Al Gore - Could he be the Next Prez?

Remove all ads!

It seems Al Gore might be on the come-back trail. And if there's one Dem who deserves a chance, IMO, it's Gore. Why? First, because he beat George II in the 2000 election. That's right. Were it not for the Supreme Court of Fools, there's an excellent chance he would have been prez instead of what we have now. And how different things might have been.

Second, IMO, he could win. He matches up better than Hillary, except on issues of defense, where the ex first lady is out to out-hawk even many Republicans on the "military might is right" issue. But Gore has an issue of his own, away from the dismal politics of the ME.

An interesting point. People are certainly tired of the "politics as usual game." And they are tired of the political Armageddon of the last 6 years. Most of all they are tired of Iraq. As for Iran, it appears that George II will have to deal with the idiots there if he is going to have any credibility left with his much vaunted "War on Terror." The Iranians are the real deal, and serious troublemakers, and George is the self-proclaimed "troublemaker thumper" for the free world. Have at it Mr. Bush.

That leaves Al Gore as the competent, fix-it man; not a terribly exciting character, but someone who is principled and willing to work hard for all Americans on issues that George II scoffed at before reality fell on his presidency:

They are over. And it appears that Al Gore may be just getting started. Personally, as much as I like Hillary, Gore may be the man of the moment for the Dems. Maybe.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12535070/site/newsweek/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12535460/site/newsweek/

[ April 29, 2006, 06:00: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

He couldn't do much worse than John Kerry...

But will the Republicans find a better candidate than George W?

 

I must say, the negative campaigning against John Kerry must have been the most effective one I have ever seen. I cant say I ever cared one way or another aobut the dude but the way the Republicans managed to absolutely annihilite the man simply by flinging dirt is almost impressive in its own way. They managed to turn a pretty grey standard democratic politician into the monster from the blue lagoon, and the image sticks. Whoever said playing dirty doesnt pay off?

Gore is another person who have subjugated for extensive dirtflinging to an extent that for anyone not really into politics his image is a robotic nutcase who claims to have invented the internet. There is an old thread somewhere around here named "Gore or the UNA bomber" or something of that kind. I reckon that is the quite close to the common image of Gore in the American mind. I dont think you should bother Chandos, you will be ruled by Right-Wing despots for the rest of your life, all opposition is broken and anyone who dares to come forth is instantly discredited and in a short while everyone thinks they are crazy lunatics not worth listening to.

 

How about Mgambe(was that the name?)? He is straight(as in, clear on his issues), and AFAIK, he has not skeletons in the closet.

But yeah, I'd love to have the US led by Gore.

 

Gore will never get the nomoination. Forget the fact that he's a total whack job; the two top political parties have not run a losing presidential candidate more than once sine '68, when the Republicans ran Nixon. And Queen Hillary is too disliked to ever win.

 

God, I hope not.

Competant and Gore are rarely used in the same sentence. I would only vote for Gore over Hillary or Quayle.

 

Care to elaborate?

 

You all see here what I mean, the common image of Al Gore by people not following him or the democratic party is that he is a nutcase and a loon and I doubt it would be easy to put forth a tangible reason for these feelings to be present.

School example of a succesful character assassination.

 

Then can you explain how Al Gore got more popular votes than your beloved King George II?

 

You really need cheek to call Gore incompetent, especially taking into account the great five years we had under the leadership of Bush.

As about Gore vs. Hillary. I would go for Gore in a heartbeat. Hillary is not bad, but she is primarily a politician; the problem with Gore is that he's not politician enough. He lost the election because he could not shed his wonk image and bring himself to the lowest common denominator level (not that he did not try). Forget about his competence, experience, etc; people wanted a frat party boy. What a load of bull.

 

But the biggest thing that Gore or whoever the Democrats run will have to face is that the Republicans will have a better candidate than George W and Dick Cheney. I've heard very little in favour of George W in all my explorations on the net. This leads me to believe that Kerry was a complete Knob to lose that election. The Republicans won't make that mistake again. Will the Democrats be ready?

 

I doubt it.

 

Who do you think the Republicans will nominate, Gnarf? McCain seems to have completely sold out. He no longer looks very appealing to either side.

 

I think McCain shot himself in the foot when he began pandering to the lunatic evangelicals. 5 years ago he said he deplored men like Pat Robertson, and now he's shaking hands with him. I've lost an immense amount of respect for him as of late. It's funny - he's pandering to the hard right because after Rove's orchestration of Bush's last two victories, McCain thinks it's the only way to win; I say the fact that he's pandering now officially kills his "maverick" image. The hard right won't accept him because he's not Jesusy enough historically, and the moderate voters who used to love him will drop him like 3rd period French. I don't think he could win the nomination, and if he does he won't win the election.

So who else do the Republicans have? Guliani? PLEASE run a pro-gay marriage adulterer on the Republican ticket - please. Frist? He's got almost as many scandals coming down the pipe as DeLay (almost). Jeb? From what I've heard, he isn't interested in running at the moment (smart of him). Somebody told me the other day that Bob Dole is going to run again, and I'd love to watch him get spanked again.

On the Dem side, we have Hillary (who I don't like much at all), Joe Biden (who rules), something tells me Joe Leiberman will give it another go (putz), Evan Beigh (sp?) is likely. But Gore has the experience and determination on all of them.

It's too bad, as Jaoquin pointed out, the Republicans are so good at character assassination (and the Dems are so good at being victims of it). I STILL hear people say idiotic things like "well he said he invented the internet," and it makes me absolutely nuts. People give Gore far too little credit for as capable and credible as he is. His demeanor cost him 2000, to be sure - I don't think it had anything to do with Clinton. In fact, I think it could be argued that had Gore not distanced himself from Clinton in 2000 he would have won handily. But if you've listened to a speech or two of his lately, you'll notice that his demeanor has changed considerably. It's like...he grew bigger balls or something. He seems tougher, more sure of himself - which is the only real advantage Bush has ever had on him - AND he knows his sh*t...a distinct advantage he has over President Chimpy.

So if Gore does decide to run, don't count him out before he hits the ring. It'll be an interesting race if he does, and he'll fight for it. He'll get my vote for sure if he does.

 

I've heard the name Mitt Romney, and that he is Governor of Massechusettes. I've heard he's looking for the nomination in 2008.

I'm basing my comments off the hatred I'm seeing for George W that I see wherever I go. You make him sound like the worst candidate the Republicans ever had. By that logic, anyone else is an improvement.

 

I would support Gore. I don't like the thought of Hillary. I also think Feingold would make an excellent president. Concerning Al Gore's track record on the environment, here's an opinion from Bill Maher, and there's a lot of truth to it:

 

I wouldn't mind Gore... but the Dems would have to figure out a way to tame the he's-made-of-wood thinks-he-invented-the-internet memes the press was so fond of in 2000.

 

In other words, they need to get some backbone, and assorted other body parts (rhyme with "halls").
Frankly, I think Al Gore would make a pretty decent president. He's reasonably intelligent, concerned about things that may not be flashy, but are important (i.e. climate change, research, etc), and I suppose he wouldn't have been vice to Clinton for 8 years if he couldn't at least get something done right. I don't think America would make a mistake with him, although it remains to be seen who the nominees are.
Of course, for that we'll have to see the legendary "liberal press" actually favor him for a while, for a change at least.

 

I not really sure if Gore will run aganst Hillary in 2008, since it's really supposed to be "her year" to run. Personally I think he can beat her and I still think he would have a better chance against whomever the Republicans toss out there (probably McCain).

Although McCain's a sellout, he's still the best shot they have, since he is a reformer of sorts and the Republicans are anxious to prove that they still are the "reform party of 94" despite their dismal record since then. Their substandard performance in congress has been widely commented on, but it will be up to the Dems to still prove that they can do better, especially behind a Democratic prez. They have to prove that they have a plan to fix what the Repulicans have made a mess of. There has to be a real strategy behind the endless platitudes and charges of corruption and incompetence.

At this point I still see Gore as the best choice.

 

No way in hell would Al Gore get the nomination, that is if he had the arrogance to run.