Gore take on Liberals that criticize Congresspeople who blinked

[Perky]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4255.html

But if Gore is more intriguing and more sympathetic to many liberals than he was in 2000, that may in part be because he remains tantalizingly out of reach. Gore is most fluent when the conversation is most abstract. When it comes to particulars of contemporary politics — the push and shove of daily news — he turns vague and muddy.


At another point in the interview, it sounded at first like he was brushing back the liberal activists in his own party. They have lashed Democratic congressional leaders for last week’s retreat in their confrontation with Bush over continued funding for the war.

Even war opponents, Gore said, have a "moral obligation to see the complexity of the dilemma our country is in," trying to bring troops home while not leaving Iraq in even more dangerous turmoil. "So pursuing those twin objectives is not easy under any circumstances, but it's not an act of cowardice or a lack of will on the part of Democrats in the Congress who see the complexity of this dilemma," Gore argued.

"And so when they don't have the votes to override the president's veto they have to do the best they can to frame new options. ... I would urge Democrats who want our troops out yesterday to show some understanding of the difficult hand the Democratic leaders have to play and give them the benefit of the doubt in expecting that they are going to continue to push the mandate they received from the voters last fall to change the course of this war."

Was that comment aimed at MoveOn.org and other groups, which have threatened primary challenges to Democrats who do not challenge Bush on the war? Not at all, Gore said again: "I was really directing it at people like me who want to see our troops out immediately but understand that it's not that easy."

[bryant69]

1. Good quote

And a good analysis in my opinion. And of course smart politically.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Warpy]

4. Agreed

The story came out the week before the vote that rations had been delayed in Iraq and that the troops had to cut down on food. "OH MAH GAWD! THEM DEMS IS STARVING OUR FINE SOLDIERS!!" I could see the propaganda coming a mile away and so could Congress. They were truly in a bind.

However, they did manage to get some toothless benchmarks written into it, or at least the right thinks they're toothless. The Democrats will be in a great position in September to demand an accounting of which benchmarks have not been met (my guess is all of them) and why those benchmarks have not been met and just what the hell is the administration going to do about this?

The next bill should not be quite as toothless. If they wimp out in September, that's another story, but my guess is that there will be some very hard questions asked and they'll be in a much better position to ask them because of the wording in this bill.

This is how I sincerely hope it plays out. If it doesn't, then these fine jellyfish should be voted out and sent to stand in the unemployment line with the rest of us, since they'll have destroyed the party's chances in 2008.

[GeorgeGist]

21. Caving to propaganda ...

is cowardice.

[Warpy]

37. Not this time.

The propaganda shoe will be on the other foot the next time if it plays out the way I hope it will.

[RaleighNCDUer]

57. No, that was handled wrong.

At the first mention of delays in getting supplies to the troops somebody should have called for immediate investigation of KBR and Halliburton to find out just what they are doing with their billions, if they cannot feed the troops as contracted.

You have to stay on the offensive with these people. Make the headlines tie it to where the problems really are. Take the PR initiative.

[ellenfl]

33. i agree with gore but the author of the

article is denigrating gore's position. i find politico.com to lean right and, imo, it shows in their treatment of gore in this piece.

ellen fl

[bryant69]

38. yes politico is a right wing website

I didn't notice that aspect of it - didn't click on the link I must admit.

Bryant

[Perky]

76. I have not caught that vibe

what is your basis?

[bryant69]

79. Mostly the work of Glenn Greenwald over at Salon

"The Politico's biggest boosters are Matt Drudge and George W. Bush, and it is run by a Reagan loyalist. At the very least, those facts are worth considering." - Who funds and runs the Politico? http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/04/politico_funding/index.html?source=rss

"But whatever else is true, it is now inescapably clear that The Politico will be working hand-in-hand with Matt Drudge. That seems to be the very purpose of The Politico -- quoting a blogger with whom I exchanged email on this topic earlier this week: "to put the full stamp of legitimacy on the Drudgification of politics."" - Drudge and the Politico -- poisonously joined at the hip - http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/27/politico/index.html

Bryant

[Virginia Dare]

2. Gore is a true Democrat and a voice of reason..

I hope people listen to him.

[NoodleBoy]

3. maybe some people will listen now

[Perky]

9. I doubt it. Some DUers would rather be in constant protest rather than constant governing

I guess becuse it easier to yell and scream and call pepole traitors and sell out than it is to deal with the real-world politics.



Dpes liberal allways have to radical in order to be acceptable?

Arguing for primary opposition to anyone who voted for the funding is intellectually lazy and dadamges our chance of holding either House.


So what happens in this silly movement takes hold and we take out democratic incumbents who are committee chairs or have substanital seniority and we lose control of both houses but gain the presidency?

[NoodleBoy]

11. what really distrubs me is how it seems so fad-ish

almost as though in order to be accepted by the clique you've got to be a purist and accuse people who aren't or who stray even a little bit of selling everything out and having no principles.

aside from that, the ones who scream the most fall on their faces when put into government.

[Telly Savalas]

122. What disturbs me even more than that is that apologists are using

the "complicated situation" defence to excuse any action taken by Congress.

There's a large middle ground between playing chicken with Bush by defunding the war and the half-assed effort we've seen in the last 5 months. A lot of us here aren't demanding purity, but are nevertheless expecting a hell of a lot more from our elected officials.

[RaleighNCDUer]

58. I read this post in a totally different thread with a totally different subject.

Is this your generic 'bash the leftists' post of the day?

You might try for a little originality to trick people into thinking you are actually thinking about your position.

[Perky]

91. I thought it was an important enough comment to post is seperately

and thought it appropriate to do so becuase I knew it would likely swallow the Gore comment up in the ensuing discussion when this OP ought to stand on its own.

[Jed Dilligan]

112. If you are posting something multiple times,

spell check. Please.

[Le Taz Hot]

5. Love Gore

but I disagree with him on this one.

[jwirr]

6. Good for Al. We will get things done but it is not easy. It will not be

easy to change our world for the environmental reasons either. I would suggest reading about how impossible it was for FDR to get his programs through Congress even though the country was in a shambles. Pugs are not going to work with us until they are forced to as it nears election time and their polls keep tanking.

[IChing]

7. "Truth, Consequences of Kerry's 'Liberal' Label "-John F. Harris

I take this guy's opinion with a grain of salt he likes Al From------edited not Al Gore---Al From
but really likes Republican talking points and uses Matt Drudge
as his sources.

John F. Harris

"Truth, Consequences of Kerry's 'Liberal' Label "

"One of Kerry's more effective defenses against the charge that he is a reflexive liberal may be the support of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, or DLC." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60419-2004Jul18.html

[IChing]

34. I WILL NOT SUPPORT ANY THREAD THAT COMES OUT OF "POLITICO"

I don't care what that Drudge surrogate site says

[earth mom]

88. Why is this kind of crap here on DU in the first place?!

:eyes:

[MadHound]

8. Gore is pushing a false meme, that the Dems have to have a veto proof majority

And not applying historical lessons.

First of all, it doesn't matter when we leave Iraq, nor what we do between now and then. Whenever we leave, the Iraqi people are going to rise, violently, and tear down whatever institutions that we have left behind, simply due to the fact that they were installed by the conquering people. We have seen this time and again, hell, Gore saw it with Vietnam. Why do people not learn.

Second of all, Gore is conviently forgetting the power of the purse. This is somewhat excusable, since he was in the Senate. But the plain fact of the matter is that the Dems could hold up each and every supplemental funding bill forever in committee, strangle this war and bring the troops home. But they are refusing to do so.

I like Gore, moreso now that he's out of politics. But his work since then doesn't make him infallible, nor some sort of omnipotent god.

[Dhalgren]

13. I agree with you on this. Writing blank checks for mad imperialism

is not "governing", it is "not governing"...

[Individualist]

25. I'm very disappointed in his remarks

It sounds as if he's being influenced by DLC - again. I thought he'd learned from his previous experience with those vermin.

[leftchick]

32. that was my thought as well

:(

[info being]

52. Agreed. So much for "reason"

[Buck Rabbit]

80. I agree with you on the first part, disagree on the second.

Whenever we leave there will be a De-Americanization cleansing. It might be violent, it might not, other than the initial roasting on a spit of the Sulafi Jihadists. These guys, Al-Queda in Mesopotamia and The Islamic State of Iraq, are toast once the Americans are gone. Their Sunni hosts wont harbor them and their Shiite enemies, the Sadarists and Badr Militias will join with the Sunni Nationalists and Western Tribes, to slaughter these assholes. If Sistani and Sadr are still alive a Civil War might be prevented. Al Sadr like the Sunni Islamic Army of Iraq are nationalists and federalists they might be able to come to an accord once the Sulafi are dealt with.

As to the second part the coalition of the GOP, Blue Dog and New Dems that oppose defunding is a big majority in the house and I suspect is strong enough to remove the Progressive leadership if push came to shove. Also if you fail to put forth funding, emergency provisions kick in that would allow Bush to do as he pleases, as I understand it. No one knows in practice if a minority in Congress can block funding for a War against the wishes of the majority of Congress and the Executive Branch, because it has never been done or even attempted as far as I can tell. I haven't heard anyone who is an expert on Congressional procedure state that it could work. I would be interested in reading such an opinion if you have found one.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. Bullshit

They have the votes to impeach and to convict on impeachment; all that takes is a majority of both houses and they have that.

Congress refuses to impeach claiming that because Clinton's impeachment was political, any subsequent impeachment would be seen as being political as well no matter how clearly it is not. That is like saying that just because one person was framed for murder and aquitted of the charge, no other person should be charged with murder because it it would be seen as a frame job no matter how clearly it is not.

Spineless cowards, the whole frigging lot of them. Too afraid of what their corporate masters might do, and not afraid enough of what the people will do if this shameless inaction continues.

[NoodleBoy]

14. really, they do? which Republican senators would support impeachment-- you need 9

Lindsay Graham? John McCain? Tom Coburn? You think any of them would vote to convict to impeach? It takes 60 votes, which Republicans--especially now that a number of so-called moderate/maverick Republican senators are out of office--would vote to impeach Fearless Leader?

[TechBear_Seattle]

17. I sit corrected

I had forgotten that conviction in the Senate requires 60%, not 50% + 1. Nonetheless, as the Repugs themselves gleefully pointed out, Clinton's non-conviction on impeachment was beside the point: President Clinton was impeached by the House, end of story. It is cowardly of the House not even to consider articles of impeachment against Bush.

[WilliamPitt]

29. 67 Senators, and you won't get 51 Dems, so you need 20 GOPers.

Name them. All 20.

[TechBear_Seattle]

36. Irrelevant with regards to impeachment

Whether or not he is convicted on articles of impeachment, he will still have been impeached. He will no longer be able to live in his delusional fantasy world that he is right and the American people are with him. The House of Representatives, at least, will have shown that they take their constitutional duties and the separation of powers seriously, and that they have listened to their constituents, the American people.

As John Q. Citizen stated, the Democrats in the House have shown no compunction in passing bills that they know will be voted down in the Senate or will be vetoed. Why the bloody hell should impeachment be any different? Why this cowardice? Why this abject failure to fulfil their duty?

[RaleighNCDUer]

60. Not to mentioin that the investigations, the questioning under oath

that accompany any impeachment would have severe repercussions for the republicans. In fact, some of there missing votes may be found there, among republicans who don't want to go down with the ship.

I don't know why so many think that failing to convict on impeachment somehow vindicates the person impeached. That's like saying OJ was clearly innocent because the DA failed to convict.

[John Q. Citizen]

45. So you are saying the Dems will offer no legislation that isn't gareenteed to pass

both houses and be signed into law by bush?

That isn't true. That's provably false.

So why is a bill of impeachment somehow required to be successful to have merit? Or is the rest of the stuff they push that's going no where without merit?

The truth of the matter is that if impeachment and conviction were a sure thing, the Dems wouldn't do it because they value having bush/chaney in to run against. Their power imperitive (as per their calculations) trumps their oath to uphold the constitution.

They claim they don't have time to waste on impeachment, while apparently they have plenty of time to push bills that will either be stalled in the Senate or vetoed by bush. This is both blatantly hypocritical as well as stupid politically. It could and probably will come back to bite them in the ass. So what else is new?

[TechBear_Seattle]

61. It could and should come back to bite them in the ass, but it won't

Why? Because the Two Party system has deluded the American people into believing that it is an either/or choice. No matter how evil, how irresponsible, how malfeasant, how derelic the Democrats are, the one and only thing that is important is that the Repugs are worse. And with the curren misadministration, the Democrats have only begun to plumb the depths of how bad they can be.

The one and only thing that will save the United States is to get behind real voter choice. Until that happens, things will only get worse.

[Buck Rabbit]

87. There aren't enough votes to impeach in the House either.

Figure at least half at best of the Blue Dogs and New Dems to vote against impeachment. An Impeachment vote in The House that failed to break 200 let alone majority would be declared bi-partisan vindication of Bush's policies of torture and wiretapping and whatever else he is charged with by the MSM.

It wouldn't be a moral victory for the progressive Dems to try and fail to impeach, it would be a rousing victory for Bush.

It is "off the table" in public only because she knows what the vote would be in behind the scenes straw votes.

[John Q. Citizen]

22. it takes 67 votes in the Senate to convict. (2/3) But that's not the point. The point is

to actually bring proceedings against the pres and the VP.

That they have acted in a criminal and unconstitutional manner is not in dispute.

The Dems have no problems introducing many bills that either will be filibustered and stopped in the Senate or vetoed by bush, so the success of introducing, and passing bills into law isn't apparently relevant. The time tables concerning Iraq as well as the upcoming stem cell bill are just two examples of many that the Dems are happy to push even though they know full well they will either be stopped in the Senate or vetoed by bush.

Success isn't an issue, except when it comes to impeachment. Only in that area is guaranteed success somehow relevant.

What's up with that?

I think putting bush/chaney into the defendant's chair is in itself a huge success.

[lonestarnot]

12. Thank you Mr. President.

[RestoreGore]

15. Sorry, but on this I am an American first

And I don't criticize people in Congress because they are Democrats or Republicans, I criticize them as I should as a citizen of reason because they all have derelicted their duty to their oath. Without impeachment being put back on the table I will continue to criticize because this is an issue of doing exactly what Mr. Gore wrote in his book: brigning back Democracy. We cannot do that by continuing to capitulate to traitors and criminals.

[TechBear_Seattle]

24. Hear, hear! n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

26. Yes! n/t

[Individualist]

30. Ditto!

[Reterr]

126. Agreed.nt

[John Q. Citizen]

16. I wish people would read and talk about Kucinich's bill #HR 1234. It recognizes

the complexity of the situation and actually offers a plan to both withdraw the US's imperial invasion and occupation forces while at the same time not leaving Iraq to languish, or worse, to disintegrate.

The Dems are in charge, barely, in congress, yet the leadership have no plan except to react to bush, and then in the end, to validate bush's escalation. They appear to be hoping to keep both the occupation as well as bush intact to run agaionst them in 08.

This is both a moral/ethical, as well as a politically, untenible position.

HR1234 offers a plan. Perhaps they should debate it on the merits, instead of pretending that no one has a plan, and that the situation is so complex as to preclude a viable plan.

[RestoreGore]

23. That is exactly what this is about:: winning an election over the moral imperative

Politics as usual. You win the election by selling your soul.

[info being]

56. Or will he only succeed in reminding us that he's like everyone else?

That all these statements do for me.

[RestoreGore]

66. I am going to then check this out further

If this is indeed a RW site linked as I have read in this thread, there may be cause to take it with a grain of salt as it was presented.

[Beelzebud]

18. Oh well if Al Gore says this then that settles it.

I mean, we wouldn't want to question authority would we?

Take it from the guy that had Joe Lieberman as his running mate.

[Johonny]

19. I agree

But the Dems have to keep at this topic. I understand the politics involved but I also demand constant effort on this.

[bigtree]

20. there it is

he said it

[gordianot]

27. Bush said it best you are either for me or against me.

You are either in favor American troops participating in this war or against it. This is one vase that will not be fixed, the seeds for civil war in Iraq have germinated. People are being killed in what is now a political debate, which is unacceptable.

There is also a political war at home, it appears we the Democrats are now about snatch defeat in what should be a victory. As much as I admire Al Gore, reason was lost in 2000, checks and balances no longer work. This is no longer a country that favors or believes in reason. If Mr. Gore wants to restore reason he needs to enter that political dialog from a greater venue than the lecture hall or at book signings.

[info being]

54. And he might do well to use some reason himself

If it is wrong to go it, it is wrong to stay in. Oh, and that whole "we need 2/3" crap is completely political and misleading.

[Virginia Dare]

95. So how do we bypass Bush?..n/t

[info being]

103. Simple simple simple

Point to the other two bills that were passed requiring withdrawal...and let him know that if it isn't one of them, he gets nothin'.

[Virginia Dare]

106. Oh, right,

real simple...:eyes:

[WilliamPitt]

28. Good.

[Marr]

31. You don't do your country any favors by making excuses for cowardice and political gamesmanship

The Democratic Congress had a winning hand and they folded. I'm not making excuses for these people. I didn't do it when they 'kept their powder dry' regarding the Supreme Court and I'm not doing it now. They need to be called out when they let their constituents down, and going out of your way to "understand" why they sold you out again is only going to encourage more of the same down the road.

[LSK]

35. Gore has been a Senator and then President of the Senate for 8 years

He knows how hard it is to push legislation through and he knows whats involved.

[RestoreGore]

40. But that doesn't mean you don't at least try

Especially when it is a moral imperative to do so. You don't have to serve in the Senate to know that. I love this man, but on this particular point I disagree. I will not capitulate to them just because they are Democrats regarding human lives. More money means more lost lives and the continuation of this occupation that already has gone on far too long. And if the shoe were on the other foot, would people be saying the same thing about how hard it is to push legislation through and that we need to understand how it works? And when the next president(or chairperson of the military industrial complex as I like to call it) is appointed, he or she will have the same powers of Bush now because no one has moved to rescind the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, or any other bill that has slowly wittled away our civil liberties. Will Democrats then welcome their new powers when it is one of their own at the helm? Jefferson and people of reason of a time so far away would never have suffered these criminals the way we are doing so. Never.

[LSK]

43. so basically you are using fear against me in your argument?

"And when the next president( or chairperson of the military industrial compllex as I like to call it) is appointed, he or she will have the same powers of Bush now because no one has moved to rescind the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, or any other bill that has slowly wittled away our civil liberties. Will Democrats then welcome their new powers when it is one of their own at the helm?"

Sorry, Im not buying it. The FACT is we dont have the votes right now to rescind any of this. There is no other choice except to elect more Dems in the next election and hope that President Obama/Edwards/Hillary/Gore would rescind these acts.

The only question in our power right now is which Presidential Candidate would be best to accomplish those goals.

[RestoreGore]

47. I'm asking a question

And the fact that we now don't have the votes to do ANYTHING that was promised, then makes last November's election a complete waste. Is that then not true?

[LSK]

55. no, because it stops the bleeding and we are having hearings

Rummy would still be Sec of Defense and Gonzo would be replacing US Attorneys everywhere with GOP operatives to expand voter fraud. I think that plan is getting exposed pretty well.

Barbara Boxer now heads the environmental committee instead of Inhofe.

The Dems get to write the next budget for the most part.

Eliminating the estate tax forever is now pretty much dead in the water. So is privatizing social security.

In addition, some things are getting done. Minimum wage increases just passed last week.

[RestoreGore]

62. Stop what bleeding?

A bomb in Baghdad just blew up 25 more people today and we have had more troops killed this month which I believe is the third highest amount since this whole fiasco began. I would say there is a considerable amount of bleeding going on while both sides in this Congress continue to use this occupation for their own political expedience. I have a 16 year old son and he is NOT going to be dragged into this just to appease any side using this to either line their pockets or their campaign platforms. And really, I am tired of hearing about hearings, because they never go beyond the hearing stage. I want to see people CONVICTED. Will we see that? And was the minimum wage increase which more than likely will not be felt adequately for a few years if at all the bone they got for legitimizing the occupation? I don't know, I just see that this has all gone way beyond the point of no return, and honestly at this point a minimum wage increase is anti-climactic considering what we gave up in return. I am sorry if that doesn't fit in with the talking points.

[Virginia Dare]

107. If they start dragging people's kids into it..

it'll end really quickly, the political expedience would totally be gone.

[RaleighNCDUer]

65. We don't HOPE the next president will rescind these acts.

We DEMAND that the next president rescind these acts. And the only way to get that message across is to submit legislation NOW demanding the current president rescind these acts. We make it clear that our candidates oppose them, that our slates on the congressional and senate tickest oppose them, and that our presidential nominee will oppose them - then there will be no excuse for NOT rescinding them when we can. It may look like futile gestures now, but it is the groundwork that is necessary to get rid of this odious legislation.

We may have a tentative foothold in the legislature, but the republicans still hold both the other branches of government - we are STILL the opposition party. We need to act like it.

[Virginia Dare]

92. They DID try, they didn't have the votes...n/t

[gravity]

39. Thank you Gore

I'm tired of all the attacks on the Democratic representatives at the moment.

[RestoreGore]

41. It's called Democratic dialogue, no?

[xultar]

44. No it's called the circle firing squad.

[RestoreGore]

48. That's just your opinion

[Perky]

64. my opinion too

[RestoreGore]

68. That's great, and I have mine. Isn't Democracy wonderful?

[gravity]

49. I am tired of simplistic arguments targeting our leaders

when they aren't warranted.

The situation in Iraq is complex, and the process of returning our troops and giving power to the Iraqis isn't an easy thing to do.

[RestoreGore]

51. Who said it was easy?

And who got us in this mess besides Bush?

[RaleighNCDUer]

70. Actually, it is very easy.

We leave. The Iraqis are still there. They will have power.

It may not be the Iraqis we like, but they are in control of their own national destiny. It's not up to us to say who should or should not govern.

Our part is easy.

We go home.

[RestoreGore]

72. But they will follow us here!!!

Remember the buzz word is Fear all day all night all the time.

[RaleighNCDUer]

77. Whoops! Oh, I'm so sorry --

I forgot to be afraid.

[Virginia Dare]

93. Some of it is...

but a lot of it is gratuitous trashing and piling on.

[xultar]

42. So do we hate Gore now? Do we abandon the Gore in 08 stuff?

Just askin.

[info being]

53. If he keeps this up...then "ho-hum gore 08 whatever"

That's my take.

[Perky]

67. .

:evilgrin:

[xultar]

84. tee hee hee.

[Perky]

89. .

You have to appreciate the subtle mischief of my original OP

[Bluebear]

114. It's not an honest headline. nt

[Virginia Dare]

94. The DLC has obviously planted micronodes into his brain...n/t

[slowry]

102. With him or against him ? n/t

[Peace Patriot]

46. I would be more inclined to sympathy toward our Democratic leadership and

their 'complex dilemma' in Iraq if they supported counting the votes of the American people in a way that everyone can see and understand. Instead, they support electronic voting machines run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, and, indeed, more of them voted for non-transparent, privatized "black box" voting than voted for the Iraq War Resolution. And, interestingly, they both happened in the same month--October 2002.

Odd.

[info being]

50. Losing my enthusiastic support *fast*

[Mabus]

75. I thought you were a Kucinich supporter who was only looking at Gore as an electable alternative

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3246287&mesg_id=3246287

I remembered it because I agreed with much of what you said about Dennis and would have recommended it if you hadn't been criticizing Hillary and Barack. And for someone who has enthusiastic suppport for Gore I find it strange that you don't mention him at all on your blog.

[info being]

86. You're right...I'm a bit skeptical about Gore.

The truth is, I wanna believe in him.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

59. I'd Say That Was Perfectly Stated By Al And Very Close To How I Feel As Well.

I think he was spot on in his statements and can't find a thing that should've been said differently.

[RestoreGore]

63. Well I hope that these criminals then don't decide to take this to Iran

But I wouldn't be surprised now with all of the chances they have been given.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

69. Oy Vey.

This is related to my comment how now? :eyes:

[RestoreGore]

71. Giving the traitors in our government carte blance to continue in Iraq by continuing to fund them...

May just give them the impetus they need to take this further. Got it now?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

74. Oh So Silly With The Melodrama.

Over the top dramatic statements like that are always so silly to me. :crazy:

I agree wholeheartedly with Al's assessment. You don't? That's ok.

[RestoreGore]

119. Translation: That's too deep for me to get into

[Mabus]

81. I agree.

He's a true statesman who is just as worried about the direction of the Democratic party as the rest of us. He's telling the rest of the public to start doing what we DU'ers do all the time: talk to your elected representatives and let them know how you feel about the issues. The truth is, if more people spent a little less time complaining to others and calling/writing/faxing their elected representatives things would be different.

Beyond that, he's right about Iraq. First, he was right in saying we shouldn't go in. Now he's right when he says there are no good choices about how and when we leave Iraq. I heard Gore recently say (maybe it was the KO interview) that America has a moral obligation to Iraq. He's right. We went over there and destroyed their country. We can't just say "oopsie" and follow it with a "good-bye." We need to find out things like: what is really going on over there, what those on the ground see as options and what the Iraqi people really want.

[LoZoccolo]

73. Good for him. President Gore is someone who takes responsibility...

...rather than just complain. He didn't have to become the most famous spokesperson for stopping global warming, but he did.

[Buzz Clik]

78. Not a big Gore fan, but he nailed this one!

:applause:

[BattyDem]

82. You know, if the Dem leadership had simply ...

held a press conference and said those words (Gore's quote), they would have been in a much better position with the base. Honestly, I don't think I would have been nearly as angry at them. Why not simply say, "Look folks, we didn't have the votes so we had to take this first step in what is likely going to be a long, complicated process. We can't do this alone and we urge you to contact Republicans in Congress and convince them to support withdrawl so that we WILL have the votes next time."

Instead, they tried to spin the vote as a positive thing - as if they got what they wanted all along - and then pointed out all the wonderful amendments they slipped in to it. In other words, they treated us like we are f*cking stupid! I'm tried of being treated like a child by my government and by party leadership. Just be HONEST for a change! No spin ... no talking points ... just tell it like it is! These politicians are so busy trying to convey an image of trust and honesty that they have completely forgotten how to actually be trustworthy and honest. :eyes:


edited: typo :blush:

[WI_DEM]

83. A voice of reason and sanity. I hope he runs.

[dogday]

85. After what I read at NPR about the Pentagon Studies

I know we will be in Iraq for the next 2 decades.. Frankly anything, anyone has to say about the war is crap... They know how long this occupation will continue....

[Virginia Dare]

96. Wouldn't doubt it..

but what politician in their right mind is going to stand up and tell us that? Remember what Jimmy Carter got for being honest with the American people about having to get of the non-renewable energy?

[ProSense]

90. "So pursuing those twin objectives is not easy under any circumstances..."

How long should the pursuit (in this case the debate) last and how does one go from talking to taking action?

Complexity is not an excuse for years of inaction and the inability to commit.

[camero]

97. I call bullshit

Even a symbolic vote would have been better than nothing. Which is what happened. Complexity my ass. You either keep killing or stop killing. It's that simple.

[Virginia Dare]

109. There was a symbolic vote..

remember the bill that Bush threatened to veto ad nauseum that they sent to him anyway?

[camero]

111. and they caved

That wasn't a symbolic vote. That was a cryptic one.

[AtomicKitten]

98. I agree with Gore.

His nuanced take on this is precisely the way I view things.

His comments are personal, he reiterated that, but if people want to take it as a slam against the netroots, so be it. Nothing new about the netroots thinking the world revolves around them.

[mzmolly]

100. Aren't liberals supposed to be "open minded?"

That open mind should extend beyond what we agree with for gosh sakes.

