Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Fla. Senate: Gore Says "Remember the Recount"

Former Vice President Al Gore still hasn't forgotten about Florida.

Six years after a lengthy recount fight left Gore just shy of the electoral votes needed to claim a victory over President George W. Bush, the former vice president is weighing in on behalf of Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), who is seeking a second term in November.

"Bill's re-election campaign has become a lightning rod for many people across the country because of the personalities involved or likely to be involved in the race," Gore writes in an appeal that found its way into Democratic mailboxes over the weekend.

That "personality" to which Gore refers? None other than Rep. Katherine Harris -- the frontrunner for the GOP senate nomination or, in Gore's words, the official who was "chief architect of the 2000 Florida vote going to George Bush."

"Because you were a part of the Gore 2000 campaign team we thought you might be especially interested in this race," Gore writes. "I would like to win this one."

Gore's solicitation on behalf of Nelson comes on the heels of a speech Monday in Washington, D.C., in which he accused President Bush of "repeatedly and insistently" breaking the law by authorizing the National Security Agency to wiretap U.S. citizens without court approval.

Are the speech and fundraising letter the start of a Gore reemergence on the national scene? Gore appears to be experiencing a renaissance of late among many liberal Democrats who believe his "pure" opposition to the Iraq war positions him perfectly for a 2008 bid. Many on the ideological left of the party also see Gore as the only candidate with the national organization and fundraising prowess to challenge Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) in the 2008 primaries.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 17, 2006; 4:35 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008 , Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Hillary's 'Plantation' Comment -- Not the First Time
Next: Parsing the Polls: Can Tom DeLay Win Again?

Comments

The thing about corruption is that there will always be some corrupt people in any walk of life. Democrat... Republican... it doesn't matter, there will always be some. As aware citizens we can act to lessen the impact of bad government.

The problem with Abramoff is something new and different. This guy was the ultimate Republican insider. His little illegal campaign funding scheme was so huge that it touches nearly every Republican holding public office today.

Bush's repeated evasions aside, Abramoff was in so tight with the White House that he served on Bush's 2000 transition team.

Fellow Americans... Republican, Democrat, whatever... put aside your petty partisan bickering, denials, and evasions our country is in serious danger and needs to be saved from the crooks currently running it. They are stealing not only from you, but from grandma and your kids!

Posted by: John | January 19, 2006 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Traficante is bad news... I've never seen his toupee... but he's certainly not part of a much larger problem, like Abramoff is. Campaign rhetoric aside, the Republican party has become the party of open, even brash, influence peddling to the highest bidder. From bankruptcy laws written by creditors, to environmental regulations rewritten by polluters, to taxing and spending policies that benefit large multinationals while hurting small family businesses, to a foreign policy that always seems to begin with the question "What's best for Halliburton?"; the Republican party is selling us down the river.. lock, stock, and barrel.

Will the Dems win back Congress? I dunno. But for the sake of America's future everyone not in utter denial should vote out the corruption, influence peddling, and social Darwinism because the consequences of our current course are very unpleasant.

Posted by: John | January 19, 2006 5:50 PM | Report abuse

What takes a lot of nerve, John, is for a Dem to criticize the bad toupees of any Republican when the crown-jewel of bad toupees sits on Jim Traficant's head...lol :P

(oh, and he's in jail for being corrupt... Dems seem to have forgotten that little tidbit)

Some republicans will be indicted (or at least so wrapped up in scandal that they are rendered moot), but the Dems STILL won't win back Congress, because you are all inept

Posted by: Talk about bad toupee... | January 19, 2006 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Curses! My evil plan is foiled again! I would've gotten away with it if weren't for you meddling kids!

Posted by: Debbie in Florida (NOT!) | January 19, 2006 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Oops... forgot this... Abramoff's two best friends in the Young Republicans were Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist. Jack was the bridge between them and, in fact between the two halves of the Republican Party... the flat-earther and the flat-taxers. Bush and the rest pretend that Abramoff is an isolated case of scandal, but he is, in fact, one of the architects of the current Republican regime in Washinton. In other words, there are only really two kinds of Republicans... The corrupt ones and the ones in denial!

