Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Fix Picks: More on Gore

Anyone familiar with The Fix knows that we watch the movements of former Vice President Al Gore very closely for signs that he might be considering a late-entry run for president in 2008.

You can imagine our interest then when we (belatedly) came across this item by New York Times reporter Pat Healey. In it, Healey details a May 8 gathering of close associates of Gore. The dinner, which is being held at the home of Gore fundraiser extraordinaire Peter Knight, is being billed as a 20th anniversary celebration for those involved in Gore's 1988 campaign for president. (Gore formally declared his candidacy for president on June 29, 1987.)

Among the attendees will be Mary Pat Bonner, a longtime Gore fundraiser, and Johnny Hayes, a past director of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Gore will not be in attendance.

Our interest was piqued, and we did a bit of checking on the event ourselves to see whether this was a real reunion or a strategy session. Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Gore, quickly dismissed any 2008 implications of the gathering. "Our understanding is that it is a reunion of old friends and it is not linked in any way with any formal or informal effort on former Vice President Gore's part to launch a campaign in 2008," Kreider said.

Those familiar with the group say they have gathered on a semi-regular basis over the past twenty years and nothing should be read into the timing of this particular get-together. "We're not putting the old band back together," said Knight. "And most of the gang are playing in other bands already."

Fair enough. But the fact the meeting is happening is sure to raise eyebrows among those Democrats who still believe the possibility exists that Gore will run.

That possibility leads us to our second Fix Pick of the week -- a piece by Slate's Mickey Kaus that examines the possibility that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and those close to her actually want Gore in the race.

Kaus argues that "a Gore entry might be good for Hillary -- it would dilute the field opposing her, allowing her to maybe squeak by with a plurality victory."

In the past, we have heard that if no candidate appears able to give Clinton a serious run for the nomination, Gore would consider stepping in to fly the flag of the anti-war left. But, national polls continue to show Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) running in a strong second behind Clinton with former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) in third, but still with a legitimate shot at the nomination.

Could Gore justify running if two anti-war candidates are already in the race and running competitively with Clinton? If you buy the logic I've outlined above, the answer is probably not. Gore seems past a vanity candidacy and all indications are that he is enjoying life in the private sector.

And yet, until he gives a definite "no" we will watch and wait.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 1, 2007; 5:04 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Will Rudy Talk About Iraq?
Next: Parsing the Polls: No Room For Compromise on Iraq

Comments

That's prett funny. 4:32 remark

At least I hope it was meant that way. Hardly a leader when the man is still THINKING about changes lightbulbs in his own home to try to combat global warming. He's always following and not with the right choices.

Posted by: To Carol Stevens | May 3, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Gore is the most qualified of any of the candidates, Anti War or Pro War and wouldn't it be great to have our President be the best, not just better than what we have.

We're entertaining candidates that are treating this like they're running for a Beauty Pagent or the Prom, Mr. Goodlooking, Mr. Charisma or Ms Congeniality. Why consider placing a student in front of the class when they all seem to have failed their test. Put the Teacher at the head of the class and achieve great things.

Posted by: Linda | May 3, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

You can easily detect a half-baked, wannabe intellectual when they use words like "liberal" in the pejorative, or how they introduce ideas like cognitive dissonance as if it were a cutting edge idea. Someone called Trotsky did both and he and his like have visited the most disastrous administration in US history. Americans are not divided into ideological camps. We are divided into 2 camps: the enlightened elite and the benefiaries of their thought and training. And those anchored to mindless labels who do not know the issues let alone publish anything weightier than soap bubbles,amounting to 'LIBERALS SUCK!! Excuse Me, but whoever tries to rationalize having supported a disaster prone president and who can't articulate a readable comment in his defence is pathetically dissonance torn. Trotky, boy, you are in such a dissonant state as you project your own anguish over supporting the wrong man in 2000, onto people who really can think, not to mention write. Gore, the real winner of that election could have the presidency almost at will. Al Gore is an American icon, and the time will come when the Dems will want an un-Hillary, and if Edwards or Obama won't unite behind the other, Gore will step in. Or he might in any case. What neurological dissonance would result from that? Enough to cocoon oneself under a bush?

Posted by: Richard_Demian | May 3, 2007 6:39 AM | Report abuse

My guess is Obama is going to get the nomination, with Gore appearing on the stage very late as the surprise running mate. Big Problem is, the powers-that-be will not tolerate Obama and his agenda for very long. I would be fearful for his safety... Maybe they should pick Clinton to run...

