Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Movement From the Gore-acle?

As regular Fix readers know, we have long been fascinated with former Vice President Al Gore and his future (or lack thereof) in elected politics.

The confluence of two recent stories has our Gore-dar buzzing again. The first was an ad that ran in the New York Times yesterday.

The ad, funded by a draft-Gore movement was in the form of an open letter to Gore that read in part: "You say you have fallen out of love with politics, and you have every reason to feel that way. But we know you have not fallen out of love with your country. And your country needs you now -- as do your party and the planet you are fighting so hard to save."

Then came an item in the San Francisco Chronicle that noted that Gore had cancelled a scheduled fundraiser with Sen. Barbara Boxer on Thursday because -- in Boxer's words -- "he needs to travel abroad tomorrow for an exciting and urgent mission that could result in a major breakthrough in the fight against global warming."

That cancellation coupled with the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize, which Gore is rumored to be nominated for, is set to be announced tomorrow in Oslo, Norway created huge buzz among the political class. If Gore won the peace prize, the argument goes, it would provide him with a huge platform from which to enter the presidential race.

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider threw cold water on the rampant speculation, however, in an email exchange with The Fix earlier today.

"The events in California were postponed because of a request to participate in senior level meetings on the climate crisis in Asia," Kreider said. "However, early Thursday morning these meetings were postponed." As a result, Gore will resume his planned trip in California today and tomorrow will be a "normal long business day" according to Kreider. On Saturday, Gore is set to return to his home in Nashville.

As for the draft efforts, Kreider said that "we truly appreciate all the enthusiasm out there for the former vice president, but he does not have any intention to run for President."

For the political purists among us, "does not have any intention to run for president" is not the same thing as "won't" run for president. But, at the moment, we take Kreider and Gore at their word. Gore has enjoyed a hugely successful run as a private citizen and isn't likely to be cajoled into the race because of an organized draft movement.

That said, he hasn't totally closed the door and has acknowledged time and again that the best way to implement his agenda would be as president. So, we wait. But, if Gore does win the Nobel peace Prize, it's hard to argue that his profile and stature will ever be higher; that sort of elevation could be easily translated into a presidential race.

But does Gore really want it?

For more on Gore and his prospects, make sure to check out "The Tim Russert Show" at noon and six o'clock pm on Saturday on MSNBC. The Fix as well as NBCs Chuck Todd and Norah O'Donnell discuss Gore's thinking as well as the state of play on both sides of the presidential fight.

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 11, 2007; 1:47 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The GOP Field's Dirty Little Iowa Secret
Next: The Governor's Line: All Eyes on Louisiana


Are you all so sure he Al would not endorse Bill Richardson. They were both in the Clinton administration. ill as energy secretary (check out what he has done in New Mexico) and UN ambassador. They are both on the same page about climate change, energy. Richardson says out of Iraq, he wont have troops there until 2013.

Posted by: kjg25171 | October 13, 2007 11:13 PM | Report abuse

I've got to admit, I don't understand the excitement over Gore as a Presidential candidate. He's doing great work for global warming, as I stated in my above comment, but he looked really, really bad in the 2000 election. I don't think that's his element.

Posted by: Lcs210 | October 13, 2007 12:02 AM | Report abuse

proud would surely win any bet against Gore running in 2008.

Having invested himself so completely in a single issue, it would be difficult for him to play the "jack-of-all-trades" candidate without abandoning his role as a spokesman against the perceived continuing human contribution to global warming.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 12, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

dan, Your hypothetical makes no sense. Why woud anyone vote vote for Gore if he had the gall to announce two days before the Iowa caucuses? Why should they? He'd have skipped every debate and that doesn't sit well with voters...just look at Fr Thompson. Dissing the system is no way to get elected.

Besides, there are way too many early primaries this time. By Super duper Tuesday it'll be in the bag already. Gore may be many things, but stupid isn't one of them. He won't run. There's too many reasons not to at this point and Hillary's favorables are going up all the time; almost 50% now.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | October 12, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

"Does this election make me look fat?"

Real grown-up conversation. Why do you hate all those not like you gop? Why can you not regognize a man doing what's best for the country/world. Unlike you people who only care about self.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

And why couldn't Gore announce mid January that he is running. In the middle of one of the mildest winters on record the Global Warming candiate steps in and says see I told you so (in a Politically correct fashion of course). Name recognition is already there and the Billary camp only has a month to put out the ads I assume they have already put together for just such an emergency.

Many polls have been including him for months and what kind of infrastructure does he really need at the last minute? Look at how much free press Thompson got for his late entry.

Hollywood loves Gore, the tree huggers love Gore, the press will tell everyone just days before the primaries that Gore has decided to run.

Based on current polling, if Al gore announces two days before Iowa that he is running, how does he do in the first four (sanctioned) states? Factor in the free press he will get from the late announcement. Any thoughts?

But would he really ignore early Florida??? Even though they don't matter to the DNC?

Posted by: dan_w71 | October 12, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

"Whether or not he's going to win has nothing to do with what kind of candidate he'd be, or what kind of president he'd be."

No, but it has everything to do with the political and personal calculus one uses to make such a risky decision.

Do you really think that the media would then annoint Gore instead of Hillary? Like the Eye of Sauron redirecting it's beam of light onto him? ... "that horrible growing sense of a hostile will that strove with great power to pierce all shadows of cloud, and earth, and flesh, and to see you: to pin you under its deadly gaze, naked, immovable", unelectable.

Of course, he would like to be President, but he has to figure out if he wants to do what he'd have to do to become president -- that is, run, and go through all that again. And he has to look in the mirror and ask "Does this election make me look fat?"

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | October 12, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

So you think Gore has no business running for president because he'll lose to Hillary Clinton? That's just silly. Whether or not he's going to win has nothing to do with what kind of candidate he'd be, or what kind of president he'd be. And the comment that "made your day" was laughing at the make-believe idea of Gore running, not the odds of him winning.

And I disagree that Gore would be crushed by Hillary. He's got a lot of appeal. Hillary's claim that she has the most experience, which is already dubious, would be wiped out entirely if Gore entered the race. He also has huge name recognition and fundraising potential. It's debatable whether he'd be able to catch up this late in the race, but I don't think you should write him off entirely.

Posted by: Blarg | October 12, 2007 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Oh c'mon blarg. He'd get crushed by the Clintons and you know it. There's no lockbox in the universe big enough to protect him from the Clinton machine should he dare to challenge her. Although it would make for a wonderfully macheavelian campaign, which I would take great pleasure in watching unfold.

Talk about splitting the vote..if Gore runs for prez then Obama may have a chance at the nomination after all.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | October 12, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, it's crazy to think that Al Gore, AL GORE, might run for president! Sure, he's the most-qualified candidate in either party, with both a Senate career and 8 years in the White House. And he barely lost the election in 2000, and since has become tremendously popular with the liberal base. But still, what kind of idiot thinks that he'd run for president? That's crazy make-believe!