Posted by: John | January 18, 2006 9:01 PM | Report abuse

It takes a lot of nerve, or perhaps denial, for any Republican supporter to attack the Democrats as phoneys. On a personal level, you should spend some time noticing the bad toupees on Ney, Delay, Lott, and others. On a political level, Republicans lie so much that they can't even keep their stories straight and they're all as crooked as a dog's hind leg. Jack Abramoff is the symptom of a much larger, cynical Republican assult on America. Are they Nazis? No! Are they fascists and social darwinists? YES!

Posted by: John | January 18, 2006 8:52 PM | Report abuse


Weseto/Debbie

The events that debbie described are full of falsehoods. We have a website made for gullible fools like you.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.asp

I don't know who's more stupid Debbie for believing a hoax to make the Democrats look bad or Weseto for using the hoax to make the Republicans look bad. Both of you, please you go back to you your Barnie video and let the grown ups talk. And please rip up your voter registration.

P.S. Weseto please never use the L-word (logic) again

Posted by: KTC | January 18, 2006 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Debbie, Debbie, debbie,let's see if I have this right.

Ollie's testomony was in 1987, when he said tht OSB was the "most evil person alive". Ronald Reagan was president, father Bush was V.P.

You go on to say that Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in 1986. Ronald Reagan was president and father Bush was V.P.

Then you jump to 1993 to blame Clinton/Christopher for the release of Atta.

Please Debbie, tell me what happened between 1987 and 1993, when for four years
father Bush, former CIA Director father Bush, was president?

You say Democrats can think Church, Torrecelli, and S. Turner for gutting our National Securities capabilities. Maybe you can read, but you need to be able to think when you finish reading. Your logic sucks...

Posted by: weseto | January 18, 2006 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Be careful what you wish for.

Posted by: Jeff | January 18, 2006 3:08 PM | Report abuse

From a Republican with more than half a clue...

Debbie, stop passing off your junk mail rumors as "fact"

From snopes.com :

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.asp

You're embarrassing us real Republicans

(Don't tell me... you also believed the email chain stating the W has an IQ less than that of a monkey?! Or maybe you've sent some money to Niger lately to help an unfortunate soul lacking access to his millions in the bank??)

As for the rest of this dialogue, PLEASE nominate Al Gore in 2008... LMAO. Four more years of Republican control without even breaking a sweat! LOL... please do it, libs...

Posted by: Don't embarrass us, Deb | January 18, 2006 2:37 PM | Report abuse

The last two statementes by "debbie in florida" are complete b.s.

Posted by: Brian | January 18, 2006 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Thank God, Gore was defeated!!!!!!!

Anyone remember this??

It was 1987! At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video
of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the
Reagan Administration.

There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but
what he said was stunning!

He was being drilled by a senator; "Did you not recently spend close to
$60,000 for a home security system?"

Ollie replied, "Yes, I did, Sir."

The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, "Isn't
that just a little excessive?"

"No, sir," continued Ollie.

"No? And why not?" the senator asked.

"Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir."

"Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned.

"By a terrorist, sir" Ollie answered.

"Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"
"His name is Osama bin Laden, sir" Ollie replied.

At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce
it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people
laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of
this man?" the senator asked.

"Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of", Ollie
answered.

"And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator.

"Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be
formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth."

The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of
the clip.


By the way, that Senator was Al Gore!

Also:

Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis
captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the
Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political
prisoners."

However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands, The
American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State,
Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released.

Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an
airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many
of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first
identified.

It was censored in the US from all later reports.

All you Democrats can thank Church, Torrecelli, and Stanfield Turner for gutting our National Security capabilities.

