Al Gore is the only candidate the Democratic Party can run in

[rzemanfl]

2008 who has already won the popular vote a Presidential Election (even though the election was rigged). The party would be nuts not to draft him. That's my two cents.

[mikelgb]

1. Joe Lieberman is the only VP the Democratic Party can run in

2008 who has already won the popular vote on a Presidential Ticket. "The Party" would be bat-shit-crazy not to beg him to join the ticket. That's my stupid sarcastic point.

[BobRossi]

5. Bada Bing!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

6. Of Course Under a Gore Administration

........the President would actually be the President and he would not defer the position to the Vice President.... a point you seem to miss.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

8. Here's Another Point You Missed

Under a Gore administration, he would have surrounded himself with people who do not necessarily think like himself enabling him to hear all voices before making a decision.

[still_one]

9. Gore is NOT the same person he was in 2000 /nt

[blm]

11. Yes - but Gore has since joined the open government wing of the Democratic party

and we're damn glad he did - he'll get even MORE votes this time by dropping the baggage that is the secrecy and privilege wing of the party.

[ClassWarfare2008]

13. Joe Lieberman is no longer eligible for nomination

As he is no longer a member of the Democratic party.

[rzemanfl]

15. Yeah, bada bing. n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

2. America is About Redemption - REELECT AL GORE

Never forget, we would NOT be in this war, economy, or situation if one person the Supreme Court did not elect W.

Restore America.

I used to support Hillary, then Obama, but increasingly I believe it's Al Gore's time. I truly think America wants him to win.....again.

[Kurovski]

3. Amen, brother.

[nevergiveup]

4. Cool,

but first he has to be amenable to a draft. I do not see any indications that he wants to give up the "good life" for another brutal presidential campaign and who could blame him.

[rzemanfl]

19. Why campaign? Just run with the slogan "There is no excuse for

what the Republicans have done to our country" and stay home, he'd still win.

[xultar]

7. Even though he isn't for impeachment?

[Uncle Joe]

10. I support impeachment, however

I have no reservations about putting Al Gore in the White House where he belongs.

[rzemanfl]

14. His position vis-a-vis impeachment is unique in that he and

John Kerry are the only people who beat Bush. He would look vindictive if he backed impeachment. I, on the other hand, can support impeachment simply because I fucking hate the shrub with every fiber of my being.

[earthlover]

16. so i guess impeachment is going to be an issue that turns democrats

against fellow democrats? Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on defeating Republicans in 08? Impeachment is not going to happen. Next non-issue?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

21. BARF ---- Ok VOMIT

:nuke: :spank: :crazy: :puke: :mad: :nuke: :spank: :crazy: :puke: :mad: :nuke: :spank: :crazy: :puke: :mad: :nuke: :spank: :crazy: :puke: :mad: :nuke: :spank: :crazy: :puke: :mad:

The notion that everyone in a political party must agree on something to be part of that party is *RIDICULOUS*.

Since when should we restrict our goals and ambitions to whether or not someone thinks it's possible.

I always thought the great think about being a Democrat is our imagination.

We imagine we will end poverty.
We imagine we will end unemployment.
We imagine we will end wars.
We imagine we will end discrimination.

Anyone who says we should restrict what we do based on our ability to do it is lacking ..........IMAGINATION and imagination makes all things possible.

[earthlover]

23. way to illustrate my point

[fightthegoodfightnow]

26. Impeach Bush/Cheney

That you have no principles worth standing for unless they meet with the approval of everyone?
That you are unwilling to do the right thing when the time comes?
That you will not stand up and fight for the US Constitution when it is violated?

Right. Got it. I proved your point indeed. Here's my point:

Impeach Bush/Cheney Now

[earthlover]

29. Further illustration that you seem determined to attack Democrats and be a source of division

How dare you imply I have no principles!

How dare you imply I need the approval of everyone! I sure as hell don't need your approval.

As to doing the right thing when the time comes, I have done that lots of times and will do it again.

Well, my point is take control of the government in 08. Dem pres, real control of Congress, and stop the erosion of the supreme court into oblivion. 08 is crucial for the democratic party, it is crucial for our constitution, our supreme court, it is crucial for preventing us getting into future insane wars, it is crucial for the environment, the economy, for any action for health care and a whole host of other reasons.

Impeachment is a huge distraction from all of these goals. For one, it ain't gonna happen. You can huff and puff impeach now, but it is the House of Representatives, not DU, that is in charge of impeachment. And as for conviction in the Senate, what Republicans are going to vote for it get it to convict?

It took two years with Nixon to get the investigation to the point where impeachment was imminent and he resigned. We don't have 2 years left in Bush's term. Furthermore, unless there is a smoking gun that the American public can understand as in Watergate, the likelihood is for the public to view an impeachment attempt as just a political power grab.

Need I remind you that when the Reps impeached Clinton, without a clear smoking gun the people could identify with, Clinton's approval ratings actually went UP 10 points, and the DISAPPROVAL for Republicans went UP 10 points too. We cannot afford such a backlash.
It would kill us in 08, and make for Republican rule all over again. So what is accomplished by that?

I hear folks talk impeachment as if it is a simple thing. But what would be the first article of impeachment? What is the smoking gun issue that you think the American people would support removing Bush AND Cheney for?

I think impeachment may be the last best hope for electing a Republican president and Congress in 08. I would predict that considerable effort will be made by the Reps to encourage Dems to divide ourselves over impeachment, to fight among ourselves, and to make it look like Dems who don't favor impeachment are not good Dems. Then, of course, they hope that Dems will bolt their party to join with the Republican's best buddy, Ralph Nader, another lost cause even more hopeless than impeachment.

It is not all or nothing. We don't have to play the impeachment card yet. We can investigate and give the administration fits. And we can focus our efforts into kicking the Reps out of office. This is the quicker task and the more certain one....unless we blow an almost sure thing by doing something politically suicidal like impeachment.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

31. Different Values

You write: "We don't have to play the impeachment card yet."

To you, impeachment is a card to be played.

To me, it's recourse for when the Constitution has been violated.

You write: 'Need I remind you that when the Reps impeached Clinton, without a clear smoking gun the people could identify with, Clinton's approval ratings actually went UP 10 points, and the DISAPPROVAL for Republicans went UP 10 points too. We cannot afford such a backlash."

REALITY CHECK: Clinton's approval went up because he did not violate the Constitution like Bush/Cheney. Most people can distinguish between lying about a consensual BJ and lying about 'weapons of mass destruction' that cost us hundreds of billions and thousands of lives.

I loathe people who actually argue that we should not procede with impeachment because we don't have the votes. You want to characterize defending the Constitution as 'political suicide', knock yourself out. I have different values.

[earthlover]

32. You still have not told me what the first article of impeachement should be

It is not enough to just say Bush and Cheney do not support the Constitution. That'll get you nods when you are preaching to the choir. What is the "smoking gun" issue that the American people will see as worthy of kicking them both out of office?

Those who wanted to impeach Clinton were equally enthusiastic as you are. And they also believed Clinton violated the Constitution and that he perjured himself before Congress, yadayada. The American people didn't like what Clinton did but they did not see it as grounds for removal. So it backlashed.

What bothers me is not that you favor impeachment. What bothers me is your attitude that you "loath" those who do not agree for whatever reason. What you are doing is trying to divide Democrats between the good guys who support impeachemnt and the enemies who don't.

The Republicans will benefit from such a "divide and conquer" approach. They gotta be loving it! We are doing their dividing for them!

So if you are in favor of impeachment, make your case. But it isn't helping the Democrats to loathe them.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

33. The Committee will Let You & the American People Know

After there are hearings and an investigation on articles of impeachment, you and I will both learn what the first article of impeachment will be. I'm betting it's not about lying about consensual sex.

You write: 'What you are doing is trying to divide Democrats between the good guys who support impeachemnt and the enemies who don't. "

What a crock of sh*t. Trying to divide the party? Of course you think >>I<<< am 'trying' to divide the Democratic party', when it never dawned on you that with your disagreeing with me, it might be you who is dividing the Democratic party. I do >>>NOT<<< think you are, but that's where your ridiculous logic takes someone.

if you want to blindly follow your party leader and provide him/her with 'yessum master' advice, I suggest you consider joining the GOP whose leader has surrounded himself with people who think just like him.

---------
edited for added end quote and typo

[earthlover]

34. So you can't tell me what you think should be even the first article of impeachment?

Not too convincing! And it won't be to the American people if you just say we gotta impeach and we will find out later from the Congress why.

Yes you are divisive. Not because you favor impeachment, but because you, your words, "loath" Democrats who disagree with you.

What could illustrate trying to divide the Democratic Party than your invitation for some of us to join the Republican Party?

It might be a little more helpful to your cause to start with telling us what you think the article(s) of impeachment should be and telling us why. Instead of getting mad at us fellow Democrats who don't share your beliefs.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

35. Still Not Reading Minds or Agreeing with Yours

You write: 'Yes you are divisive. Not because you favor impeachment, but because you, your words, "loath" Democrats who disagree with you."

Not convincing. Characterizing anyone who disagrees with you as divisive is well.... silly.

You write: 'What could illustrate trying to divide the Democratic Party than your invitation for some of us to join the Republican Party?'

Missing the point again. I suggested that if you wanted everyone to think like you, you consider joining the party where that type of thinking is celebrated.

You write: 'It might be a little more helpful to your cause to start with telling us what you think the article(s) of impeachment should be and telling us why. Instead of getting mad at us fellow Democrats who don't share your beliefs."