It's good to know that conservatives are preparing for Al Gore's potential presidential bid by mocking him in advance. You don't want to wait for him to actually start running before you insult him. There's no time to waste!

Posted by: Blarg | October 12, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

PollM, He's way too late. Just like Fred Thompson's too late, too dysfunctional, too unorganized, with too little cash. Al will make the smart decision just like Newt did, and stay above the fray, hoping for a choice cabinet spot or other appointment.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | October 12, 2007 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Gore has good intentions; he would truly be a good President. Not sure he would be received in his own backyard as well as he is received in the rest of the world.
Do you believe is Gore too late to run against Hillary ------------>


Posted by: PollM | October 12, 2007 10:08 AM | Report abuse

"That so many people, with enough talent and resources to type stuff on the internet - okay, not a huge benchmark but with Liberals, let's try to give some credit -are out here palpating, literally getting themselves worked up into to some collective bovine frenzy at the vapor-like prospect that Al Gore, AL GORE, might run for president, of the United States, this is an astonishing example of how deeply the Boomers have become lost into King Friday's Land of Make Believe."

Thank you pck_iv, you just made my day! LMFHO

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | October 12, 2007 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Jimoneill, no question he'd be a viable candidate (especially now that he's been knighted by the Oslo mafia). My response was to the other guy who said that he'd win in a landslide and crush the Southern states. I'd asked him for his backup for that bold claim. I think it was bsimon who coached me up (as our former Skins ballcoach Spurrier used to say) that the guy was joking.

Honestly, with the way the country is so divided now (and has been since the 2000 election), I don't think if Jesus Christ himself showed up and ran (as a Libertarian :-) that he'd take more than 55% of the electoral college.


Posted by: JD | October 12, 2007 8:41 AM | Report abuse

I don't like to brag but congratulations to Al Gore who I picked to win the Nobel Peace Prize [see my post October 11, 2007 02:58 PM ]. Now he gets his name up there, right with Arafat. What an honor. The world is a much more peaceful place now that we are focused on global warming.

Posted by: dave | October 12, 2007 8:00 AM | Report abuse

JD - your 3.29pm post on Oct 11:

Yes, those polls are only narrow victories for Gore, however don't you think it shows that he'd be an extremely viable candidate?

Posted by: jimoneill50 | October 12, 2007 7:41 AM | Report abuse

As a conservative, I must say I like Gore. I applaud his efforts to educate people about global warming.

That seems to be his niche, in my opinion. I don't care for his other political stances. Also, I don't think he's as good at being a politician as he is at being a single issue activist. I wouldn't like to see him as President, to say the least.

Posted by: Lcs210 | October 11, 2007 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Special thanks to bsimon, at 04:31, Rufus, at 04:32, and others. Zouk, the Constitution (as well as all the other original documents associated with the founding of our nation) are not religious texts. They are the record of a new (at the time) experiment in politics and sociology, which lay out what they thought was a detailed rationale and blueprint for a society based (at least to some extent) on equality and reason, rather than "the divine right of kings," the primacy of the clergy, etc. They did not describe a theocracy - in fact, two of the most influential signers (Franklin, Jefferson) were Deists ( who believedin a disinterested, hands-off God. (mibrooks27, you should also look closely at this link to familiarize yourself with what a Deist actually IS/believes.) They did NOT "trust in God" to do what they knew they should be doing themselves... instead relying on what they saw as their own God-given abilities to develop a new and fairer system. In that sense, yes, they did "trust in government."
Finally, on topic, if Gore were to run he would instantly be the most competent and capable candidate in the race. I don't think he will, sadly, but I would support him in an instant if he did.

Posted by: bokonon13 | October 11, 2007 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Holy Mother of pearl! Talk about your "willing suspension of disbelief"! Al Gore has morphed into this epic living Euell Gibbon's parody, like a cross between Dennis Hopper's twisted nut job in "Blue Velvet" and Orson Well's 'Charlie Kane', stalking the planet's elite salons, "Don't you burn that fossil fuel! Don't you friggin' burn that fossil fuel!!"

President!? Of what? The Grape Nuts Coalition Party?! Gadzooks, people did any of you even read that moonbat New York Times ad!? "Al, come to us, only you save the Earth!" Is Tipper going to change her name to Gaia?

In fairness, I'm sure Al was once a lovely man and a very good husband, father, and in truth, he managed to get over to Viet Nam and back without hurting himself or apparently anyone else. So for a while, he schmucked along, married well, took over his daddy's tobacco farm, made a few million with Oxy-Pete. Basically, a Dauphin: pretty good looking and ultimately harmless.

Then someone, who knows who, started telling him how cool he was and how hip he was and next thing we know: He's Love Story and Inventor Of The Internet.

This alone proves he inhaled. God only knows what though. He has certainly drunk a whopping huge dose of kool-aid and this trip of his is worthy of probative examination for this reason alone if for nothing else: That so many people, with enough talent and resources to type stuff on the internet - okay, not a huge benchmark but with Liberals, let's try to give some credit - are out here palpating, literally getting themselves worked up into to some collective bovine frenzy at the vapor-like prospect that Al Gore, AL GORE, might run for president, of the United States, this is an astonishing example of how deeply the Boomers have become lost into King Friday's Land of Make Believe.

"Wait! Don't be afraid! Here's Trolley! And look! It's Prince Algore and his trusty sidekick, 'Bama, The Magically-Palatable-To-White-Liberals Negro' Hoo-Ray! The Earth is saved"!

I love Boomer liberals. They give so much....

Posted by: China_Rider | October 11, 2007 9:34 PM | Report abuse

For the love of Pete, if you're going to go around insulting people's intelligence, folks, you've just GOT to make sure you don't write "there right mind". Kinda makes you seem like a knee-jerk right-wing absolute idiot with no compass of grammar to guide him, ya know?

I like Gore a lot, I think if he were going to run we'd have heard something in that direction by now. I think he kind of likes playing the honored statesman at this point. Plus, Clinton/Gore? It's ever so '92. And we don't NEED him, it's not like we have a shortage of good candidates, frankly. If the Democrats can't win this go round, we don't deserve to run the government.
I do think Gore might consider a position with the next, Democratic, president, though.

Posted by: Jenn2 | October 11, 2007 8:58 PM | Report abuse

There must be a God, for if there wasn't our nation would be in very terminal condition with no hope. To think anyone in there right mind would think Albert Gore would make a good Dogcatcher much less the President of the U.S. He's an absolute idiot with no compass of principles to guide him! Just exercising my free speech rights thank you very much!

Posted by: tlox238 | October 11, 2007 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Could we all please get off the Al Gore craze?