While we're at it the butterfly ballot was designed by one of your own. At least Republicans can read and know how to vote.

Posted by: Debbie in Florida | January 18, 2006 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of your affiliation the fact is that both of these "parties" are owned by the same people, people who are the owners of the CEO's who have murderously raped the industrial base of the US and have given it to India and Red China in order to increase "profits' which can be counted in "stock options". Since elections require so much monies in order to deceive the public into voting for the myth, pandering to the wealth by promising and delivering federal funds to their corporate organs makes them the marionettes on the end of the strings dancing on the stage called "America". And we, the United States citizen, joyously cast worthless vote after worthless vote to OUR puppet on a string while all the time screaming at the corruption of some other poor smucks marionette and demanding THEY change their ways.... We are stupid sheep and deserve to be sheared by these bastards if we don't vote to spay both parties.......I want a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" button to vote for!....

Posted by: odessyus | January 18, 2006 12:42 PM | Report abuse

GOP stalwarts love their party so much more than they love their country. This nation is one that tolerates differnces and promotes debates, but the right hates those things. So we now have a Supreme Court that will have 8 white men (Clarence Thomas is only black pigmented) and one women, with a majority of 5 Catholics in a country where they comprise only 20% (60 million) of the population. How did all this happen? Because the right does not care about anything but power. The danger lies within, and Iraq was a ploy to dummy up terror, since Iraq had none before we got there. Why'd we go into Iraq? Because we knew it wasn't a threat!

Posted by: greenone | January 18, 2006 12:42 PM | Report abuse

It is very sad to see bush republicans and their far right wing supporters being so disrespectful to a former Vice President of the United States of America. Apparently they have no shame nor respect for our nation or it's Constitution. They also apparently have forgotten, or perhaps it is because they remember and are afraid, that Vice President Al Gore defeated their candidate by more than half a million votes and it was only through convoluted legal wrangling that they were able to install their losing candidate as President and bring about the last 5 years of disaster upon The United States of America.

Shame.

Posted by: Andrew C. White | January 18, 2006 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Kimmer, I like your enthusiasm. Gore is certainly competent and ready to take on the responsibilities of president, more than you can say about the current crowd which has set a new record for incompetence in modern times (except maybe for Government by PR). What a disappointment it must be for them that Newspeak (even with the Fox Network around as an echo chamber) is not as effective as it was for Big Brother in Orwell's 1984.

Posted by: Jeff | January 18, 2006 10:56 AM | Report abuse

I agree that Big Al makes good points but is he referring to Gore when he says that a " 'peace at all costs' president at this point would be catastrophic." Has Gore advocated a unilateral pullout? I don't recall hearing that and it seems unlike him to push for something that dramatic. Can anyone cite some facts on his Iraq position? Gore is a problem-solver and he knows that we broke Iraq and we own it.

As far as "positive economic results from Bush's policies" that's an optimistic assessment. 'Mixed' is more honest. As far as Congress getting some badly needed reform if today's news reflects tomorrow's actions don't hold your breath. Reform at this point hinges on what McCain can force down people's throats. Without Mr. "Straight Talk Express" Congressional reform will consist only of relabeling followed by business as usual.

Posted by: lpdrjk | January 18, 2006 10:56 AM | Report abuse

gore is the only one who can help make us proud to be an american again!!!


Join the many...Gore 08!!!!

Posted by: kimmer | January 18, 2006 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Big Al, has a point about how a campaign solely against the "far right" would not win an election. If this were a potent issue for the center, Alito, frankly would not be likely be going on to the Supreme Court.

I think that Gore is also attuned to the issue of economic populism which John Edwards was only able to address in a hushed voice. This is a centrist issue.

Also the growing gap between the rich and ordinary Americans during this Administration is just a matter of pointing out facts, not ideology. A family-centered approach that actually helped the common man would go a long way in reaching a nation-wide constituency on pocket book issues. Also the environment is an important issue for many moderate Republicans.

As for comebacks, Richard Nixon's comeback after a close election in 1960(there are some that say he won the first match up due to voting irregularities in Illinois), is a precedent, that goes against the grain of what you're saying. Also, I think it has helped that Gore has been off the national stage for a while, this has freshened him up a bit and allowed him to be more of himself (a nice guy, with a great family).

The Democrats could do a lot worse in 2008.

Posted by: Jeff | January 18, 2006 10:34 AM | Report abuse

These kinds of attitudes and comments are exactly what is wrong with this country right now. If we didn't do what we do, someone else would have to do it. Remember when we didn't get involved in Germany prior to World War II and left it to European negotiation tactics? Neville Chamberlain? We are the new Rome--by and large, we set the world's policies. And people don't like to be told what to do.
Clinton was an extremely effective president from a domestic standpoint, but he was liked worldwide because he didn't really do much to stir up the water. TO elect any "peace at all costs" president at this point would be catastrophic. Plus, remember that the presidential election is still several years away. A lot can change in that time. If we start pulling out of Iraq in large numbers this year and they stabilize, if we continue having positive economic results from Bush's policies (which we are), and Congress as a whole gets some badly needed reform (not any one political party), I would not be surprised if the Dems don't get any branch of government to control themselves.

Posted by: Big Al | January 18, 2006 10:25 AM | Report abuse

I would argue that it is this "fearlessness" which some on the left seem to so enjoy, that keeps screwing the democratic party out of the majority. So much effort is spent attacking the "far right," but the issues are not exclusive to the "far right." If democrats get behind Gore, they are far less likely to win. Argue about it or don't--he was previously defeated in a presidential election. The odds are heavily stacked against him for that reason alone. He is a bit more calculating than Howard Dean, but he also has a bitter loss under his belt. We shall see about his prospects, but I would say that we won't see much of him.

Posted by: Big Al | January 18, 2006 9:52 AM | Report abuse

The insistance by the right that the Clinton-Gore administration was responsible for 9-11 is ludicrous to say the least. It is quite certain now the intelligence was there, the warnings were clear, it was said CIA director George Tenet was running around with his "hair on fire" because of all the chatter. There was the PDB of Aug 6 2001 titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike On U.S. Soil", but George Bush was on vacation. The bottom line is all this information was ignored, no preventive steps were taken, airports were not notified, and there was clearly no urgency in the Bush White House. But the neocons have a system that they must adhere to, when in doubt blame the Clinton administration. Al Gore was a fine VP and he will make a fine President, after all he was elected, the least we could do is let him serve

Posted by: Maxdee 55 | January 18, 2006 9:37 AM | Report abuse

I made the mistake of not voting for Al Gore in 2000. If he ran in 2008, I would not make that mistake again.

Posted by: ElSid | January 18, 2006 9:07 AM | Report abuse

I'm gratified that Al Gore has found his voice again. I liked him very much prior to his mealy mouthed defensive Vice Presidency. Now free of the Bill and Monica shadow he's strutting his bona fides as a patriotic liberal. I would take him over John Kerry and Hillary Clinton any day.

I also have no doubt that 9/11 would never have happened on his watch.

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal | January 18, 2006 8:05 AM | Report abuse

db, not a bad line-up.

Posted by: Jeff | January 18, 2006 7:21 AM | Report abuse

I hereby place the name of Al Gore to be the 44th president of the United States. I further nominate Hillary Clinton as Vice President.

Further, I hereby nominate Wesley Clark as Defense Secretary.
William Jefferson Clintonas United Nations representativer
Richard Lugar as Secretary of State
Bill Richardson as Dept of Homeland Security

Further I propose we nominate a cabinet position called Ambassador of Goodwill to restore relationship with our traditonal allies with Jimmy Carter getting the nod.

Further, I would nominate John Edwards for Health and Human Services.

I would nominate Rubin Reich as treasury Secretary.