You've judged and dismissed the impeachment hearings before they have even begun. It doesn't surprise me that you berate me for not knowing what the committee will write as the first article of impeachment.

----
edited to take out a word.

[earthlover]

36. You still have not presented a reason the committee should even meet!

Let me remind you that the Constitution says impeachment is for treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors. Anne Coulter of course wrote a book saying that these words should be interpreted loosely and Clinton impeached. That backlashed.

You think Congress should impeach Bush and Cheney, and that a committee should draw up articles of impeachment. Yet you cannot tell me even what in your opinion what Bush and Cheney have done that should be the subject of articles of impeachment. Nobody is going to be convinced that we are not just making a political power play unless some sort of clear "smoking gun" is presented, one that the American public can understand and see is worthy of removing someone from office for. Missing something clear like that, impeaching will just lead to a backlash. Just like it did for the Coulter followers, as strongly as they believed in their cause.

To my knowledge, the only Dem candidate who supports impeachment is Kucinich. The rest of the candidates and unannounced potential candidates such as Gore do not favor impeachement. So I guess you "loathe" them too?

The logical extension of this divisive issue is for lots of eager-beaver impeachment folks bolting the Democratic Party to vote for Nader because none of the Dem candidates are true enough to the impeachment cause....and perhaps we will not make gains in Congress and take back the Presidency in 08. So, I guess the new Republican Congress and President will support the constitution the way you think it should be supported?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

38. Smoking Gun? Read a Paper

You don't want to look for a 'smoking gun' because you don't think it's worth looking for. You're beyond hope if you do think this administration has not engaged in any wrong doing. But heh, you keep living in LaLa land. I completely support your right to call yourself a 'Democrat.' God knows this party is big enough for all types.

You write: 'The logical extension of this divisive issue is for lots of eager-beaver impeachment folks bolting the Democratic Party to vote for Nader because none of the Dem candidates are true enough to the impeachment cause...."

Look, I disagree, but if you are really that scared of that happening, then perhaps you should start listening to some of us who think there is merit for impeachment.

[earthlover]

39. Well, then why is it so hard for you to tell me what the first article of impeachment should be?

I would not shed a tear if Bush and Cheney were not only impeached but dragged off to jail.

My point is that impeachment, absent a smoking gun issue THAT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC can understand as worthy of removal of office, could easily backfire and give us four more years of Republican rule. THAT, to me, is an unacceptable risk.

Most of the American public do not follow the Bush administration to the level that most of us do. They are more interested in Paris Hilton, and other gossip.

Preaching to the choir may feel good. But unless you can convince the American public that there is a convincing reason to remove Bush, (and of course the other side is going to argue that it is just a political power grab), the potential for a huge backlash is there. And don't count on the main stream media for help.

So what is the tangible smoking gun issue that Americans will not just disagree with Bush about but will take the ultimate final step of thinking it is worth kicking him out along with Cheney? It is not an issue of disagreeing with policy, that is what elections are for and one is looming anyway.

Reminder, it took two years for the Watergate committee....and our election is closer than that.

So what is going to be the political landscape if impeachment is going on during the election? You will have the lamest of lame ducks facing an impeachment investigation, Congress won't have the votes to impeach, the Republican candidates will distance themselves from Bush and at the same time accuse the Dems of "playing politics with the constitution". And what smoking gun understandable issue will you have to counter that, that will prevent the people from backlashing against the Dems? And giving us four more years of Republican mis-rule?

Think. Things. Through.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

40. Nonsense

You write: 'Reminder, it took two years for the Watergate committee....and our election is closer than that."

Actually, it didn't, but that point made by another poster, is completely lost on you. We've already past the two year benchmark from when some of Bush's crimes were committed.

You write: 'My point is that impeachment, absent a smoking gun issue THAT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC can understand as worthy of removal of office, could easily backfire and give us four more years of Republican rule. THAT, to me, is an unacceptable risk."

Wow. Talk about moral relativism. The crime isn't worth convicting if it can't be understood by the Paris Hilton gang? Good grief.

Congress won't have the votes (according to you) because folks like you are not putting pressure on them.

[earthlover]

41. Well, since you haven't even told us what "the crime" is...

you are not very convincing even to those who would be inclined to agree! Preaching to the choir.

I suppose we are supposed to trust you on blind faith that whatever the impeachment panel figures out is going to be ok?

If you want the American public to support impeachment you gotta have some reasons they understand. They understand "politics", and they don't like it. They understand political grandstanding, and it turns them off. They understand power grabs and they find them disgusting. And their opinion of Congress ain't so hot either, for that matter.

So, unless you can come up with something to convince them that Bush AND Cheney need to be removed, they are likely to view the impeachment as a political stunt. If Hillary is the nominee, it will be even worse. They will think it is only revenge for Bill's impeachment. Talk about a nightmare.

The impeachment process is fraught with peril. It could cost us 10 points in the election, just as the last impeachment lost the Reps 10 points in approval ratings as well as gaining Clinton 10 points, a net 20 point difference.

We cannot afford even a 5 or 10 point loss of votes in 08 unless we want an electoral college landslide for the Republicans and a Republican Congress all over again. What are you going to gain by impeachment? Heck, Bush and Cheney are history before you could pull off an impeachment anyway.

So, you gotta be more convincing than asking us to take a blind leap of faith. Just what is/are the article(s) of impeachment you want us to support?

Impeachment is not the only ConstitutionaL Process for dealing with scoundrels. Voting the bums out of office is another. Unfortunately, what the impeachment idea is coming down to is cutting off our nose to spite our face. We cannot afford to lose in 08 unless we want to become a splinter party.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

42. Splinter Party

You seem to be more concerned about being a splinter party than actually enforcing the law. You make criminal conduct nothing more than a political faux pas that can be fixed with a vote. There is a distinction between voting as political expression and impeachment as an extension of law enforcement.

You ask: 'I suppose we are supposed to trust you on blind faith that whatever the impeachment panel figures out is going to be ok?'

I could ask you the same thing except substitute the word you for impeachment panel.

[earthlover]

43. if you are arguing for impeachment, the burden of proof is on you....

you gotta give us a reason why. Otherwise you are not gonna convince anyone that impeachment is the way to go.

I see no point in continuing this discussion. You haven't even given me what you consider to be a suitable article of impeachment, so there is really nothing to discuss!

I have made my points. I wish you a good day.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

44. The Defense Rests (Indeed)

That a boy....pound your chest to convince yourself that there is not sufficient probable cause for an investigation and hearing on articles of impeachment.

PS - Was it your point or Bush's point that you were making.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

37. Loathing Those Who Say No to Impeachment Because Votes Aren't There

You write: 'Yes you are divisive. Not because you favor impeachment, but because you, your words, "loath" Democrats who disagree with you."

Actually, I wrote 'I loathe people who actually argue that we should not procede with impeachment because we don't have the votes."

Not quite the same thing now is it?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

27. Dick Cheney and George Bush Thank You for Your Indifference

Dick Cheney and George Bush Thank You for Your Indifference.

In fact, they are banking on it.

[earthlover]

30. Indifference?

No, a passionate belief that the Dems HAVE to win in 08.

If I was indifferent I don't think I would be arguing my point. I wouldn't care.

[elocs]

12. How on earth do you draft somebody when another candidate will undoubtedly

win enough delegates to get the nomination? The devil is in the details. If there is no Gore and no impeachment a lot of people around here will lose the will to go on.

[earthlover]

17. surely you are using sarcasm?

Undoubtedly? Since when? I was unaware that Edwards was undoubtedly the nominee....Or did you think Obama?......Oh, you must mean Hillary because Hillary and the Republicans have been saying for over a year that Hillary was undoubtedly the nominee.

That is pretty brazen to assume at this early stage that there is no doubt of the outcome. Or maybe just naive wishful thinking.

[elocs]

20. Somebody means somebody. Do you know of any example in your lifetime

where somebody did not win enough delegates to win the nomination? Sarcasm or naive wishful thinking have nothing to do with it. Common sense and past history do. It's those who believe that Gore can be drafted who engage in naive wishful thinking. The reality is that there will be a candidate who has enough delegates to win the nomination. If Gore gets into the race early enough to win primaries it can be him, but there will be no draft in the sense of a brokered convention. We have primaries so Democrats can vote on choosing their own nominee or maybe the good old days of the smoke filled back rooms was better.

[earthlover]

24. people could get together to persuade a candidate to run

this is a meaning of the word draft. An example was in 00 when there was a movement to draft Clark to run. He responded and ran. Same thing could happen with Gore. It goes without saying that this would have to happen before a candidate had the delegates to win the nomination. However, there is plenty of time before one candidate has a lock on the nomination.

[elocs]

25. "Persuasion" is not the traditional mean of "draft" when it comes to politics.

http://www.meriam-webster.com/dictionary/draft

9 a (2) : an act or process of selecting an individual (as for political candidacy) without the individual's expressed consent.

I don't think Gore needs to be persuaded at this point. He likely already knows whether he will run or not. It is just a matter of the timing, but he certainly will not be "drafted" in the traditional political sense of the word when it comes to a presidential nominee.

[rzemanfl]

18. Then we need to see that doesn't happen. n/t

[AikidoSoul]

22. Write a note to Al Gore and tell him you want him to run

Honorable Al Gore

2100 West End Avenue

Suite 620 Nashville, TN 37203

If enough of us send a request, he will get the idea that there are many of us
who would vote and work for him.

[Duppers]

28. thanks for posting his address

:hi: