Al Gore in 2008???

[The Dog]

For someone not running (yet?) he has been very visible and vocal lately.  I wonder if hes thinking about running again or just wanting to help the dems from the sidelines.  A Clinton-Gore ticket in 2008 gets me pretty pumped up


From GQ Magazine:

    Okay, on to 9-11. What were you really feeling? Was there a part of you that felt a sense of relief that you weren?t in charge that day?
    You mean a sense of relief that I didn?t have to deal with it? Oh no. Not at all. Not for one second. Not for one second. Why would I? I mean, well first of all, it just didn?t occur to me to feel anything like that. What did occur to me was to feel what every American felt, the outrage and anger and righteous anger, and support for the President at a time of danger... And, honestly, I was focused on the reality of the situation. And I wasn?t president, so, you know, it wasn?t about me. Now, I do wish, now that we have some distance from the events, and we have all this knowledge about what this administration did do, I certainly feel that I wish that it had been handled differently, and I do wish that I had somehow been able to prevent some of the catastrophic mistakes that were made....

    Do you feel that we would be safer today if you had been president on that day?
    Well, no one can say that the 9-11 attack wouldn?t have occurred whoever was president.

    Really? How about all the warnings?
    That?s a separate question. And it?s almost too easy to say, "I would have heeded the warnings." In fact, I think I would have, I know I would have. We had several instances when the CIA?s alarm bells went off, and what we did when that happened was, we had emergency meetings and called everybody together and made sure that all systems were go and every agency was hitting on all cylinders, and we made them bring more information, and go into the second and third and fourth level of detail. And made suggestions on how we could respond in a more coordinated, more effective way. It is inconceivable to me that Bush would read a warning as stark and as clear [voice angry now] as the one he received on August 6th of 2001, and, according to some of the new histories, he turned to the briefer and said, "Well, you?ve covered your ass." And never called a follow up meeting. Never made an inquiry. Never asked a single question. To this day, I don?t understand it. And, I think it?s fair to say that he personally does in fact bear a measure of blame for not doing his job at a time when we really needed him to do his job. And now the Woodward book has this episode that has been confirmed by the record that George Tenet, who was much abused by this administration, went over to the White House for the purpose of calling an emergency meeting and warning as clearly as possible about the extremely dangerous situation with Osama bin Laden, and was brushed off! And I don?t know why?honestly?I mean, I understand how horrible this Congressman Foley situation with the instant messaging is, okay? I understand that. But, why didn?t these kinds of things produce a similar outrage? And you know, I?m even reluctant to talk about it in these terms because it?s so easy for people to hear this or read this as sort of cheap political game-playing. I understand how it could sound that way. [Practically screaming now] But dammit, whatever happened to the concept of accountability for catastrophic failure? This administration has been by far the most incompetent, inept, and with more moral cowardice, and obsequiousness to their wealthy contributors, and obliviousness to the public interest of any administration in modern history, and probably in the entire history of the country!

    What?s the nicest thing you can say about George Bush?
    He made a terrific appointment of Ben Bernanke as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

    Ok, Is there a second best thing?
    I can?t think of another one, actually.

[AxlsMainMan]

I think Al's campaigning days are over..

[Izzy]

I think Al's campaigning days are over..

indeed - he made the fateful mistake of seeming like a decent honest individual - oil companies and the NRA will never back such a man

[Guns N RockMusic]

I think Al's campaigning days are over..

indeed - he made the fateful mistake of seeming like a decent honest individual - oil companies and the NRA will never back such a man

The NRA backs plenty of Democrats.  The NRA supporting Al Gore would be like the NAACP supporting Daniel Carver (the leader of the KKK).

[Izzy]

I think Al's campaigning days are over..

indeed - he made the fateful mistake of seeming like a decent honest individual - oil companies and the NRA will never back such a man

The NRA backs plenty of Democrats.? The NRA supporting Al Gore would be like the NAACP supporting Daniel Carver (the leader of the KKK).

no....

my point being the NRA doesnt support decent honest people.....a joke? I really hope so.

u can be scum and be democrat - they aint exclusives......

'but i need a gun to protect myself from people with guns, who in turn, own guns to protect themselves from people with guns....'

I love it.....

[Jim]

u can be scum and be democrat - they aint exclusives......

Don't we just know it. Apparantly they are all lefties. 

Well. I mean, they're liberal.

... American liberal.

... Err.

... 

[Hysteron]

I find it disturbing that the next US President (Most Powerful Leader in the World) will be either someone who has lost an election against George "The Iraq War" Bush (Kerry or Gore) or Hillary Clinton.

Presuming that the American people aren't stupid enough to vote for the Fascists A.K.A The Republican party again.

[Bandita]

I find it disturbing that the next US President (Most Powerful Leader in the World) will be either someone who has lost an election against George "The Iraq War" Bush (Kerry or Gore) or Hillary Clinton.

Presuming that the American people aren't stupid enough to vote for the Fascists A.K.A The Republican party again.

I would like to think we won't be that stupid again.

I mean it only took 6 years for us to figure it out as a nation, we are a little slow....

A lot of good potentials for 2008!

Commence flaming from the GOP!

[Dr. Blutarsky]

 I think most people are not 100% for one party or another. Most favor or lean one way or another I think. So they vote for the lesser of the 2 evils. What about a candidate who is neither a Democrat or a Republican? Rather, an independent who shares the same beliefs and views of most americans? I can dream....................

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Gore can win.  His movie was a hit, and all the young people are on board. 

And consider the fact that he won the "popular" vote.  I don't see how he can lose again, seeing that he's a mainstream success.

[Guns N RockMusic]

Gore can win.? His movie was a hit, and all the young people are on board.?

And consider the fact that he won the "popular" vote.? I don't see how we can lose again, seeing that he's a mainstream success.

young people don't vote.  Moore and Puff Daddy tried, but it just ain't gonna happen.

[Guns N RockMusic]

I find it disturbing that the next US President (Most Powerful Leader in the World) will be either someone who has lost an election against George "The Iraq War" Bush (Kerry or Gore) or Hillary Clinton.

Presuming that the American people aren't stupid enough to vote for the Fascists A.K.A The Republican party again.

I would like to think we won't be that stupid again.

I mean it only took 6 years for us to figure it out as a nation, we are a little slow....

A lot of good potentials for 2008!

Commence flaming from the GOP!

Just wait until 2008.  If the elections were held today with the projected candidates, the GOP would win.  To claim that all the "problems" in the world are caused by the GOP is just ignorant and naieve.  The Democrats are already not fulfilling their promises, such as fully implementing the 9/11 panels recommendations in the first 100 hours of congress.  Again, there was no mandate for change.  Most of the elections were a percent or two if not a few thousand votes.  To me that doesn't state that Americans have completely abandoned Republican values and switched to the Democratic party.  Until the Democrats come up with solutions and not just finger pointing, they're never going to have an impact on American policy again.

[Booker Floyd]

I think most people are not 100% for one party or another. Most favor or lean one way or another I think. So they vote for the lesser of the 2 evils. What about a candidate who is neither a Democrat or a Republican? Rather, an independent who shares the same beliefs and views of most americans? I can dream....................

You might be in luck.

[The Dog]

Gore can win.  His movie was a hit, and all the young people are on board. 

And consider the fact that he won the "popular" vote.  I don't see how he can lose again, seeing that he's a mainstream success.

He would make things SOOO interesting, i hope he considers running.  What i love about the interview is how emotional and honest he was in his assesment of Bush.  Democrats need to get angry over whats happened to our country (as do the american people).  Running on the environment would get him nowhere though, though i wonder if they could make it kinda like a "values" issue since most people are finally waking up to the fact that we're not helping things get any cooler here on earth.

Also, didn't he speak out against Iraq when Bush first came up with the idea?  I am pretty sure Obama did too.  will be interesting to see how Hillary and the others deal with their "YES" votes for the war.

[Booker Floyd]

Just wait until 2008.  If the elections were held today with the projected candidates, the GOP would win.

Dont know where this is coming from...

The Democrats are already not fulfilling their promises, such as fully implementing the 9/11 panels recommendations in the first 100 hours of congress.

What are you talking about?   

Again, there was no mandate for change.  Most of the elections were a percent or two if not a few thousand votes.

What do you think happened in 1994?  When incumbent reelection is 99%, 29 lost seats is a mandate for change, no matter how slim the margin.  You may not like it, but thats the way it is.

According to Wikipedia, Republicans earned 49% of the popular vote in 1994 while Democrats got 57% in 2006.  I cant guarantee its accuracy (Ill check), but the point is likely true - margins of victory are at least comparable to that of the Republican Revolution of 1994.  Its also worth mentioning that Democrats lost no congressional, senatorial, or gubernatorial seat in 2006.  Not one.  Thats a complete shutout, which hasnt  happened post-WWII, if ever. 

[The Dog]

Booker, don't let Flagg turn this thread into a "it wasn't a mandate" debate....its pure nonsense and everyone (except him maybe?) knows it - hes desperate to find some glimmer of hope in the utter defeat that was the 2006 midterm elections.

As for the 9-11 panel recommendations, unfortunatley, I've read the same thing Flagg is saying.  When Murtha lost the vote for House majority leader it threw a wrench into Pelosi's plans - The Washington Post had a good article on it.  It wasn't a "lie" or an empty promise, just things didn't work out the way they should have.

[GeraldFord]

Gore could take a page from the Nixon playbook and run in '08, much like Nixon ran in '68 after losing in '60.

I'd love for Gore to be President.

[Booker Floyd]

Gore could take a page from the Nixon playbook and run in '08, much like Nixon ran in '68 after losing in '60.

I'd love for Gore to be President.

Other presidents have lost before winning:

Andrew Jackson (like Gore, he won the popular vote, as well as the electoral vote, before losing to the son of a former president, John Q. Adams)
William Henry Harrison

Nixon is unique for losing the race in '60 and then losing the California gubernatorial race two years later.

I wouldnt mind a Gore run, and earlier this year I might have even welcomed it, but I dont think hes going to and perhaps he shouldnt.  At this moment, Im more interested in an Edwards or Obama presidency.  Perhaps he should consider a role in a Democratic cabinet?

[hunterwh]

Al Gore is not my favorite person. I love his b.s. propaganda film "an inconveniant truth". Pure and total crap. Junk science at it's very best.

[Booker Floyd]

An article pertaining to the Democrats first 100 hours...it seems theyre living up to at least one promise:

Culture Shock on Capitol Hill: House to Work 5 Days a Week

By Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 6, 2006; Page A01

Forget the minimum wage. Or outsourcing jobs overseas. The labor issue most on the minds of members of Congress yesterday was their own: They will have to work five days a week starting in January.

The horror.
   

Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, flanked by fellow House leaders Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi, says Democrats are trying to repair the image of Congress.
Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, flanked by fellow House leaders Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi, says Democrats are trying to repair the image of Congress. (By Caleb Jones -- Associated Press)
U.S. Congress

Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, the Maryland Democrat who will become House majority leader and is writing the schedule for the next Congress, said members should expect longer hours than the brief week they have grown accustomed to.

"I have bad news for you," Hoyer told reporters. "Those trips you had planned in January, forget 'em. We will be working almost every day in January, starting with the 4th."

The reporters groaned. "I know, it's awful, isn't it?" Hoyer empathized.

For lawmakers, it is awful, compared with what they have come to expect. For much of this election year, the legislative week started late Tuesday and ended by Thursday afternoon -- and that was during the relatively few weeks the House wasn't in recess.

Next year, members of the House will be expected in the Capitol for votes each week by 6:30 p.m. Monday and will finish their business about 2 p.m. Friday, Hoyer said.

With the new calendar, the Democrats are trying to project a businesslike image when they take control of Congress in January. House and Senate Democratic leaders have announced an ambitious agenda for their first 100 hours and say they are adamant about scoring legislative victories they can trumpet in the 2008 campaigns.

Hoyer and other Democratic leaders say they are trying to repair the image of Congress, which was so anemic this year it could not meet a basic duty: to approve spending bills that fund government. By the time the gavel comes down on the 109th Congress on Friday, members will have worked a total of 103 days. That's seven days fewer than the infamous "Do-Nothing Congress" of 1948.

Hoyer said members can bid farewell to extended holidays, the kind that awarded them six weekdays to relax around Memorial Day, when most Americans get a single day off. He didn't mention the month-long August recess, the two-week April recess or the weeks off in February, March and July.

He said members need to spend more time in the Capitol to pass laws and oversee federal agencies. "We are going to meet sufficient times, so the committees can do their jobs on behalf of the American people," he said.

For lawmakers within a reasonable commute of Washington, longer weeks are not a burden -- although they are likely to cut into members' fundraising and campaigning activities. But for members from Alaska and Hawaii, the West Coast, or rural states, the new schedule will mean less time at home and more stress.

"Keeping us up here eats away at families," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who typically flies home on Thursdays and returns to Washington on Tuesdays. "Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says."

Time away from Washington is just as important to being an effective member of Congress as time spent in the Capitol, Kingston added. "When I'm here, people call me Mr. Congressman. When I'm home, people call me 'Jack, you stupid SOB, why did you vote that way?' It keeps me grounded."

Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.), who had intended to retire this year, only to be persuaded to run again, wondered whether the new schedule was more than symbolic. "If we're doing something truly productive, that's one thing," he said. "If it's smoke-and-mirrors hoopla, that's another."

Senate leaders have not set their schedule, but the upper chamber generally works a longer week than the House, though important votes or hearings are usually not scheduled on Mondays or Fridays.

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), one of the architects of the lighter workweek, put the best Republican face on Hoyer's new schedule.

"They've got a lot more freshmen then we do," he said of the Democrats. "That schedule will make it incredibly difficult for those freshmen to establish themselves in their districts. So we're all for it."

The new schedule poses a headache for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who runs her 7-year-old daughter's Brownie troop meetings on Monday afternoons in Weston, Fla. "I'll have to talk to the other mothers and see if we can move it to the weekend," she said.

Setting a calendar that satisfies 435 members is impossible, said the current majority leader, Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who will become minority leader in January. "Between the travel issues, the members' work schedules, the family and district issues, it was a Rubik's cube," he said.

But most Democrats, some still giddy from their election victories, seemed game.

"It's long overdue," said Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), who lives in Napa Valley and will have to leave his home at 3 a.m. on Sundays to catch a flight to Washington in time for work Mondays. "I didn't come here to turn around and go back home."

Staff writer Jonathan Weisman contributed to this report.

---

"Keeping us up here eats away at families," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who typically flies home on Thursdays and returns to Washington on Tuesdays. "Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says."

 

Sounds like theyre complaining about hard work to me.