Kerry or Gore?

[warsager]

Hi,

I was wondering, if there was an option to have Kerry run again, or Gore, who would you vote for (prefer) and why?

Also,

Can Al Gore run with Clinton as his VP? Is there any law against it? Do you think Clinton would go for it? I think it'd be great. (My dad suggested it to me)

[shoelace414]

1. I believe the VP has to be able to take the presidency

and Clinton can't, but I'm no lawyer.

[ginnyinWI]

4. yes he can

Bill Clinton could be president again. The law says you can't have three consecutive terms, but this one wouldn't be.

[Clovis Sangrail]

12. Bill can't be president again

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.am...

Amendment XXII

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once

[ginnyinWI]

24. ok-didn't know that

My husband will stand corrected!

[warsager]

27. Good to know!

So its not 'consecutive' is just two terms period. I didnt even think about the need for his eligibility to be president again as VP.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

29. Can't be ELECTED 3 times. If VP, he could ASSUME the presidency.

Just another interpretation.
Strictly speaking, running as a VP, Bill wouldn't be elected to the office of the presidency more than twice. Now, that's a reading that I consider contrary to the spirit of XXII. Now Clinton as Atty General, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Interior, or other post that calls for his talents...

[serryjw]

38. NOoooooooooooooooooooooo

He can't!!!!


12th amendment
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
22nd amendment
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Now some thing happens to Hilliary as Prez and Bill could not take her place so the Speaker of the House is now the President of the US?? Not a great idea.
Send me a link to the article you were referring to on the phone

[O.M.B.inOhio]

44. That's a pretty emphatic no for an issue that's so open to inerpretation

However, regarding the 12th: Bill is eligible to hold the office of the President; after all, he was our last legitimate President. If he were a foreigner, for instance, he couldn't be VP. On the 22nd: again, the text refers to being elected President, not to being elected VP. It's reasonable to interpret this as ruling out a Bill Clinton VP; but that's not what the text says.
Re: "Send me a link to the article you were referring to on the phone:" I don't get it.
Take care.

[serryjw]

72. IF Bill tried to run for VP

It would be challenged to SCOTUS and I would be the first in line.IF theta is all we have to offer the country we better fold up our tent and go home. When the 22th was written it was was allowing a President that had taken over for ANOTHER president (FORD)to run one or two time depending on how long they held office. The SPIRIT of the law would make impossible for Bill to run again as VP. In my interpretation he is is not QUALIFIED to be president, thou he maybe eligible.
In 20 years we have had 12 years of Bushies and 8 years of Clinton. I don't want either ever again!

Read the entire article....I totally agree
http://www.presidentelect.org/art_preztoveep.html

[warsager]

31. Although..

It says no person 'shall be elected to the office more than twice' so if he were VP and then something happened to the Prez so that he had to step in, he wouldn't be officially 'elected' a third time. So, could it be interpreted that he is eligible?

[calmblueocean]

35. Technically...

I think Bill could serve as president again so long as he was not elected to the office. In 2004, Al Franken offered to run a Franken/Clinton ticket, with the platform that immediately upon election, Franken would resign, with Clinton then succeeding to the presidency.

Interestingly enough, though, Clinton said he didn't believe he could assume the presidency that way because the 13th Amendment specifies that no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible for that of Vice President. Of course, that begs the question. The argument would be that Bill isn't ineligible to *hold* the office, just ineligible to be *elected* for that office.

He could also succeed to the Presidency another way: if we win the House and Senate in 2006, the House could appoint Bill as Speaker (you don't need to be a member of the House to serve as Speaker), then the Senate could impeach Cheney, refuse to confirm Bush's replacement VP candidate, and impeach Bush, leaving Clinton next in line to succeed to the presidency.

Technically. (IANACL)

[serryjw]

36. Please read the constitution

It says no such thing.

[SnoopDog]

5. I think the poster meant ..

Hillary Clinton....!

(I am laughing at the concept of Hillary Clinton being President or VP.... she needs to stay in her present seat...!)

[Dora]

2. Gore.

President Al just has such a cool ring to it.

Kerry is a better candidate for veep. I'm not interested in Clinton - not one bit - after seeing his chumminess with George H.W. Bush over the past couple of years. We're judged by the company we keep, after all - he's no exception.

[blm]

3. Kerry - Clinton and Gore closed the books on Bush which led to Bush2, 9-11

and everything else the Bush Crime Family is up to these days.

Gore has never said anything about that decision, or whether or not he would reverse it if he took office. I hope for all our sakes he addresses this. He was never an open government leader in the past, but, I hope he has had a change of heart and has BECOME one.

Of course, I also think that both Kerry and Gore's talents and those of every other Democratic leader are going to be needed as a team to undertake the task they'll be facing in 2006.

And to do it right, the BOOKS MUST BE OPENED.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html

>>>>>>>>>
So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasn’t on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided,” Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. “President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.”

Unexpected Results

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.
>>>>>>>>

[saltpoint]

6. Picture both Kerry and Gore well-funded, revved up, pissed at Bush,

and newly re-tuned to 08.

Picture a wide field of other Dems, also well-funded, revved, etc.

Picture feeling that our ticket is going to be superior in every respect to the Rethugs' ticket.

Picture a blue White House with blue Supreme Court appointments. And other judges. And a competent public-directed Cabinet.

And a president who can speak English.

For me it's not This One versus That One when only two are given, when I know the field will be crowded.

[warsager]

9. I meant Bill

And I also wasn't suggested that Kerry and Gore are the only options, but just wondering of those 2, who do people prefer and for what reasons.

I also agree that Bill's chumminess to Bush has bothered me, but he IS a politician afterall.

[saltpoint]

14. Hi, warsager. Oh -- Bill Clinton. I'm not sure what the legal

aspect is. He might do it for the party, and to get back into the game, but then again, his wife is interested in the top job. That could get awkward.

Especially if she wins and starts personally interviewing male interns!

I'm way late it looks like, but please accept a tary welcome to DU.

[warsager]

34. Any Welcome is always acceptable

to me. Thanks

Good point about Hilary, and some other poster made some very valid points about Clinton/Gore below regarding their policies of accepting things as they were and the secretiveness. I don't care for Hilary and I wouldn't want her as president either, nor do I think she would ever get elected in this country, but she is most likely moving in that direction and I'm sure that would effect Bill's willingness to be VP. My father doubted he'd want to run for a lessor position than he previously held, but at first I thought, why the hell wouldn't he (not that I have been following his current career) but the Hilary thing makes it doubtful.

And with the other things people are pointing out I have to say I'm changing my mind about its being a good idea afterall

[saltpoint]

39. Just a hell of a nice post, and I appreciate the personal info

about your father's comment on Clinton, too.

Hope to see you around on these DU boards, warsager. I'm hoping for a real blue November!

[warsager]

41. That's very nice, thanks.

I'm here all the time, I don't comment that much, but I'm intensely interested in everything!! I'm hoping against hope!

[NYCGirl]

7. You might want to check out this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

There's one of these polls on here about every ten minutes these days.

[killerbush]

10. I ran this type of poll three days ago. Results, Gore by a mile!!!

I will run another poll in the coming days.

[blm]

13. Of course it's Gore by a mile - and just read all the reasons why.

And then compare them with the congressional record and see what grade DU gets in US Government.

[speedoo]

8. Gore all the way.

I like them both. But while Gore made one crucial mistake in picking Lieberman, Kerry ran a terrible campaign, making one mistake after another.

They have both learned from their mistakes I am sure, but I also prefer Gore's positions and passion.

[blm]

11. Can you specify what positions move you towards one over the other?

.

[Nashyra]

15. Gore

If I had to choose between Kerry and Gore, Gore by long shot. His environmental policies alone. Work that he did about airline safety in 97 that was ignored. As a rabid Clark supporter I would find it hard to deny Gore the White House. I like Clark at the top of any ticket but I could work my but off for a Gore/Clark ticket

[blm]

16. Gore had better environmental policies than Kerry? I didn't know that -

can you fill me in? Because I am pretty sure Kerry had the best environmental record in the Senate, and his activism goes back to the early 70s as one of the original founders of earth day in Mass. I would guess that Kerry and Gore are very close in their positions, but only one of them was in power in a way to DO SOMETHING about it for 8yrs. But, I'm open to any facts you might share.

Alot of people missed that book that warned us about the growing threat of terrorism that came out in 1997. That was ignored by EVERYBODY - too bad for this country.

Of course, on other issues I can see how many would think the battle Gore took on in the Senate to expose the problem of dirty song lyrics was a principled one, while Kerry was just being political when he went after Reagan and Bush to expose IranContra, BCCI, illegal wars in Central America and then when he went after CIA drugrunning uncovered in Clinton's term which the Clinton/Gore administration AGAIN chose to sweep under the rug.

[speedoo]

17. I'll try:

1. I'll never forgive Kerry for voting for the IWR. (or any other dem, for that matter) That was a vote of cowardice. I'm quite sure Gore would have fought it to the bitter end if he were in the senate.

2. Gore's position on the environment is much stronger.

3. While I like and respect Kerry, I am very hazy on his positions in general. Partly my fault for not doing enough research, but also his for being too much of a politician.

I still can't believe Kerry lost in 2004. Sure the rethugs stole it, but Kerry should have never allowed * to get close enough for that to happen. That is my biggest problem with Kerry.

[blm]

25. I doubt it - Gore in the senate in 2002 would have been pounded everyday

with his declaration in the 2000 campaign that he planned to get tough on Iraq.

And if Gore, Kerry or any Dem were in charge of implementing the IWR there would have been no invasion - because they would have followed the guidelines that had weapons inspections and diplomacy first.

The IWR did not put us into war - Bush VIOLATING the IWR put us into war. Whenever you blame the IWR, you are letting Bush off the hook just to blame a resolution that would have PREVENTED war if administered by any other president.

Are you sure about the enevironmental policies? Kerry didn't have the best environmental record in the senate for nothing, did he?

And about the 2004 election - one would imagine that in 2002 and 2003, when voting machine fraud came to be an issue on the internet, that a tech savvy leader like Gore definitely is would have grasped the issue and fought like hell to expose it before the next election. He had time and he had the background to do it.

[warsager]

18. Thanks for the link

I am reading that other poll. Although, from what I've read so far, its based on who would have been a better president. But I really wonder (and this may be covered in that post) which would be a better candidate/president today. At this point I just wonder what kind of mess the next person will inherit, and can only hope that somehow there will be some serious reform.

Although I began this discussion, I must admit that I find myself seriously doubting this system and I am becoming more cynical about anything improving. I am not certain either would be the best person to get us from where we are to where we need to be, but I also don't see any major signs of someone new and innovative standing up and getting noticed in a national way either. But if I had to choose Kerry or Gore, I wouldn't know who to pick.

[karynnj]

50. Kerry's campaign was actually pretty good

There were a few mistakes, but actually far fewer than in most campaigns. He was incredible in the debates, his rallies at the end of the campaign were awesome - and could have tipped the scale if the media would have showed any of the excitement, hope and good will that was there. Bill Clinton wouldn't have won without coverage of his and Gore's train trip or the rallies at the end. The media gave Bush the election.

Which of Gore's position do you prefer to Kerry's. We don't even know most of Gore's current positions, so we need to look at his career. Ignoring where they are on the same side, let's see:

- Kerry has been pro-choice for his entire career, though he personally is against abortion. Gore repeatedly voted against it.

- Kerry was the ONLY Senator willing to investigate the illegal support the popular Reagan administration gave to the Contras. As Kerry proved (and the CIA conceded) the Reagan administration turned a blind eye to cocaine running. This destoyed lives. Not to mention the Contras were right wing thugs who among other things killed American priests in Central America on humanitarian work. Gore, in 1988, ran for President supporting having aided the Contras. (Gore was the first DLC backed candidate.)

[Sparkly]

19. I like both, respect both, contributed and voted for both, BUT...

If I HAD to choose, I would go with Gore -- for purely political, "electable" reasons. (I know that can be a bad word around here, but I think it has meaning.)

Both are great, principled men. On issues, I'm probably more aligned with Kerry. (And the New England Liberal in me reeeeally wanted to see a dreaded "New England Liberal" as president!)

But both have -- for lack of a better term -- "loser stench," as it's been called. Going through a presidential campaign as party nominee leaves battle-scars. I think Kerry's are fresher, and I think Gore has the benefit of having actually won the popular vote (and the electoral vote too, if the Will of the People actually mattered). I think people could look back at 2000, where we were then and where we are now, and draw a stark comparison with what could have been if Gore had taken his rightful place as our 43rd president. There could be a lot of strength in that.

So while neither are my first choice, if I had to choose, I'd go with Gore -- solely for those reasons.

[liberalpragmatist]

96. I agree

I have a huge soft spot for John Kerry. He was greatly maligned during the presidential campaign, and while he's by no means perfect, I found him to be an incredibly intelligent, level-headed, and progressive leader who would have been a great president (and who's campaign, while certainly not perfect, wasn't anywhere near as bad as most of us remember).

But it's difficult to come back after losing. Gore probably has a stronger chance in '08 than Kerry for the reasons you stated. He also has been away long enough that he seems somewhat "fresh" compared with Kerry, who will have been running for President for 6 years by the time the '08 election rolls around. By the same token, I think Gore would have had a harder time running in '04 than Kerry, as he would have had to overcome the "sore loser" image (and rematches generally don't work out well for the previous loser).

[MH1]

20. Kerry

I like his postitions, his overall record of public service, and his governing style better than Gore.

I don't like that Gore went away after 2000 and didn't work all out to prevent the "Hinder America's Vote Act" or the voter suppression tactics that killed us again in 2004.

But, I would be happy to vote for either in the General election.

[guidoo]

21. Kerry or Gore

would make a fine potus. Either way America wins. As for Bill Clinton running , I don't think he can.

Choosing between Kerry and Gore is difficult. Gore definitely gets it as far as our environment and I think he would go a long way in placing the US back at the head of the world economically and human rights wise, also I think he , like Clinton , would choose the best people for the job re: terrorism, public safety, FEMA etc etc. The only downside I see to Gore is Tipper, that whole "today's music/lyrics" censorship thing left a bad taste in my mouth.

Kerry would also go along way in re-establishing the US economically etc etc, and I think Kerry gets it to environmentally. I recall him talking about an energy/economic plan that would help us reduce oil imports be cleaner and create jobs ( think bio-fuels). A plus for Kerry ( in my book) is his wife. Wouldn't it be great to have a 1st lady who wouldn't think twice about telling some right-wing pundit spreading a bunch of bs where to get off.

[Lib Grrrrl]

22. I'll Take Gore

The modern Gore, that is. Dude's been ON FIRE lately!!

[Dr Fate]

23. Both rock- I want both in the primaries- how exciting! n/t

n/t

[warsager]

26. Great points

being made here, and some more things to think about.

Gore's 'loser stench' is definitely not as fresh as Kerry's. I still get angry when I think of how quickly Kerry ceded and disappeared. I also didn't know about Gore's wife and the censorship issue, that's a big issue for me, and I really liked Kerry's wife. She seemed like a great person to have in your corner.

I'd love to hear more reasons and thoughts.

[aquart]

28. Gore. He understands the weather.

[datadiva]

30. How about both?

President Gore and Vice President Kerry. Woo Hoo! Let them try to beat that!

[neoblues]

33. I Could Agree to That...

So long as Gore is President. The "Comeback Effect" is very appealing

Of course, it's primarily Gore's personal character that locks him in. A President with Integrity, who will finally bring Honesty back to the White House! (and a host of other reasons)

As for V.P., I suspect there are a number of reasonably good potential choices, Kerry among them.

[neoblues]

32. ::President Al Gore:: Everytime--and Then Some!

Some of my reasons: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I would recommend that whole thread, go here: President Al Gore

Some terrific video if you want to see the man behind the scenes...

PART 1 of 2 - "Unseen Al Gore Campaign Video"
PART 2 of 2 - "Unseen Al Gore Campaign Video"

[StellaBlue]

37. GORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's my man.

I will volunteer for Gore.

[phiddle]

40. Gore

I don't want to risk losing a Senate seat.

[howmad1]

42. How does this sound?

Pres. - Gore, VP - Feingold, Sec'y Defense - Clark, Sec'y State - Kerry. Oh Mamma, an unbeatable combo.

[kitticup]

43. Kerry all the way.

Looking a Gore's and Kerry's record, I will go with the liberal (that's Kerry).

Here are the issues that are important to me and the facts behind them:

1. Women's Issues.

a. Reproductive choice. Kerry has always supported a woman's right to choose, even when he ran for congressman in 1972 in a conservative Mass district in 1972. Gore voted against women's rights over 20 times while in Congress.
b. Hiring women.
c. Sex Crimes. When Kerry ran the DA's office he hired lots of women attorneys. This was very progressive. He also created one of the countries first victims units and prosecuted rape cases even where the victim was a prostitute. He currently has legislation that will punish perverts who like to download child porn.

2. Environment. Kerry has always been pro-environment. When he went to eastern germany and saw the damage that acid rain had on the forests, Kerry drafted the first legislation to deal with acid rain. His work was used as the basis of the Clean Act. Before it was cool, Kerry blocked drilling in ANWR. Kerry has the highest ratings from environment group. Compare Kerry's rating of 92 from the Conservation Voters (among the highest ratings the League has ever awarded) to Gore's rating of 64. Kerry has the stronger record.

Kerry worked on Coastal Zone Management Act reauthorization. He proposed legislation to deal with eroding wetlands in Louisiana over 15 years ago. Sadly, that might have made a difference during Katrina.

He worked on the international agreement to phase out chemicals that are gnawing a hole in the earth's protective ozone layer. And the Senator also worked closely with a non profit group called Second Nature which helps suffuse environmental principles throughout academia. His wife Teresa Heinz Kerry served on the board.

All I know about Gore is he wrote a book about something a lot people were worried about, but what legislation did he champion.

3. Corruption and Open Government. Kerry opened the books on Iran Contra and BCCI, while everyone, including Gore, wanted to sweep all this aside, but think about had Congress followed Kerry's lead the BFEE would be in prison and the whole Republican Revolution would have died in its crib.

4. Crime and the Death Penalty. Kerry set up the first victim's units in the country. He was instrumental in getting the crime bill passed in 1993. Kerry has always opposed the death penalty, even before it was cool too. That takes courage. Gore has supports the death penalty.

5. War. Expect for IWR, Gore has been more hawkish than Kerry. With respect to the IWR,Gore didn't have Powell, Scowcraft, others lying to him. Kerry listened to these men who had ensured the Bush I had a true international coalition; unfortunately those men were liars or used by Bush.

6. Gay Issues. Kerry stood against Clinton's Defense against Marriage Act, even though he was in a very competitive race. He never threw gays under the bus to advance his career. Instead he co-sponsored legislation to prohibit hiring discrimination based on sexual orientation.

7. Kerry has put his political ambitions aside for his principles when he:

a. Protested the Vietnam War. Anyone who said he did it for political gain is as deluded and disingenuous as Spiro Agnew.
b. Tried to expose the corruption of the Regan and Bush
c. was pro-choice while running in a conservative district
d. voted against the DOMA
e. agreed to chair the committee of POW even though everyone said it was career killer (the only veteran in the Senate who refused to participate was Al Gore.)
f. continued to be anti-death penalty even though Dukakis was reamed for it.

There's more but this too long a post as it is.

[blm]

51. One thing you'll learn about DU is that some don't like to study records

and actual governing history - these days, people rally around the person who has thrown the most red meat at them recently.

I am fine with any moderate or conservative who would choose Gore based on his actual record, because they agree with him on those more conservative positions.

What annoys me is that so many people ASSUME Gore is a lefty based on some of his post 2000 work, and have little knowledge of his real record - touting him as a man of impeachable principles while they attack Kerry as a wishy-washy politician.. The actual historic record proves differently, but, they will stick to their false images no matter what.

It's actually sad. They are both good lawmakers - why would anyone choose to lie about either of them? Like them for who they REALLY are, not who you IMAGINE them without knowing what the hell you're talking about.

[primative1]

53. People evolve ...

Innovation is a good thing isnt it. Lets look at what JK has done for us lately. What was the point of his big ammendment yesterday? When I look at JK, one of my senators, I see a political football player, and not a very good one at that.

[Mass]

54. I would proudly vote for Kerry, If you do not know hwat he did for us

lately, stop reading the Globe or the Herald and get informed. This is a pity.

Happy to see you are not too wet. But you really should look into what he did rather than listening to the phony media in MA and elsewhere.

[primative1]

55. Curious ...

Whats your take on governor race ..

[Mass]

56. I hope that Patrick wins (or eventually Gabrielli)

I dont particularly like Reilly and am not convinced he can win against Healey because he will not get the base out as efficiently.

[primative1]

57. Hmm ...

Are they planning a debate. Reily I hate and the other guys I dont know ..

[Mass]

58. May 18 (tomorrow) - WBUR

All candidates but Healey will be debating.

[primative1]

59. Thanks ...

Glad I asked or I would have missed it

[Mass]

60. More info here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[blm]

61. Then why don't you explain to us all how IranContra, BCCI, CIA drugrunning

and illegal wars that were investigated and exposed by Kerry were all just political games he was playing.

And that book he wrote that came out in 1997, The New War, was just a political ploy - there was never really any danger to America from growing global terrorism.

And Kerry was really playing up for the corporate media cameras when he crafted the Clean Money, Clean Elections bill for public financing of campaigns.

Why don't you make a list of ALL the work that both men did in government so you can prove your point using all the facts you can gather? That would be a great help.

[Mass]

62. Here is a list of what Kerry has been doing recently

http://www.returningsoldiers.us/whatskerrydoing.htm

Since April 22, where the list stops, he has endorsed and co-sponsored censure against Bush and repeated his call for people right to dissent several times. He has been to New Orleans and called for more to be done to rebuild New Orleans. He has been one of the very few to vote against the useless lobbying bill and probably other things I have missed .

[Ce qui la baise]

45. Kerry, he just made me believe again.

[BEZERKO]

46. I prefer Gore

He kinda grows on ya. Like a fungus. He was funny on SNL last Saturday.

[blm]

48. That's nice - but, will he do what NEEDS to be done and open the books?

He has always sided with the keep the books closed gang, and that is EXACTLY what brought us BushInc. and 9-11.

[mrgorth]

47. Gore

He gets it now. He'd be himself.

[Mass]

49. BOTH.

We dont need anymore of these BS threads trying to pit Gore's supporters against Kerry's.

We need to be united for 06.

[primative1]

52. A no Brainer ...

Al Gore all the way. I knew very little about him before 2000 but its what he has been doing since that has impressed me.

[El Fuego]

63. Love Kerry, but we KNOW Gore can win

Because he already did.

Gore is capable of winning Florida (since he did!) and Kerry can't. If we get Florida, it's in the bag.

[Uncle Joe]

64. I believe Al Gore would make the best President.

The times are screaming for is leadership and vision.

[blm]

65. The times are SCREAMING for the BOOKS TO BE OPENED so Americans can be

INFORMED for a change. Time this country ACTED like a real democracy OF the people, BY the people, FOR the the people, and accountable TO the people.

If Gore has changed his mind about that and will now support opening all the books, then that would be GREAT. Until then.......

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html

>>>>>>>>>
So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasn’t on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided,” Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. “President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.”

Unexpected Results

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.
>>>>>>>>

[Uncle Joe]

66. That's precisely why Al championed the internet,

so the people like you and me would be empowered to lobby, organize, get information and push for it to be opened. While you may be focusing on a fish, Al has in effect taught us how to fish. Although he was elected by the people to be President 2000, prior to that he was only Vice-President.

[blm]

67. He chose to keep ALOT of info OFF The internet. If he WANTED us to know

more, he would have made the move to do so AFTER 9-11 proved their 1993 decision a disastrous one for this country.

Gore needs to pledge to open the books if he really wants American democracy to work.

[Uncle Joe]

68. He has given speech after speech,

since 9-11 challenging Bush's power grab MLK day speech and our dysfunctional media such as the WE media speech. He has created the world's first actual democratic two way television network. If it were not for Al Gore it's possible we still might not have an internet.

[blm]

69. It was the choices he made while IN POWER that defines how much he WANTS

to open the books. And if he feels differently now about those decisions made by the Clinton-Gore administration then he should SAY SO. What's so hard about wanting to change the aspect of their administration that hurt this country the most?

[Uncle Joe]

71. Al has done more for American Democracy than anyone.

He empowered you to trash him and praise Kerry for all the world to see, what's more democratic than that? and he did this while he was in power. Also we had 9/11 because Al empowered the people and the corporate MSM trashed him for it while camouflaging Bush's corruption and incompetence, thus enabling a Skull and Boner for the second time in three Presidencies to power.

[blm]

73. Bottom line- YOU WANT CLOSED BOOKS and side with those who kept

the books closed and worked against bringing BushInc to justice when the power was IN THEIR HANDS to do so.

Why can't you just say so? Admire Gore for BEING a closed book lawmaker, but stop the silly game of PRETENDING he isn't....unless he decides that he is ready for an open the BOOKS government that this country needs.

But, please, stop PRETENDING and throwing out S and B when Kerry is the one who worked to EXPOSE BushInc more than ANY OTHER LAWMAKER IN MODERN HISTORY.

Gore sided with Reagan and Bush on Contra policies, so maybe THAT is the real reason he and Clinton wanted the books kept closed. You know, that pesky FACT that you deny even while you're trying to act like you know Gore so well.

Here's an article from the Atlanta Constitution from back then:

http://www.seedshow.com/atlantaconstart.htm


The Atlanta Constitution, printed Friday, November 27, 1987

Swing voters likely to go with new voters

By Tom Turnipseed

The Democratic Leadership Council, sometimes called the Democratic Leisure Class or the DLC, has been sending editorial writers of Southern newspapers articles and “swing voter” research based on the views of a narrow sampling of white, middle-class suburbanites in the South who voted for Reagan in 1984.

The DLC contends the Democrats must move to the right to win the Southern suburban vote, the South and the nation in the 1988 presidential elections. The analysis seems plausible until you realize it’s frozen in a political trend time frame of circa 1984.

The DLC is basically a reactive group of Southern conservatives whose answer to the Reagan landslide of 1984 has been to form a well- financed public relations staff to influence the Democrats to – to me – too much of Reagan’s agenda. Conservative Sam Nunn of Georgia was wooed by the DLC to be its 1988 presidential candidate, but the DLC was shunned by Nunn who saw his home state elect its most liberal representative, Wyche Fowler, to the Senate in 1986.

Nunn and a key DLC organizer, Gov. Chuck Robb of Virginia, opted out of the presidential race. But the DLC has finally found its man in young Sen. Al Gore, Jr. of Tennessee, whose campaign has been floundering with only two to four percent voter approval in the crucial early primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The DLC convinced Gore to regionalize his efforts to Southern states with Super Tuesday primaries by appealing to the 1984 Reaganite “swing voters.” So Gore flip-flopped from his progressive voting record and abruptly adopted some of Reagan’s militaristic views on contra aid, the invasion of Grenada, and the Persian Gulf military build-up.

The media has hyped Gore’s rightward swing aimed at the DLC’s mythical suburban “swing vote” of 1984, but has failed to factor in the drastically diminished state of Reagan’s credibility with voters in 1987-88. Reagan put his credibility on the line in 1986 Senate elections with vigorous personal involvement. His candidates were defeated by a revitalized traditional Democratic base of blue-collar workers, blacks, farmers and small businessmen in every key Southern race.

The 1986 elections preceded more recent Reagan credibility crunches like Iran/Contragate, the stock market crash and Bork-Ginsburg. The electorial advantage of Gore’s switching to Reagan’s positions on contra aid, etc. – minority positions according to polls in the South and everywhere else – is questionable. Republicans are running on Super Tuesday at the same time, in the same states, advocating the same positions. How many pro-contra aid voters will be left for Gore in the Democratic primaries?
>>>>>>>>>

[Uncle Joe]

74. Why do you keep calling it S & B? That sounds like a five and dime.

850 out of 300 million, nope, no coincidence there folks just keep on moving nothing to see here.

[blm]

76. Just coincidence Gore supported Contra policies and the books were closed

by Clinton and Gore that would have put BushInc out of business FOR GOOD?

Kerry tried to expose BushInc. Clinton/Gore protected them from being held accountable. The proof is in the HISTORIC RECORD. And you don't even need the internet to READ The facts.

[Uncle Joe]

78. Do you mean the facts to Skull & Bones?

I am curious as to what they stand for, other than obtaining power, and assisting their fellow Skull Boners to do the same.

[blm]

79. And yet Kerry exposing BushInc did NOT help S&B - so Clinton/Gore stepped

in to do it for them.

What did S and B promise Clinton and Gore to close the books and stop Kerry's work?

[Uncle Joe]

81. You know if I were a secret organization bent on obtaining power

for power sake, then Machiavelli comes to mind. Simply play both sides against the middle. They win regardless. As for promises, I don't believe Skull & Bones promises anything to anybody unless they are a member, but I can't be for certain because they are so secret, you know like closed books. Maybe you could get Al Gore to open up some books as to what Reagen did in the 80's while I will work on getting Kerry to open the books on what Skull & Bones is doing today and planning to do in the future. As they seem to be getting a monopoly on the Presidency, I am looking to the future.

[blm]

82. Well, the Bush agenda is the S&B agenda, for all intent - so opening the

books on BushInc WOULD expose the S&B agenda, by that logic.

And the Bush loyalists must promise bigwigs something to keep them protected. Clinton, Gore and Cheney are not S&B, yet all 3 have helped keep the books closed that would expose the criminal Bush agenda.

[Uncle Joe]

83. On the contrary, Bush is just the lastest manifestation

of Skull & Bones, sort like the latest symptom, the root cause of the disease is Skull & Bones itself. Open up the books on Skull and Bones and we shall see.

[blm]

84. Except the Bush family has had some power for hundreds of years so how

could the agenda be different?

And why would Kerry work for years to BUST the crimes of the Bush cabal while Clinton and Gore covered up for them WITH THE POWER THEY IRREFUTABLY HAD from 1993-2001?

If you want to pretend now that BushInc and the S&B are completely separate, then have at it. I'll just sit back and laugh at the pretzel you make.

[Uncle Joe]

87. I never said Bush and Skull & Bones were or are separate,

I said Bush is a symptom of Skull & Bones. I know there were three generations of Bush in Skull & Bones beginning with his granddaddy, Prescott. Skull and Bones is the cover organization and when the Bushes are gone, they will have someone else to keep promoting their agenda.

Good luck to both of us and remember Bush chokes on pretzels.

[blm]

90. If Bushes are in service to S&B, then why would Clinton/Gore protect their

agenda? And why would someone who was S&B in college fight for years to expose the Bush's criminal actions? And why would you side with those who protect the Bushes and be against the one who did the MOST to expose their crimes?

Logic can be your friend.

[Uncle Joe]

91. Read post 81 and Gore has done nothing to keep the books closed

on Skull and Bones. Has Kerry come out and said they should open them yet?

[blm]

92. What makes you think all S&B are created equal? Clique within a clique

it happens all the time.

So, I would submit that Kerry didn't belong to the clique within the clique that Bush belonged to and used all his adult life.

Now, why is Gore siding with Clinton and the Bushes and maintaining that loyalty over what is best for the country? Has Gore said he regrets that decision and that he'll open the books that his administration kept closed?

And you want a REAL EXCLUSIVE CLIQUE? How about the way those ex-presidents and Vice-presidents protect secrets when they HAVE the power to expose them? Now THAT is an EXCLUSIVE CLUB.

[Uncle Joe]

94. I believe Skull & Bones may have several cliques, but

the ultimate agenda is the same. They are just taking different paths to the same overreaching goal, the organization wins regardless. It's like the good cop bad cop approach on a national strategic level.

The major flaw in your analogy comparing the Skull & Bones clique to those "real exclusive former President and Vice President cliques" is that Skull & Bones chooses their members in a very secret fashion, I believe on average 15 a year, and up until 2000 the American People chose who their Presidents and Vice Presidents would be.

[blm]

95. Tell that to the Supreme Court. And voting machine programs ARE SECRET

and proprietary.

And still only ONE ADMINISTRATION had the power to open the books on all the Bush crimes and they chose to keep them closed - just one - ONE - ONE ONLY - Clinton/Gore.

And they STOMPED ON ALL OF KERRY'S YEARS of hard work and investigation to do it. And every reporter who worked with Kerry was either fired or blackballed from the business. CIA drugrunning story was on Clinton/Gore's watch and that administration helped take Gary Webb down by spreading disinfo. If they didn't do it themselves, they had someone do it for them, while they watched and let it happen.

[Uncle Joe]

97. Tell what to the Supreme Court? I said until 2000.

Are you saying Clinton/Gore were not elected by the American People?

Gore never stomped on Kerry's work. Why did Kerry not bring these issues up in 2004, let me guess somebody told him not to?

[bunny planet]

70. Please don't flame me but I would sincerely like to see a Gore/Kerry

ticket.

[mtnsnake]

80. Flame you for that? Now if you said you want a Hillary/Lieberman ticket

then maybe that could set off a few sparks

[derby378]

75. NEITHER - I'll take Feingold instead

[ShortnFiery]

77. GORE!

[sueh]

85. Gore...

for many reasons, most of which probably have already been stated in this thread, but Al would be the one to make the environment a priority. We'd save the environment and create new jobs, good jobs, to do it. Also, unlike Kerry, Al will not have to explain why he voted for the war in Iraq, but he will still do a good job in getting us out of there.

[blm]

86. Al will have to explain all the footage of him in 2000 saying he would get

tougher on Iraq when he is president.

[NYCGirl]

88. Well, then he made this speech:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/200...

[blm]

89. and made all the same points that Kerry made in his. The IWR didn't send

Bush to war - Bush violated the IWR to go to war.

Those who blame the IWR as if it made Bush go to war are letting Bush off the hook whether they realize it or not.

Had Clinton, Gore or Kerry implemented that SAME document and none would have gone to war.

And suppose Gore WAS in the senate after the 2000 election, don't you think he would've been one of the Dem senators working on the IWR since he had all that experience working on Iraq with Clinton, and since he pledged during the campaign to get tough on Iraq himself, BushInc would have used that to twist his arm or launch a campaign against him using that footage and calling him out as a hypocrite - because THAT is the reality of the way they operate. You all insist that you know what Gore would have done, but his record is pretty clear that WHILE IN Govt. he was a hawk. The distance he gained by going away from govt and all its responsibilities altered his views towards the left, but, what if he HAD remained?

[ChiciB1]

93. GORE/Edwards ..n/t

[Spirochete]

98. Gore

Kerry is still very valuable to us in the Senate. Though Feingold is too, and he would be my other top choice for president.