Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jan 13, 2006.
My curiousity is piqued - anyone have an idea if it will be broadcast (live or otherwise)? Either on Network, Cable or Internet? I would like to check it out.
Wow. Color me impressed. It's about time.
CSPAN has it scheduled to be broadcast Monday at 12:00 EST.
Crap, I'll be at work. Hopefully someone can Tivo it.
Why do they always wait until after they've lost to start showing some guts? And humanity? Better late than never, I guess. If this was the Gore that ran for office in 2000, I would have gotten off my butt and voted for him.
Let this be a lesson to you Dems... when you run for office, act like you have nothing to lose. Don't listen to some commitee, playing it "safe". Prove you have balls. We like that.
The cynic in me says that words and speeches aren't going to do thing to stop this "president". They bounce off him like so many pebbles.
However, if Gore's speech stirs people to anger -- gets them to at least write their congressmen, or better yet actually march in protest -- then maybe something positive will happen.
Well, in addition to the spinal implant, the Democratic party desperately needs some of it's senior members who aren't seeking higher office to come out forcefully on issues like this. It helps provide political cover for elected officials who want to make the same points, but who's ass is hanging in the wind if they do -- ie John Murtha.
I mean, Christ, how long did it take to get a handful of Democrats on the record as saying if they knew then what they know now they wouldn't have authorized Bush to go to war? Over 2 YEARS! Even Kerry wouldn't say it until long after the election...
I agree with you mac, but to be fair Gore and Carter have been doing this for years now. They just get dismissed as cranks by most of the media. Clinton (Bill, that is) is the guy who really needs to speak out forcefully, and while he has said a few things, he has largely refrained from taking on Bush. That may change on this spying scandal.
With Democratic elected officials, the current Congressional leadership, especially Reid and Pelosi, are head and shoulders above the last crop. With Daschle and Gephardt it became more of a question of "just how far should I bend over, Mr. President?"
To me the real problem is in the statements of 2008 contenders and a couple of "mavericks" (i.e. Lieberman and Nelson) who still think Bush is right on the war. Among the contenders for 2008, Clinton's (Hillary, that is) refusal to strongly come out for ending the war is the most troubling. If only because she is the presumed front runner. I take succor in the leadership of Feingold. If Russ begins to emerge as a real alternative to Hillary, we will have a much more forceful Democratic response out there - even if Clinton wins the nomination.
Perhaps the most disappointing response is coming from that mythical sector of Senators, the "moderate" republicans. I've yet to see a meaningful challenge to the Bush on the spying (read Imperial President) or on the war. The only thing that comes close is McCain's torture amendment, and we saw just what impact that had on Bush in his remarks. The worst has been Specter and his kissass approach on Alito. Pro-Choice Republicans my foot! When it comes to the most important vote to save abortion rights in a generation they all meekly go along with the far right.
Right or wrong, Clinton is the one that should be leading the Democratic Party in its debate. Despite his troubles, he is still better regarded than Bush is now.
Carter in the long term may go down as one of the better leaders during and after the fact.
Whether it was a blow job in the WH, or the wiretapping by the current administration - the people as a whole seem not to truly care here in the US. I have been impressed in the past with the actions of the people in European nations that do national strikes, and fill every plaza when they feel they are not being represented by those they elected.
IMO, we as a nation take for granted our rights and privileges. Outside of 9-11 we have not suffered the destruction that many in Europe has faced for so many more years.
The number of us that either lived in the Depression or were the next generation of those that did, are dwindling. Sacrifice is not something that about 70% of this nation knows. At least in the Depression Era or WW II concept.
Just look at how Londoners responded after the Kings Cross bombings. Or how the people of Madrid bounced back after their terrorist attack.
Sure individuals have been speaking out, but the organized effort at providing cover includes think-tanks, media exposure, and the money support to keep it all rolling. What the right has working for them.
anyone manage to listen to a live broadcast? i was unable to, but i just finished reading the speech.
well said, imo. lots of good bits, but my favorite came near the end:
still can't believe we got bozo bush instead of the eloquent mr gore.
I watched it (via streaming media). Evidently there was a little trouble with the satellite feed, so Rep. Barr was unable to make his intro of Mr Gore.
As for Gore, I liked the speech also, although Gore was a little uninspiring in his delivery, though he gained considerable enthusiasm towards the end, which reminded me of the bearded Gore from a few years back - full of fire.
I wonder how the Administration and/or the GOP will play this speech - if indeed they even give it acknowledgement. It would be fairly hard to pin the "partisan politics" label on the speech as it was obviously anything but.
I found the section of Gores' speech concerning the decline of the Senate to be particularily interesting - not because it was surprising - but because it was quite frank - and imo, therefore quite pragmatic.
Talk about a State of the Union address...
indeed. for once, i'd like to hear something other than "strong" at the end of "The state of our union is". i recommend "imperiled".
fwiw, abc world news tonight did do a segment on the speech. i noted, however, that it was short and they used gore's image and speech as background only, while elizabeth vargas gave a summary over top. i don't think a 10 or 15 second soundbite was asking too much.
Republicans will resort to name calling and swiftboating this subject into so much crap that in the end the typical TV watching, junk food eating fat arse American will think its gospel and that Gore is the Enemy. Our Govt has gone down the tubes when a draft dodging president/vice president are pushing for torture,spying on americans without warrants.
I've already heard a couple versions of "Oh he's still sore about losing the '00 election."
and here's the RNC reaction:
interesting how she says "Democrats" instead of "Al Gore". the article also says the WH had no comment. at least not one they'll make directly, it seems.
I don't know exactly what it is about Gore that bugs me. Whether it's his delivery and body language which seem to stifle his content, or what. I can both see and accept Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, even George Sr. as needed voices of the statesmen who have mellowed with years of experience and their positions for better or worse I can at least hear and resonate where it fits. I just can't hear Gore.
it's too bad. i'm hard pressed to think of anyone more qualified or able to lead this country.
have you read the speech? maybe words on the page will work better.
Ya, that's the paradox. I read an article (can't remember which one) a couple of months ago having to do with integrity issues and the slippery slope politics in general is on, and thought it was well written and provided food for thought. It's the "man" himself and, though I've never met him, I've held to a general principle in rhetoric that "meaning is in people". I admit to needing to look harder at the whys and whats of it, but it's had not so much to do with content as with delivery. Maybe after all these years, I really do listen at a 7th grade level.
Added edit: Is there any chance we'll see a Hillary/Gore ticket? I think the Democratic Party has some major identity challenges to overcome in presenting any credible ticket for '08.
Well, there's today's irony award recipient.
I must say, whatever your political stripe - the things at stake right now - civil liberties, threats of international and domestic terrorism, integrity of our system of governance (to name a few) - seem to be given a back seat once again to rhetoric - which should give pause to us all.
Although portions of Gore's speech made explicit or implicit references to the Bush Administration (negatively) it was in relation to a larger series of points - to those serious threats - which I would think everyone would agree deserve some consideration - as they are NOT partisan.
I would've thought a more appropriate response from our current Administration would be to address those points with the consideration they deserve - and to make their case for their actions in reference to that context - do we as citizens not deserve as much? From any Administration?
It's not just you. I can't stand Bush, but Gore has always rubbed me the wrong way. Nobody likes the smartest guy in school. Especially if he is too cocky. But if this was him in '00, I would have voted for him.
(for the record, I didn't vote for Bush either. Didn't vote at all because I didn't really feel it necessary, especially being in CA at the time. Almost voted for Nader, but I'm glad I didn't. If only we knew huh)
that has been a mystery from the beginning
that aside he gets extra kudos for voice acting as himself in Futurama
Gore...Bush... is there a difference in the level of stupidity?
I think we should jsut impeach Bush, strike Gore from ever speaking again, and get George Carlin in office where someone who actually knows what the hell is going on can take charge.
are you taking issue with his speaking style or his words?