Posted by: Carol Stevens-Yurur | May 3, 2007 4:32 AM | Report abuse

You can easily detect a half-baked, wannabe intellectual when they use words like "liberal" in the pejorate, or if they introduce the idea of cognitive dissonance as if it were a cutting edge idea. Someone called Trotsky did both and he and his like have visited the most disastrous administration in US history. Americans are not divided into ideological camps. We are divided into 2 camps: Pragmatists, who draw upon the best ideas, irrespective of any ideological color, and those anchored to mindless labels who debate by insult. Trotky, boy, you are in such a dissont state as you project your own anguish over supporting the wrong man in 2000, onto people who really can and do think, not to mention write. Gore, the real winner of that election could have the presidency almost at will. And Gore is now an American icon, and the time will come when the Dems will want an un-Hillary, and if Edwards or Obama won't unite behind the other, Gore will step in. Or he might in any case. What neurological dissonance would result from that? Enough to bury that cocoon under a bush?

Posted by: Richard_Demian | May 3, 2007 4:24 AM | Report abuse

My husband, I, and my Democratic friends have discussed this and would vote for Gore in a heartbeat. I have no polls to reference, so I must rely on my heart and my instincts. Besides, Gore is right on the issues and he has experience, real experience.

Whatever his negatives in the past, one can't help but imagine . . . if Gore had prevailed in 2000. Even the Supremes must regret their part in it.

I like Gore/Clark. I'm enamored of Obama but think he is not ready and that the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. Obama's time will come.

Posted by: Claire | May 3, 2007 2:45 AM | Report abuse

Too bad you aren't watching the effects of climate change on this planet as closely or Mr. Gore's work on this crisis. But then, the media only thinks he is doing all of this out of some selfish political agenda anyway. No wonder he bars the media from his appearances. Oh, and Bill Bradley just wrote a book. Does that mean he is really running? And Colin Powell also stated he has no plans to run for preisdent, yet people do not apply the same double standard to him and others that is applied to Al Gore regarding his words to be just what you want to hear. I say, too bad if you all don't get the show you want. You've already done enough to demean his conviction on this issue with this pointless speculation.

Posted by: Tired of the speculation | May 2, 2007 10:52 PM | Report abuse

mike b [may 1, 5-27 pm] likes Gore-Edwards. That would win. So would Gore-Obama or Gore - just about anyone who wasn/t a registered sex offender. But VP's aren' ususally that important. If Bush Sr. could get away with Dan Quayle, Gore will win with just about anyone. And, yes inded, Gore - Wesley Clark would be a shoo-in.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Dave! needs to look at the Pentagon budget also. At how much has been spent on exotic weapons systems, while the troops on the ground have been out on the margins as far as improvements in equipment.

I've never met a bomb smarter than a GI, but those bombs sure get a lot of Federal money compared to the GI.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Dave? needs to be reminded that the probability that a comment will be read by anyone - other than ]perhasps] - its author - is inversely proportional to the square of its length.

Posted by: Caspar | May 2, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cilliza, you must be joking. Although we have no Gore vs. Hillary, etc. polls [since he,s not a declared candidate], there can be no doubt he,d be the strongest. He has everything going for him, experience, smarts, a Mr. Clean reputation [despite his good looks], and the good opinion of all but the far right. And, most importantly, no involvement with the War. That, of course, is Hillary,s weakest point. Just as it was Kerry,s, and the Republicans will hammer away at that weak spot just as they hammered Kerry as a Q[flip-flopper]Q. Clearly, Gore can unite the Democrats, and the candidate who can do that will win in 08. I think just about everyone understands this. Everyone but Cilliza, that is.

Posted by: Caspar Fomalhaut | May 2, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

MikeB,
"We have never made the investment to p[rovide universal health care, never made the investment to clean up our inner cities, never invested in a lot of our infrastructure."
One by one...
- We should never make the investment to provide universal health care. This brilliant idea was brought to you by the communists. It has been adopted by socialists (communist-lite) and won't work as well as a capitalistic, market driven solution. Check out the USSR for a case history.
- never made the investment to clean up our inner cities. I am not sure how you come up with this statement but aside from the fact that billions upon billions have been spent on "inner cities", the question many have is why they need to be continuously cleaned up in the first place? Why is it that no one ever seems to have to clean up the suburbs? Even if we disagree on the amount of money spent, shouldn't there be some improved results from it that are measurable?
- never invested in a lot of our infrastucture. Ok, you are partially correct here. The problem is that in order to do that, the governments need to either take existing money from other places to fund it or raise taxes, both of which are very unpopular. In the DC met area, EVERYBODY agrees traffic sucks and something needs to be done. Where will the money come from and what will be done with it to fix this? Those are the questions that area residents and politicians have been arguing over for 40 years. Now we could take it from the war effort or the military. We did that after Viet Nam. But i just find it fascinating that there are people willing to spend federal dollars on pretty much anything EXCEPT the military, which is one of the things that the federal government is specifically supposed to do.

If it were only about money, it would be easy. In DC, the public school system is so much better funded today than at any time in its history (including your magical sputnik era) and they still have trouble opening schools on time or providing a quality education. The internet, pc and hybrid motors(they had those back in the 1890's!) just like most things were invented, conceived by or based on research done by people educated prior to sputnick and after sputnick. To say that the Sputnick generation invented the technological world we live in today is wrong.

Posted by: Dave! | May 2, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore won't run for President. He will continue to get rich on "man is causing global warming" hoax of omissions trading. Why run for office when you can decieve the world as a prophet while getting rich? Gore cares about noone but himself and will continue to get rich off of ignorant omissions trading states.

Posted by: reason | May 2, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

thevet - As a veteran I'm disappointed that you've been suckered into believing that because I don't accept without question everything which the Administration says is true, means I hate the U. S.

I happen to believe that I served to protect the right to free speech in the First Amendment. That right allows me to think freely and not have to parrot everything the establishment says.

I see you hating America by enabling the Americans in power who have done so much damage since 2003. What other sane explanation is there? How could you support such destructive policies, unless you Hate America?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

It has been interesting watching the various ideas about who would best govern our country. Unfortunately, there are many who have a "Hate America" viewpoint. They are in reality the best voice of the violent Jihaadists. If the United States is so evil please consider moving to a country that shares your hatred. We do not have a candidate who can galvinize an electorite that is so fractured and polarized. Those who do not study and learn from history are bound to make the same mistakes. This is unfortunate.
PBS recently broadcast a miniseries about America at a Crossroads. It was no more than propaganda for those who hate America. They refused to let a more balanced presentation be aired. For example, Islam vs. Islamists was barred. In it mainstream Muslems are as against the violent minority as are non-muslems. But C.A.I.R. and its fellow travelers won the fight. This is a victory for the "Hate America" crowd. Please, Wake Up America.

Posted by: thevet | May 2, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

"raping common sense"?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Al Gore has already peaked in terms of his star power to attract crowds, it is downhill from here. Fortunately, a very shallow graded downhill. The shallow grade is fortunate because his input on climate change is very valuable to all of us. But he's not a viable presidential candidate.

Posted by: Golgi | May 2, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

PBS observers have already admitted that Obama is ahead of Clinton in polls. So, have done my authots of comments here and in other sources. Why is it still solid requirement to name Clinton as a leading contender? It has no basic sense, as anti-war candidates (I mean Iraqi war)are, obviously in tact with American majority, currently, and Clinton, no matter what her campaign and she-herself is saying now, has a very solid and pretty long(more than four years long) record of pro-war votes. So, why author of this article, together with many other authors, is raping the basic common sense?

Posted by: aepelbaum | May 2, 2007 10:24 AM | Report abuse

'BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) -- President Alvaro Uribe's staff has hired a Washington lobbying firm with close ties to U.S. Democrats ahead of a visit Wednesday to Capitol Hill to defend his scandal-tainted government before a skeptical Congress.

Uribe hopes this week to revive an important trade deal and maintain a strong military aid package for his country -- the U.S. administration's staunchest ally in Latin America.

Last month, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore snubbed Uribe by backing out of a Miami environmental forum. Gore said he did not want to appear with Colombia's leader until opposition charges that Uribe colluded with right-wing paramilitary groups are sufficiently answered.

As the "para-politico" scandal inched ever closer to Uribe, his government in early April hired The Glover Park Group lobbying firm, whose founders include former Clinton White House spokesman Joe Lockhart.

The mission: To help Uribe rescue his biggest foreign policy achievement, a free trade agreement signed in November that U.S. Democrats are refusing to ratify.

Colombian and Glover Park officials confirmed the lobbying deal but declined to discuss details.

After a breakfast meeting Wednesday with U.S. President George W. Bush, Uribe's trip is packed full of visits with more than a dozen Democrats including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of the Ways and Means committee that oversees trade issues.

