Dream Team: Gore/Obama
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Al_Gore_on_Futurama.JPG) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cb/AlGoreWin.jpg)
Its no secret that I love Al Gore, and Ive hated the terrible little chimp in the oval office since before 2000. I ran across this essay on the huffington post today and had to repost it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-weber/what-does-al-know-that-we_b_55352.html
Quote
What does Al know that we don't?
Why, given the opportunity that's been presented to him on a silver Prius, is this man not going to run for (and win) the presidency of the United States? If ever there was a clarion call to be answered it is this one: heed the will of the majority of the people, take back the yoke Bush and his cracked team of highjackers have used to steer the country into the ground and pull the ship skyward again.
Why, after his self-imposed banishment to the wilderness (suburbia), where he along with every other sentient being has observed the feckless evil of the current executive tenant and his Neo-posse, does he demur? Could he know that any run at the office would surely turn out to be a hollow chrysalis which, after gestation, would not incubate a butterfly but more likely belch forth a wingless, blind slug; that an educated, experienced, wise adult can lead more effectively and make more of a difference by being an activist/celebrity and riding a wave of pop-culture popularity, rather than relying upon the rusted and jury-rigged contraption quaintly referred to as the electoral process?
Maybe Al knows that America (to paraphrase Paddy Chayevsky) is a dying giant, that perhaps she is dead already. And the "business of government" is merely the scramble of organisms over the carcass's wan, flaking skin; any rumbles from within aren't the sounds of legislators engaged in constructive debate but the gasses issuing from the anuses of the bacteria digesting the sad corpse's putrefying innards. Are we destined to have the presidency so finally and utterly mediocritized that it no longer holds any attraction for the most qualified person in recent memory who would imbue it with the honor and prestige it -- and we -- deserve?
Well then, that's what Al must know. Because only that kind of realization would prevent him from participating. He says that politics no longer holds any allure for him. And really, why should it? He won an Oscar, for chrissakes. He's raised awareness of a real issue that actually effects us all in a way that makes him truly a uniter -- not a divider. He is the world's activist uncle. George Bush standing in front of his American Enterprise Institute portable backdrop can barely scrape up a strangulated hosanna from his meticulously vetted and dwindling audiences.
Having only once appropriated the toxic phrase "cut and run" to describe the result of catching my fishnet stockings on a partially extruded staple embedded in the side of a bed post (A long, dull story. Forget I mentioned it.) I am forced to resurrect it once again. It's an extremely ugly phrase, wielded by extremely ugly people but I will use it as that mediocre apparatchik/harridan Jean Schmidt never intended: to provoke the discouraged conscience of the marginalized true-patriot who would ably restore what has been so ignobly destroyed. On second thought, it's so shallow and inflammatory that I can't stand to apply it even in a good cause. There has to be some other way to convince this man of his worth. May be we need to convince him of our worth?
Because this country, for all its gaudy fascinations, for all its daily desperation to fend off reality by consuming goods from China as though they were oxygen atoms is also a country of souls betrayed by their loyalty to the idea of America the beautiful, the judicious and the brave. And it is not the loyalty itself that is at issue but those whom we have entrusted with it. A presidential election is not a parlor game, though it may resemble one far too closely. It is as close to being a sacred exercise as this secular republic asks of its congregants. We require a real leader now, one with a true understanding of the importance of why this country must function correctly and efficiently. We and the world depend on it. So here's your hat. And there's the ring. America needs you need to lead us now more than ever.
That's what we know that Al doesn't.
I'm right there with you, Stephen...and would love to see him run!
WOW...I'm not sure which is more confusing, the writing in that article, or your support for AG. Sorry, I don't see it.
Ah, I still remember the Clinton years. AG was part of the team. The sellout to the Chinese government, the anything for power attitude. I know, I know, they are all that way, but I would rather not repeat past mistakes. I'm not buying the "hippie rock star" Al, either. But I admit, it is great marketing.
Well, I'm glad you picked just one.
Just kiddin'...I'm glad you have the fortitude to take a stand. Although I am still a Bush supporter, I have little confidence in ANY politician (local, state, or national).
Quote from: NotNow: "Although I am still a Bush supporter, I have little confidence in ANY politician (local, state, or national)./quote]
I guess someone had to support him!
Bush Supporter Found:
http://www.youtube.com/v/9prW8m5SOOw
Is Bush an Idiot?
http://www.youtube.com/v/whhbPVrb5KM
Pretty impressive array of vidios. The "chimp" comments and such are just icing on the cake. While I don't always agree with Bush, I still would vote for him over the contenders that he faced in the past two elections. I refuse to call them names, because just like those of you who are on this site, I think that they did believe they were trying to do the right thing. They were just wrong. This country does not need more socialist programs. The redistribution of wealth that is generally called for by many of todays politicians is not a philosophy that I believe in. Alright, start calling me names now... ;D
As I said, I do not always agree with the decisions made by the Bush administration. However, I would have picked the prescription medicine bill as an example of irresponsible spending instead of the military contracts. I know that it is fashionable to scream that Cheney is responsible for Halliburton but the reality is that Halliburton was the only company positioned at the time to carry out the mission as it was called for. As far as Blackwater, I do not personally agree with using private security companies but it was necessary due to the lack of resources in our own military. Early in the war, Blackwater was one of the few companies prepared to enter this market. Nowadays, there are several of these companies providing protection services. Just as Halliburton no longer has the hedgonomy they once had as other companies ramp up their abilility to provide service on the other side of the world.
I don't think that any democrat, lets use AG as an example, could have done it much differently (military contract). As I recall, the invasion of Iraq was generally cheered by dems at the time it occurred. I won't presume to Monday morning quarterback the prosecution of the occupation, that has been done by plenty of armchair types.
The President does swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, but it is not his only job. And the document describes a republic, not a democracy. The President is constrained by the founding documents and the laws of the United States. If you feel that he has broken the law, then you should vote for those that would impeach him. As that has not been done, and I don't see a case for impeachment, one is left with governing. A better use of our time is what is next? Bush has a plan for Iraq, but what will follow? Do we want or need a socialized health care system? How will we answer terrorism in the future?
To return to my point, socialist programs, whether proffered by the Bush administration or whoever follows him, are a detriment to this country and will only continue to create a "have and have not" society. If we reward hard work as we have for the majority of this country's existence, the "middle class" that has sustained our system will thrive.
I'm not the smartest guy posting here, but as least I know it. I have seen the world though, and what little perspective I have gained from that makes me want to preserve what we have in the U.S.
Wow, and you say that what I said was not factual.
I know that we are going back and forth on this, but here it is anyway...the military was in no position to logistically support both the military operation and the training/rebuilding operation. In order to have done this, the draft would have to have been reinstituted. What you call "Bush's private army" is indeed a large operation, and I don't know of any other contractor at the time who had the necessary equipment/employees/middle east infrastructure to do what they did.
I also wouldn't call Blackwater a "gumshoe, two bit operation". Once again, calling names and making accusations does not constitute a "fact". No laws have been broken, hence no legitimate impeachment proceedings. Ask Mrs. Pelosi about it. My statement that no crimes have been committed stands, supported by the FACT that none of the Presidents enemies has proven a case. The internet sites that you quote are hardly "evidence".
Your quick accusation of torture as a policy of government is also not true. To compare the approved methods of interrogation to "torture" is reaching. In the cases where interogators have gone outside of those limits, they have been prosecuted. I would argue that similar rants have resulted in over aggressive prosecution of some of our troops who acted in the heat of battle, and then were charged with crimes by "armchair quarterbacks".
And you are right, I do benefit from the Interstate system, as well as state and local roadways. While the military is specifically listed in the Constitution as a responsibility of the Federal government, roads are not. I would support a Constitutional ammendment for roads and highways if you would agree to keep government within the bounds of the Constitution. As the document states, all else is up to the States to decide.
With all of this said, I am NOT in favor of the hiring of Halliburton OR Blackwater or any other private firm to operate in a war zone. I would have reinstituted the draft and militarized the mission. As for the occupation and rebuilding, we'll leave that for another discussion.
The real problem now is how do we keep Iraq from becoming a hotbed of international terrorism with minimal involvement by the U.S.? I don't think just leaving is the answer, but the next President will probably be a Dem, lets see what they do.
Allright Steven, one more time, rehashing accusations from the internet does not make an impeachment hearing. I appreciate your passion, but your way too intelligent to be this far out. You know that this will not happen.
I'll go on about my Libertarian view... and you keep supporting Al. See you at the next debate.
i agree with not now. none of the candidates were very good for either election. i'm just waiting for the next one, and so far im leaning towards guliani.
however, if al gore has any other great inventions like the internet i will gladly vote for him. ;)
I see one sentence I disagree with and it is the Iraq/hotbed of terrorism line. NN is not the only person who believes this line of reason.
No crimes have been committed was a bit strong. He should have stated that no evidence of crimes had been produced, at that time.
I will state that I find Not Now to be well reasoned, generally polite and one of the best debaters on the board.
He's a good guy, but is in the crosshairs here for the crime of being a stout debater (Master debater?) and often at odds with Mr Dare (cunning linguist).
You know I still love me some SD.
Admitting abusive behavior is the first step to recovery!
I'm not into Al Gore or Bush...apparently Clinton is though. ;)
Thanks for emphasizing. My arguments of the time still make good sense to me. Are you coming around to the truth StephenDare!?
You were more accurate than most, I agree. What "rocket docket" are you referring to? I think the fraudulent foreclosures were...well, fraudulent. It should be investigated and if criminal charges apply, then we should prosecute. It will be a mess for years. I don't think that the numbers of homeless have approached what you were describing. There has certainly been economic problems for the last few years, and many Americans have suffered a decline in their financial situation. But, thank God, we have not seen the 20-30% unemployment of the Great Depression, which is the least of what you seemed to be describing. Hopefully, that will not come to pass in the future. Illegal gambling? If you count those little "game rooms" that seem to have cropped up everywhere, then yes it has certainly increased. It is not illegal though. I wish it was. I don't see the increased drug use or domestic violence that you predicted. I'm sure you would agree with me that is a good thing.
But all in all, you did predict better than most. I certainly did not see it getting as bad as it did.
Now, if you could just get the politics right.... :)
I think those "tea party idiots" just may save this nation if you aren't careful.
I'm not sure what your point was in quoting me at this much later time, but isn't it interesting that Mr. Obama essentially continued the policies of the Bush administration? Heck, he's even gotten us into another war! Not at all what I expected, you?
I must admit that I was wrong when it comes to foreign wars. President Obama has behaved much differently than I would have guessed. I would be curious to know in what speech you heard him say that he would keep troops in Iraq, keep Gitmo open, approve military tribunals for terrorists, invade Libya, and invade Pakistan. In fact, his speeches contained statements that he would do just the opposite. Even his "concentration on Afghanistan" turned out to be appointing President Bush's general (remember General BetrayUs?) to repeat the same policy from Iraq. Are you claiming that he stated he would do any of this? As for the Constitutional question, I do not and have never questioned the Presidents right to take military action, per our current laws, and I supported him, reluctantly, in his Libyan invasion. President Bush obtained Congressional approval for his military adventures, and I would expect President Obama to do the same within the alloted time on the Libyan issue. Don't you? Are these policies not the "opposite" of what candidate Obama "promised"?
His domestic policy has met my expectations, however, and can hardly be considered anything but "liberal", "democrat", "progressive", or whatever you are calling yourselves these days. The mess that "Obamacare" has become, with politcal cronies receiving "exemptions" and new revelations every day of what the law entails. Federal spending is out of control (even more than the republicans!) and massive debts predicted by the WH itself for years to come. I am always amused at how quickly the call of "Bush is responsible for 2009" goes out. I suppose that Mr. Obama is compelled to follow the policies of Mr. Bush?
Wall street has certainly been looking up though. The indexes are way up. Of course, profits are setting records as well, and the same old system of mega bonuses is in play again. This time for the contributors to the democrats. Not much change there, is there?
Energy policy anyone? Anyone?
Your crystal ball lacks clarity. I think that is just a mirror you are staring into lovingly.
Source of the Dole statement? Mr. Dole made many mistakes, but I don't remember that one.
Opposite of what happened? What are you talking about? Are we still in Iraq? Is Gitmo open? Has the President authorized military tribunals? Are we not involved in a war in Libya? Is the President not authorizing military engagement in Pakistan and Libya without congressional approval? (Not that I disagree, but Mr. Obama made numerous statements that such action was "illegal"). How many "exemptions" have been granted to Obamacare? How many have been applied for? Seen any tax increases proposed for those making less than $250,000?
Mr. Obamas record is clear. If you think Obamacare is "hardly liberal", then your thinking is way outside of the general concensus.
Care to answer the questions?
Your "submission" is a joke. Propagandized? From the Huffington Post master?
I'm not sure what your idea of a "moderate Republican" is. I will state that the Obama administrations spending habits are anything but "moderate". $1+ Trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. $16 Trillion federal debt by the end of Obama's first term. If Obamacare gets past the Supreme Court, then add another $1.7 Trillion to that.
So now you support our activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. You support the use of drones to kill terrorists. You are a supporter of the prison in Cuba and the use of military tribunals. I'm glad that you have seen the light in the area of terrorism, at least.