John Kerry: "If [Gore] had not just been elected but been inaugurated as president..."

[jsamuel]

hehe

I admire Al Gore for his outspoken activism in the fight against global warming.

In the last year, his "An Inconvenient Truth" has brought the science of global climate change to millions of Americans in a dramatic and persuasive way. Al was an early leader and a visionary on climate change -- and if he had not just been elected but been inaugurated as president, America today would be the world's leading advocate, not the world's leading opponent, of preventing climate change.

Like you, I share Al Gore's grave concern about the environmental threat posed by global climate change. Teresa and I go way back with Al in our engagement on this gathering crisis. Now, within the next decade, if we don't deal with global warming, our children and grandchildren will have to deal with global catastrophe. It is time to stop debating fiction writers, oil executives and flat-earth politicians, and actually do something.

That's why I'm asking the johnkerry.com community to join MoveOn, the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters and others in sponsoring nationwide house parties crucial to our environmental future. It's all built around the DVD release of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."

On Saturday, Americans will get together at house parties all over the country, watch the film on DVD, have a national conference call to discuss next steps, and start seriously mobilizing people. Participants will get a chance to talk to Al Gore and ask him questions.

Can you attend a screening in your town on Saturday, December 16? Click below to get started.

Find a house party near you

You know the underlying message of Al Gore's movie. It's not just that global warming is shaping up as a catastrophe of enormous dimensions. It's that, together, we have the ability to stop this disaster -- if we act now.

Saturday's house parties are a great opportunity. This massive effort to organize and spread the word about "An Inconvenient Truth" is one of the best chances we've had in a long time to demonstrate how serious the problem is -- and how serious we are about pushing Congress toward real solutions. More on that later -- in this new Congress the johnkerry.com community will have our own bipartisan opportunity to make Washington stop spinning and start solving this problem.

There's no doubt that "An Inconvenient Truth" has struck a responsive chord. The DVD of the movie sold more than a million copies in its first week. When strong leaders like Al Gore step forward to educate and organize people around vitally important issues, they deserve our full support.

Help spread the word.

Find a house party near you

Thanks for taking part in this crucial undertaking.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

P.S. We may have to wait to January until the new Democratic Congress convenes to force elected leaders to take real action on global warming. But, we can start organizing public support for real leadership on this vitally important issue right now. Let's get started.

[dysfunctional press]

1. Imagine- $2 trillion spent fighting global warming-

rather than fighting boogeymen, killing innocents, and further enriching the war profiteers.

it's enough to make a grown man cry.

algore2008- there is no other choice.

[nam78_two]

5. No kidding.nt

[Flarney]

2. Should be required viewing for all members of Congress. n/m

.

[Uncle Joe]

12. Someone would have to put Inhofe in a strait jacket and medicate him,

that alone would be worth the price of admission.

[etherealtruth]

44. That is not a bad plan ...

... for a congressional workday.

[wisteria]

3. Thanks for posting. I saw that on the JohnKerry site yesterday and

wanted to post it. I am going to see if I can get to a screening.

[flamin lib]

7. You can watch Inconvient Truth online.

Disclaimer: "In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15801.htm

I hope this doesn't violate any DU rules about CR or wasting other's bandwidth. I own the DVD and the jacket encourages sharing and donating the work.

If I'm in violation please delete and lock the sub-thread.

[nam78_two]

4. K&R

I really like Sen. Kerry.

[Glimmer of Hope]

6. "..and if he had not just been elected but been inaugurated as president,

America today would be the world's leading advocate, not the world's leading opponent, of preventing climate change.

Could have. Would have. Should have. One of the reasons I think Gore will run is to reclaim what should have been his and do what is right.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

8. John Kerry among those who did not oppose Bush/installation

also, John Kerry didn't fight to count the votes in 2004.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

9. Gore asked no Senator to protest

and that included Wellstone etc...
and Kerry acted on 2004 wherever there was evidence.

[RestoreGore]

16. Where's the proof of this?

And even if it were true, it doesn't absolve any Senator in that hall in January 2001 from doing THEIR DUTY. So now he joins with Gore because all of a sudden this is important? Where was he on it in 2004? Global warming WAS also an issue then as well.

[LittleClarkie]

17. Here's a Grist interview

that highlights his views on the environment.

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2003/09/23/griscom-kerry/

I know that I've seen him referred to as a strong environmentalist. In his bio on johnkerry.com, it says his mom was an avid environmentalist. Teresa is known as an environmental philanthropist as well. The two of them are writing a book even as we speak on the issue.

I've also heard that Kerry was one of the founders of Earth Day, but I'll have to find a link for that, as it might be over-stating things a bit.

(rummage, rummage)

Well, according to this article, he spoke at Earth Day 1970. Was that the first one?

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2003/09/23/griscom-kerry/

Hmm.

And, here's something from the Sierra Club:

http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2004-05-11.asp

Highlights of Kerry's environmental record include:

* Advocated strict enforcement of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, and opposed Bush administration efforts to weaken the laws in order to let polluters put more dangerous toxics into our air and water;
* Advocated restoration of Superfund's "polluter pays" trust fund to ensure that polluters, not ordinary taxpayers, pay to clean up abandoned toxic waste sites;
* Led the charge against the Bush administration's attempts to allow oil drilling in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge;
* Championed an energy plan that increases fuel economy to reduce the nation's dependence on oil and supports the development of clean, energy-saving technologies and renewable energy to reduce our dependence on other polluting sources of energy;
* And, advocated for the United States to take the lead in international efforts to cut global warming pollution, reverse ozone depletion, protect tropical rain forests, preserve biological diversity and press for sustainable development.

I don't think his interest in environmental issues is new, nor is he trying to take anything away from Gore. He's supporting Gore.

Now see, that's why some of us are so devoted to the guy. It would be easy to be cynical and think that Kerry is supporting Gore for political reasons. But if you pay attention to the guy long enough, you realize he really means this shit, as hokey as that might seem sometimes. As his nephew said right after the 2004 election, it takes a while to get to know him. But once a person does, they end up being intensely loyal.

[RestoreGore]

25. I meant proof of the claim about Mr. Gore...

And I asked why this crisis and the environment was not centerstage in the 2004 campaign. I don't need hundreds of interviews shoved in my face to prove he was an environmentalist as if this is some sort of contest. Again, I asked why this crisis and the environment wasn't front and center in the 2004 campaign (and yes, before Kerry fans skewer me, I made the same complaint about it in 2000, although Al Gore did talk about it a hell of alot more) because it wasn't. And if you want my honest opinion, I think Kerry has latched onto this now for political reasons to up his poll numbers, and I find it to be very distasteful on his part.

[LittleClarkie]

29. So maybe I misunderstood what exactly you were after

I wanted to show you that this is an issue that John Kerry has cared about for years, hence meaning that he's probably NOT doing this for political reasons. Either way, I went out of my way to give you what I thought you were after. You asked for some sort of proof and I did my best to find you something, since I didn't see anyone else doing it.

I didn't expect to get bitched at for my trouble, and I'm really not interested in whatever fight you want to have, or in what happened in either 2 or 4 years ago, as if what they emphasised in their campaigns represents all the things they care about. More than anything, what they emphasized in their campaigns is what they thought would get them elected. Doesn't mean they care any less. But you have to pick and choose in a campaign what you think the voters will react to. I'm just pleased with both men for working on this together. And rest assured that if either man was in the White House right now, we'd be in pretty good shape re: the environment.

Gore and Kerry appear to have the ability to work together on this issue. But if you want to make this a Gore vs. Kerry thing, knock yourself out. YOU are the one who thinks it's a fucking competition. Maybe, just maybe, this thing Kerry is doing is JUST WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

[blm]

45. Kerry did talk about it, and even promised full immediate funding for Gulf Coast

to be strengthened all along the shorelines to the tune of 16 billion dollars in June 2004. How do you think they'd vote now?

I think you fell into the media trap where if they didn't talk about it it didn't happen. And you may have noticed none of the debate moderators even brought it up, but Kerry used the national security debates to link environmental stewardship and fully funding alternative energy research AS a national security issue that makes us less dependent on the political fortunes of the Mideast.

[JI7]

18. Kerry has been one of the biggest supporters of the environment if not biggest

in the Senate he had a far better rating from LCV than Gore . Kerry was involved in the first earth day.

i don't understand why some people don't get informed before making these type of comments. and why people get angry as if the issue belongs to just one person.

[sandnsea]

20. Let me get this straight

Gore asks people to not protest the election in Congress - and you have no problem with Gore but you do have a problem with those who respected his wishes???

There isn't a lick of logic to that, it's pure insanity.

[RestoreGore]

24. WHERE did I claim I wouldn't have a problem with Gore regarding that?

I asked where the PROOF for that claim is, and IF TRUE, I DO have a problem as well with Senators not respecting THE CONSTITUTION FIRST. And yes, I WOULD have a problem with Gore about it but again, WHERE IS THE PROOF? You know, as in a taped conversation with his voicve actually saying it? How is asking for proof insanity? Some of you sure are fast in twisting words and shoving them in peoples' mouths, aren't you? Show me something credible that proves that claim first, and then I will respond to it. If you can't then don't complain about my response. The fact thst regardless of what Gore did you DON'T have a problem with Senators upholding their oaths to the CONSTITUTION over anyone's wishes for the will of the people is downright irresponsible as an American citizen in my view.

[sandnsea]

31. Boxer's a liar?

"I was asked by Al Gore not to do so. Frankly, looking back, I wished I would have. It was not about Al Gore. It was about the voters,'' she said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/01/07/BOXER.TMP

I do not understand how you criticize Senators for abiding by Gore's wishes, while not criticizing Gore himself. It makes absolutely no sense at all.

[LittleClarkie]

32. It looked hard as hell for Gore to do what he did in Congress that day too

Can you imagine having to tell the CBC to sit down time after time? And then watching the Bush team fuck up after it all, knowing you'd do a better job then them?

I tried to find a link too, since our friend wanted proof. But I couldn't. Glad you did. But I remembered Barbara Boxer's words as you did.

I'm not blaming anyone really. They did what they did in 2000. They thought it was for the best at the time, I'm sure. They have to live with what happened next.

[sandnsea]

34. Folks who think anarchy would be great

need to go spend some time in a war zone themselves. As bad as Bush is, a world war and global economic depression would be worse - and we aren't quite there yet.

[RestoreGore]

54. Folks who think Fascism would be great

May need to reflect upon the fact that they allowed their personal political feelings to interfere with their moral consciences. And you still proved nothing regarding Mr. Gore standing in her or anyone else's way. There is no excuse for moral cowardice when it concerns upholding your Constitutional oath, and that applies to everyone involved in the chamber that day. I would then say this Congress owes all of us some kick ass groundbreaking legislation on climate change come next year when Mr. Gore hands in those million signatures. But of course, it may now never get beyond Bush's veto because people swept that day in 2001 under the rug.

[RestoreGore]

49. No, maybe I don't believe that

My prerogative right? Got anything more substantial?

http://elandslide.org/view.cfm?id=913

This makes it sound a bit different than the quote you posted. According to this she didn't challenge because he didn't ask her to challenge. That is a lot different than saying he asked her NOT to challenge. So again, got anything more substantial?

[karynnj]

23. He was the FIRST Presidential candidate to run ads on the environment

Except in single subject speeches, he spoke about the need to develop alternative fuels and the environment in every speech. It wasn't the main issue - terrorism and Iraq together were.

