Gore for Pres? What does RedState know that we do not?

[AnnInLa]

http://www.redstate.com/stories/liberals/for_kerry_the_election_never_ends#comment

"I'm having a hard time deciding which piece of news is better for the 2008 GOP nominee: the news that Al Gore will probably run, or the increasing evidence that John Kerry plans to run."

The news that Al Gore will probably run? Has anyone on DU heard anything? That's all the poster says, and then there are alot of comments, putting down both Gore and Kerry. Where is this news about Gore probably running come from? Did I miss a memo?

[mcscajun]

1. All that's out there so far is a basketful of "Draft Gore" movements

and Gore's own words that could be interpreted anyway you like:

"I’m enjoying what I’m doing, I’m not planning to be a candidate again. I haven’t reached a stage in my life where I’m willing to say I will never consider something like this, but I’m not saying that to be coy; I’m just saying that to be honest — that I haven’t reached that point."

[bryant69]

5. I love the "I'm not saying that to be coy." part

It sounds extra sincere.

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

[lisainmilo]

22. I believe drafts have been delivered to him

about a week ago or so. But, I dont think he has come out with his decision yet.

[Phredicles]

2. Hunch/speculation?

I both hope and think he'll run. I'm basing this on Gore's evident popularity on places like this board, especially in the wake of "An Inconvenient Truth". Plus, he has been weighing in with a lot of pronouncements on the state of the nation. He may say he has no plans to run, but I can't believe it hasn't seriously crossed his mind.

As for Kerry, I've heard interviews where he is sharp and to the point; where the hell was that guy two years ago? ("Course, you could ask where the Blistering Al we're been hearing from lately was in '00, too). If Kerry wants to try again though, I think he should wait; too many people remember what an ineffective campaign he ran last time around.

[blm]

9. That ineffective campaign got more votes than anyone in history - what was

actually ineffective was the Dem party infrastructure that did not counter the vote suppression tactics that the RNC worked at diligently for four years in between elections.

Kerry DECISIVELY WON all his matchups with Bush.

How did the DNC do against the RNC?

And how did the left media do matched against the RW message machine?

[SheilaT]

3. And it would be good news

for the GOP nominee if Al Gore and or John Kerry run.

We need someone new, someone who will actually stand up to Republicans. Not Hillary, that's for sure. And no, I don't really have anyone in mind. I want to see what happens over the next 12-18 months before thinking about who the nominee should be.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. You'd do well to remember that Gore DID stand up to them --

it was his VP and the DLC handlers running his campaign that he didn't stand up to - you know, the people that actually had influence over him and his ability to be effective. He stood up to the repubs right until the SCOTUS illegally declared the other guy the winner, and as they are the final arbiters there was nowhere else for him to go. If not for the DLC undercutting him, SCOTUS may have held off until after the recount was completed - it would only have been a matter of a couple days more - but when they got the message that they could make their ruling without fear of impeachment themselves, they went for it.

[SheilaT]

6. This has been endlessly discussed

as we both realize. My essential point, that we need real Democrats who will actually stand up to the Republicans, remains.

Even now, why aren't we seeing ads on TV showing how a full year after Katrina most of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast is still a ruin? Why aren't we seeing ads showing the 46 million or so Americans without health insurance? Or what the new Medicare prescription drug benefit is really about? Or the soldiers maimed and crippled in Iraq? Or adding up just how many Iraqis are dying every single day over there right now? Or, well you get the idea.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. I get it, and agree 100%. nt

[blm]

10. That's asking for a Dem PARTY ad - individual lawmakers shouldn't do it.

And the day you find ONE lawmaker who has ACTUALLY stood against Republican power with SERIOUS actions more than John Kerry, please share that information with us.

[SheilaT]

11. John "I won't concede until every vote is counted" Kerry.

Yeah, right.

I also realized I knew everything I really needed to know about him when I learned that in twenty years as a senator he'd not sponsored one significant piece of legislation.

Yes, he was a true hero, he went to Vietnam and served honorably and was slimed by the Republicans. And it took him a remarkably long time to counter their accusations.

Individual lawmakers should be busily repudiating their IWR votes and holding the Republican Congress fully responsible for the abandonment of New Orleans, for the state of the economy, for tax policies that have outsourced thousands of jobs. And on, and on. But so far I see none of this and it makes me sick.

Furthermore, the country's mess is getting deeper and uglier, and it's not going to be turned around any time soon just because there's a narrow Democratic majority in either or even both houses. What we need is for enough people to get truly disgusted and throw out all the incumbents and run for office Senators and Representatives who will care about what's happened in recent years and who will be willing to face up to big business and the corporate media to make real changes. But that's not going to happen.

[blm]

14. If that's all you know, I'd suggest switching to a REAL HISTORY BOOK.

Or using the congressional record.

Or refencing the National Security Archives.

What you just claimed to be all you know, is actually an indictment against yourself - you are saying publicly that you do not use the historic record or any public records to assess a lawmaker.

Where do you get your bogus information from?

[SheilaT]

15. My memory.

I recall him saying he'd make sure every vote was counted.

And then gave in long before every vote was counted.

I remember quite clearly it took a full month before his campaign responded to the Swift Vets or whatever they called themselves.

That's my history book. My own personal crystal clear recollections.

[blm]

17. Except YOU SAID THIS in your post about what ALL you know

and needed to know.

>>>
I also realized I knew everything I really needed to know about him when I learned that in twenty years as a senator he'd not sponsored one significant piece of legislation.
>>>

Why would you spread such INANE falsehoods that would be damaginbg to any Democrat when it is spread around.? Why complain about the Swifts and then spread lies just as eagerly as they did?

If you really believed what you said, then you need NEW SOURCES for your history studies. And if you feel comfortable spreading lies about Democrats, then a mirror should be involved.

[SheilaT]

18. Aside from the fact it's true?

Tell me he didn't concede almost immediately after saying he'd make sure all the votes were counted. Tell me he and his campaign responded immediately to the Swift Boat Vets rather than waiting a month. Tell me all about the fabulous legislation with his name on it and I'll apologize gracefully.

[blm]

19. Kerry submitted the FIRST ever legislation in the senate for gay rights.

Kerry submitted the only public financing of campaigns bill - Clean Money, Clean Elections.

Kerry crafted one of the most important parts of the anti-terror bill Clinton signed in 96, the tracking of terrorists and their financial networks.

Kerry crafted the SCHIP bill with Kennedy to extend healthcare to more children in every state.

There is much more in the congressional record, but, more importantly, WHY have you never examined the record yourself so you could know these things back when Kerry was the candidate? What kind of Dem activist never checks the record or reads about the nominee's body of work? If YOU failedas an activist to look these things up, then how did you expect to talk to your friends and neighbors?

What I think you could be doing is ignoring that no matter WHO crafts the bill or submits the legislation, it is the SENIOR Senator who gets their name on the bill. It is a peculiarity of the senate rules and process. Maybe you weren't ignoring it and just were unaware of i, I don't really know which, but people so unfamiliar with the rules of the senate shouldn't walk around making declarative statements about senators and their work.

And legislation isn't ALL a senator works on - there are some senators who take on the TOUGHEST WORK OF THE SENATE - investigations of corruption within the WH and throughout its administration. Kerry took on both Reagan AND Bush1, and the result was that most of what we know today about the BFEE is due to Kerry's work uncovering the many layers of corruption and its extensive networking into global finance institutions.

Take Kerry out of the picture the last 35yrs and see what history would look like.

[SheilaT]

20. And how many of these passed?

Okay, the fact that I don't recognize these bills by their names, and I failed to notice when they passed, is clearly my fault for not paying closer attention to such things. I promised to apologize, and I will. The fact that Kerry struggles so valiantly and yet all of his wondrous legislative accomplishments remain obscure, so obscure that they weren't mentioned widely during his campaign two years ago is a real shame. I certainly should have researched all of his record closely, since it was my duty to do so, not his campaign's obligation to make sure we all knew of everything he'd done while in the senate. I guess that's how I should be spending more of my time.

Now about his promise to make sure all the votes were counted. . . .

[blm]

21. I have another take on why his work has become "obscure" to most media

and to many Democrats - the DC establishment.

They don't want to HEAR about REAL campaign finance reform that cuts out all corporate money influence.

DC establishment was FURIOUS that Kerry wanted the Dem party identified with gay rights.

DC establishment helped to BLOCK IranContra and BCCI investigations because some of them and their friends were peripherally involved, as well.

Read Clinton's book - he never even mentions one word about BCCI. He also never mentions that John Kerry led the senate task force on Vietnam, and instead directs all credit to McCain, even though in McCain's earlier bio he credits Kerry for leading it and keeping him from breaking down throughout the process.

There is something wrong that so much is kept from the public discourse, but it almost always comes down to the many toes Kerry stepped on during his many quests to open up government to the peopl.

[OzarkDem]

13. Someone like Ralph Nader?

:sarcasm:

Where have I heard this before?

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Al Gore IS Clearly the best man for the job, IMHO.

Not only from a Democratic Party perspective, or a United States of America perspective, but from a Planet Earth perspective. We don't have TIME to futz around playing tit-for-tat with the GOP. We need someone who can LEAD on the most important security issue of this century- namely, the Environment and Global Warming.

Al Gore is that guy. I think a Gore-Feingold ticket would be pretty fucking solid, and frighten the crap out of the GOP to boot.

[Edgewater_Joe]

8. They Should Be Careful of What They Wish For

I think Gore '08 would destroy the Repunks.

[marmar]

12. I don't know if I'd trust that knuckledraggers' website for reliable info.

It's probably not frequented by the sharpest tools in the shed. :dunce: :dunce: