Gore is often charged with pissing away the 'peace and prosperity' advantage, but it is worth recalling that there's a countervailing 'everything's working gangbusters, how much harm could a little experimentation do?' advantage to the opposition during long periods of prosperity.
Look at Canada for that dynamic in force today...
Posted by Davis X. Machina at January 20, 2006 11:18 AMI too was wowed by Gore's speech. I had my two high-schoolers listen to it, and they were impressed (ok, they listened to much of it, which means they were impressed...).
Overseas during the 2000 election, I never got a handle on why the election was going so wrong (before and after election day). But it did seem that the Goldilocks routine (First debate too cold, second debate too hot, last one just right) said it all. The MLK Day speech showed a major leaguer who is comfortable with himself and with the best of what this country can offer. The quick, tart, and digestible response to the Atty Gen and Scotty Mac underscored that.
I am on board.
Posted by Johnny Dem at January 20, 2006 11:33 AMThe republi-cons could run jesus f. christ and they'll still lose the next election. They have fucked-up too much.
Posted by phidpides at January 20, 2006 11:44 AMEvery gopper I know has been talking about how Hillary has "grown" as a senator lately. Now they're saying that Gore wasn't impressive the other day. Taken toigether, those two facts tell me everything I need to know.
Posted by rlp at January 20, 2006 11:47 AMphidpides - Don't delude yourself. The unelected Ford after the Nixon POTUS implosion almost won. Today personality seems to trump politics, and McCain has been working to win that personality award for five years, and it appears that nobody can come close to him at this time.
Posted by Marie at January 20, 2006 11:50 AMMarie,
I am in total agreement with you. I really liked Gore in 2000 and could never figure out why he didn't have greater mass appeal (especially compared with the phony Bush). I'm a communication disorders specialist and many of my friends said he had odd "pragmatics" (meaning non verbal communication behaviors). I wondered if his sentences were too long and complex. After Kerry, though, nobody has sentences as circuitous and complex as that! If he could keep the "fire in the belly" he seems to have now, I think he could really excite the electorate. The authentic Gore may be able to come through, overriding the stiltedness and apparent complexity of his language.
Thank you for making your post. I'd like to see something come of the idea of a Gore candidacy. (Maybe with Feingold as VP?) I, too, am on board.
Posted by KathyP at January 20, 2006 11:51 AMKathyP - I tend to think that those who trusted their gut instinct in 2000 voted for Gore. I think his authenticity did come through just enough by the end of that race that he won. Anyone that wants to know why that Gore only emerged late in the race need look no further than Clinton.
rlp - unfortunately, Democrats seem to buy the GOP Brer Rabbit routine every time.
Posted by Marie at January 20, 2006 11:55 AMI tend to think that those who trusted their gut instinct in 2000 voted for Gore.
He picked Lieberman and you want to talk about trusting our gut? Sorry, I just can't buy into the lovefest for Al. His speech was great, though.
I can't handle the Dems who move so close to the center that the are virtually indistinguishable from the Reps. (Please note I do not consider Bush one of the Reps, he's a neo-con.)
Posted by ann at January 20, 2006 12:00 PMGore is (and was) the most qualified candidate for the office of the presidency. No one can touch his experience with the federal government.
Lord knows we desperately need someone who knows what the hell the president does.
If only shitbrain Americans had not lost their understanding that possessing qualifications for the office are sort of, um, important.
We have no strong governors to choose from. Warner? Egads. We recently saw the difficulties candidates from the senate face (this has always beena problem), and our newest crop of senate possibilities could use more experience.
It basically leaves Gore and Edwards. And Edwards is still open to the "qualifications" charge.
Posted by euzoius at January 20, 2006 12:02 PMEdwards, Obama, Feingold, Clark, Kucinich, Carol Mosley Braun...
any of them over, Gore, Hillary, Reid, Pelosi (well maybe not Nancy), Kennedy, Kerry, etc. etc. etc.
We need major reform.
Posted by Josh at January 20, 2006 12:13 PMann - what makes you think that Gore picke Lieberman? What makes you think that if you were backed by and funded by individuals with a conservative agenda but still considered Democrats that you would be immune to pressure from them on certain decisions? The DLC wanted Joe -- and in all fairness, Joe didn't look all that bad back then. The combination of getting to know Joe and his shift to the right from 11/00 on is why this looks like such a terrible decision.
ann - are you suggesting that you still see no difference between Gore and the GOP?
euzoius - Edwards qualified? One term in the Senate with much of the last two years spent running for POTUS? IMO Elizabeth is the natural politician in that family. Even the "two Americas" is nothing new -- although we can't remind ourselves often enough of it until we fix it. Feingold is qualified; Edwards isn't. In all honesty the most qualified (based on knowledge/skill of running the country, but we can't ignore the fact that qualifications must also include campaign skills and vision) man in America is probably John Conyers.
Posted by Marie at January 20, 2006 12:22 PMHow much of Jon Corzine's jump to the governor's mansion in New Jersey was predicated on setting up a run for the White House in 2012?
Posted by snark at January 20, 2006 12:30 PMSorry, I was inelegantly stating that Edwards is open to the LACK OF qualifications charge.
And under the Nero Jr. standard, anyone is qualified to be president.
Posted by euzoius at January 20, 2006 12:32 PMJosh - do CMB and Kucinich really have fresh ideas compared to the others? It's a careful balancing act between experience and being obsolete. OTOH inexperience is a good way to really screw up (look at GWB). It's also important for an individual to run when she/he has hit her/his stride or prime. Too soon or too late leads to much poorer performance. HHH was past his in 1968. Obama will not have reached his by 2008.
Of those you list only Feingold meets all the tests that I think we should be using in evaluating POTUS candidates. For me he still lacks "fire" and is a bit short on the vision thing.
(You can dump on Pelosi as far as I'm concerned. House DEMs must use the same sort of criteria to select their leader as DEMs use to select their POTUS nominee -- whoever has the most money wins.)
Gore could have beat GWB, again, in 2004, but most Democrats (except for maybe Bill Clinton) don't know that.
Posted by Marie at January 20, 2006 12:36 PMnyt never mentioned the gore speech..that speaks volumes...gore knows better than anybody alive what the republican attack machine can do....he took all the lies they could muster and he still beat em...they made up more lies about gore then i thought possible....as al so aptly stated the president is breaking the laws of this country and has been since the day the supreme court selected him president.....he knows it and i think he wants to say it..and i think he will...he was smart not to run in 2004...they let 9/11 happen then politicized it...he knew nobody was going to beat the fraud..he was after all a "wartime president"..honest to god i get kind of ill when i see him...
Posted by dennis at January 20, 2006 01:05 PMann - what makes you think that Gore picke Lieberman? What makes you think that if you were backed by and funded by individuals with a conservative agenda but still considered Democrats that you would be immune to pressure from them on certain decisions? The DLC wanted Joe -- and in all fairness, Joe didn't look all that bad back then. The combination of getting to know Joe and his shift to the right from 11/00 on is why this looks like such a terrible decision.
Maybe Gore didn't pick Lieberman, but he was willing to run with the man. And Gore had become far too pro-business, abandoning his environmental standards during the Clinton years - hello, NAFTA? Lieberman looked bad to me back in 2000, I can't really say why now, but I was very uncomfortable with him.
ann - are you suggesting that you still see no difference between Gore and the GOP?
Not at all. The GOP has been taken over by the Neo-cons (that's why I specified the difference.) But given that Gore has said he won't run, given that he was not at his best during the 2000 campaign, given that he truly seems best suited for writing articles and making speeches, I just can't get excited about him for 2008.
And whoever mentioned Carol Moseley Gone.....omigoshnopleasenotthat. That's like the Reps picking up Keyes again.
gore/dean
gore/edwards
gore/clark
gore/clinton?
the thing about al gore is that everyone knows in their heart that he won..even the republicans..they know what the truth is..they just don't speak it...he is the man who won the presidency and was robbed...i believe that most americans know deep in their hearts that had the supreme court let the votes be counted ..the world would be a much different place today
Posted by dennis at January 20, 2006 01:27 PMWell, whoever we nominate, it had better not be because they are "electable."
Posted by dole4pineapple at January 20, 2006 01:31 PMGore/Boxer? (may post more on this another day)
Gore/Schweitzer? (Schweitzer's style makes up for a significant number of DEM Party election deficits. This fantasy ticket also preserves that DC insider/outsider combo the voters prefer.
ann - you mean Democrats are not supposed to have a learning curve? One strike and you're out? Lieberman is horrible -- we all, including Gore, agree on that. I was never much of a Clinton fan, but didn't criticize his administration much until 2001. It was almost all pure GOP-lite.
Posted by Marie at January 20, 2006 01:34 PMMarie -
I too fell in love with Gore - The most attractive thing a man can have is intelligence - and Al's got it.
Election 2000, and the Supreme Court decision, were catastrophic.
Marie, I agree.
I liked Mr Gore than and I like him now, especially after his speech the other day.
I hope he runs. I will support him, again.
I agree also with the other posters commenting on some of his campaign mistakes and the point that he did not really emphasize his environmental and energy policy credentials during the 2000 campaign. That was a big mistake. It will be a huge issue in 2008.
Water over the bridge. If he runs, he won't make those (kinds of) mistakes again.
And Marie, speaking of love, you know how I feel about you and (most) of your posts...;)
keep engaged and rock on girl
Gore/Spitzer?
Gore plus strong law enforcement credentials.
Posted by at January 20, 2006 01:40 PMGore/Fitz 2008!
Posted by John B. at January 20, 2006 01:45 PMann - you mean Democrats are not supposed to have a learning curve? One strike and you're out? Lieberman is horrible -- we all, including Gore, agree on that. I was never much of a Clinton fan, but didn't criticize his administration much until 2001. It was almost all pure GOP-lite.
I'd say when it's the presidency that's on line, you really can't afford much of a learning curve. The voting public is far too cynical to allow the benefit of the doubt. But like I said, it wasn't just Lieberman that turned me off to Gore in 2000. There were lots of things, most especially what I felt was a pro-business trend at the expense of American citizens.
And seriously, folks, I can't imagine someone who had been VP, lost the Pres election (not really, but you know what I mean,) who says he isn't going to run again and then coming back after not running in 2004 and winning? It's a great story, but I don't see it happen.
Posted by ann at January 20, 2006 01:47 PM
I almost wonder if the reason Gore has been so authentic lately is that he doesn't have to worry about people voting for him anymore. Before I'd consider supporting him, he'd have to convince me that he wouldn't go back to his old equivocating ways like he did in 2000, where he tried out a new personality every day. His insistence on picking Lieberman, shunning the great Clinton record, and not even being able to articulate a clear reason why the public should keep an administration with the largest economic growth ever is just inexcusable. As for 2008, I just hope we pick someone who'll take the fight to the Republicans and hold them accountable for Bush's 8 years of failure. Right now, I'm for John Edwards, but I'm open to other candidates too. I like Mark Warner, but I'm a bit concerned he'll go too far in the direction of "reaching out to Republicans." I'm not sold on Hillary (and probably will not ever be). There is one litmus test we should all demand of any candidate before we support them: that they will not hire Bob Shrum (or consult him in any way on any aspect of their campaign), Mary Beth Cahill, and Stephanie Cutter.
Posted by dole4pineapple at January 20, 2006 01:47 PMal gore said he wasn't going to run in 2004..he was smart not to..i've never seen him say that he'll never run again in his life...
Posted by dennis at January 20, 2006 01:59 PMI almost wonder if the reason Gore has been so authentic lately is that he doesn't have to worry about people voting for him anymore.
I agree with that, also he isn't beholden to any corporate masters at this point, either.
Posted by ann at January 20, 2006 02:13 PMAl gore is happily married to Tipper Gore and He is not two timer and he is not a Pervert like Bill Clinton, although I have no problem with the perverts.
http://www.electgore2008.com
Posted by rog at January 20, 2006 02:49 PMJoin the gang on the Al Gore dot org site.
Posted by Mike at January 20, 2006 02:50 PMOK, so I have never taken a Civics class, so please excuse the stupid question. Is Bill Clinton barred from running for Vice-president? Wouldn't that be an interesting duo for 2008, Gore and BILL Clinton!
Posted by Trieatalot at January 20, 2006 03:04 PMSo far I haven't been overwhelmed with any of the names mentioned as potential candidates. Feingold, maybe; would need to know a lot more about him. What I really want is a candidate that is not in the pocket of big business. I'm so tired of the corporate welfare programs supported by the last several presidents. Or voting for someone because they are not as bad as the other (Republican) guy.
Gore has always seemed "big business" to me, but I was really impressed with his speech and would find him more acceptable then most of the others. If either Hillary or Clark got the nomination, I would spend my time and money working for legislative candidates that are more in line with what I feel is important.
Read above that the person with the most campaign money should get the nomination. Sorry, I don't agree with that. If the party gave us a candidate that we really believed in, we could raise the money to win $25, $35 etc. at a time.
Posted by MOBlue at January 20, 2006 03:49 PMHow truly "big business" could a politician be if he encouraged legislation that was environmentally sound? It would seem like if the person enacted clean air and low mercury standards that wouldn't poison fish and pregnant female humans, many, MANY bigass corporations would be furious.
Posted by Sharon at January 20, 2006 03:58 PMI've also read that Al Gore changed his mind and believes in single payer health care. If that doesn't piss off lotsa corps, I don't what will. Though some, like GM, would be grateful, I would think.
Posted by Sharon at January 20, 2006 04:00 PM N, Mr, ‘prsdnt-lct’ Gr s nt yr shny knght n th wht stlln. Pls chck y mtns, bcs Gr s n mrcn 'ptrt;‘ th gy's hstry spprts NFT, GTT, WT, MF, nd FT, Bg l nd Cl, (h dsn't cr bt pssbl glbl wrmng thr thn ht brnng f crprt glbl dmntn). H s prsdnt, lrght: md tlvsn chnnl, ‘crrnt;’ ls, chr f ‘gnrl nvstmnt mngmnt;’ dvss ggl, (h nvntd th ntrnt, rght?); n th ppl brd, (vn mrdrrs lk dgs); nd, h s pltcn, (hw lw cn y g? h, yh, h s lwyr…nw tht‘s lw).
r crprt lrds rn th shw; f prsdnt-lct Gr ws ndd plcd nt th Wht Hs n 2000, w wld b n th xct sm pstn s crrntly: th Bbylnn Cnqst f th wrld. Thr s nt n shrd f dffrnc btwn ny f th pltcl crprt srvnts n DC, jst tht th pltcl prts hv dffrnt st f ls. Why d y thnk mthr-n-hr-crn-yrs lk Hllry lvs t bmb rq dnkys t scr rq l rsrvs? Sh n’t bt mthrng rq bbs tht hv lss thn zr; th Nw Yrk rhd vtrs lctd hr bcs thy hv bn cndtnd fr dcds t lk fr th bst dcptn, clkd wthn psychlgcl nrctc dlsn, nd ‘trst’ th pckg jst s thy trst vrythng ls bght ff th shlf. Thy lctd sm rknss kk tht s s lm sh lkd th thr wy whnvr hr by-hsbnd wnt ’ wmnzng. rpt, th dt Nw Yrkrs lctd sm Mcrn ldy frm rknss bcs thy ls lv th sm gldn clf, mn, th sm crprt gds, r prft/mny, whtvr.
r crprt lrds knw xctly wht thy r dng; r lwst cmmn dnmntr vtr s cnstntly dflctd/pcfd/nd nknwngly dpd nt fghtng th crprt prpgnd bttl n bttl fld f thr chsng, nd ndr dcptv nms; nd tht bttl fld dsn’t vn xst, whch s xctly wht thy lv: nthr lyr f dcptn. Ths bys r srs, thy hv bg tys nd wrld fr cnqst nd slvs t hmbl. Ths bys dn’t sml, r mst rnst, nd strk whn th ppntd tm s pprnt. Thy’v plnty f prctc. Gr? Gt rl…f y fnd ptrt, n n wld lstn. Rmmbr ljh n Mt. Crml?
In this speech Gore was his usual self - thoughtful, articulate, intellectual, and those are not qualities that translate at all outside of educated voters. Look at the numbers, look at the culture divide, look at the breakdowns college vs. non college voters in the last two Prez elections.
Gore is as "unelectable" as Kerry. And his message drift in 2000 was so pathetic it made Kerry's discipline look tight.
I think you're delusional or disconnected if you think he's the "best we've got."
Posted by Jack B. Nimble at January 20, 2006 04:35 PMI'd like to add that anybody who "falls in love" with candidates is asking for a world of trouble and confusion as to why the rest of the country doesn't....and a lot of projections: "I love this candidate, therefore others must too!" "I love my belly button!"
And as for the "best qualified" for President, that's a laugher. This has nothing to do with who gets elected. This is a post rational political age, and John Edwards, for example, is as qualified as John Bon Jovi as John Danforth as John Bolton. It's about winning a power battle; the game is rigged, and nobody plays fair. Wishing otherwise accomplishes nothing.
The supremely qualified Gore had a tight battle with an obviously "underqualified" Texas Gov in 2000.
That is reality, and you're in denial if you think otherwise.
Posted by Jack B. Nimble at January 20, 2006 04:42 PMI agree with you 100 percent, Marie.
Things are different now. First, it was the media pundits who lost touch with the American public. Now, I fear it's some of us in the blogsphere.
People in this country are frightened and it will only get worse. Iraq may soon end in a major, bloody battle/defeat. Bin Laden probably will strike somewhere, given that no one has really been looking for him. Katrina was just a foreshadowing of natural disasters compounded by ineptitude that will soon arrive.
If we don't pull out an electoral victory in the next two cycles, we can only sit back and wait for strong man on horseback. People are fed up with politicians.
Gore is now connecting on a very human level with folks. None of the rest of them come even come close. Or if they do, they are not well known enough outside their states (e.g. Montana).
Moreover, he speaks with moral authority. Deep down everyone knows he got robbed in 2000. Everyone also knows the price that we and the world have paid as a result of that travesty.
Posted by Cath at January 20, 2006 05:23 PMJck, gd pnt bt hw WL nd cwrdly F-105 plt nd dck f Txs gvrnr cn nt nly twc wn th prty nmntn, bt 'wn' tw vry, vry mprtnt lctns, (vn f hs frnds hlpd n h, Flrd nd DC). W hd grd 'c' ctr n th WH fr ght yrs frm C; crrnt prvrt n th Sprm crt, Thms; nthr prvrt n th WH tht fld t kp hs pnts n wth vry yng nd mprssnbl lds; n C w hv nrcsstc bdy bldr nd nthr wmnzr wh's tryng t fgr t n nd rn n th cnstttn t rn fr prs; bnch f dvrcd nd dltrs, ft, mddl-gd bld dds n th Hll, ll prtndng t rprsnt th ppl... bttr stp, bt y knw th pnt: rhds kp-n-lctng-thm! Jst crp. Nvrthlss, ltmtly t smply dsn't rlly mttr wh ccps th ppntd pstns n tdy's gvrnmnt; fr th scl frcs tht bgn tdy's scl cnstrctn f vrs lvls f nsty fcl stns wr nttd vr 100 yrs g. Wht w hv tdy s th rsrrctn f ncnt Bbyln; n rny n tht Sddm ws tryng t physclly rbld th cty bfr w bmbd hs dnky.
[Editor: ignore=off]scout, I'm suprised you don't think the rapture is next. Just where do you stand politically, christian anarchist?
Posted by bbtb at January 20, 2006 09:16 PMgore won in 2000..it was close yes..but do you really think it was a level playing field..the republican attack machine is without any scruples..none...they lie..cheat and flat out make things up..kerry is a coward ..george is a fearless leader..that absolutely defies logic for anyone concerned with the truth..it's the media..and the republicans own it..to say that gore ran against a nobody is not accurate...he didn't run against a man..he ran against the media .they told a gazillion lies about gore...and made up a gazillion lies about bush....their great marketeers and it works..nobdy knows it better than gore...next time around it will be different for gore...it already is...in his speech he called the fraud a lawbreaker...nytimes doesn't even cover it....keep pounding al..i'm with ya
Posted by dennis at January 21, 2006 03:33 AMAgree with whoever pointed out that "falling in love" with a political candidate is not the best thing to do. It blinds one -- prevents them from seeing the much larger picture.
That's not the sort of "love" I have for Gore or could ever have for any political candidate. About all it's useful for is gauging whether or not the candidate will appeal on an emotional level to other voters. That is only one factor in a very long list of factors that we should use to evaluating candidates and also looking at how they will fare in the current political environment.
Posted by Marie at January 21, 2006 10:45 AM‘Chrstn nrchst;’
Bbtb, tht’s n ntrstng trm, wtht dbt; hwvr, Bblclly, t’s n xymrn. nrchsm s mrly nthr frm f hmnsm, ls pgn rlgn. Prdxclly, ‘Chrstn’ chrch grs f tdy r f th dntcl d-t-yrslf gspl s th ncnt Jws f th dy f Jss, r ny thr Pgn scl cnstrctn. Thy ll hv/hd th Bbl, bt wr cmpltly wtht th blty t gthr ny Trth. Gd clls ths phnmnn, ‘th dsblty t s wtht sng nd hr wtht hrng.’ Th nly wy t gn sght nd hrng s tht Gd hs t pn th ys nd rs f th prsn.
n ntrstng sd hr, s tht th sgn n th C hdqrtrs hs th fllwng Bblcl qt, ‘Jhn 8:32, nd y shll knw th trth, nd th trth shll mk y fr.’ dn’t knw wht ws gng n n th mnd f Dlls whn h chs tht vrs, bt cn tll y tht th C whrmngrs tht sgn p ndrstnd nly tht thy r th trth, spclly whn thy rd th bv vrs. Th mnng f th vrs s tht ndrstndng Gd wll st y fr; hwvr, w r nbl t ndrstnd Gd nlss H mks lv r sprtl slvs, th prt Gd klld bck n th dy f dm’s rblln.
Pltclly, thnk y lrdy knw. Rbrt Hnln wrt n xcllnt sc-f, ‘Strngr n Strng Lnd,’ n 1960, r s. Th tr Chrstns wlk ths plnt s ‘strngrs.’ Nt tht th chrchrs, sspct ll r prsntly nsvd, lv ths plc s mch s thr pgn nghbrs. Thy mk-p thr wn gspl nd try t frc thr ntns pn thr nsvd ppl tht ftn s thrgh thr hypcrsy. Th prblm s tht th gnrl ppltn, f tght by tr Chrstns, wld sly s th gd sns f tr Bblcl dctrn jst s th rly flk f ths cntry; nd th ppl n nglnd f th tm f Crmwll; nd th ppl n Swtzrlnd n th tm f Clvn.
nstd, wht w gt r ths bzrr dts n th WH, cllng thmslvs ‘Chrstn,’ whl trtrng ppl n th n hnd, nd pttng r wn sldr chldrn n prsn fr trtr! (mng mny thr dspcbl ctns fr th pst 100 yrs.) t wll g hrdr n ths hypcrt ‘Chrstns’ n jdgmnt dy thn n th mrdrrs, rprs, hmsxls, thvs, tc.
Blogging 1-10-6
If we believe the polls, President Bush has been-at least for the past year-a minority executive of a party that is incompetent, and entrenched in political corruption. Despite the president's low poll numbers, the Democrats have not benefited because they have been unable to provide a narrative that they are the alternative.
This narrative should not be about Democrats standing in for the rights and economic interests of Americans. Despite most Americans knowing and believing this story Democrats still lose. Republicans do not win because of their brilliant policies, but they have won by crafting their sales pitches brilliantly by keeping their narrative to Low Taxes, Family Values, Strong Military, and The War on Terror.
Unfortunately the majority is not being represented now because at least forty five or more of the electorate believes now in a Father Figure, e.g. the Republican party personified by Pres. Bush, who will protect them from terrorists and every other evil on earth, real or imagined, that Republicans will fabricate in order to keep this minority-or maybe a majority- in a state of fear.
In addition the Republicans have portrayed their family values pitch brilliantly to the vast majority of voters that are apolitical. These voters do not follow news to any great extent and are not very interested in politics. They will pick up and remember political bits of information here and there. If the bits of information are mostly about the Republicans saying to voters "look at our values, we are just like you" while saying outright that Democrats are weird, weak or both; then, these voters will probably vote Republican, and against their best interest for lack of a Democratic narrative.
So far Democrats do not have a narrative that reaches that majority of apolitical Americans. Democrats should get on the right or good side of these voters by telling them that they are the party of Common Sense; Also, that democratic family values and support of a strong military all work for America's strength and Americans' best interests.
In short that the purpose of Democratic politics is to use common sense to do things that help people and make our country strong. At the same time we should remind them that Republicans have lost their purpose, they have no Common Sense and they have blurrred and lost the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. This narrative is a damning accusation of Republicans and will identify most voters with Democratic aims.
Unfortunately for progressives, there is no narrative to influence the vast majority of Americans. For Democrats to become an alternative to the Republican story a concerted and sustained effort by all elected Democrats is needed.
So far it seems that DC Democrats prefer the status quo. They have the occasional eruptions for or against a given well circumscribed issue, but there is no passion to undertake the drastic change needed now that our republic is slowly and steadily becoming a one party Republican Dictatorship.
It seems that most DC Democrats are content to maintain their power and lend the corrupted Bush Administration a veneer of legitimacy that there is a "two party democratic government ".
Citizens become politically represented when their elected officials DO the job that they were elected to do. In 2006, Democrats should be a more Aggressive Opposition Party and not one settling for the status quo. For most Americans still looking for an alternative to the Republican spin and propaganda there seems to be no alternative and no representation. We are really being governed by a minority of zealots who are CORRUPT, INCOMPETENT, and BIGOTED LIARS. However they are intent in taking our republic from the MAJORITY and making this change PERMANENT.
Do not discount Al Gore yet. His speech was brilliant. He talks about common sense. He has been one of the few Democrats intent in exposing the Administration for what it is. He looks presidential and I believe he still has an unfinished job in helping lift our country from its tragedy and disaster.
Posted by thutmosis at January 25, 2006 01:53 AM