gore, it's not an opportunity I relish, believe you me. Whatever the people of Tennessee think of him, we all agree the country would have been better off if he had won by a fraud-proof margin in 2000.

I meant that if Gore was president today noone would care about TN. He would be the winner and that's it. And it's very unlikely that you would be here or anywhere else claiming that "he lost his homestate and that tells something about him". Such assertions only have weight because he is not in the White House.

While I admit the southern bench is thin, there are some possibilities: Mike Easley of my own state of North Carolina, Brad Henry of Oklahoma, Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, to whom I've already alluded, and Mark Warner of Virginia.

Neither of these guys ran for president in 2000 as the veeps of an impeached president.
There is a big difference between presidential politics and local politics. And none of these guys are perceived in their state as liberals.

I don't think being "pro-science" is a prerequisite for the presidency

I do think it is. Science is what has brought mankind forward and that's why conservatives hate it so much. They think it's some kind of elitist thing. And the stupid rednecks buy that. You can't have advances in the US without a government which supports science.

but all of the above support Roe, which is a prerequisite for the nomination of our party.

Abortion policy is not just about Roe.

And, of course, there's General Clark.

What about him? He was a big loser in 2004. And he supported the war resolution. Then he flip-flopped and said I would have voted against it. He can't have it both ways.

As far as Edwards goes, I have to agree with myself: the fact that he could not put North Carolina into the win column for Kerry does say something about him.

No it says something about the voters in NC. They are conservative assholes, to put it simply.
They could not support someone who was a liberal in their view. Simple as that.

I blame the top of the ticket--Kerry was too New england for us.

For that blame those in the state not Kerry. WTF does that "Kerry was too New england for us" mean after all? Only an idiot thinks that way when he decides who should be president.

In Edwards' defense, I think he was badly used by the Kerry campaign. They should have used him here more.

Sure. The margin was too big, all right? It wasn't even close. NC didn't care about Edwards because he was a Dem and perceived as too liberal. That's it.
He barely won his Senate race, anyway.

There was almost no difference at all between 2000 and 2004.
And Joementum was hardly from NC.

Bush 1,631,163 56.03%
Gore 1,257,692 43.20%

Bush 1,961,166 56.02%
Kerry 1,525,849 43.58%


As far as the culture war and the fundamentalists goes, do you think that's all we got down here?

In 2000 and 2004, yes. Whether the situation is different now, with all the Bush screw-ups is irrelevant.
The South went crazy after the whole impeachment bruhaha.
Clinton had a 34% favorable rating in Arkansas in 2000.
Now I guess that tells something about Clinton, right?

Hold on a second while I hop off my sister so I can lern you sum about this here thing we call the "New South." Take North Carolina, one of the fastest growing states in the country. Our growth is coming not only from all the inbred babies my sister's been spewing all over the place, but also from people coming from out of state. The main state they have been coming from has been New York. Trust me when i tell you that when these folks from up north come here, the first thing they do is register Democratic.

That maybe the case, in fact I heard similar stories about Virginia but again it's irrelevant when you are talking about Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004. It's 2005.

Trust me when i tell you that when these folks from up north come here, the first thing they do is register Democratic. We also have a large African American population. 9 out of 10 or more of them vote Democratic. Then we got folks like me, what I call "Andy Griffith Democrats," people who ain't never voted Republikin, who's kinfolk ain't never voted Republikin, an whose younguns ain't never gonna vote Repulikin. Then you add up them alcoholics. Most folks don't know this, but we have a lot of drunks down here.

Fine, but what matters is how many people are there who would be willing to vote for a Dem prez candidate. You don't know, I don't know. We'll see in 2008.

Y'all add all them folks together, an then all y'all gots to do is send some dopey good ol boy down here like Clinton

Sure. Clinton won NC. Twice. Wait....
You argued that I should judge TN in 2000 based on what happened in 1996 and 1992.
Now you argue that I shouldn't judge NC now based on what happened in 1996 and 1992.
Which one is the valid argument?

and you'd be surprised at how well the Democrats can do in the South.

No I will not be surprised.
But you are fooling yourself if you think Clinton was popular in the South in 2000.
He was not. Look at his poll numbers.

I'm not talking about some fantasy where we sweep the south, but at least we can peel off a state or two.

Sure. Florida (Gore in 2000) and maybe Ohio.
But not TN -- unless something dramatic happens. With the Frist investigation maybe there are waking up. But don't hold your breath.

As for the whole homestate argument:

Was it important that Al Gore is from Tennessee when you voted?
19% Very important
12% Somewhat
15% Not too important
52% Not at all

This to me tells something about the voters in TN not about Gore.
First and foremost that they are ungrateful fundamentalist bastards.
They voted for someone who never did anything for them.
They are just disgusting people. End of story.

[Thrasybulus]

116. Gore lost his homestate but....

he carried his home NATION.

[wiggs]

48. Disappointed

In the run up to the election and recently as well, he has clearly, eloquently, and consistently framed this corrupt, incomptent administration in a way that most other dem leaders have not.

His capability and thoughtfulness would be the perfect counterpart to the incompetence and disdain for thinking that we've had since 2000.

