Al Gore
I must say that I really liked Al Gore’s speech yesterday. Some people say that the Democrats don’t seem to have an agenda. Al Gore enunciated some concerns that could serve as an agenda, and not just political concerns, but also American concerns. When he spoke about the fact that the Congress has become subservient to the executive branch, I think he hit the nail on the head. Congress needs to take its place as a co-equal branch of government, to be sure. Will it do that? Not with the bunch that’s in there now. It is as if Congress has sold its soul in order to gain money and power. You have some members who seem to have genuine courage, men like John Murtha and maybe Arlen Specter, but most of the others just seem to follow the leader, without any real ideas of their own. As I said, it’s all about money and power. We need a change in Washington. Maybe that can start in 2006.
And what about Al Gore? I'd love to see him president in 2009. I've talked about him before in this blog. He is one of the few Democrats who did not vote for the Iraq War, and is therefore not tainted by it. Most of the others, namely Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards, cannot say the same. Therefore, Al Gore, as I see it is not part of the problem as the others are. I think he would make a fine president. At least I would feel that we had someone in the White House who had a mind of his own and who wanted to roll up his sleeves and really work to make this country a better place. I don't have that feeling with the current administration.
Tags: Al Gore, 2006, politics, Bush, 2008,
I must say that I really liked Al Gore’s speech yesterday. Some people say that the Democrats don’t seem to have an agenda. Al Gore enunciated some concerns that could serve as an agenda, and not just political concerns, but also American concerns. When he spoke about the fact that the Congress has become subservient to the executive branch, I think he hit the nail on the head. Congress needs to take its place as a co-equal branch of government, to be sure. Will it do that? Not with the bunch that’s in there now. It is as if Congress has sold its soul in order to gain money and power. You have some members who seem to have genuine courage, men like John Murtha and maybe Arlen Specter, but most of the others just seem to follow the leader, without any real ideas of their own. As I said, it’s all about money and power. We need a change in Washington. Maybe that can start in 2006.
And what about Al Gore? I'd love to see him president in 2009. I've talked about him before in this blog. He is one of the few Democrats who did not vote for the Iraq War, and is therefore not tainted by it. Most of the others, namely Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards, cannot say the same. Therefore, Al Gore, as I see it is not part of the problem as the others are. I think he would make a fine president. At least I would feel that we had someone in the White House who had a mind of his own and who wanted to roll up his sleeves and really work to make this country a better place. I don't have that feeling with the current administration.
Tags: Al Gore, 2006, politics, Bush, 2008,
posted by Ed Bremson, MFA @ 8:30 AM
4 Comments:
At 9:22 AM,
Carl said…
If Al Gore had been as articulate during the Presidential campaign as he has been since, in his series of firebrand speeches, he'd be President today, we wouldn't be in Iraq, and Al Qaeda would have been dismantled, as the Clinton administration took them deadly serious.
It's nice to see him slipping into the role of philosopher, and yea, I'd love to see him run again (I supported him in '92 over Clinton in the primaries), but I think we're talking snowball's chance.
At 1:38 PM,
Gary said…
Al Gore's big mistake was picking Lieberman as his running mate.
He thought it would bring moralists who disliked Clinton to the party and carry Florida's Jewish vote. In reality, only a minuscule percentage of voters pay attention to Senators or other politicians outside of their home state and while it may have helped marginally in Florida it reinforced an image of the Democratic Party as a collection of liberal special interests.
Instead of an East Coast wealthy Jewish Senator who is liberal on domestic issues but conservative on moral and foreign policy a Gore pick of moderate conservative Senator Graham of Florida would have helped in Florida, the entire South, and overall by nudging the party more toward the perceptual right/left center sweet spot.
American presidential elections are 90% predictable passed on the last few presidential elections party votes by states, the state of the economy, the home state of the president and VP candidates, candidates from the South. and the perceptual left/right centrality of the tickets.
The South, includes Texas and Oklahoma, is the only region that adds a few points to the tickets with Southern candidates. Bush already negated much of the Democratic Southern strategy by being from the South
There was an early Apple computer game that came out based on this voting pattern. I think it was in 76 that it had on the cover of the box the states that each side won later that year. (The game itself made small adjustments for campaign stops and advertising and positions on the issues or style in simulated debates.)
At 2:08 PM,
Gary said…
Correction - The game had to be later than '76. Maybe I am thinking of an early release or early version of 'President Elect 88' by Strategic Simulations Inc..
The 88 version is available here:
http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?id=839
At 9:28 PM,
Ed Bremson, MFA said…
Gary, very intersting analysis. Thanks for your contribution.
Ed
Post a Comment
<< Home