[blm]

43. Come on, RG - everyone knows Kerry was a top environmental senator for YEARS

Any SERIOUS environmental activist knows that both Gore and Kerry were involved in their issues since 1970. Hard to believe you weren't aware of that by now.

Maybe you just forgot his lengthy record?

Not to mention Teresa's work for at least two decades.

Fair is fair.

[RestoreGore]

53. How do you get that I was unaware of his entire record from this question?

"Where was he on it in 2004? Global warming WAS also an issue then as well."

I asked where he was on global warming in 2004. That was all. Why people here are so defensive is beyond me.

[LittleClarkie]

55. You get what you give.

I tried to look up some proof for you in this thread. Perhaps I got it a bit wrong. But you just about took my head off for it. So, I would submit that y'all are getting back what you're giving, which is a lot of tone.

[RestoreGore]

56. Then you need a thicker skin

Sorry to have hurt your sensibilities by speaking like an adult simply because you misunderstood my comment.

[LittleClarkie]

66. Then don't whine about how defensive people are getting

when you're being less than personable. And being rude is not "speaking like an adult."

[RestoreGore]

70. I know you are but what am I?

That's exactly what this sounds like now, and it solves nothing. I will respond as I see fit and you do the same, and if you don't like the "tone" you have other options. Now I'm moving on.

[blm]

58. You implied it was a political move just as too many say the same about Gore when we

both know Gore is sincere as heck about his movie.

Kerry did talk about it in 2004 but media was not focusing on any of it, and not one debate moderator even raised the question. But Kerry got in some environmental angles anyway, linking stewardship of the environment as a NATIONAL SECURITY issue.

[RestoreGore]

71. Well, good for him

Now let's see SERIOUS legislation that gets passed beyond the rhetoric.

[zulchzulu]

11. Hmmm. ever read whay John Conyers said about the Vote Recount efforts?

"Fighting for Every Voter"

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me. As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes...

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth. That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters.

- John Conyers

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000213.htm

[Senator]

10. Forget January -- Kerry's Made a Career of Failing Us in January

This January he'll continue to fail to acknowledge that we live under "rule by signing statement" and that Only Impeachment can even begin to allow progress on any front, foreign or domestic.

On January 6th 2005 he failed to join Sen. Boxer in objecting to the unlawful Ohio electores.

On January 6th 2001 he failed to join the Cong. Black Caucus in objecting to the unlawful Florida electors.

But why?

On January 7th 2001 he told Russert on MTP who challenged him on that previous day's failure.

He said (in unison with Biden): "Nobody asked us."

As if it were not his personal responsibility, as instructed by Justice Breyer in his dissent to the bushvgore edict, to judge the validity of those electors. As if the CBC member were just too stupid to know they needed a Senator and tried (they weren't). Or as if there's some statute of limitations on opening one's mouth to defend the Constitution and the American People.

I too hope that someday he'll recall how to turn the boat into the enemy, but he is not our champion. None of them are. We need to jog his memory.

We are the ones we've been waiting for.

--

[blm]

13. Care to stack up all the issues HE led on that YOU and I did NOT? That he led on

that 99% of DC did NOT? That MOST of DC actively OPPOSED? That put the FBI on his every movement? That recorded the truth about the 80s and 90s that most of DC wanted covered up? That would have prevented 9-11?

We are all so right when we are typing.

[Senator]

19. We should stack the issue-pie higher?

And compare it to what exactly? What "you and I" do? Is that really the measure of a leader you're proposing?

I'll be happy support Kerry or Gore, or Kerry/Gore, or Gore/Kerry, or Clinton/Obama/Gore/Kerry, or any other combination of those who have failed us in the past. As long as they come clean about their failures. I simply refuse to go forward together in dishonesty any longer -- it is the essence of how we got here. It was/is also the essence of the (small d) deaniast phenomenon.

At this point Senator Boxer stands alone in that regard.

Is this some kind of litmus test? Sure, I don't mind calling it that. But is it going to sink a well-funded, media-hyped candidacy in favor of someone willing to acknowledge a more reality-based narrative of our recent history? I don't know.

But I do know that if any of them run -- and the reality-based alternative is even a vapor campaign -- we're going to find out.

--

[sandnsea]

21. She stood up in 2001?

Gosh, I missed that. No wait - I'm sure Boxer failed your litmus test... hmmm, now what.

[Senator]

22. No, she expressed her regret for not having done so

You misconstrued the test question.

--

[sandnsea]

33. Yes she did

Although it took her until 2005 to express that regret. Therefore, how can you be sure the difference between 2001 & 2005 wasn't the candidate?

[LittleClarkie]

35. I think she was more concerned with voter disenfranchisement

and was mad at herself for not ignoring Gore so as to help the disenfranchised represented by the CBC. The result would have been the same. We weren't going to suddenly get Prez Gore, just as we weren't going to get Prez Kerry. Wasn't the point. I think Gore misunderstood that, or maybe he did understand but figured the whole thing had been held up long enough.

Pointing out the irregularities was the point. And that didn't change with the candidate.

[sandnsea]

36. We don't know her motivation

Perhaps she just made the decision, perhaps Kerry didn't stand in her way as Gore did. We don't really know that piece of the puzzle, is all I'm saying.

[Senator]

39. While I agree with "not the point" ...

...we cannot know what "the result would have been." Especially if she (or anyone) had started to object with time for a national dialog to take place.

There really was no rational argument for the "vote counters" to take precedence over the voters. Had Gore and/or the Dems stood on principle, the chance of Gore taking office was not a longshot at all.

---

[Senator]

37. I'm not sure what you're asking n/t

[blm]

28. Not even a matter of what you and I do but compared to the rest of DC, Kerry has

led on more serious issues than most of the rest put together.

If he had ANY legal evidence to take to court on Nov 3, 2004, he would have undoubtedly fought with it. His 35yr record informs us quite clearly on that - but too many don't let reality-based records of service inform them much, at all.

[Senator]

38. So his leadership is limited...

...to the four corners of a courtroom. I freely admit that's more than most.

I'm just suggesting that we deserve more.

---

[blm]

40. We deserve alot but when there is nowhere left to go BUT a courtroom, you have

to have the legal evidence to do it.

And uncovering IranContra, illegal wars in Central America, BCCI and CIA drugrunning, advocating public financing of campaigns and for gays to serve openly in the military, and writing the warning book on rise of global terrorism in 1996 went well beyond courtrooms. You can't even name another lawmaker who has racked up such serious creds with NOTHING but backlash from the entire DC powerstructure weighing in against his efforts and him.

I guess that is what is so perplexing about the constant claims against him, when leading is doing what is NOT easy and in fact, proves to be DANGEROUS to your life, your family's life and to your career in many cases.

[Senator]

42. The claim of "nowhere left to go" is the problem

Because it buys into the Stalinist* principle of elections that has put us in this nightmare.

Kerry, like Gore before him, need only have opened a mouth to say "This is wrong. This must not stand."

In his case he need only have said that "Ten-hour-long poll-tax-lines for poor, brown Democrats and none for rich, white Republicans does not constitute a valid election. Ohio's unlawful electors must be rejected by Congress."

It's just simple honesty. A recognition that it is not his election to concede. That the electorate deserves nothing less than full confidence in the results.

This is what is being done by a real leader in Mexico as we speak.

----
* "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -- Josef Stalin, echoed by Pol Pot, bushcheney, James Baker, Nino Scalia, Katherine Harris, Kenneth Blackwell, et. al.

[blm]

46. And can you show me pictures of that real leader in Mexico in the presidential office?

There was only ONE thing that could have changed Nov 3 and that was a whistleblower coming forward. It could have changed things for the next 3 weeks, and they certainly had feelers out there trying to make it happen. It didn't.

Do you even KNOW that it was a blackmailer who threatened to whistleblow on BCCI figures that dropped just ONE piece of information that snowballed into the 5yr BCCI investigation? He got his 15 million dollar payoff from the ringleaders that he asked for and the investigators were left to unravel the entire case off that one snip he left in the first place.

You may think this is an easy roll to play, and that info just happens, but it is not like that in reality. Look what RFK did and he still couldn't get someone who would tell what happened on Nov. 2. They would all only talk about the future and every one declined to say one word about 2004. That's the way it is. Until someone does NOT fear for their life or the life of their families, that's the way it is.

So far, in the last 30 plus years, no one has taken the life risks that Kerry has and certainly hasn't done it as often. If you think Kerry is weak, then what does that say about the rest of DC lawmakers?

[Senator]

48. Not yet

But who's to say what will happen in the future.

I've already said what else could have "changed Nov 3." But arguing about who's weaker than who among the DC Dems at any given time hardly seems like a useful endeavor. Nor does deciphering what BCCI has to do with failing to stand up to election thieves.

At the moment is Kucinich, who did stand up to object, is clearly the morally "stronger" candidate.

--

[blm]

57. And could he have gone to court with legal evidence to make the case needed?

No. And so he didn't do it. If DK thought he had something, he would have either shared it with Kerry or pushed through the case on his own - but he didn't because he had nothing to take to court. I've known DK for over 33 yrs, and if he thought he had ANY case at all, he would have pushed for it.

[Senator]

74. I would guess that he had no standing

But he certainly supported the Green Party's legal challenge.

I'm not here to defend DK personally, just to note that he seemed to recognize that elections are not court cases when he stood to object publicly, on Jan. 6th 2005, to the unlawful Ohio electors. Perhaps you can discuss with him why he did that. And why, if I recall correctly, he failed to do the same in 2001.

But the fact remains that a moral stand can and must be taken even in the face of the limits of the legal system. Gore should have stood on the steps of the USSC on Dec. 13, 2000 and said "No." And Kerry should have made a similar stand in 2004.

--

[lildreamer316]

14. Gee. HInt hint.= Gore/Kerry 2008.

Taking bets here........

On a serious note; this is a really good joining of forces.

[goforit]

15. Well, is this unity in the making?

[ThomWV]

26. Its good to see Kerry get on board with the next President.

Every vote counts and those of us who support President Gore certainly appreciate Senator Kerry's support. We hope John will vote for Al when the time comes.

[RestoreGore]

27. Please don't presume to speak for all Gore supporters

I think Kerry should have gotten out of the way in 2004 and allowed Gore to take his rightful place then if he feels so strongly that he was elected in 2000 and should have been inaugurated... although, I do recall him stating that we needed to, "stop crying in our teacups" regarding the 2000 election. Change of heart after the fact I guess? I also now wonder how many Republicans are actually having a truth party this Saturday. Afterall this is a non partisan non political issue. Or so we are told. Sure doesn't look that way to me now.

[karynnj]

41. That is beyond stupid

Gore actually was the front runner and the CW was that as he won 2000 he should be allowed to be the nominee in 2004. Of course this was in 2002 when Bush still had over 60% approval.

C-Span has a video showing that in summer 2003 where reporters ask Kerry about Dean, H. Clinton and Gore as all having more chance than he to win the nomination. On the last point, are you saying that Kerry sending a message to his list, in addition to Move-on etc changes the non-partisan nature. Are you saying Republicans are more likely to be moved by MOVE ON.ORG than Senator Kerry?

[RestoreGore]

50. I'm saying politics shouldn't be a part of these parties at all

Or is that stupid to you too?

[karynnj]

51. No you said that Kerry should have stayed out of th eway in 2004

I pointed out that Gore TOOK HIMSELF OUT at a point where he was polling as the favorite - leading to Lieberman briefly leading.

How can politics NOT be part of the nomination process. Who decides, if not the people?

[RestoreGore]

52. It would require having a moral conscience,,,

I know what I said and I stand by it. And regardless of Gore taking himself out in 2004, if Kerry truly believed in his soul that Gore won in 2000 he could have done something truly historical and stated that it was Al Gore who deserved the nomination then. Obviously a higher ideal many cannot comprehend, but then again it is all about politics.

[blm]

59. Since Kerry was greatly responsible for Bush1's loss of credibility in 92, should

anyone have stepped aside for Kerry as the most deserving lawmaker for the VP spot? Kerry's record against corruption was untouchable by any other lawmaker.

Come on, RG, we can go back and forth like this for days. They are both solid guys who get treated worse, along with Jimmy Carter, than most anyone else. They need defending with truth, not a pile-on with media-driven attacks.

[RestoreGore]

60. Could you please stop trying to stifle my opinions in this thread then?

And the opinion of yours that they are both solid guys is your opinion. And this wouldn't go on if people would just allow an opposing opinion to stand instead of trying to demonize someone for not going along with a group mentality.

[blm]

61. Well, have at it. I believed that facts mattered to you and was approaching

you that way.

When a lifetime of environmental activism gets described as a late to the game political move, then obviously facts DON'T matter. Kerry's integrity as a senator is UNMATCHED. You might not want to acknowledge the anti-corruption, open government wing of the Democratic party and OUR leaders, but I DO and do it proudly and with a CONGRESSIONAL RECORD that backs up every word.

I spoke up every time Gore was misinterpreted as a political manipulator, and I will continue to do so. Just as I will continue to point out when Kerry is misinterpreted in the SAME WAY, even by those who should recognize the attack when they see it.

[RestoreGore]

62. Actions speak louder than Congressional Records

Kerry didn't stay and fight in 2004, and in 2001 ALL of Congress let this country down. I'm not going to come here and fawn over Democrats just because they are Democrats and forget that. I am angry, outraged, disilluisioned, and disappointed as an American about the last six plus years that BOTH sides had a hand in making, and I am not about to get over it with one post on a forum or by others browbeating me. And facts do matter to me as this response is chock full of them. Only those who put party before country simply don't want to see those facts. And once more to make clear to you, I did not state that Kerry didn't have an environmental record. I asked where he stood on global warming in 2004 and why it wasn't his central issue, which it wasn't. It wasn't mentioned ONCE at the Democratic Convention which was about nothing but war. Another fact for you.

[blm]

63. It WAS made an issue and MEDIA TOLD YOU IT WASN'T and YOU believed them.

And had Gore chosen, he could have devoted time after the hearings on vote problems in 2000 to asuring that vote suppression and votestealing that he knew happened to him would never happen again. They ALL bear some responsibility for allowing the continued trust in a DNC that was not doing its job for the camdidates or the Democratic voters.

[RestoreGore]

67. I DON'T LISTEN TO THE MEDIA

But I did WATCH THE CONVENTION.

[blm]

65. And here's a few words from that Dem convention from Al Gore:

I want to say to all Americans this evening that whether it’s the threat to the
global environment or the erosion of America’s leadership in the world, whether it
is the challenge to our economy from new competitors or the challenge to our
security from new enemies, I believe we need new leadership that is both strong
and wise. And we can have new leadership, because one of our greatest strengths
as a democracy is that when we’re headed in the wrong direction, we can correct
our course. When policies are clearly not working, we, the people, can change
them. If our leaders make mistakes, we can hold them accountable: even if they
never admit their mistakes. I firmly believe America needs new leadership that will
make us stronger at home and respected in the world.

And we’re here this week to present to the nation the man who should be and will be
our new president: John Kerry. John and I were elected to the United States Senate
on the same day 20 years ago and I have worked closely with him for all that time.
So I want to say a personal word about John Kerry the man. He is a friend who will
stand by you. His word is his bond. He has a deep patriotism that goes far beyond
words. He has devoted his life to making America a better place for all of us.

He showed uncommon heroism on the battlefield in Vietnam. I watched him show
that same courage on the Senate floor. For example, he had the best record of
protecting the environment against polluters of any of my colleagues bar none.
He never shied away from a fight, no matter how powerful the foe. He was never
afraid to take on difficult and thankless issues that few others wanted to touch.
like exposing the threat of narcoterrorism and tracing the sources of terrorist
financing. He was one of the very first in our party to take on the issue of drastic
deficit reduction. And he’s developed a tough and thoughtful plan to restore our
economic strength and fiscal discipline.

To put it simply, those of us who have worked with John know that he has the
courage, integrity and leadership to be a truly great president of the United States
of America.

[RestoreGore]

68. And I saw that too

What did you expect him to say at a convention on national television? Matter of fact, it was said the he was told to rewrite the speech because "bashing Bush" wasn't going to be allowed. So what's your point? I'm not here campaigning for anyone as you seem to be for John Kerry. Again, the climate crisis was not a CENTER STAGE issue at the Democratic National Convention in 2004.

[blm]

73. TERRORISM was made center stage on 9-11, 2001. And are you saying Gore was lying

and that he never believed Kerry was the leading lawmaker in the senate on environmental issues and terrorism? Because the congressional record proves that Gore was telling the truth.

And it was the DNC that put out the word (on Bill Clinton's advice) to keep Bush bashing to a minimum. But, even so, Gore was NOT TOLD TO REWRITE HIS SPEECH. I am quite sure the media would have had a field day with that if it were even close to being true.

[RestoreGore]

75. There you go campaigning again

And not addressing what I commented on in direct correlation to the topic of the op. And it will only continue to be the same back and forth which at this point is getting very redundant. If you can't address what I commented on without thinking this is some sort of Gore/Kerry competition, forget about it. And as far as the rewriting of the speech is concerned regarding Bush bashing, I am fairly sure it isn't a lie and as a matter of fact Al Sharpton refused to do it regarding the Bush bashing and read what he wrote. Or weren't you watching it? As I stated however, this is getting us nowhere, and I don't have time for it anymore.

[blm]

76. I did comment on your comment that Gore was forced to rewrite his speech and your implication

that Gore did not mean what he said when he spoke of Kerry.

Gore was NOT TOLD to rewrite his speech. You posted that as a feeble explanation of why Gore would acknowledge Kerry's longtime efforts as the LEADING SENATOR on environmental issues. You didn't like that he said that, because it doesn't back up your attack on Kerry that he is only talking about climate change as a political ploy.

Sorry - but I remain alert to false attacks on ANY Democrat, whether it be Kerry, Gore, or even the Clintons. Criticize them for what are true mistakes and failings, but don't attack falsely.

[karynnj]

64. My point was in Jan 2000 he could NOT have believed in his

soul that Gore won - only that there was some possibility that he had. Even if he did and he persuaded 49 other Senators, what would that do? FL's legislature would have sent others - and they would have been for Bush. Even Leiberman didn't speak up.

Kerry has a very strong, very moral conscience - or else he wouldn't have done many things in his life that he did.

[RestoreGore]

69. The Congressional Black Caucus Knew It And Walked Out Of The Chamber

Therefore, I excuse NO OTHER Senator that day.

[LittleClarkie]

30. And I certainly hope that Al will vote for John when the time comes

;)

I just like seeing them working together. But then, I'm a unity gal.

I think we'd be in pretty good shape if EITHER of these men were president, don't you?

How about Gore/Kerry or Kerry/Gore. How would that go over do you think?

[AtomicKitten]

47. Looking forward, Gore/Obama in 2008.

[David Zephyr]

72. Good stuff from Senator Kerry.

:thumbsup: