Gore Takes Aim at Bush's Iraq Policy

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Ambrose Chapel, Aug 7, 2003.

  1. macrumors 65816

    Ambrose Chapel

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #1
    Ahh speaking at one of my alma-maters.
    How relevant a political figure is Gore? What kind of impact, if any, will this have?


    Full story
     
  2. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #2
    Re: Gore Takes Aim at Bush's Iraq Policy

    Sounds like Al is positioning himself for reentry into the race. There are an awful lot of Democrats out there who would vote for him again, but the "movers and shakers" in the party don't want Gore to run. Hell, if he keeps up this position on Bush's foreign policy and Ashcroft's campaign against civil liberties I'd vote for him.
     
  3. macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #3
    Re: Gore Takes Aim at Bush's Iraq Policy

    -I think that's exactly it - and this probably applies to most current policy actions in this administration.
     
  4. thread starter macrumors 65816

    Ambrose Chapel

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #4
    i agree...it's reflected in the culture though. look at all the news shows where people don't debate - they yell down each other, and don't bother to listen to anything but their own voice.
     
  5. thread starter macrumors 65816

    Ambrose Chapel

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #5
    there's this:

    friends say gore won't run
     
  6. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
  7. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #7
    Of course you maybe right, but Al wouldn't be the first politician to play fickle with the voters. It doesn't sound as if he is content to focus on the growth of my favorite computer company.

    If I get to pick the messenger Gore's not my choice either, but I want someone unafraid to deliver the message - if that is Gore, it's alright with me.
     
  8. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #8
    I'd like to think I can separate the truth from the teller, but the fact remains that many people will automatically dismiss all of Gore's criticisms as political sour grapes without even bothering to address the argument being made. It's awfully difficult for anyone in his position to be taken completely seriously on political issues. We need fresh, new faces talking about this stuff -- people without a huge load of baggage to haul around.
     
  9. macrumors 6502a

    jbomber

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Location:
    Brooklyn - NYC
    #9
    Yeah, I agree. Gore was the man for the job before dropping off the radar. :(

    Now it's a matter of picking through the barely warm bodies that the democratic party has left in the running, and finding someone with the balls to step up and say what needs to be said.
     
  10. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #10
    I won't argue against the need for new faces, but why is Gore dismissed as so much sour grapes if a Nixon, Reagan or GHW Bush can run over and over?
     
  11. thread starter macrumors 65816

    Ambrose Chapel

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #11
    i agree, but he may just want to do what he can to weaken bush and throw some support at the democratic runner. but altruism in a politician? i don't buy it either ;)
     
  12. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #12
    That's a good question, but since I didn't care for any of these characters I might not be the one to ask. Gore really only ran in 2000 because he's a member of the Democratic political aristocracy, and it was "his turn." Both parties work this way most of the time, it seems to me.
     
  13. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    Republicans learned that lesson when they ran BobDole against Bill Clinton when it was Dole's "turn". Just 'cuz it's your turn doesn't mean you are best suited for the job.
     
  14. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #14
    IJ Reilly,
    would it make a difference if the names were Stevenson or Bryan? Don't get me wrong I'm not a great fan of Gore, although I've liked him a lot more since the 2000 election than before it. I like that he spoke out strongly when the resolutions around Iraq were before Congress when other Democrats were hiding. I like this new statement. I could go on and on about the things in the Clinton/Gore years I didn't like, but it seems to me that on the critical issues before the nation he's not so bad. And one other thing he has going for him that the other candidates don't - he should be President.

    As to his background, I don't like rich boys who are groomed for the job anymore than the next guy. He and Dubya's background as politcal princes are too similar for my tastes, but then one could say the same about many political families such as the Kennedys and the Rockefellers.

    In the final analysis, I will work for almost anybody who is nominated and will take on Bush.
     
  15. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #15
    Wasn't it Adlai Stevenson who said it was just as well that he was never elected president, because he would have hated having to shave twice a day?

    Anyway... I'm not sure we're part of an actual majority to have a reflexive distaste for the politically well-born. The nation seem to elect a lot of them.

    I'll see who the Democrats choose next year, but even though I've been a political nonpartisan for over 25 years now, I'm also prepared to back nearly anyone who can hand Mr. Bush his walking papers.
     
  16. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #16
    Never heard the Stevenson quote before, but I like it! No wonder Adlai didn't win, he was to human for the job.

    I too used to register "decline to state" but I got sick of being confronted with choices I had no say in come November. I caved in and registered as a Democratic in the eighties. Glad to see there are some who still refuse to buckle. As to your last sentence all I can say, and this is from a non-religious man, AMEN!
     
  17. thread starter macrumors 65816

    Ambrose Chapel

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #17
    IJ and Sayhey,

    just wanted to chime in and basically say me too. as for the history of presidents born and raised for the job, the country loves its dynasties. i saw a quote earlier this year from some GOP big-shot talking about Jeb in '08, something like, "the nomination is his if he wants it." this was well before iraq, however.

    i'm holding out hope that the dems will throw someone up next year who i'll feel good about supporting, and not just as an "anything but W" candidate.
     
  18. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #18
    I can't remember where I heard the Stevenson quote, and this is obviously a paraphrase, so consider it unverified!

    My decline-to-state career began in 1976, when the Democrats nominated Jimmy Carter. If figured if this was the best the party could do, they sure didn't need my help. Cast my first vote for an independent for president in 1980 (John Anderson). I still have one of his campaign buttons around somewhere. A future non-collectable item for sure.

    I believe the numbers of disaffected, disenfranchised nonpartisans like myself have been growing in recent years. I'm not a cussedly anti-party person, but I do feel like one of the lost tribes of Israel, wandering in the desert, hoping against hope that a leader will some day emerge to show us the way. I suppose this makes me a bloody-minded optimist; or even worse, an idealist.
     
  19. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #19
    "I believe the numbers of disaffected, disenfranchised nonpartisans like myself have been growing in recent years."

    Probably right, considering the ever-lessening of eligible voters who do show up at the polls.

    I'm an independent in local elections and in state elections, generally, where it's easy to get to know the incumbents and candidates. For national office, I've been mostly holding my nose and voting Republican. I'm a landowner and a long-time shooter and hunter: It's hard to support a Clinton or Gore, with their stance on such idiocies as the Brady Bill, or their land-use policies.

    "I'm not a bigot; I hate all politicians equally!"

    :D, 'Rat
     
  20. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #20
    Don't say that as if it's a bad thing. And as John said your not the only one. It's too easy to become cynical in politics we need people who believe change for the better is possible.
     
  21. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #21
    I'm never sure whether to believe all of the traditional cautions against optimism and idealism, which boil down to accusations of naivety, callowness, or worse. I suppose I've resolved these issues in my own mind by adopting the personal philosophy of hoping for the best but expecting the worst.
     
  22. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22
    Funny, I was thinking I'd have a hard time supporting Bush's stance on gun control and his land use policies.
     
  23. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #23
    Ambrose,

    Jeb may well be the candidate in '08, unless we get his brother out of the WH in '04. In which case Dubya may be running again. It is interesting to think about who the Republicans could throw up other than the Bush brothers; there is not a lot to choose from after them. McCain is going to be saddled with age and health questions so that leaves who? Bill Frist? Perhaps we can look forward to nuts like Santorum or even Ashcroft? There is a definite drift to the right in Republican politics.

    With the Democrats this cycle, I would not mind seeing Kerry, Dean, Kucinich, or Braun. The last two have no chance in hell, so I've been wavering between Kerry and Dean. As I've said before, if Gore gets back in I wouldn't mind him either. Of the current candidates I only have a dislike for Lieberman and Graham.

    IJ Reilly,
    I think the trick is to try to mix optimism, idealism, and a heavy dose of realism. At least that is what I think sounds good. I let you know if it works.
     
  24. thread starter macrumors 65816

    Ambrose Chapel

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #24
    I found the original quote (from thismodernworld.com), it's from mid-april:

    as for other candidates, yeah i don't know...maybe they'll just decide to run DeLay. ashcroft...i'd definitely pack my bags for the great white north.

    as for dems this time around, right now i prefer kerry or dean. being here in new england we got a lot of kerry/dean coverage, so i'm most familiar with them. lieberman comes off as just a moderate republican.

    pessimism is quickly gaining the upper hand with me, though i still get outraged over a lot of stuff..guess that means i still have some idealism left!
     
  25. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #25
    How's this for a dose of pessimism, Ann Coulter for President in 2008! We all can be up on treason charges! Sorry, didn't mean to give anyone nightmares. ;)
     

Share This Page