Many oppose not just the trade deal -- out of concern for potential U.S. job losses and Colombia's poor record of protecting union leaders -- but also the military focus of Plan Colombia, the anti-narcotics and counterinsurgent program that has cost American taxpayers more than $5 billion since 2000, and has been characterized as ineffective.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, last month froze $55 million in aid to Colombia's military over concerns about its human rights record and alleged failure to sever ties to the paramilitaries.

Uribe is also to meet with AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, who wants to force Colombia through tighter language in the trade deal to fully investigate the killing of more than 1,300 trade unionists in the past decade.'

Gore was absolutely right here. Uribe is a murderous thug and the US should immediately stop funding his military junta. I intend on calling my Dem reps and telling them in no uncertain terms -- stop this trade deal. We don't need 'allies' that torture and murder their own people. How is Uribe any different from Saddam Hussein? And the US is providing the money to prop him up -- just like it did Saddam, until he privatized the oil companies in 1990.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 8:26 AM | Report abuse

'NEW YORK (CNN) -- More farms across the United States will likely be affected by animal feed tainted with recalled pet food, federal health officials said Tuesday, after an investigation of Indiana chicken farms found the contaminated feed in more than three dozen facilities that raise poultry for human consumption.

The Food and Drug Administration said it expects farms in other states will report they received the tainted pet food and predicted that the number of plants that received contaminated feed could reach into the hundreds.'

Posted by: 'smaller government' means less safe food | May 2, 2007 7:52 AM | Report abuse

'NEW YORK (CNN) -- More farms across the United States will likely be affected by animal feed tainted with recalled pet food, federal health officials said Tuesday, after an investigation of Indiana chicken farms found the contaminated feed in more than three dozen facilities that raise poultry for human consumption.

The Food and Drug Administration said it expects farms in other states will report they received the tainted pet food and predicted that the number of plants that received contaminated feed could reach into the hundreds.'

Posted by: 'smaller government' means less safe food | May 2, 2007 7:50 AM | Report abuse

nissel: Earlier I posted about Obama and Rudy being created by the Media, and am now waiting for the Media to tear them down just a tad.

Posted by: lylepink | May 2, 2007 7:47 AM | Report abuse

Does Hillary have a track record governing? Can she take a lot of credit for what Bill did? I'm not 100% sure about this.

Richardson has a good track record governing, but in terms of experience all the others are Senators. They talk a lot, but its hard to point to hard-and-fast accomplishments, even if you're Biden or Dodd...

Posted by: JayPe | May 2, 2007 3:22 AM | Report abuse

Chris, I agree with you that Gore seems unlikely to enter the race. Mostly for the reasons you point out, but also he has to know his unfavorable rating is through the roof in the general population.

I suppose the question facing the Democrats right now is whether they go with someone who has a proven track record governing (Hillary, Gore) or has the ability to reshape the debate in this country in a dramatic fashion (Obama, Edwards). Of course, if Giuliani continues to lead the GOP nomination and continues to do about 5 points better against Hillary than Obama or Edwards, I wonder if worries about her electability will make this question moot.

Posted by: Nissl | May 2, 2007 12:15 AM | Report abuse

I might have supported Gore if he'd entered the race in January-February because opposing the war in 2002 is my top issue. But now I feel invested in the one candidate (serious candidate) who did oppose the war in 2002, Barack Obama, and I wouldn't switch to Gore. I don't think many Obama supporters would switch; I think we are eagerly waiting for the next quarter fundraising totals and thrilled by how well the campaign has done.

Posted by: Karen | May 1, 2007 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Throughout all of these message boards, the one thing that seems to be a theme is that Sen. Obama hasn't provided any specifics on policy, and everyone seems to think that it will hurt him.

When do you suppose that will start happening? Because, last I saw, he's closing the gap on Sen. Clinton in most polls, and if you look at head to head with the Big 3 GOP candidates, he's the only one with a lead outside the margin on all three (LA Times/Bloomberg, Apr 5-9).

He's doing exactly what he should do. Craft policy to introduce closer to primary season. He's also providing an opportunity for his supporters to give thoughts on policy that they would like to see.

He just keeps rolling on.

Posted by: JamesCH | May 1, 2007 9:38 PM | Report abuse

I'm not so sure Gore-Obama is the dream ticket Spartan and MikeB seem to think it is. The way I figure it, Gore already lost once, Bush ain't running, and Al has his share of baggage (where his environmental extremism/hypocracy would be used against him).

As I said before, it would be very funny if Gore's chances next year were determined by how hot the summer was, or how many hurricanes we had in the US. The American electorate is unfortunately shallow enough to base it on that.

Posted by: JD | May 1, 2007 9:08 PM | Report abuse

A Gore candidacy would have 2 potential purposes: One would be to unite the opposition to Clinton under one candidate whose ability to galvanize his party is established in past performance, as is his ability to win elections, as he relly did in 2000. Gore has become an American icon whose appeal transcends ideology. The official 2000 outcome is a matter of regret among a vast majority of Americans and Gore's genuineness and conscience, contrasted to Clinton's transparent appeal to the latest tends is blatant even to apathetic voters.

If Gore is genuinely not interested in the presidency at this time, his entry would allow him to play power broker, garnering enough votes and moral suasion to crown either Obama or Edwards and leave Clinton with her mark in history as a notable wife of a president and outspoken Senator.

Posted by: Richard Demian | May 1, 2007 9:08 PM | Report abuse

OK, where's the real backstory here? What does Al Gore pay for haircuts; and, is he still into "earthtones"? Let's have some contemporary "news analysis" more reflective of what Beltway types really are thinking.

Posted by: barrisj | May 1, 2007 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Gore would pinch significant chunks of most candidates support:
Clinton - those who want to return to the Clinton/Gore years.
Obama - those who want to support someone who opposed the war.
Edwards - those who think that to win you need a white male from a South state.
Biden/Dodd/Richardson - those who think that you need experience to be a good President.

However, I don't think he'll get in. He's enjoying the private sector too much, and can't bear being persecuted by the partisans again...

Posted by: JayPe | May 1, 2007 8:05 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP--"Go back to smoking doobies, and let the grown-ups decide foriegn policy and military spending."

You mean the people who are running the steepest deficits ever, fighting unnecessary wars and depleting resources domestic, foreign and humanitarian. The people who have gotten you from "Today we are all Americans" to the lowest popularity ever. The guys whose NATO allies will not even stand with them.

Those guys?

Grown-ups? Sure. In fact they are so grown up that it is time to take away their car keys and look for a place where someone can take care of them all day.

Posted by: roo | May 1, 2007 7:59 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON - President Bush vetoed legislation to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq Tuesday night in a historic showdown with Congress over whether the unpopular and costly war should end or escalate.

ADVERTISEMENT

It was a day of high political drama, falling on the fourth anniversary of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech declaring that major combat operations had ended in Iraq.

In only the second veto of his presidency, Bush rejected legislation pushed by Democratic leaders that would require the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.

"This is a prescription for chaos and confusion and we must not impose it on our troops," Bush said in a nationally broadcast statement from the White House. He said the bill would "mandate a rigid and artificial deadline" for troop pullouts, and "it makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing

Posted by: mission accomplished | May 1, 2007 7:53 PM | Report abuse

proud to be gop - by that logic, we should get rid of the surgeon general. after all, people die every day.

yet your party was steadfast in its support of star wars missile defense for years, with what result? now, one of several interceptors can hit an incoming missile - whose trajectory is known, and which carries no decoys - about half the time.

just imagine that instead, we were able to cure about half the sufferers of any one disease.

or were able to eliminate the annual deficit and begin paying down the national debt. remember? like we did when clinton was president?

just imagine - the missile defense $$, added to the iraq war $$, with all tax cuts for those earning more than $200K rescinded. the amount of money wasted by our current president would go a long way toward addressing some of the real problems facing our country.

Posted by: meuphys | May 1, 2007 7:45 PM | Report abuse

rufus - in re: "Murdoch's News Corp. Bid for Dow Jones Rejected" - nice to see that not all the news is bad.

Posted by: meuphys | May 1, 2007 7:36 PM | Report abuse

"This Administration is a case study in why a Peace Institute could be valuable."

It could be valuable, but apparently it hasn't been. Since it's inception in 1984, how much violence, war or terrorism has it prevented?

Not condescending, just stating facts.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 1, 2007 7:33 PM | Report abuse

tell it like it is, mike b. sometimes public money is very well-spent, with noticeable results. then again, sometimes we invade iraq.

Posted by: meuphys | May 1, 2007 7:32 PM | Report abuse

It would be amazing if Gore enetered the race. He is someone who would definitely be able to do something to address issues that face us today: global warming, poverty, etc. The best thing about Gore is that everyone already knows where he stands on issues and knows that he will be active in bringing about change.

One of the issues that concerns me the most is ending global poverty as outline by the UN Millennium Goals. Being someone who is against the war, I hope that Gore will choose to redirect our $522 billion military budget to ending poverty instead. According to the Borgen Project, just $19 billion annually can end starvation and $23 billion a year reverses the spread of AIDS and Malaria.

Posted by: fps | May 1, 2007 7:21 PM | Report abuse

to anyone who was interested from the last post

"Murdoch's News Corp. Bid for Dow Jones Rejected"

REJECTED"

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Your the man, mikeb. On point statements. I know I'm the "crazy" one here but still. O'Reilly claimed for years that anyone who disagreed with the Bush Iraq policy was crazy too, so I don't feel that bad :)

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 7:00 PM | Report abuse

The real war is on the american people for our most precious assest, in their eyes, our money. This will not stop until we get a viable thrid party. That is the only way to get these parties to act right. Fear. Fear of being obsolete. Fear of being pushed out, like the whigs. Both parties have got a little to comfortable the last 150 years.

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Trillions spent during the cold war. Don't forget the "war on drugs" the "war on terror". Anyhting to funnel money from the epople's taxes to certain individuals

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 6:48 PM | Report abuse

anonymous posts and 'trotsky' are all by koz... can't you tell?

Posted by: Jane | May 1, 2007 6:45 PM | Report abuse

That's right ProudToBeGOP, we've tried giving the porr healthy care before and all you end up with is....you fill in the blanks. The problem with the go down in falmes with Bush Republican's is that, if your positions were a box of cereal, all of the ingrediants would be marked "artificial". We have never made the investment to p[rovide universal health care, never made the investment to clean up our inner cities, never invested in a lot of our infrastructure. When we have, however, the results have been astounding. Back in the 1960's, in the wake of sputnick, we invested in schools and ended up with the highest SAT scores in our history. We educated an entire generation of engineers and scientists that brought us the internet, the personal computer, hybrid motors, and much more. It revolutionized the world. We stopped doing it, stopped investing in our future to pay for another military boondoggle, Vietnam, and look what has happened. Another government program was the interstate highway system. Following WWII the G.I. Bill made higher education available to millions of ordinary citizens and literally created our system of higher education. The Park system created and preserved Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Rocky Mountain, and millions of miles of parks that are enjoyed year after year. Then, too, there is the navigable river act, without which inland cities wouldn't even exist, the National FIsheries Service, and on and on. When you think about it, government programs have brought us a lot, and made our entire way of life possible. It is only Fox New-Limbaugh brainwashing that even makes it possible for you to utter such nonsense as you make in your comment --- oh, and the airwaves used to transmit Limbaugh and most television broadcasts are owned by and competently run by a government agency.

Posted by: MikeB | May 1, 2007 6:39 PM | Report abuse

proud - before you get too condescending you should be aware that in lieu of a Peace Department, the Congress created a Peace institute.

Furthermore, "By act of Congress, the United States Institute of Peace has secured an extraordinary site in Washington, D.C. for its permanent headquarters facility. Located at the northwest corner of the National Mall at the intersection of Constitution Avenue and 23rd Street NW, the site faces the Lincoln Memorial"

Take a look: http://www.usip.org/

Somebody has to know how to negotiate a peace, or at least know what to do when hostilities end. This Administration is a case study in why a Peace Institute could be valuable.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Go Obama Gore 08' :)

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 6:32 PM | Report abuse

I read somewhere it cost 600 MILLION to get that Zariquri guy. 600 Million. That is to much to me. The cost does not represent the reward. If we spent all those trillions of dollars on America, america WOULD be a utopia. It would have a volcano like effect across the globe. If we have a REAL democracy. If people here are living real lives, not slave existance, all other countries would want to be a part of that. Look at us from another country, would you want that for your children. Would you want Rush limbaugh as their idol? Would you want you kids to idolize Christina aguila and britney spears? Would you want a government more concerned about oil across the globe than the countries people. The goal of American politics to to give as little as possible to it's people. The republican party is the party of divide and conquer. Sorry for the rant. The republicans are leading this country into oblivion. If they would have won the last election, I was fleeing the country. George Orwell's worst nightmare is coming. If you know you can combat it. If you don't want to know the reality or if you only watch one station for news, you are at a disadvantage. Our only hope is ALL POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE. The power currently being with the CORPORATIONS. People need to control the government/economy. People not $$$$$. $$$$$ is nothing but paper. $$$$$ has no soul. $$$$$ only cares about $$$$$$

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 6:25 PM | Report abuse

We could invest all that money on the poor and downtrodden..
The sentiment is lovely, but so simplistic as to be kindergartenish
-great! tax cuts for the ultra wealthy!!11 who cares about the defict anyways!

Go back to smoking doobies, and let the grown-ups decide foriegn policy and military spending.
-uh sure, lets continue to sink billions in to iraq and piss off more nations. that must be some good stuff being passed around at 1600 pensylvania ave.

know! Kucinich's idea of a 'Department of Peace' can replace the DoD entirely! brilliant! I'm sure our sworn enemies would like that.
-department of peace=state department, say hows that bridge to nowhere working out for you guys?

Posted by: spartan | May 1, 2007 6:21 PM | Report abuse

We could invest all that money on the poor and downtrodden..
The sentiment is lovely, but so simplistic as to be kindergartenish. Who believes this drivel? It doesn't work anyway!

Go back to smoking doobies, and let the grown-ups decide foriegn policy and military spending.

I know! Kucinich's idea of a 'Department of Peace' can replace the DoD entirely! brilliant! I'm sure our sworn enemies would like that.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 1, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

guess if Edwards drops out, Gore would take that constituency, basically the constituency that believes only a white male is electable. It looks like Edwards can't recover from the haircut controversy so maybe he will drop out.

Posted by: | May 1, 2007 06:11 PM

what does a hair cut and being a white male matter to you? maybe google sent you to the wrong page. were you looking for stormfront.org or something?

Posted by: spartan | May 1, 2007 6:14 PM | Report abuse

guess if Edwards drops out, Gore would take that constituency, basically the constituency that believes only a white male is electable. It looks like Edwards can't recover from the haircut controversy so maybe he will drop out.

Posted by: | May 1, 2007 06:11 PM

what does a hair cut and being a white male matter to you? maybe google sent you to the wrong page. were you looking for stormfront.org or something?

Posted by: spartan | May 1, 2007 6:14 PM | Report abuse

I guess if Edwards drops out, Gore would take that constituency, basically the constituency that believes only a white male is electable. It looks like Edwards can't recover from the haircut controversy so maybe he will drop out.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

proud-ok, other than playing referee in the middle of a civil war in iraq, what other uses of the billions that you dont want spent in the inner cities? im just curious to think thats liberal bs when cities are falling apart,and dont think its not going to reach you in suburbia!

Posted by: spartan | May 1, 2007 6:08 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP - Here, here! That's right, let's give the money directly to the wealthy and avoid tax breaks. Or, we could hand it over to one or another Bushie to be mis-spent on some boondoggle. Bribes? No need to renovate South Central Los Angeles or provide health care for Amercian's without it, let's legalize millions of ilegals and allow them to create even more poverty.

It's not that Republican's don't have ideas, it just that most of them are so bad....

Posted by: MikeB | May 1, 2007 6:04 PM | Report abuse

More gop garbage gop. Your right, lets send all our tax money overseas. Let's send all our jobs overseas. Let's let anyone in the country so we will have slave labor. That all sounds like the gop plan for the 21st century. I'm fighting that plan until Geaorge Bush takes me out :). Why not use our tax money on social programs on this country? It would be possible if those programs were not getting flood by illegal immagration designed to effect both the housing market and the job market. The conservative plan for this country is a lie. They are sell-outs. Anyone who sells their country out to line their own pockets used to be called treason. Now you are patriots I guess. I'm going to call them as I see em.

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Spartan - Good choice: Gore-Clark. That would be a dream ticket. But I think it would just be a dream. Rarely do we get the opportunity to select from the best of the best. The various partisans get into the act and hijack our choices all too often.

Posted by: MikeB | May 1, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

"liberals set out to redefine reality, with a focus on 'social justice'."

Trotsky's right. Just look at Obama's idea of where America's focus should be, at least when he's talking to the folks at the First AME Church in Los Angeles, that is...

"We have now spent half a trillion dollars on a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged," Obama said. "We could have invested that money in South Central Los Angeles, or the South Side of Chicago, in jobs and infrastructure and hospitals and schools."

More pathetic liberal b.s. from the top contenders.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 1, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

That's a great team. Gen. Wes Clark would definatly give Obama credibility on the war front.

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 5:51 PM | Report abuse

rufus-thanks i try. unlike the more shrill posters on here(you know who you are) i try to back up my posts with facts,and non biased links.

back on topic, a gore/obama ticket has a nice ring to it. or if he really wants to crush whoever the gop puts up a gore/clark ticket might be unstoppable.

Posted by: spartan | May 1, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

trostky-what the hell are you babbling about? take your meds please!

Posted by: anonymous | May 1, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

I hear you spartan. I don't get why a thrid party is insane. I just don't get it. It's like people are in quicksand drowning, you offer then a stick to get out, and they call you crazy for helping. Or you get attacked for having a stick agenda. I don't get it at all. Thanks for keeping the blog real. Attacking eack other endlessly solves nothing

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Trosky Trosky Trosky. Have you ever seen fox news? How does anna nicole for two months effect you? How does the alec baldwin for 3 weeks effect you? Wow. The secular agenda is put yourself in a cacoon. Wow. That's a bold statement. I've been hearing a lot of "I only watch Fox" from republicans these days. Wow That is a very bold statement coming from you.

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | May 1, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

rufus-hi, i saw your comments on 3rd parties on the rudy thead(before the trolls got to it) if i may thow my 2 cents into it? personally i would be more open to a 3rd party if the 2 party system we have now would be open to it. i happen to get the cbc where im at, and im amazed at the fact that they have 5(4 left and centrist and 1 conservative)parties in parliment. unfortuantly here 3 parties are considered fringe and kooks by the big two. the only problem is there is no way of getting the message out in todays media, in canada they set aside free(yes free) air time to all parties during election season. maybe we can try something like that here?

Posted by: spartan | May 1, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

liberals set out to redefine reality, with a focus on 'social justice'.

Only one problem. Instead of establishing an earthly utopia, every solution they imposed on America has failed. From the war on poverty to 'whole language' to abolishing war to establishing equality of outcome to affirmative action. All the theories that looked so fine on paper just didn't seem to work in the real world. Their Rousseauian strategy of emphasis on passion instead of reason just didn't cut the mustard. No wonder they're so angry.

Posted by: Trotsky | May 1, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

By focusing on Bush hatred, liberals succeed in shifting the focus from their own failed policies. Much the same way third world dictators do. (Having a common enemy is a very powerful unifying factor.) By concentrating on all the real and imagined failings of Bush and America, the liberals can stay in their cocoon, safe from examination and analysis. This is called cognitive dissonance and is a cherished staple of secular progressives in their quest to redefine reality. Reality is what they say it is. End of debate. Sound familiar?

http://rightbias.com/News/042707libs.aspx

Posted by: Trotsky | May 1, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Good points mikeb. I like biden/obama/kusinich maybe even richardson as vp. I'm hoping Gore jumps in and takes one of the above as vp. If no gore, i'm with obama and whoever his vp is :) Hilary is a republican in sheeps clothing. Beware of the Yale Plan

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Until we get a viable popuist thrid party, it is 10000 times better than the right's alternative

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

William, Obama's problem is no one knows where he stands on issues other than "getting out of Iraq". ANd even that is fuzzy. At some point Obama is going to have to take public positions on issues and that is going to cost him dearly. Right now, everyone seems to think he has the same position on any given issue that they have. He has studiously cultivated that opinion, too, and I lost repect for him becasue of it.

As for Gore, what can I say. He was the legitimately elected President of the United States. He would make a great President. We all pretty much know him, understand his position on important issues, and are comfortable with him at the least. I would vote for him in a heartbeat. But I also like Biden and Edwards and Pelosi. My ideal ticket would be Gore-Edwards or Edwards-Biden or Edwards-Pelosi.

Posted by: MikeB | May 1, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

consider this for a moment, what if gore jumped in tomorrow? basically what ever support that edwards,biden and richardson would enjoy would be sucked away,gore brings experience in foreign,millitary and domestic policies, not to mention the netroots would mobilze to support him.frankly this would be the nightmare scenario for both hillary and the gop. and quite possibly the right canidate to help down ticket races. but right now, i think he's happier being the premier envirmental activist right now.

Posted by: spartan | May 1, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

We are so desperate for a candidate who can actually win an election. We have fallen into a pit of delusion and now believe that Algore can save us. Is this not an indication of a pending doom?

Posted by: concerned Dem | May 1, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Also, it will give Obama some much needed seasoning

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Gore Clinton would never happen, given their past. Gore Obama 08' is unbeatable :)

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 1, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama is rapidly wiping out any chance of a credible Gore candidacy.... And Obam's up 2 on Hillary: http://www.solidpolitics.com

Posted by: William | May 1, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Gore-Clinton '08!

Posted by: C.B. | May 1, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company