Al Bore: It's time for him to go - Permanently

[Guest ncm2169]

Speaking as a proud Democrat, it's time to send the message: Stick a fork in Al Bore. He's done.

 

For your edification, I quote two excerpts from a wonderful column by Norah Vincent, a columnist in Yardley, PA, recently printed in the LA Times:

 

"Although it is true that Gore is too circumspect to be natural and not strong enough on the issues to show conviction, these aren't the killer ingredients. The real problem with shallow Al is still what it has always been: his condescending, supercilious, sanctimonious, officious, overbearing tone of voice. The man is convinced he is better than the rest of us, and he's no good at hiding it. No matter how hard he tries, he sounds like a middle-school principal doling out detention slips."

 

"It wasn't his policies that alienated voters in 2000. It was the thought of having to listen to that righteous, reprimanding drone for the next four years. Nobody likes to be lectured."

 

My sentiments exactly. This otherwise proud Democrat couldn't have said it better.

 

Anybody like John Kerry? :+

[bluenix]

>Speaking as a proud Democrat, it's time to send the message:

>Stick a fork in Al Bore. He's done.

 

This week's Economist, in a warning to George Dubya, notes that Al Gore, "the most unattractive candidate since Richard Nixon," still managed to win the popular vote. I think that about sums it up. Except he's weirder than Nixon.

 

Well, and there's this: does anyone really want to risk a replay of Al sticking his tongue down Tipper's throat?

 

Ick.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

You know, until very recently I agreed with all of this -- actually, I guess most of me still does -- but I've gotta say that when Gore started talking about a single-payer Canadian-style health insurance system it made me think he deserves another look after all. (Before his death Paul Wellstone was probably the most prominent Democrat to support a single-payer system, which is a sign that doing so takes balls and integrity, two qualities not previously associated with the former vice-president.)

 

It could be argued that supporting something that can so easily and falsely be tarred as socialized medicine by the Republicans would be political suicide, but consider this:

 

a) ANY health care reform Democrats propose gets tarred as socialized medicine by the Republicans. The difference is that usually the reforms are too tepid and mind-numbingly complicated to inspire any support (Hillarycare, anyone? It was Hillary, by the way, when she was heading up the health care task force, who immediately declared single-payer to be politically unviable). A single-payer system is easy to summarize: Medicare for everybody. Medicare is one of THE most popular government programs out there, and its administrative costs are actually very low. Yes, it'll still get attacked and distorted, but if you're going to be attacked, why not be attacked for something you can actually defend and rally support around?

 

b) There are as many uninsured people as ever after a decade of incremental approaches to health care reform, and people who have insurance, I'd wager, are more, not less dissatisfied than they were ten years ago.

 

c) Having a Democratic nominee who supports single-payer would effectively make the Greens go away. No one who voted for Nader in 2000 would tell you there was no difference between the two major parties if the Dems were backing single-payer. Ditto energizing the liberal base of the party. The Greens have shown that they can cost Democrats elections. Any Democratic nominee is going to have to reckon with them.

 

Gore's prestige may well rise again as Bush's sinks. I think it's already begun to -- witness Mary Landrieu's unexpected win in Louisiana, which I believe was in part a repudiation of the hubris the Republicans have (predictably) already begun to show since Election Day. And if they continue to mismanage the economy; if Rumsfeld et al start running into problems with their project to remake the Middle East in our image; if the erosion of civil liberties fails to noticeably improve "Homeland Security," more and more people who for the time being accept Bush as their President are likely to start recalling that, after all, even with the Nader factor, Gore WAS the popular choice of the American electorate in 2000.

 

Also Gore, who did impressively well with black voter turnout in 2000, has already bolstered his support with that base by jumping on Trent Lott's Dixiecrat nostalgia early in the news cycle. If Lott survives as majority leader, which would be a huge gift for Democrats (though not so great for the country), you can bet African American voters will remember that Gore was demanding a real apology from Lott while Daschle was cooing that we all misspeak. Maybe the second time around Gore will be able to come across more as a man who speaks from his gut rather than from a pedastel. It's a big maybe, but his belated support for single-payer does tend to give me hope. It's nice to see a Democrat standing for something again.

 

Kerry's also interesting, especially because I believe he was one of the first to suggest that Democrats try pushing for more short term middle-class tax cuts and opposing making the cuts for the rich permanent (which does nothing to stimulate the economy anyway). He has some of Gore's personality problems though -- aloofness, elitism -- and being a Senator from Massachusetts isn't exactly the ideal launching point for a run at national office these days. But maybe that can be overcome.

[ad rian]

>You know, until very recently I agreed with all of this --

>actually, I guess most of me still does -- but I've gotta say

>that when Gore started talking about a single-payer

>Canadian-style health insurance system it made me think he

>deserves another look after all. (Before his death Paul

>Wellstone was probably the most prominent Democrat to support

>a single-payer system, which is a sign that doing so takes

>balls and integrity, two qualities not previously associated

>with the former vice-president.)

 

Can anyone really take Al Gore's constant reinventions of himself seriously? This is the man who first used a Willy Horton Ad against Mike Dukakis in 1988, and now attacks Trent Lott for race-baiting. This is also the man who attacked Bill Bradley in 2000 for proposing a "Canadian-style" single payer health system, but who now appears to have embraced the idea, although he some how claims that his plan is not "Canadian-style". (Shades of both Clintons here, I fear.)

[jack]

As a proud Republican, I suggest we all chip in to get Al Gore and Trent Lott a small "C" class cabin on a slow trip around the world. They deserve each other. Plus, we'd know what they were both doing all the time.x(

[Guest alanm]

The NY Times is quoting Gore associates: "He's not going to run."

 

I like Kerry a lot, but how can a liberal senator from Massachusetts

possibly win, unless his name is Kennedy? Kennedy was the only northern Democrat since Roosevelt to be elected. I conside Missouri (Truman) a border state, may be wrong about that.

[Guest Merlin]

By piling onto Lott for his comment, the Democrats are further alienating white southerners, who are critical in any Presidential election.

[ad rian]

>By piling onto Lott for his comment, the Democrats are

>further alienating white southerners, who are critical in any

>Presidential election.

 

That may be true, but I have been surprised by the number of conservative commentators who have also come forward demanding his resignation. There is a clear pattern of behaviour here on Lott's part. It may well be that the Thurmond birthday party will be for Democrats what the Wellstone funeral was to Republicans!

[Justice]

Looks like he may have gotten the message. There's a report on The Washington Post's website (http://www.washingtontpost.com) that says that Gore said that he wouldn't run in 2004 during an interview on tonight's 60 minutes. I didn't see the show, but the report seems credible. Let's just hope that he doesn't change in mind.

[ad rian]

>I didn't see the show,

>but the report seems credible. Let's just hope that he doesn't

>change in mind.

 

I am not sure this is not part of a larger Clintonian plan for him to recapture the underdog status, and to avoid a possible expensive loss to Keary in NH. First, he said he thought he could beat W. Second, he did not use the "if drafted, I will not run, if elected I will not run" formulation. Third, he was very evasive about 2008, or whether he would ever run again. Instead, he said words to the effect that he probably will not have another opportunity to seek the White House. What does that mean when dealing with the is "is" crowd?

[Guest Love Bubble Butt]

Actually I read that he was quoted as saying that since he had already ran twice for the presidency, he never will again. And that he felt there were other great ways he could serve his country.

 

I don't know how much news you guys follow (I'm a news junky). But has anyone heard/read of the reports that Wesley Clark is considering running for president as a Democrat? If he does, I think he'll be the "sleeper hit" (politically) in getting the Democratic nomination.

[Guest Bitchboy]

>By piling onto Lott for his comment, the Democrats are

>further alienating white southerners, who are critical in any

>Presidential election.

 

 

Well, good. I may be in the minority but I'd rather lose an election than pander to the racists. This issue has more damage to our country and our integrity than anything else.

[ad rian]

>Actually I read that he was quoted as saying that since he

>had already ran twice for the presidency, he never will again.

> And that he felt there were other great ways he could serve

>his country.

 

 

I don't think he went anywhere near that far if you actually read his comments. He should have said "if drafted I will not run, if elected I will not SERVE" if he wanted to end all speculation.

[Guest Love Bubble Butt]

Well I guess it's open to interpretation. Here's the excerpt from the CNN article I read:

 

... Gore said he does not expect ever to run for president. "I've run for president twice, and there are many other exciting ways to serve," he said.

 

Here's a link to the full story:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/16/gore/index.html

 

But you are right. He does not emphatically rule it out. There is wiggle room there for him to run again should he decide to.

[Guest ncm2169]

Since I started this thread, it's maybe time to weigh in here. ;-)

 

(Of course, this thread was the final blow :o for the Bore).

 

As for his future, here's my take on it: Sure, he's waiting for 2008. That gives him 6 years to yet again reinvent himself. x(

 

Six years. Hmmm. Exactly how long it took Nixon. :+

 

Lieberman next? }(

[ad rian]

>But you are right. He does not emphatically rule it out.

>There is wiggle room there for him to run again should he

>decide to.

 

Yes, but lines like this from that article give me pause:

 

""I'm not ready to write my political epitaph," he said. "Hold off on getting the chisel and granite out.""

 

And also this from another article:

 

"``I made the decision in the full awareness that that probably means I will never have another opportunity to run for president, and I'm at peace with that,'' he said."

 

Why "probably"?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Gore.html?pagewanted=print&position=top

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

One Term Wonders

 

Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon.

 

These three former president share a unique trait. They are the only president in modern times to be re-elected.

 

Many of the putatively strong candidates against George the Elder withdrew from consideration prior to New Hampshire, including president-in-waiting Mario Cuomo.

 

What is different now is that many of the rules have changed. One term senators are thought to be presidential, as are govenors with limited experience on the world stage. Television has also changed how most voters both experience and pick candidates.

 

The probability that the current president will be another one term wonder is high, especially given the democratic party's unwillingness to present a genuine alternative (we are talking appearance, not reality) and the public's desire to view elections a contest, not as a choice between many roads but merely two. As far as the voters and the largely disinterested public are concerned, there is only one winner and one loser. They are correct.

 

The public, particularly the voting public, lose: their representive rights, the desire to set aside parochial interests, the ability to work together with others for the common good and the desire to "create a more perfect union."

 

The winners are those who have both the means and the skills to manipulate the system, largely for economic gain, but sometimes soley to divide the populace to further an agenda or simply to consolidate control or power. This is how we have a small few companies controlling what songs most people in this country can hear, what newspapers are available for most people to read, what movies can be viewed most readily by most people and even what kind of food most people can eat, what kind of air they can breath, what kind of water they can drink and how much access to pristine land, beaches, lakes and other natural resources will be left to the public now and in the future.

[BgMstr4u]

RE: One Term Wonders

 

Gore HAS bowed out, and for good reason. He could not possibly win in 2004. Another Democrat might. But the Democrats start with huge disadvantages. Why?

 

First, and most important, it has been repeated endlessly, but it continues to be true: The US was attacked. Our citizens and guests were killed. Our property was destroyed. Our economy continues to suffer as a result. And it may well happen again. The first job of a President is to organize national defense, both in the technical military sense and in the sense of rallying the country. Bush has done both. Gore has equivocated, whined, quibbled, nibbled and generally proven that he is not a leader on this level.

 

The US has been fortunate in the past when this kind of leadership was needed: Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman. We were not fortunate with Kennedy/Johnson who got us into Vietnam, and Nixon could not get us out. Ford had the guts to pull the plug, and lost in part because he did what was right. But it saved this country from much worse. I thank God so many Ford people are now in the administration. They knew when to act then, and I hope they do now.

 

No Democrat can win in 2004 unless s/he has credibility on this issue. Period.

 

Second, the economy. What happened under Clinton's watch seemed to be a miracle, and seemed is the right word. While no president creates the economy, or affects it all that much, Clinton attached himself to the 90's bubble for all it was worth, and cannily extracted a deficit reduction from it. Bush's job is much harder. The bubble was temporary to begin with, and now has burst, with consequences yet to come, no doubt. Some Democrats think they can wave a magic wand and create the bubble again -- as if taxes created worth. There aren't many voters who will believe this, even if they are tired of Bush's tilt toward the rich. Bush will avoid his father's mistake of seeming to be uninvolved (though it was Bush pere's tax decisions which lay the groundwork for the deficit reductions claimed by the Clintons). A Democrat to win must plausibly show a better program. The difficulty of this for the Democrats is nowhere more visible than in the pathetic failure of Daschle to promote anything at all credible when the Democrats still held the Senate. His failure is largely responsible for their loss.

 

Third, health care. The vast majority of people want a single payer system. The key, which seems to have eluded the Democrats altogether, and particularly Hillary, whose spectacular incompetence in 1993 killed her husband's efforts, is to get business behind it. Give American business a way to simplify their personnel issues, and they will pass it in a heartbeat. It is not about money. Good healthcare will cost about as much as it does now under any system, and attempts to economize will lead to problems like Canada's or Great Britain's. But listen to business, get their cooperation, get it out of HR departments and unions and into a rational system, and Democrats will have a winner.

 

Fourth, let us not forget the stench that Clinton left behind. Not simply Monica, but all she stands for -- free and easy access to privilege (including sex) for the powerful in government. It's ok to diddle with other people if you're President. The pardons, which have been laid quietly to rest but reek of special interest. Political money -- Terry McAuliffe, and before him Ron Brown, who recreated the Democrats as a party of unique privilege. Any Democrat who hopes to win must repudiate this heritage. This is what The Kiss was about: "I'm (We're) Not Clinton".

 

Finally, the Democrats need to project a big picture values system which integrates their campaigns and makes them coherent. The Republicans have and people trust them because they tell the truth about what they will do: They stand for defense, business success (which is what the tax cuts are about) with its hoped for corollary, prosperity up and down the line, and personal integrity (which is where the religious right wing comes in). The Republicans did not achieve this overnight. This is the product of decades of argument and hard political work in the GOP. The Democrats have voices with agendas, but not a consensus of the party. They will have a particularly difficult job achieving this now, after Clinton, who in a typical month was a Green environmentalist one week, a right wing welfare zealot the next, a socialist the third week, and simply clinging to power the fourth. And, incredibly, he's still the most influential Democrat voice and face. They need a new one.

 

Given these challenges, can any Democrat win the presidency in 2004? I am a Republican, and so I hope not. But even difficult elections can be won, given the right circumstances, candidate, platform and presentation. Of the current names, I think Joe Lieberman comes closest. I think he would give Bush one heck of a ride. I think the others, including Hillary, would cause erections in the liberal media flackery, but in the end would fall to Bush.

[VaHawk]

RE: One Term Wonders

 

I suppose if Jeb is still governor of Florida, then George can steal another election, despite the vote and voice of the people. It never ceases to amaze me that everytime a Republican is president that the economy goes into a tailspin while unemployment rises significantly, but that is always the groundwork of the previous Democratic president even if that was several years earlier. Of course when the economy is booming under the Democrats that was always the groundwork of the previous Republican administration.

 

As far as Ford, man he wasn't even elected once and just happened to be in office when the U.S. finally got out of Vietnam, which Eisenhower another Republican got us into in the first place. You still wearing that WIN button by any chance? Oh well as they say "different strokes".

[Guest Love Bubble Butt]

RE: One Term Wonders

 

First of all, I'm an Independent. I have things I like and dislike about both parties. I'm not particularly a big fan of Al Gore's, but I did vote for him and think he definitely got screwed in the 2000 election. And I personally cannot stand Bush! I liked his Father, but I cannot stand junior.

 

It is my belief that it is the centrists who determine the elections. If the Democrats follow the advice of most of the Democratic leaders (who are saying that they can win if they just really focus on the economy in 2004), they're doomed to fail!! America is under attack! All the terrorist attacks across the world, that we have watched over the years on television from the comfort and safety of our living rooms, have now hit us at home. Eveything that we believe in is now at stake. Good economy or bad economy, any presidential candidate who comes across as a pacifist to any degree does not have a chance in hell of becoming elected. It just will not happen. September 11 changed that and the Democrats better get with the program. Even Bill Clinton commented on this very thing recently. If they take the "focus on the economy" approach, the democratic base will be on board, but the centrists (including myself) will vote for Bush. As much as I can't stand Bush, I WILL vote for Bush over a pacifist Democrat.

 

I think the best chances for the Democrats lie with either Lieberman or Clark. Both appear to be more moderate (if not more liberal) on social issues but more hawkish on foreign policy than the others. But it should be interesting.

[ad rian]

RE: One Term Wonders

 

I don't much care for Gore, but can you be serious about: Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt (I or II) Truman and ..... BUSH II?!

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Nixon, Reagan, Clinton

 

Unfortunately, the more salient points of my post have apparently gone unnoticed.

 

>First, and most important, it has been repeated endlessly,

>but it continues to be true: The US was attacked. Our

>citizens and guests were killed. Our property was destroyed.

>Our economy continues to suffer as a result. And it may well

>happen again.

 

Terrorism is a fact of modern life. Like having to pay for the resources we use at a fair and equitable value (water, electricity, gasoline, land) and dealing with globalization on a global scale, the United States has been spared much of what the rest of the world has been facing for many years now.

 

The tragedy at the World Trade Center is being viewed by citizens of this country as an isolated attack when such attacks have happend through Western Europe, Russia, the Middle East, the Far East and just about everywhere else. Like tourist visiting a foreign nation who do not bother to learn the local customs, language or practices, the people here treat this as a personal attack.

 

It is, was and should be seen as emblemic of a global environment where nation states are no longer the only players on the stage.

 

It also needs to be seen as an attack by proxies, for elements in countries which are putatively the allies of the United States but are both funding and actively participating in acts of terrorism against both their own people and those of othe sovereign nations.

 

It needs to be addressed in a global context. The Bush Administration, to its credit, particularly in Colin Powell's response to the Iraq declaration, has been taking a more measured and coherent approach. In order to contain and defuse terrorism, a global effort will be required. This country will have to use intelligence from muslim nations, from friendly powers who would spy against us, from countries who were our former enemies and who still have vestiges of power and influence in their government who would prefer to see the United States in a role of less significance and importance in the world stage.

>

>

>Second, the economy.

 

When confronted from without by an enemy they can both recognize and fear, the people of this country will certainly support an effort of containment and protection. When this offer is not successfull. When Osama or Saddam remain alive, at large and in a position to possible damage common citizens, their desire to provide blind support will most certainly wane. Then, their concern for their own basic needs: health, welfare, shelter, food, income - these issues will override concerns. The president did an excellent job of targeting good candidates and supporting them to victory. But the Republican base will wish to pursue an agenda on social and other issues, including capital gains, taxes, etc., which have nothing to do with terrorism or with national security and defense. To the extent that they seem preoccupied with issues that do not benefits those concerned who are underemployed, unemployed or facing sacrifice financially, they will not be viewed on kindly in 2004

 

>

>Third, health care.

 

As the population ages, as business put forth more and more of the cost of health care on individuals, as choices are limited, this will become THE issue of this decade. While it may not yet affect the election results nationally or even regionally in 2004, this issue will define politics in our lifetime in ways no one ever imagined, including social security, medicare and nationalized health.

>

>Fourth, let us not forget the stench that Clinton left

>behind. Not simply Monica, but all she stands for -- free and

>easy access to privilege (including sex) for the powerful in

>government. It's ok to diddle with other people if you're

>President. The pardons, which have been laid quietly to rest

>but reek of special interest. Political money -- Terry

>McAuliffe, and before him Ron Brown, who recreated the

>Democrats as a party of unique privilege. Any Democrat who

>hopes to win must repudiate this heritage. This is what The

>Kiss was about: "I'm (We're) Not Clinton".

 

George W. Bush raised more money in less time than any other candidate for president. His administration, including for example his designee for Treasury, includes any number of businessmen who were successfull not as say Steven Jobs or Michael Dell created profitable, well run enterprises, but because they worked for highly regulated industries which were slowly deregulated and which benefited from an interrelationship with former government connections. In John Snow's case, he designed deregulation, went to work for CSX, made millions as CEO, while the company's stockholders and employees have not benefits to the same extent, and now returns to perform this same miracle for the nation. He is not the second coming of Robert Rubin, regretfully, but perhaps the second coming of Lloyd Bentsen and John Connely (sp?)

 

Dick Chaney, for example, made money for his company not because he knew anything about energy, but because his fomer government connections generated a number of government contracts for this business, whether or not they were the best business to carry these out.

 

This type of behavior is as true for the democrats as it is for the republicans.

 

True campaign reform and genuine ethical reform will solve these issues and keep all political parties and politicians from behaving in less than full accord with the public's interest.

[BuckyXTC]

RE: Nixon, Reagan, Clinton

 

>George W. Bush raised more money in less time than any other

>candidate for president. His administration, including for

>example his designee for Treasury, includes any number of

>businessmen who were successfull not as say Steven Jobs or

>Michael Dell created profitable, well run enterprises, but

>because they worked for highly regulated industries which were

>slowly deregulated and which benefited from an

>interrelationship with former government connections. In John

>Snow's case, he designed deregulation, went to work for CSX,

>made millions as CEO, while the company's stockholders and

>employees have not benefits to the same extent, and now

>returns to perform this same miracle for the nation. He is not

>the second coming of Robert Rubin, regretfully, but perhaps

>the second coming of Lloyd Bentsen and John Connely (sp?)

>

>Dick Chaney, for example, made money for his company not

>because he knew anything about energy, but because his fomer

>government connections generated a number of government

>contracts for this business, whether or not they were the best

>business to carry these out.

 

 

Franco:

 

Excellent post. As I suspect you would agree, the reason GW Bush raised so much money was because, for him and his administration, everything would be "for sale" A prime case in point is the notorious credit card bank, MBNA. MBNA contributed a million dollars to Junior's campaign, and one of the first bills Junior signed after taking office was the Bankruptcy Reform Act, which makes it very difficult for credit card users who get in over their heads to get out of debt via personal bankruptcy.

 

We used to have functioning usury laws in this country that would prevent banks from becoming loan sharks, but the conservative wing of the Supreme Court made those laws moot when it comes to credit card banks. .....they can pretty much charge whatever rate of interest they desire these days. "Government for sale" is really at the heart of many of our problems in this country. I believe there would be a sea change in the political landscape if campaign reform eliminated all corporate contributions to political parties and candidates. It's not likely to happen, but it would make an incredible difference.

[Guest Merlin]

RE: Nixon, Reagan, Clinton

 

You might not like the change. If corporations could not influence elections, the inevitable result would be more legislation hostile to business and more socialistic measures, and the media would gain more power to influence elections. Politicians with personal money and existing name recognition, such as actors and other famous people as well as those with family names such as Bush, Kenndy,etc would have a distinct advantage. To see the danger of measures hostile to business, read up on the economic problems of France and Germany. They passed legislation giving workers more rights against business with the result that for the last decade and more they have had stagnent economies and unemployment around 13percent. The legislation makes the hiring of employess very burdensome and makes it very difficult to fire employees. The inevitable result is that businesses are very reluctant to hire more employees, and "giving a chance" to a marginal applicant is out of the question. The governments of those countries have recognized the problem but have found it politically impossible to repeal the legislation. If the US adopted similar legislation, a world wide depression would be the likely result. While we may not like some of the things that corporations do, we need to remember that they create jobs and have given us the highest standard of living in history. Our economy is the envy of the world. Before we silence the corporations we need to decide whether we really want more socialism.

[Guest Bitchboy]

RE: Nixon, Reagan, Clinton

 

As a gay man, I'm always surprised to see how quickly we accept selling out the individual for the right of the corporation. It's amazing to me that such statements can be made, whether true or not, without a revolution taking place. When I was a kid I saw a movie with Peter Finch sticking his head out a window and screaming "We're not going to take it any more." That's how I feel - I'm tired as hell and I'm not going to be kicked around anymore. Screw these corporations. And I don't for a second agree that socialism is the only other alternative, even though I would find it more acceptable than living under the corporate thumb.