First of all, the guy ran away from his greatest strenght in 2000 - Bill Clinton.

Secondly, he wasn't himself, listening too much to his advisors. I have no reason to believe if he ran for office again, he would revert to his old ways. Sure he's become a liberal fireband as of late, but that's because he's free from the electoral process.

Thirdly, if a guy can't even win his home state (as was the case in 2000), is he really the Dems best chance of winning in 08?

On top of all of this, he actually won the 2000 election. But instead of acting like he won it, he cowed to Bush and Bush's team of lawyers and acted like the loser. Makes me wonder how badly Gore wanted to job to begin with.

Posted by: jasoda15 | October 11, 2007 8:13 PM | Report abuse

I just saw Chris on Hardball saying how polished Romney was in the debate. IS he drunk? This was the guy who wants to call the lawyers before going to war. Rudy's answer wasn't much better - he said it would be nice to go to Congress.

Posted by: adabob | October 11, 2007 8:06 PM | Report abuse

This many people mooning like acid casualties at an Alpine Valley show makes me wonder if there wasn't some truth to the whole water and flouridation thing. Miko miko, Nurse!

Here's a great idea - the Nobel's would love this: Al Gore as The Avatar in his own anime! He could even open his first episode by flying his lear jet up to Nova Scoctia to see the total ecplise of the sun! "Fly me to the moonbats!"

Posted by: China_Rider | October 11, 2007 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I agree with Gore/Obama O8. Sounds very good. It is a sure winner. IMHO, Gore is the only candidate that Obama supporters would tolerate as Prez with Obama as VP.

Posted by: zbob99 | October 11, 2007 7:42 PM | Report abuse

I'll vote for Gore. Think the Nobel cmte will too after Maathai in '04 and Yunus last year. They seem pretty intent on widening our conception of what peace is, and global warming (or rather the mitigation thereof) fits well in that rubric.

"Gore/Obama '08" rolls right off the tongue. Try it. Then try "Clinton/Richardson '08." Too kludgy or something. Goreobama, Gorobama, domo arigato, Mr. Roboto.

Posted by: novamatt | October 11, 2007 7:27 PM | Report abuse

You don't have much of a life if you're fascinated with former Vice President Al Gore...

Just being honest.

Posted by: tele64 | October 11, 2007 7:02 PM | Report abuse

"Why Al Gore deserves the Nobel Peace Prize
Gore's epic effort to focus attention on the perils of climate change supports the goal of preventing wars.

Think about the big picture. Ignore the coward peanut gallery goper's, who are scared of their own shadows. Maybe if they weren't so evil and such saboturs they would have less to fear. Rather than pointing the finger at everyone else, gop, why not work on your problems. Then maybe you would stop destroying the country/world.


Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 11, 2007 6:38 PM | Report abuse

"TV Guide asks Matthews why he's "coming out about this now."

"I think people ought to know this," he says. "There's a lot going on among our producers, our young bookers, now that I never noticed before. There is an almost menacing call that you get whenever someone hears something they don't like -- their people call up and threaten, or challenge, and get very nasty. That's now become the norm. I told people, 'Just tell me this from now on.'

"Every time someone calls and tries one of those things, whether it's the Mitt Romney campaign or the John McCain campaign or whatever, I will put it on the air. I'm tired of this kind of pressure that's now become normal among the young staffers on these campaigns. When it's coming from the vice president's office -- there was a concerted effort to stop me from reporting on what the vice president's office was doing in terms of making the case that there was a nuclear threat from Iraq. I wanted to remind people [that] having a talk show that is outspoken is not without its troubles."

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 11, 2007 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Only the right in this coutnry have free speech. Remember this when you are no longer in power gop. No whining and crying after you are gone from politics.

"Matthews: V.P.'s office tried to silence me on Cheney's Iraq role
At a 10th anniversary party for "Hardball" last week, Chris Matthews said that Bush White House officials -- especially some in Dick Cheney's office -- had tried to "silence" him by putting pressure on executives at MSNBC.

Matthews' comments were a little cryptic, but now he's elaborating in an interview with TV Guide. Matthews says that there was a "concerted effort" -- carried out by three people linked to Cheney -- to kill discussion of the role Cheney's office played in trumpeting a supposed nuclear threat from Iraq.

"I thought on the 10th anniversary it would be good to celebrate the First Amendment, which gives us all our living," Matthews tells TV Guide. "We reviewed in brief the remarkable experience of covering the Clinton [scandal] and the defense of the war with Iraq. And the difference in these two cases was that although I was extremely tough on Clinton, there was never any attempt to silence me -- whereas there was a concerted effort by [Vice President Cheney's office] to silence me. It came in the form of three different people calling trying to quiet me."

TV Guide asks Matthews why he's "coming out about this now."

"I think people ought to know this," he says. "There's a lot going on among our producers, our young bookers, now that I never noticed before. There is an almost menacing call that you get whenever someone hears something they don't like -- their people call up and threaten, or challenge, and get very nasty. That's now become the norm. I told people, 'Just tell me this from now on.'


It looks Like gore is going to win the nobel peace prize. Hopefully he breaks it and throws a shout out to the troops. The award show circut is an insult. If he is a leader why does he not lead. You are, by your actions, not awards or words.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 11, 2007 6:23 PM | Report abuse

You racist little fascists you

"Gibson knew school shooter was white because "[b]lack shooters don't" shoot themselves; "they shoot and move on""

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 11, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

To Chris: Please don't fawn over Clinton when you appear with Russert on Saturday.
This is still a sizable legion of Democrats who will not vote for her. In fact, all the Democrats I know, and the people I talk to on the street, oppose H. Clinton's nomination. I don't know where her support is coming from. Are the pollsters sure that the males they ask are not just saying they will vote for Clinton, in order not to appear sexist?

Posted by: bringbackimus | October 11, 2007 6:04 PM | Report abuse

"C students need not apply."

that would also seem to eliminate Hillary. she flunked the DC bar, the easiest in the country, and hid it from everyone for years. she has refused to release her transcripts from either school she attended. What is she hiding this time? Is it missing FBI files again? Or maybe an IRS hit list. Or could be the al queda docs The burgler stole. most likely the price list for pardons.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Coward gop. Love to attack attack attack. WIll never, NEVER. back up what you say or take accountability. Why should they? Their followers are mindless slaves that will believe anything the propogandsits say. Credibility? What goper needs that to survive. Credibility would be detramental to the gop. Can't have someone talking about the truth. you peopel are cowards zouk. Bully's. From top to bottom.

"The Respectable Liberal Blogger Ezra Klein in repose

On behalf of all liberal bloggers of purported good faith, the Respectable Liberal Blogger Ezra Klein has chivalrously stepped up to the plate to challenge me to a debate about S-CHIP.

I'm. Trrrrembling.

With. Laughter.

A good-faith debate would require that Respectable Liberal Blogger Ezra Klein actually be a person of good faith. He is treated as such in some elite conservative circles, where his work is linked frequently and intellectual repartee among the Beltway boys' club is warm and chummy. He is free to continue traveling in those cozy circles where highbrow right-wingers are not so mean and scary.

But I'd just as soon share a stage, physical or virtual, with Respectable Liberal Blogger Ezra Klein as I would with Chris Matthews, Geraldo Rivera, or an overflowing vat of liquid radioactive waste.



Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 11, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Coming from a dittohead, I'll take that as a compliment. thank you zouk. Tell kim, "tonight's the night". :)

If that was the case, you would not come here daily to try and drown me out with lies half-truths and propognda. Would you.

You can't stop me. No matter what you do. Whine cry complian. The only vicotry are in your head. I am winnging. More so everyday. You have already lose. Time will show you, WHAT I HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU. You you tell me one thing that comes true in the future I MAY start listening to you. Until then, I laugh at you fascists.

And you are not fascists because I say you are. You are fascists by your actions.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 11, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Who could possibly misspell as often as I do? Do you think I cannot spell the word the or and.

you people ignore my posts as it is, out of fear. At least misspelled words bring you into the convo. Give you something to come here for. Feeling superior to others.

I have no ego. I'll let you bash my spelling. At least it draws the fascists in. That is how I change them. they are mad now. People are always angry when they have to look at the evil inside themselves. Then they blame the messanger. But I can take the attacks and accusations. If it will save one of you.

But know, the problem with the country is not me, an anonymous poster.I am merly trying to change those that are destroying our country for whatever reason they feel they must (taxes, greed, hate).

I do only what I can do. I do only what God has put me here to do. I am not to blame. I have zero power.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 11, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

"C students need not apply."

that would eliminate Mr gore. He flunked out of school twice.

"smarter than me if possible"

that doesn't seem so hard.

they said Peanut was really smart. Look what that got us.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

dave writes
"Giving yourself wiggle roon on things that could change based on events out of our control between now and January 2009 does not seem like a horrible position to take, in my view. You almost seem to want someone like a Decider in that position?"

Wiggle room is ok. Vague banalities are not. I would like some consistency in their positions - for instance, Rep Paul is very consistent in basing his responses on his interpretation of the Constitution. Its pretty clear where he stands, and one gets a pretty good idea of his principles and convictions. The front-runners aren't giving us much of that at all. Mark in Austin has great synopsis of what the candidates are running for on the next thread, check it out.

Posted by: bsimon | October 11, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore's credibility will never be higher than in the next week. If he runs, and I sincerely hope he does, he gets my vote. Moreover, he gets some of my money. Moreover still, I'll volunteer to work toward his election.

I don't think I set the bar too high in looking for a President. I expect him to be smart, really smart, smarter than me if possible. C students need not apply. It would be so refreshing to have someone with a brain in the White House.

I also expect them to care more about humanity than corporate interests, and more about what they can achieve, than what they can become.

I also think that Mr. Gore has learned a lot in his last election bid. From the things he's said since, I don't expect him to cater to what would-be "handlers" would have him do. I expect him to speak his mind.

I, for one, am very hopeful to wake up tomorrow and find Mr. Gore has one the Nobel prize. I see it as one more prod, moving him towards running.

Travis Stark

Posted by: travisstark01 | October 11, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Rufas, no one talks about anything you say. B/C it is the same old tired tripe day after day. fascist this and authoritarian that. then you assume we are ignoring you because you make so much sense.

Once and for all - we do not fear you. we do not wish to silence you. we wish for you to make sense, add to the conversation, rather than detract. you could start by saying something you have never said before. we seem to have had our fill with your usuall daily rants.

but don't let reality intrude into a good screed.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Your a smart guy simon. If I spoon fed you people you would never listen of grow. Finding out what I am saying, in your head,helps you think for your self. I'm sick of spoon feeding those that hate me. Attack my methods, but not my results.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 11, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - "I'd rather we elected a president who is clear about where they stand." Giving yourself wiggle roon on things that could change based on events out of our control between now and January 2009 does not seem like a horrible position to take, in my view. You almost seem to want someone like a Decider in that position?

Posted by: dave | October 11, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

"I misel words to give you fascists authoritarians somehtgin to talkk about other than the facts."

But, isn't the correct spelling of a word a 'fact'? Therefore talking about misspellings is, by definition, talking about facts.

Posted by: bsimon | October 11, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

sorry to step on your toes mibrooks27. A day late :)

Authoritarians get zero respect from me. The only power you have is the power WE give you, old man. You are a dying bred. This country was founded on freedom. I spit in authoritarian faces.

Remember that authoritarian book I was posting on this site? Do I need to go back to that to put these authoritarians in there place?

you already got registration by whining and complaining. I know you want teh internet shut down. I would prefer if cc and everyone for that matter would just ignor eyou old people. All you cow folk are dying out anyway. Teh future is now. The cow folk is no longer relevant in america. Take a long hike, authoritarians. your party is done for a generation.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 11, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27 writes
"Can you even READ?"

That's rich, considering your subsequent arguments.

otter357 wrote "Constitution is quite Godless, as it should be."

Which you verify in stating "The Declaration of Independence is filled woth references to God. The Constitution does not, but so what."

And you have the temerity to ask if he can read?? He said it is Godless, as it should be. He didn't say it was anti-religious, as you claim, further steeping your post in irony.

Posted by: bsimon | October 11, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

I HAVE A SUGETON to. Anyne frm oklahoma cannot post. Not enough brian cells in all of oklahoma to post anything of substaince her.

And if you don't know. I misel words to give you fascists authoritarians somehtgin to talkk about other than the facts. You got to attack something. It can't be my words. So I help you. I want to keep you involved. Go Oregon Ducks :)

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 11, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Chris, here's another idea. If someone is from (say) Oklahoma, all of their posts will be purged from the board...also anyone East of the Mississippi.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 11, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

otter357 - Can you even READ? It's obvious you've playing rather fast and loose with history. The Declaration of Independence is filled woth references to God. The Constitution does not, but so what. There are chapers in the Bible where God isn't mentioned either. Does that make it anti-religious, too? Thomas Jeferson, your favorite Dieist....wasn't. He not only claimed to be a Christian, he funded more than 30 churches as a bequest.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 11, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Chris, since you have changed the comments section for the better on The Fix once already, how about one more thing: if the commenter cannot spell, their comments will not appear. I mean, do their arguments impress anybody when they misspell nearly every other word?

Posted by: soonerthought | October 11, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Chris, make yourself and all of your readers a promise:

Forget that Al Gore was ever a candidate for anything, and accept that he isn't a candidate now. delete Al Gore from your word processor's glossary. Have your internet gurus program your work stations to produce a blue screen of death whenever you mistakenly enter Al Gore in a document.

Al Gore ran an honest, ethical, germain campaign for the Presidency. He ran on an excellent record in elective office, and on the merits of a very successful administration of which he was a major part. He ran on his particularly apt qualifications for the office. He showed his exceptional competence, his personal honor, and his modest self awareness. He demonstrated that he had all of Jimmy Carter's best attributes, and none of those attributes that diminished JC.

The Republicans ran a candidate and a campaign that were the antithesis of the Vice President, and by corruption, chicanery, and a store bought Supreme Court barely succeeded in beating Mr. Gore. It required stealing the American Reform Party, (and 12 million dollars that that Party earned from the American Public), and the conscious cooperation of all those pundits who found it more fun to ridicule Al Gore than to get the truth about both AG and GB.

We have endured eight years of unmitigated disaster thanks to that.

Al Gore doesn't owe anybody anything, and he certainly doesn't owe you and your comrades another shot at demeaning him in print to boost your far right readership.

It seems likely that whomever the Democratic Party runs for President will prevail in the mostly marginal of honest elections. It also seems likely that that will be Hillary Clinton. I intend to vote for her in the general election, because the Far Right of the Republican Party has definitely earned eight years of Hillary followed by eight years of Barak. They will have a wonderful decade or so of being morally outraged, in high dudgeon, and they will spend most of that time alienating anyone in the electorate to the left of Attila the Hun(k) (sic).

Al has earned his comfortable rank as elder statesman. Let him enjoy it.

Keep that promise.

Posted by: ceflynline | October 11, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"BTW, where do our rights originate?"

They originate with the founders of the country. The PEOPLE (not God's) that made our laws.

If you really want to know where they laws came from. It was something you probably hate.


Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 11, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

The seperatation of church and state is a very real and signifigant one. The right says it doesn't exist. Really, then what is this:

"Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine which states that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent of one another. The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.[1]

The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state

It exists. Not to hurt the country OR religon. But to protect both from people like rush zouk and the fascist religous right. If you do not have the seperation both are taited by each other. The right knows this. they are not as stupid as they seem. THEY ARE FASCISTS. They are imposing their will on a free people. Have been since the red scare of the fifties. Who is willing to battle them (metphorically speaking)?

Not enough people. Hopefully the future americans are smarer than their grandfathers and great grandfathers. The only way to change is enlighten and infom those that would mislead and lied to by these people. The internet age changes everything. As a result we are watching the gop fall off the face of the earth. About time. Freedom and unity is at hand. MArginalize and point out those that would divide us for personal profit. That is what is happening. don't fear moderates an liberals. Don't fear them. The only power they have is the power you and I give them. Stop giving them power. they are a world wide joke. The world is laughing at us due to these morons. The time to take our coutnry back from fascism is now or NEVER. MAke your choice.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 11, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

kevin - you anal retentiveness does not do you justice in an intelligent debate. those mottoes were intended to be mostly humorous, a quality you obviously lack. I was pointing out the preposterous idea of running God out of public life entirely. I don't think you will find many public documents that do not refer to Him. the point of the argument did not materially rely upon the idea of "in the constitution" but in your eagerness to appear smart and peevish, you displayed a lack of understanding of the underlying premise entirely. this further disables your point. Yes it is true those words are not in the constitution. Feel better?

If you want to debate semantics and minor points, you will have to find a different venue.

BTW, where do our rights originate? Mind you I am not a religious person, but wouldn't think of denying this choice to others. this is an established and long revered tradition in Western thought. Maybe you have been watching too much Maher.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Zouk: There is only one reference to "God" or "Lord" or a deity in the Constitution. It appears in the date. It says "In the year of our Lord...." Otherwise the
Constitution is quite Godless, as it should be.

Posted by: otter357 | October 11, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

To the tune of "Alfie"

What's it all about, Al G.?
Will we all be blown up in a flash?
Or will the ozone break
Barbeque us like a steak
Thanks to the flatulent cows?
Somehow, I don't think so.

What's it all about, Al G.?
You used to say we're gonna freeze.
Did the CO2
Turn us technicolor blue?
Was the icepack about to attack?
Somehow, I don't think so.

What's it all about, Al G.?
Let's all drive to the woods and get down.
Does your brain get high
Preachin' to a butterfly
While the ecosphere tingles to hear?
Somehow, I don't think so.

What's it all about, Al G.?
The Goddess is counting on you.
What will you perpetrate
As a Nobel fashion plate?
Oh say, can you save the day?
Somehow, I don't think so.

Posted by: davismargaret | October 11, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

My girlfreind is not a christian. I try to convert her. She says to me "They always looked down on me at church. They try and change me to be like them."

I watch the CBN. They are no longer the "christian" broadcasting network. They are now a political arm of the republcain party.

These things are not Jesus's fault. You fascists have twisted his words and religon so much. The catholic church has corrupted his words so much. I feel you people (the religous right, catholics) can no longer call yourselves christians. You use my religon to herd the flock towardsa political ideology. And you do it with lies and propoganda.

The gop has no idea what it means to be a "christian". you people are lost. Please do not come on here and mock us. do not mock my religon for your own personal political arguements. You cannot win. do not do that. It's bad enough you are running campaigns off it. I can do nothing about that. I can do something abou t you zouk. Don't go there today. You will lose, very badly. Keep my religon and God off this site. I will have to post some posts. You don't want that.

Please stop using my religon to lie and mislead the flock. God will judge you zouk. Remember that. You will not be able to say noone warned you, when you hit the pearly gates, many years from now hopefully.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 11, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Z- ask the Goreacle. He knows.

Posted by: bsimon | October 11, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - who sent you that opinion? the VRWC? Hillary wants to know.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

What you fascists, zouk, fail to understand is, we don't have to change it FROM God TO anything. Stop listening to rush. He is rotting your brian.

Everything is not black and white, gop.

Seperation of churuch and state. Doensn't mean you can't have faith in your life. Personal choice.

Just becasue abortions are legal doesn't mean anyone that doesn't want one has to have one. Personal choice.

Jesus Does not want robots. Forcing religon with laws will never work. Jesus doesn't want that. What does that accomplish. If you are forced to be a chrsitan/muslim/jew, then what power does the conversion have? There would be no conversaion, for that matter. Much like you can't force democract on the middle est at the point of a gun

In terms of abortion. A person must be free to make their own choice. You fascist fake chrsitains are not God's. You do not know God's will. Let God be the judge. Not rush hannity and o'reilly. they are merely uninvofmed scard old men. They are not God's, although you fascists worship them.

Hypocrites. Fascists. False Prophets. Your time is almost up. God will judge you unfavorably. You twisted his word and used him for personal gain. Good luck with that. I pray for you. your elderly and your children, gop.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 11, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

"I suppose you wish to edit the constitution to say:

These rights endowed by our creator...make that endowed by Mrs clinton"

Um, "Those rights endowed by our creator" comes from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

"one nation, under god becomes one nation under gore"

Um, "One nation, under God" comes from the Pledge of Alliegance, not the Constitution.

If you want to accuse your political opponents of wanting to monkey with the Constitution, you should probably read it first.

"In god we trust becomes - in government we trust"

Um, "In God We Trust" comes from a slogan printed on coins and dollar bills, not the Constitution.

one nation, under god becomes one nation under gore

Posted by: kevin.ahearn | October 11, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

"one nation, under god becomes..."

No, it reverts to "One Nation, Indivisible" - as it was before the bedwetters changed it to distinguish us from the godless communists.

Posted by: bsimon | October 11, 2007 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Clinton Sees Benefits of Strong Dollar, Won't Commit on Policy

will she ever actually commit to anything? this is beginning to verge on the comical. why is the press letting her get away with this?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Blarg writes
"I think it's an exaggeration to say that Hillary and Giuliani are the same on Iraq. I don't like her vague stance on troop withdrawal, but she at least says she's in favor of it. Giuliani, on the other hand, wants to stay the course and change nothing."

Well, that's the trouble, isn't it. We're left to guess because she won't tell us. From where I sit, she looks pretty hawkish. She voted for the approval to use force, she hasn't backed off from that vote & has subsequently voted to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard - which effectively gives the Bush admin carte blanche to attack Iran under prior approvals to root out terrorism, anywhere. Perhaps she is merely playing the hawk in order to pre-emptively deal with the 'soft on terrorism' charges from the GOP; but, in my opinion, giving her that benefit of doubt is too high a risk. I'd rather we elected a president who is clear about where they stand.

Posted by: bsimon | October 11, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

boko - I wasn't talking about leftist zealots. I specifically referred to the moderates in the middle.

I suppose you wish to edit the constitution to say:

These rights endowed by our creator...make that endowed by Mrs clinton

In god we trust becomes - in government we trust

one nation, under god becomes one nation under gore

I think the middle might have a hard time accepting your ideas.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if the Nobel Peace Prize would be enough to get Gore running again. A prize is not a life-changing experience, is it? It won't make him charismatic. He will still mistrust if not despise the press corps, who would likely return the favor.

The effect would have to be on the voters.

Have Americans voters -- other than those in the choir already supporting an individual candidate -- ever been great admirers of honors conferred from somewhere other than here? I think not.

Posted by: dboyce | October 11, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

"I think Giulianni will crumble under the pressure first & slip up verbally.

Perhaps, but I offer this rationale. Let's assume that hillary is acting contrary to her actual personality in most instances and is desperately trying to appear likeable. this is what has been widely reported by the press and has plausibility. she is also now known for refusing to answer any difficult questions. this means that if the curtain is ever pulled back, she has the farthest to fall.

On the other hand, rudy is well-known for being abrasive and will not shock anyone by acting in this fashion. additionally, he has been talking off the cuff in most media encounters and does not appear to be tightly scripted. He has been savaged for years by the NYT and often replies with a firm, humorous and effective reply. I am not sure what he could say or do that would surprise anyone.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

"RUSH: Look, here's another question. I mean, if you want to start asking questions about this: What caused the injuries to the kids in the first place?

CALLER: I couldn't tell you. I haven't followed it that close.

RUSH: It was an auto accident. I don't think they had automobile insurance, either. Why not? I didn't know. I've heard that said, and they didn't have auto insurance. I don't know how you don't have auto insurance. I thought that was legally required.

CALLER: Maybe they're waiting for the libs to start to bring that into the Constitution, and then you gotta have it.

RUSH: Maybe so, waiting for the feds to come up with an auto insurance program. Look, I think, folks, it is required in Maryland. Auto insurance is required. "

Go Obama-gore 08

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 11, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, I think it's an exaggeration to say that Hillary and Giuliani are the same on Iraq. I don't like her vague stance on troop withdrawal, but she at least says she's in favor of it. Giuliani, on the other hand, wants to stay the course and change nothing.

Hillary's proposal to give $5000 to every child is an absolutely terrible idea. It might be one of the worst policy ideas in years. And like many things Hillary does, it reminds me of Bush. She isn't attacking the root cause of the problem; she's just giving people money and calling it a day.

College could be made more affordable by overhauling our ridiculous student loan system, which is basically a giveaway for the banking industry. Or she could increase the amount of subsidized loans available. Or she could give more money to colleges, to bring down tuition. Any of these efforts would help make college more affordable for everyone. And I'm sure there are plenty of ways to reduce home prices which would similarly attack the root cause.

But that would be too big a change. It seems that Hillary doesn't have a problem with the current system. It's like Bush's plans to make healthcare more affordable by letting people save for it tax-free; it helps a little, but it's no substitute for real reform. And, like Bush's healthcare plan, Hillary's plan gives a meaningless amount of money. How much do you think college will cost 18 years from now? $5000 won't make a dent. I don't get the impression that Hillary actually wants to fix these problems; she just thinks people will vote for her if she gives them free money.

Posted by: Blarg | October 11, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

KOZ asks:

"do you want Hillary clinton to appoint ginsburg-like judges who will eliminate god from public life altogether? Or do you want to vote R?"

Answer in several parts:
1. No, I do not want Hillary Clinton to become president. However,
2. I would be more than happy to banish any reference to religion from the political arena. In fact, I think we have to.
3. You couldn't pay me to vote Republican.

Posted by: bokonon13 | October 11, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

How can you support these people, mark jd jim, zouk. Are you humans, or heartless aliens with human skin?

"In other words: The public trough is not Halsey Frost's last and only resort. The accident was horrible. The children deserve sympathy and compassion. But this family made choices. Choices have consequences. Taxpayers of lesser means should not be forced to subsidize them. "


Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 11, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

This people are sick monsters. God will judge them, not me.

"After 12-year-old Graeme Frost delivered the Democratic radio address, which was penned for him by Senate staffers, conservatives across the Internet asked the questions the mainstream media wouldn't ask about the family's financial situation. The couple claims an annual income of about $45,000. Neither the Democrats nor the Baltimore Sun indicates how they verified that assertion before circulating it.

What is verifiable: The Frosts own a home in Baltimore purchased for $55,000 16 years ago - and now worth an estimated $300,000. That's a lot of equity. In addition, the children's father, Halsey Frost, owns commercial real estate and his own small business, but chose not to buy health insurance for himself and his wife, whom he hired as an employee. She now apparently works freelance at a medical-publishing firm, which also reportedly doesn't offer insurance.

malkin (the robot with wood eyes)

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 11, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

I have to give you credit, Chris - this must be the first post you've made in the history of The Fix that mentions Gore and you didn't take a cheap shot about his weight. Good for you.

He isn't going to run, and that's the nation's loss. It really is.

But no matter, just look at what the last year would have brought him if he wins in Oslo tomorrow: an Academy Award, an Emmy, and perhaps the Nobel Peace prize... all in one year. That's got to be some kind of record.

Posted by: scorbett1976 | October 11, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

JD writes
"mainetimes, you suggest that Gore would run the table, crushing the South even. What do you base that on? Do you have some poll you can link to?"

I half-have the impression that mainetimes was being sarcastic...


Posted by: bsimon | October 11, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Welcome back JD... I mean pokerngolf

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

The zouk writes
"your vaunted middle voters are going to break for rudy and hurt the Dem down-ticket as well. Wait unti clinton has to actually explain any of her views on a specific policy."

Well, I don't see a whole lot of difference between Giulianni & HRC, frankly. He's got a slightly more authoritarian bent; she hasn't pledged to continue cutting taxes. On Iraq, they're basically the same. On social issues, they're basically the same. Their differences largely come from the charicatures made of either side than from actual proposed policy. That, of course, is because neither is doing a whole lot of policy proposing.

Having said all that, I think Giulianni is equally at risk of making "a one liner culled from all the talking", if not moreso. If we have to suffer through a Giulianni-HRC race, the debates will be very telling - and I think Giulianni will crumble under the pressure first & slip up verbally.

Posted by: bsimon | October 11, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Clinton recently floated the idea of issuing a $5,000 bond to each baby born in the United States to help pay for college and a first home, but it immediately inspired Republican ridicule and she quickly said she would not implement the proposal.

She defended that decision yesterday, saying she is focusing on proposals with more political support and she is not formally proposing anything she can't fund without increasing the deficit: "I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all."

So it's not the cost of the proposal that is an issue, it is whether the repubs will make fun of you for it. that is classic clinton leadership for you.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

mainetimes, you suggest that Gore would run the table, crushing the South even. What do you base that on? Do you have some poll you can link to?

The most recent one I found, from June, doesn't show the landslide you suggest:

Quinnipiac University Poll. June 5-11, 2007. N=1,711 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.4.


"If the 2008 election for president were being held today, and the candidates were [see below] the Democrat and [see below] the Republican, for whom would you vote?"

Gore leads Rudy 45%-43%
Gore leads McCain 44%-41%
Gore leads Fred 49%-37%

(This poll was before Fred jumped in, so it's probalby not accurate)

The link is here, you have to scroll most of the way down

These show Gore with small leads, but hardy insurmountable; they're close to the margin of error in fact.

Posted by: JD | October 11, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Only one problem, if we assume you are correct bsimon.
1 - hillary has said we will be in Iraq indefinitely. I know she changes her mind every week, but I think most people realize there is no difference with her.
2. the Dems have already started spending money like crazy. this will only accelerate if they capture the WH. there is no plausibility in Dems spending less money.

your vaunted middle voters are going to break for rudy and hurt the Dem down-ticket as well. Wait unti clinton has to actually explain any of her views on a specific policy. so far the yellow-dog "journalists" have not held her feet to the fire, but they will have to eventually. and when she gets off script, expect to hear the paranoid rantings of the VRWC emerge. Unless the dreaded cackle will suffice. and if ever found wanting, she will turn mean and ugly on a dime, it is her nature.

Remember the tale of the scorpion?

all it will take is a one liner culled from all the talking. One line is all it takes:

I voted for it before I voted against it

Hey over there Macacca

We're going to south carolina, then to nevada then Arrrggghhhhhh

Heckofajob Brownie

"I know someone sent you that question"
"We are going to spend your money for you, we now better"

More to come.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Gore would run the table, pronanly winning big in the South, and elsewhere of course. Now, who would be his running mate? Oh, yes, I agree, ignore the right wing-nuts; most of the country is doing this anyway. Plz do not respond to them.

Posted by: mainetimes | October 11, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

As I mentioned in the last post, I think Gore is going to play kingmaker this cycle by endorsing Edwards or Obama.

Posted by: AndyR3 | October 11, 2007 01:53 PM

Um..... didn't he try that with Dean? How'd that work out?

PS Zouk, good tip, thanks for the help-desk support.

PPS What's a Zouk, anyway? I assume it's origin isn't related to this

Posted by: JD | October 11, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

"do you want Hillary clinton to appoint ginsburg-like judges who will eliminate god from public life altogether? Or do you want to vote R?"

The 30%ers are not the problem for whomever the Dem nominee is; the target will be on the swingers, for whom the Supreme Court is typically not an important issue. For that demographic, the message that 1) our troops are coming out of Iraq relatively soon and 2) we will not saddle our children with debt any longer will be a far more compelling than any fear-mongering about 'ginsberg-like judges'.

Shoot, given the President's recent claim that his God is the same one worshiped by everyone - including Muslims - he could (ironically) be the one that drives the religious nuts from his party.

Posted by: bsimon | October 11, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

I will be surprised in Al Gore does NOT win the Nobel Peace Prize. He seems like the non-deserving, cause-du-jour spokesman that the totally discredited Nobel committee seems to like. Nonetheless, it will add to his stature, especially amongst the Democrats that think this prize means anything anymore.

I don't think that it's too late for him to enter. His big splash entry would compensate for his late start and I do believe that money would quickly find its way to him. He would be that attractive at this time.

Posted by: dave | October 11, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

I think the gore-bot may be the single person even more boring than Fred thompson. that is some feat. and all this puffery is also similar. easy to pin your dwindling hopes of a non-clinton on him before he opens his mouth. But remember, he lost to Bush for a reason and his personality and weaknesses haven't changed.

how amusing that the Dems continue to venture into fantasyland to avoid the reality of another clinton run.

Campaign ad next year:

do you want Hillary clinton to appoint ginsburg-like judges who will eliminate god from public life altogether? Or do you want to vote R?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- did a RUDY supporter really bash democrats for infidelity issues? That my friend is rather rich even for you.

Posted by: _Colin | October 11, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like zouk and coulter are peas in a pod

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 11, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Let me get him one time simon. Just once. And I really am gone this time. National enquier as news for the republcains is to juicy to pass up. Next week, the batboy runs fot Larry craigs seat. These people are really nuts.

"Poor Ann Coulter. Every time things start going really bad for the White House, the usual suspects start their distraction campaigns. Then Ann Coulter-who desperately and rather pathetically wants to believe she's still relevant-has to come out and prove that she's the top of the slime heap by saying something even more outrageous. Her new book isn't selling well, and well, let's be honest, she reeeally needs to sell some -- and for more than the buck or worst, penny they go for. After all, it's not like those black cocktail dresses she prefers grow on trees, and let's not even talk about her cosmetic expenses-you think that comes cheap?

Appearing on Tucker to pimp her latest rag (and how sad a gig that is, the lowest rated show on MSNBC), the official Republican Spokesperson tosses out her contribution to the right wing mud wallowing to make everyone forget that they are the last stubborn stragglers to utter failure: John Edwards had an 18 month affair -- as reported by the NATIONAL ENQUIRER. At that point, even Tucker had to laugh at the feckless Coulter. Let's face it, if Tucker's laughing at your journalistic sourcing, Ann, you're officially a joke.

Download (504) | Play (837) Download (349) | Play (432)

As with just about every stop on her comedy book tour, she manages to get in a dig at Elizabeth Edwards-who called her out on Coultergeist's disgusting last attempt at attention-dismissing her as "Lizzy" (gee Ann, you wouldn't happen to be trying out for the road show of "Heathers, The Musical," would you? Remember, "bulimia is so '87") but Tucker just can't get past the tabloid comment. He tells Ann he'll wait to get confirmation on the Enquirer story the next time he's at the supermarket -- and as the segment comes to a close and she stares doe-eyed into the camera Tucker slips this in:

Carlson: "Good luck at Safeway."

And then there's this... it's scary how far she has to go to out do herself...The smell of desperation just reeks from her.


All right. sorry. PROCEED :)

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 11, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Rufus, ignore him.

Posted by: bsimon | October 11, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I'll be surprised if former VP Gore wins the Nobel Peace prize for his work on Global Warming. While his efforts are certainly commendable, they hardly, thus far, rise to the level of winning the Peace Prize. Perhaps if he makes some progress in influencing US policy in that direction, or brokers some international agreements in which the US is a signatory, such accolades would be deserved.

Regarding his Goracular abilities, I suspect he's still reluctant to officially endorse anyone over Clinton. I could see him doing events with candidates like Edwards, Obama or Biden, but would be surprised at any official 'king making' pronouncements. That's just a gut feel.

Posted by: bsimon | October 11, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"The National Enquirer "

Ok zouk. I know the batboy weekly world news closed down. But your getting your news from the The National Enquirer? don't you get enough lies and tabloid garbage from rush and fox?

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 11, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

It looks like Gore isn't going to run. That's too bad, since he would instantly be the best candidate. But it's almost too late for him to announce and have any chance. And it seems like if he was planning to announce in the next couple weeks, his spokesman would be more vague.

By the way, can you drop the "Gore-acle" nickname? It's vaguely insulting, and certainly not necessary.

Posted by: Blarg | October 11, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

while a gore canidacy is practally unbeatable but consider this, if he was going to run,there should have been a announcement in FEBURAY! here it is middle of october and the only real role he can play is king maker. a gore endorsement on either obama or edwards is going to be huge, and seen as the go to anti hillary canidate. i might suspect that gore may just do that. but the question is who's going to get the nod? my best guess obama, he pulls in crowds and the money,able to compete with hillary and can be seen as the change canidate.

acutally here's a better story, barrack obama makes a important annoucement, but instead al gore comes out, fresh from his nobel peace prize win and publically endorses obama. the left wing of the blogosphere goes into overdrive, indepenents and undecided voters are driven to obama's camp and hillary comes in 6th in the iowa caucus.

ok thats also plasuable. it could happen.

Posted by: jaymills1124 | October 11, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Gore-acle is clever
Gore-dar, not so much.

Posted by: bsimon | October 11, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Dems Plan Trillion Dollar Tax Bill Charles B. Rangel is poised to introduce the "mother" of all tax reforms, the biggest and most expensive tax code overhaul since 1986 with a price tag of more than $1 trillion

What is it about Dems that makes them want to spend so much?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Emerging Edwards Scandal?
The MSM really doesn't want to report it.
By Mickey Kaus
Updated Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2007, at 3:38 PM ET
The National Enquirer claims to have enough of the Edwards cheating-on-cancer-stricken-wife story, including "bombshell" e-mails, to run with. ... P.S.: They "met in a bar." Sounds familiar! ... You read it here first. ... OK, you read it on HuffPo first. ... HuffPo 's Sam Stein now has lots of background material. ... P.P.S.: When I ask friends they split roughly 50/50 on whether, if true, this is a legitimate story. The MSM seems to be strenuously trying to not report it. Given how Edwards' campaign has tacitly and effectively used Elizabeth and her struggle, etc., I think if true it's scummy behavior on his part that Democratic primary voters should know about. His campaign is denying it. ...

If true, then Edwards is your next Dem pres candidate. Nothing rouses Democrats more than a cheating pretty boy. Clinton did it without shame. Carter was coy about it (I lust in my heart...) Kennedy was the role model for all future Dem pres candidates. Without a good cheating on one's wife tale, no Dem male candidate is worth consideration. It is now a standard operating procedure and a must to get the confidence and support of the liberal Dem base. Can anyone imagine a Dem presidential candidate in the last century that didn't cheat and win?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Gore/Biden '08. That's a good ticket.

Posted by: soonerthought | October 11, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

How about this as a crazy theory on how Al Gore could become the nominee.
He endorses Edwards which leads to an Edwards upset in Iowa and eventual win in the early primaries. Then (god forbid) Elizabeth Edwards' illness takes a turn for the worst forcing Edwards to drop-out to spend time with his family. Instead of revisiting the nomination process Edwards gives his votes to a Gore/Obama ticket. The staff is already in place mainly and nobody could really complain since Edwards would be taking the high road.

Then Gore gets to the convention as the knight in shining armour. Runs the table and is the next president. Far-fetched I know but man would that be some story.

Posted by: AndyR3 | October 11, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"with zouk posting as 15 names"

oops. Without. I like it. Much better. But now cc's fascist freinds can hunt me down easier. Only scares those that are scared of death. That ship sailed long ago for me. The army took my fear from me. So I'm going to staty and post my posts without fear. If they win, the coutnry loses. I will not let that happen while I'm alive. What you people do is your business. But you got a freind in me :)

Peace out. Have a good day

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 11, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Maybe you peopel are right. this is much better having real conversation with zouk posting as 15 names and sabotaging us. i'm done for the day.

go Obama-gore 08.

Peace in the mddle east :)

Peace in America First

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 11, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Consult the gore-acle. HAHAHAHA. Good one chris

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 11, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

gO oBAMA-gORE 08.

Unbeatable ticket. Gore jsut has to swallow his pride for a few years. I think he can do that. He will acheive legardary icon status if they do what I think they can do. They will be talking about obama-gore 200 years from now, if they have the courage and humility

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 11, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

As I mentioned in the last post, I think Gore is going to play kingmaker this cycle by endorsing Edwards or Obama.

Also CC that was cheap ploy for your appearance with Tim Russert. Try and not be so spastic as you were last time on Meet the Press. Otherwise good luck it should be a good discussion.

Posted by: AndyR3 | October 11, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

It appears that the new registration has eliminated the Ignorant coward. I am reconsidering my earlier objection.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company