There is a quality to the folks that I have mentioned that can turn this country around. I hope AMerica sees the truth about the current administration is the worst ever in the history of the US

Posted by: db | January 18, 2006 7:14 AM | Report abuse

I like Sandwich's remark about Gore and Feingold. Since I've said positive things about Gore here before, I'd add one more thing. Ignatius's op-ed today on global warming being the most important overlooked issue. Who is the potential candidate with the most credibility on this issue, Al.

Posted by: Jeff | January 18, 2006 7:05 AM | Report abuse

If Al Gore spoke in 2000 the way he spoke yesterday, he would have won the presidency by a wide margin. If he continues to speak this way now, he could win in 2008. His remarks yesterday were fearless, direct and uncompromising.

Gore let himself be thrown off the track in 2000 by Republicans' personal attacks. "Gore was sighing and rolling his eyes when Bush was speaking during the first debate in 2000". Frankly, all Americans should have been sighing and rolling their eyes at what Bush was saying. Too many voters were taken in by Bush's slick snake oil salesmanship, and now we're all paying the price.

If Gore keeps hammering away consistently at this administration, he could win. This is definitely the worst presidency in American history, and the Democrats need a standard-bearer who will, loud and clear, continue to open the eyes of the American people to that simple fact.

Posted by: Charles Prentiss | January 18, 2006 2:10 AM | Report abuse

I forgot to say, Pete and Bill, that perhaps you don't have that much to say of substance because your party is just that...lacking in substance! Let me leave you with this: if there was an idiot competition, your idiot-in-chief would win hands-down! You can't get anymore idiotic than that idiot in the WH.

Posted by: Marve | January 18, 2006 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Pete & Bill: obviously you have a distinct problem with Gore or else you wouldn't be saying nonesensical stuff about his personhood. Is there anything of substance you could say about an intelligent man like Gore compare to your dufus-in-chief? Stick to the issues.

Posted by: Marve | January 18, 2006 12:04 AM | Report abuse

I just can't wait
Gore/Hillary - 2008
Smart and Tough
RNC ain't got Enough
They all got the Abramoff flu
They all are through

Posted by: Big T | January 17, 2006 11:53 PM | Report abuse

I just can't wait
Gore/Hillary - 2008
Smart and Tough
RNC ain't got Enough
They all got the Abramoff flu
They all are through

Posted by: Anonymous | January 17, 2006 11:52 PM | Report abuse

Bring back Gore! Remember when we had a President and Vice-President that could talk intelligently on the issues? If not just listen to Gore's latest speech. Even if you don't agree it is apparent that his arguements are well thought out. The man can explain the issues and make his points (without notes) because he truly knows what he is talking about. What a refreshing change that would be to the arrogant smirking chimp...

Posted by: Steve | January 17, 2006 11:30 PM | Report abuse

We could do a lot worse than Al Gore for president. What am I saying?!! We already have!!

Posted by: Jorge | January 17, 2006 11:05 PM | Report abuse

There seems to be a recurring theme-"if Gore had been in power, there wouldn't have been a 9/11." Maybe. Hindsight is as they say 20/20.

As for getting a Democratic victory. That going to require someone without "foot and mouth disease." As in no Howard Dean (put a muzzle on Dean), or Hillary Clinton-it's not that they don't have the right to shoot their mouth off about confederate flags (Dean) or plantations in the case of Hillary Clinton, it's that being insenstitive does not win votes especially when you have a ways to go politically. The Democrats still have a chance to capitalize on the incompetance of this adminstration. To do this they need to have a clear message as many have discussed, be sensitive to what it is, and be sensitive to who they want representing said message.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 17, 2006 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the new item but Chris Cillizza should take this opportunity to check his horse-race coverage and better serve his readers by reporting the substance. CC spent text writing: "Are the speech and fundraising letter the start of a Gore reemergence on the national scene? Gore appears to be experiencing a renaissance of late among many liberal Democrats who believe his "pure" opposition to the Iraq war positions him perfectly for a 2008 bid." CC should spent his time discussing the merits of Gore's argument rather than joining the pack journalism covering the horse race of presidential handicapping.

Posted by: Mitsuko | January 17, 2006 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Crazy Politico-
How do you and your ilk live with yourselves and still call yourselves true Americans? Do you really want the presidient to have absolute power? Do you really believe that a man is above the law? If you do, then you need to re-evaluate your citizenship communist dictatorships like Cuba and North Korea are good example of nations where the law is how one leder defines it. We here in the land of the free and home of the brave live in a nation of laws, as our founders knew -- was vital to maintaining our freedom. To suggest otherwise is blatantly and dangerously un-American. Lets call it what it is after all-- a naked power grab and major step towards a communist dictatorship. We'll see if you maintain this belief when the people elect a Democratic president in 2008.

Posted by: Joe TX | January 17, 2006 9:22 PM | Report abuse

lpdrjk, you do realize Gore was the in administration that didn't take him when they were given the chance? The one that kept the CIA, FBI and DIA from sharing information, that shows at least one of them knew of some of the hijackers?

Homework Doer, read the read what I was referring to, which was that even though FISA at the time was 3 years old, you could still do surveillence on domestic targets associated with foriegn agents.


http://crazypolitics.blogspot.com

Posted by: Crazy Politico | January 17, 2006 7:59 PM | Report abuse

I think Gore would make a fantastic president. I don't know who I will back in the primaries, but honestly I think the strongest ticket for the Dems would be a Gore/Clinton pairing. I don't think Hillary is ready for the main slot yet, but I think she would make a very effective VP.

Posted by: MainlyMozart | January 17, 2006 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore would have been one of the best presidents of the United States. He has the emotional balance and intellectual reach to understand small and big issues that nobody else has. Unfortunately, a mixture of ignorant votes for Bush and a manipulation of the Florida vote gave the presidency to one of the worst presidents we ever had. I strongly believe that Al Gore should go for it again in 2008, because the United States needs to become a great country again.

Posted by: Eric | January 17, 2006 7:34 PM | Report abuse


Had Al Gore been presidnet in 2001, there'd have been no "9/11." Why? Because Al wouldn't be put away in a monkey cage for the month of August, as Bush was.

Further, Gore wouldn't have run away from DC and NY like a coward, as Bush did on "9/11," heading for his spider hole in Moffit AFB. Seems Saddam isn't the only war criminal and lunatic who likes spider holes.

Posted by: tab khan | January 17, 2006 7:32 PM | Report abuse


Two things have happened in the past two days:

A: Al Gore tells it like it is, Bush is violating the law and abusing this power of presidency. Secondly, he is fundraising for Democrats in FL where victory was taken from him by King George's the first Supreme court nominees.

B: Hillary goes on the offense saying the house is being ran like a plantation. HRC can certainly fire up the majority of the African American vote. Secondly, she assailed the Bush administration as the worst in history in commenting on Katrina fisasco. As my wife said when she read about it, "you go girl".

So what are we seeing emerge, a Clinton/Gore dejavu or Gore/Clinton. Who knows what evil lies ahead.

Seriously, what is emerging from the democrats is a strategy to win moderate GOP and Independent voters by casting the currnet neo cons as out of the mainstream, corrupt, ripe with cronyism, and indept.

This is the same strategy the GOP did to the liberals in the 70's, 80's and continues today.

What the left and the right fail to understand is that most Americans are in the middle of the politcial spectrum. Dems can win, but they have to move to the center on some issues such as fiscal policy, but stay somewhat to the left on social issues such as rights to privacy (Schiavo) guns (embrace hunting but avoid talking about AK's. Refrain from hot button religious issues, rather talk about the need to preserve the separation of church and state. Talk about states rights such as today's supreme court ruling on Oregon Death with Dignity law.

There is a third way to politics in America. Mark Warner showed how it can be done in VA. Whatever candidate puts this kind of agenda together regardless if they are GOP or Dem, I will support them. The extremist positions of the left and right turn me off and I will not support their efforts.

Posted by: Depose King George | January 17, 2006 7:23 PM | Report abuse

I don't have anything against Gore, it's the memory many people have-if he's so determined to run wait another election or more, for the memory to fade.

Politics, at least at the Congressional Level is a con game; the candidate convinces the public that he or she is just like them (not some millionare/billionare that went to the Ivy Leagues or the equivalent). Bush was able to do this-a sufficient number of people did not see him for what he was (rich, well-connected family and went to Yale). This was also true in some form for John Kerry-people saw that "elite liberal" above the common person. Any candidate from the Democratic end is not going to get anywhere unless they can play the game.

Posted by: Louis | January 17, 2006 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Interesting that Gore & Co. were so interested in rejecting the military absentee vote. Gee, could it have had something to do with the fact that Gore knew that over three quarters of the military were voting against him? When people say that the Dems ran an "honest" campaign in Fla., they'd better could the spoons.

Posted by: Izzie | January 17, 2006 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Funny, all the cases cited in Jabara supporting warrantless searches date from **before** FISA in 1978.

And the judge in Jabara said the Fourth Amendment **was** violated.

Next time, read your own sources before posting.

Posted by: Homework Doer | January 17, 2006 7:21 PM | Report abuse

In "The Battle for Florida," Lance Dehaven-Smith points out that according to Florida law, overvotes (in which the intention of the voter was not in doubt) must be counted. Under florida law, the will of the voter cannot be ignored simply because a bureaucratic error was made-- in this case, the ballot itself was designed to permit or even encourage double voting for the same candidate. Gore won the overvotes (where the intention of the voter was not in doubt) by about 27,000 votes, more than enough to tip the presidency his way. This was only one aspect of a multidimensional effort by Republicans to game the Florida election. Why is no-one in the media concerned about this evidence that democracy was subverted in 2000 or the suspicious refusal to ban uncheckable voting machines?

interview with Dehaven-Smith, author of The Battle for Florida: http://www.research.fsu.edu/researchr/winter2005/features/battlefield.html

Posted by: concerned citizen | January 17, 2006 7:11 PM | Report abuse

One problem with Al is that he was Clintonesque in his ability to put his finger into the air each morning and say what was currently popular. I remember him chatting in Tenn. about how he "grew up in tobacco fields" (yeah, right). Next day in blue state New York he was talking up shaking down big tobacco for billions. You could mercifully opine that the guy was just another politician. OR you could say that he was a complete, utter phony with no core beliefs. I prefer the latter.
In the end, he drifted too far left, which is the sad state of 100 percent of the Democratic Party today - too loony. The way the Dems are going they may as well run Babs Streissand. Now THAT would be an honest representation of what the party has become!

Posted by: Pete | January 17, 2006 7:04 PM | Report abuse

SORRY ABOUT THE SPELLING.

Posted by: DOUG RUSSELL | January 17, 2006 6:48 PM | Report abuse

HOW CAN WE PROMOTE DEMORACY IN IRAQ WHEN WE HAVE LOST OURS?

Posted by: DOUG RUSSELL | January 17, 2006 6:46 PM | Report abuse

For the folks who are still (like AL Gore) believing there is "no standing" for the president's wiretap program, you might check the 6th Circuit's 1982 ruling in the Jabara case, you probably won't like it.

http://66.135.39.97/nsa1.pdf.

The Supreme court refused to hear an appeal, meaning this is the case law.

Posted by: Crazy Politico | January 17, 2006 6:42 PM | Report abuse

How typical of conservatives - can't comment or rebut anything Gore says in his speech (which was right on the money, by the way) and instead utilize the tired Republican method of personally insulting the man as a nazi or busting on something as stupid as his hair. Why don't you join reality and actually defend your belief that the pres is above the law. And while you're making allegations of fascism please TAKE A LONG LOOK IN THE MIRROR.

Posted by: enraged kansan | January 17, 2006 6:26 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Adam; former Vice President Al Gore would make a great President. And he's learned the correct lesson from his 2000 campaign--ignore advisors and just be yourself! Al Gore In 2008, Hooray!

Posted by: Jason | January 17, 2006 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Adam: good point. Heaven forbid the conservatives should realize that Gore would've been far more likely to prevent 9/11 (firstly by not deliberately ignoring Al Qaeda as Bush did for 9 months) and thus Iraq and thus 6-7,000 dead Americans. No, no, nooooo, that's not as important as his haircut or his facial expression.

Posted by: lpdrjk | January 17, 2006 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Though I have to add the caveat that, as long as we're running failed major party nominees, I'd still prefer Jimmy Carter.

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | January 17, 2006 6:16 PM | Report abuse

As bizarre and unlikely as a Gore 08 candidacy seems to me, I might like him more than anyone else who seems to be running at this point, with the exception of Russ Feingold.

I mean the man already got elected President, the least we could do is actually let him serve. In some ways I always thought he'd make a better president than Clinton, and compared to W, that's saying a lot!

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | January 17, 2006 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Wow, the conservatives must be somewhat concerned about the possibility of Gore running. They're already resorting to inferring that he's a Nazi and/or insane, and it's a long time until the election.

Perhaps the right fears a moderate Democrat who has excited the liberal base in the past couple of years, and has shown that he can win a presidential election.

Posted by: adam | January 17, 2006 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Gore for 2008 is my new motto! I am sick and tired of the weak kneed Democrate leaders we have now!

Posted by: James Snowden | January 17, 2006 5:44 PM | Report abuse

No, you're onto something. Gore always had that nefarious sneer to him. And that constant wiping away his hair. He DID kinda look like Dr. Goebbels when he spoke. ha ha

Posted by: chisT | January 17, 2006 5:22 PM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that A.G. Gonzales defends the Administration's wire-tapping as being "approved by the Justice Department."

I suppose Mr. Gonzales would prefer we not consider this alongside the JD approvals of the Georgia voter ID or Texas election re-districting where professional Justice lawyers expressed negative findings but were trumped by the Bush appointees? Do we need to wait 6 months and see if all the facts come out via a Justice whistle-blower?

Methinks a fox doth watch that hen house.

Posted by: TCB | January 17, 2006 5:19 PM | Report abuse

If he ran again we'd have to listen to all those speeches telling us about "how I toiled in the hot sun harvesting tobacco". The guy grew up in Northwest Washington, for God's sake. What a phony.
Also -and this may be a little heavy-handed- is it me, or did Gore always look kind of Nazi-like when he'd speak. And what was with the affected Baptist drawl when he spoke in front of black folks. What a nitwit.

Posted by: pete | January 17, 2006 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Gore obviously has his weaknesses in terms of campaigning, but I think he would be a GREAT president. His character, intellect and values are exactly what this country needs.

Posted by: Adam | January 17, 2006 5:02 PM | Report abuse

It's great hearing from Gore again! I'd like to see him make a run in '08; his speech made a lot of sense. And with the dark days this administration has cast us into, maybe the media wouldn't be as likely to incorrectly attribute him as a robot who "invented the Internet".

Posted by: chas t. | January 17, 2006 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Okay Al. Visiting hours are over. Time to go back to the asylum. That's a nice boy.

Posted by: bill | January 17, 2006 4:50 PM | Report abuse

I hope Gore keeps on fighting. I will most likely not support him the primaries, but I am glad that he is going after the radical Republicans who have hijacked the Republican party from moderate conservatives.

Posted by: Dave B. | January 17, 2006 4:46 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company