I too agree with Gore AK. :hi:

[AtomicKitten]

101. It's ironic that that is often precisely what they are not.

At least here at DU. It's the call for lockstep opinion that I find not only over-the-top but really distasteful. It is assuming that we all think alike; if we did we'd be Republicans. Iraq is in Jon Stewart's words an epic clusterf*ck from which extricating ourselves will require more than clapping for Tinkerbell. We all agree we want out but effecting that is a conundrum; there is no good solution. Hurling epithets at politicians and each other is fun and all that, but it's the one foot in front of the other kind of momentum that albeit frustrating will effect change. And Gore gets that which I applaud wholeheartedly.

[mzmolly]

105. Very well said!

"Tinkerbell Liberals" I like it! :P Though in an effort to practice what I preach, I shall refrain from that most useful label.

[RestoreGore]

116. So what's your plan?

[Virginia Dare]

108. Too true...

if you aren't with them, you're against them.

[RestoreGore]

117. Sounds like Congress to me

[mzmolly]

99. Recommended.

Thanks.

[TwilightGardener]

104. Smart, smart man--I agree with him.

Edit to add, I am not a big Gore fan, but it took a little courage not to "play to the base" here.

[RestoreGore]

118. I don't consider myself part of any "base"

Not concerning this. And I agree with him wholeheartedly that it is not going to be easy and that it will take thinking this through and taking steps that may not always be agreed with by all. However, constant capitulation to these traitors when there are other options that can be tried is something I do not agree with, and I feel as though we were duped in regards to the November election. I am also tired of being made to believe here that I do not have the right as a citizen to criticize Democrats when I do not believe they have acted in the best interest of Americans as a whole, and I do not believe Mr. Gore has ever intimated what some have here regarding that freedom of speech. That is what Democratic dialogue is all about. It is already a given to me that Republicans are Fascists and their party was taken over by that lockstep mentality, and I will be damned if I will see that happen in this one. I think it is time for the Iraqi people to begin taking care of their own country with our help but not with all of the resources we now have invested there, and I do believe this occupation is also being dragged out to use as a campaign issue just to win an election while people continue to die, and it sickens me and I truly see no end in sight. And that is not stated as a "Tinkerbell Liberal" but as a very concerned and heartbroken American.

[TwilightGardener]

120. I think you brought up some good points, especially about Dems not

turning into loyal goosesteppers, but I am left wondering if you agree with him or think he's wrong to come to his conclusion.

[RestoreGore]

123. I think defunding this war is one way to stop it

And I disagree with them giving in to what he <Bush> wanted simply because he would veto what is right. Make of that what you will.

[Uncle Joe]

110. I agree with Al Gore

I also believe looking for simple answers to complex problems is what put Bush in power to begin with.

Thanks to Bush, Iraq is a clusterfuck and will not be an easy solution for anyone, period.

[Bluebear]

113. This inflammatory headline is the OP's own. Read on: >>>>>>>>>>

At another point in the interview, it sounded at first like he was brushing back the liberal activists in his own party. They have lashed Democratic congressional leaders for last week’s retreat in their confrontation with Bush over continued funding for the war.

Was that comment aimed at MoveOn.org and other groups, which have threatened primary challenges to Democrats who do not challenge Bush on the war? Not at all, Gore said again: "I was really directing it at people like me who want to see our troops out immediately but understand that it's not that easy."

===

As the OP said:

"You have to appreciate the subtle mischief of my original OP"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1011635&mesg_id=1013181

[IChing]

115. Yes it is a DLC talking point. The POLITICO? n/t

[Bluebear]

121. Indeed. nt

[nam78_two]

127. kick

Yup. The title is inflammatory and false.

[mmonk]

124. Bring it on.

[tomp]

125. the dems have long (LONG!) outworn their benefit of the doubt.

they need to start EARNING trust--big time. we need IMMEDIATE action and effectiveness. al can go to hell. this pretty much seals it for me with gore. just another fucking player. just another disparager of the left.

somebody explain to me why, with bush at 28%, the dems can't get some repub crossover. that's high level ineffectiveness or it's complicity.