[electron_blue]

51. I don't think you can say for sure who's *not* running in '08

Don't waste energy being depressed over this. Everything's posturing at this point.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Adelante]

60. Not at all bummed

If it turns out to be the case.

[drummo]

63. Because then Clark can lose big. Again.

[Adelante]

70. You can't take it, Dummo

When somebody thinks differently than you do. You just can't take it. Boring.

[drummo]

84. I certainly can take that Clark was a loser in 2004.

It seems to me that you don't like to hear that therefore you can't take it.

[Jacobin]

61. about this much (__)

[Zen Democrat]

69. I think Gore WILL run if he has the support.

I don't think Al wants to fight out a primary battle. But if he were a consensus choice, he'd be ready and willing.

[cwydro]

72. I do agree

he would have made a good president, environmentally speaking, but he blew it by disowning Clinton and I just can't forget that. Billy boy wasn't perfect, but he could run today and win by a landslide.

[garybeck]

77. he did what he thought was right. sometimes people learn from

mistakes.

distancing from Clinton had its valid reasons. even those of us who recognize that lewnisky affair was a personal matter and did not warrant the investigation and all, most of us agree it was a lapse in judgment. I think that was the main reason for distancing. I think the media frenzy on Clinton had taken its toll and people had had it with him at the time. Gore wanted to be new and different, not just Clinton's little boy. And he would have been different. Very different from Clinton. He was not allowed to be president, in my mind, because of his environmental views and how they would have threatened the big corporations. it would have been a nightmare for them. remember the carbon tax he proposed?

personally I think if he runs again, it will be VERY different than his last campaign. I hope it happens.

[drummo]

92. You wouldn't talk about mistakes if Gore was in the WH

And he is not in the WH because of fraud in FL. Never forget that.

There's no campaign on earth which can prevent fraud. Especially now
when the country is full of totally unaccountable touchscreen machines.

[drummo]

87. Today, maybe. But not in 2000. Clinton was losing to Bush in 2000 polls

[0007]

76. Not at all!

[YoungDemocrat]

78. Not Bummed

Gore was a candidate who ran when I was 11, a time in which I wasn't as cognizant of politics. I think that I can safely say, however, that him running again would not give the Democrats the decisive victory we need.

[drummo]

93. Haha. Noone will give you a decisive victory. There is the South you know

[robbedvoter]

79. I was bummed when he dropped from the 2004 race. Now it's moot.

he made the issue of election stealing moot, an kerry helped BFEE to pretend it never happened.

[drummo]

94. Gore was fighting for 36 days! Alone. Did you help him?

Did you go to his house to counter those Rep thugs with their
"Get out of Dick Cheney" slogan?
Did you got to Texas to drive Bush crazy in front of his house?
What did you do?

[Clarkie1]

80. I like Gore, but I'm not bummed at all. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

81. I will survive!

[GetTheRightVote]

83. I am bummed as well, I would really, really like to see Gore run

and take is rightful place at the White House.

:kick:

[Generic Guy]

95. I am bummed...

that he is not ineligible to run in 08. If bush hadn't of gotten away with stealing the 2000 election then perhaps John Kerry would be making his first bid for the white house in 08.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

97. Who says he isn't?

Interested politicians are traditionally cautious about entering the race at this stage, since they'd attract too much flack. I wouldn't be at all surprised if does step up and run when push comes to shove. He'd be a great candidate.

[otohara]

100. I'm Crossing My Fingers

hoping he'll change his mind

[drummo]

102. Actually it wouldn't be a change since he didn't say he will not run.

He just said he has no plans or expectations now. But noone will say now that he is running for president. Not even Hillary. In fact Hillary said that she does not intend to run for president. Means nothing. It is just 2005.

[williesgirl]

103. Not at all. We need new blood w/winning attitude. n/t

[drummo]

106. You had "new blood" in 2004. Worked well, right? And noone has a

more competitive attitude than Gore. Whatever he does he goes for winning.

[Silverhair]

104. Not at all. Clark is far and away our best chance.

And the nation's best chance too.

[drummo]

107. And Clark was our best chance in 2004, too. Haha. Except that he was a

horrible candidate not the least because he just couldn't make up his mind about the IWR.
That is inexusable if you want to be president. It's serious business and someone who first says "I probably would have voted for it" then he says "I would have vote on on the resolution" does not inspire confidence.

[FrenchieCat]

113. Clark was a wonderful candidate, as far as I am concerned....

because you see, Drummo, your opinions are not "better" than mine.

What about Al Gore and Foreign policy? What about Rwanda? Did he ever decide about that one.....cause according to his statements, he seem to have a lot of excuses. Those 800,000 black people were Serious Business as far as I'm concerned.

You see, I wouldn't normally even bring this up....but Drummo, you've worked my last nerve with your Nonsensical Clark bashing posts. I don't normally bash good Democrats. Neither men are running....but OK, I'll mimic you from this point on!

Here is Al Gore making up excuses as to why the US let Rwanda happen....

FLIP

We did actually send troops into Rwanda to help with the humanitarian relief measures. I think in retrospect, we were too late getting in there. We could have saved more lives if we had acted earlier. But I do not think that it was an example of a conflict where we should have put our troops in to try to separate the parties for this reason. One of the criteria that I think is important in deciding when and if we should ever get involved around the world is whether or not we can really make the difference with military force, if we have allies. In the Balkans we had allies, NATO, ready, willing and able to go and carry a big part of the burden. In Africa we did not. I think it was the right thing not to jump in, as heartbreaking as it was. But I think we should have come in much quicker with the humanitarian mission.
Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000

FLOP

Like it or not, we are now...the United States is now the natural leader of the world. All of the other countries are looking to us. Now just because we cannot be involved everywhere, and shouldn't be, doesn't mean that we should shy away from going in anywhere. And we have a fundamental choice to make. Are we going to step up to the plate as a nation, the way we did after World War II, the way that generation of heroes said, okay, the United States is going to be the leader -- and the world benefited tremendously from the courage that they showed in those post-war years.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec00/for-policy_10-12.html

And read this....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/rwanda/story/0,14451,1183889,00.html

and this....

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/books/2000/0012.confessore.html
"I think in retrospect we were too late getting in there," the vice president replied, as if the Clinton administration had merely overslept. And, in any case, the U.S. should only intervene when "we tried everything else," explained the man whose administration had tried nothing. Only "if we can really make the difference with military forces," Gore said, even though the U.N. commander in Rwanda had informed the Security Council early on that he could quickly halt the genocide with a mere 2,500 well-equipped troops. The U.S. must "have allies," Gore said, "willing and able to go and carry a big part of the burden." This from the vice president whose Pentagon chiefs proposed--after Ghana volunteered soldiers for a Rwandan intervention force--to lease the U.N. four dozen near-obsolete armored personnel carriers for $4 million plus $6 million shipping and handling.

The massacre of thousands of Tutsis at the hands of Rwanda's Hutu majority in April 1994 is a topic that has already provoked countless articles, hundreds of reports and studies, and some 50 books; it is one of the most meticulously documented genocides in history. That Al Gore can nevertheless stand before a national television audience and mouth such platitudes may explain why Linda Melvern has written A People Betrayed: The Role of the West in Rwanda's Genocide. Melvern, a British investigative journalist with a talent for legwork, has devoted herself to the genocide's considerable international dimension. And the result--a wide-ranging account of the actions and inactions of shady arms dealers, inept bureaucrats, and cowardly politicians--still shocks six years after the fact.

[phylla]

117. FrenchieCat- If I ever run for office, I want to hire you!

Are you attending the WesPAC event nov 15th?

[FrenchieCat]

118. Nope.....

Can't. Leaving for Boston on Thursday, and that's too close to taking another trip a week later. Considering I'm in the Bay Area, it's just too far for it!

Too bad, cause I would have loved to attend. :(

Maybe the summer gathering in Arkansas.....I might be able to make that this time. :hi:

[phylla]

123. Well Pooh, I wanted to meet the woman behind the myth :-)

I am constantly astounded by your AMAZING command of the facts and your ability to be everywhere on the web seemingly at once. :-)
And I share your devotion to General Clark.
Sorry you won't be able to come to DC.

[Pathwalker]

109. Completely.

:cry:

[LittleClarkie]

119. I like Gore the loose cannon, and I'm kinda glad I won't be losing that

And I hope for the sake of the Dem Party you don't get your number two choice. He's kinda busy, and I'd like him to remain so.

[politicasista]

120. I like Gore, but I am not bummed.

He is probably reminding us to focus on 2006 and worry about 2008 later.

[Q]

121. I don't blame Gore for not running...

...because the Democratic leadership treated him like shit before, during and after the 2000 election.

I remember that even some DUers were saying that Gore was 'owed nothing' and didn't deserve another chance...though the it was clear that 2000 was actually a coup carried out by the Neocons & Neodems with help from the corporation media and SC.

Gore has been exiled by the 'party bosses' because he is one of the few remaining Democrats that won't give the party away to corporations.

[Apollo11]

122. Never say never again ...

We are still 3 years out from the next Presidential election. It is way too early for potential Presidential candidates to publicly declare their intentions. There are all kinds of tactical and strategic reasons why it makes sense for Gore to wait at least another 12 months until after the 2006 elections, before making a decision on whether to seek the nomination for 2008.

In the meantime, the only smart answer for Gore to give is exactly what he is saying. I have no intention to run, I have no plans to run for President. But intentions can change from one day to the next. They can definitely change over the course of 12 to 18 months.

So don't believe the hype. Gore is keeping his cards close to his chest. If he perceives that people are hungry him to run, then he will have to seriously consider entering the race for 2008.

Personally - I am hungry for Gore to be the democratic nominee in 2008. In the meantime - I am looking to Democrats in congress and at state level to do something about delivering clean and fair elections in America. When we have clean elections - then we can put Gore where he belongs - in the White House!

In Gore We Trust
http://www.algore-08.com
http://algore2008.net
http://www.petitiononline.com/AG2008/petition.html
:)

[peacetalksforall]

124. He's my number 1 choise - smart about the issues. Charismatic. Clean

history - no BFEE affiliations?