Al Gore Says He Hasn't Ruled Out 2nd Run http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060910/D8K1U4U80.html SYDNEY, Australia (AP) - Former Vice President Al Gore said Sunday he hadn't rule out making a second bid for the White House, though he said it was unlikely. Gore spoke to reporters in Sydney, where he was promoting the local premiere of his documentary on global warming. "I haven't completely ruled out running for president again in the future but I don't expect to," Gore said before the Sunday night premiere of "An Inconvenient Truth." "I offer the explanation not as an effort to be coy or clever. It's just the internal shifting of gears after being in politics almost 30 years. I hate to grind the gears," he added. Gore, who lost the presidency to President Bush in 2000 in disputed circumstances, said there was no doubt the impact of global warming would be best addressed through the power of the presidency, but making a documentary was second best. Gore's renewed popularity and movie tours across the United States have spurred speculation of a White House run in 2008. He has previously repeatedly denied such intentions. The documentary, which Gore narrates, is critical of the United States and Australia for refusing to adopt the Kyoto Protocol for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Prime Minister John Howard, a friend and ally of Bush, said he would not meet Gore during his Australian visit and would not heed his advice to sign up to Kyoto. "I don't take policy advice from films," Howard told reporters.
I would vote for him again, gladly. Id rather someone else were running, like Obama, for instance, but Gore/Obama would work for me. Compared to Bush, Gore is a freakin' reincarnation of FDR, Truman, Jack Kennedy, Ike, and... well, you get the idea. Keep D&D Civil.
Gore is at the top of my list for '08. He's smart, competent, and has vision. His decades long work on global warming and his early legislation supporting the internet are pretty impressive.
Gore , Kerry, Dukakis loser, loser, loser Clinton, Carter win, win The Dems have to break out of the Beltway and go counter to politics as ususal. The very worst idea is to run Hillary. The Fox/Rove machine is drooling at the prospect. I wish Obama was the Governor of Illinois.
Got to be a Southern democrat, in general, to win. And Gore won the popular vote in 2000, I think most American's TODAY wish he would have won. DD
I don't. I would not vote for Bush again but I think god each day that Gore was not president during 9/11 and Bush was. I know we will never know for a fact but I truley believe that the Taliban and Osama would still be living and ruling in Afgahnistan. I also believe that Sadam would still be ruling in Irac. WMD's or not Sadam needed to be removed as well as the Taliban and I have zero regrets that they are gone...especially the Taliban. No way in hell I would ever vote for Gore. And no I am not a republican. I reserve the Right to vote for either party if they have someone that I think is worthy. Little Bush in 1990 was the 1st republican that I voted for since Reagan (By far the greatest president in my life time) was in office.
You are probably right about Saddam and Iraq, but that is silly about Afghanistan. Bin Laden and A-Q knew that the US would move into Afghanistan as a result of 9/11 - that was one of the main points of the attack (according to corresdpondence amongst A-Q). Regardless of who was in power, the country would have deanded action. Further, it is silly to assume Gore would have done nothing based on his own record. In the 80's he never won the Dem nomination because he was seen as too big on the military and too much of a hawk. In the Senate he was on various armed services commitees. His proopsed budget for the military during the elections was larger than Bush's (with an emphasis on "readiness"). No clue how well Gore would have done, but to assume military inaction is ignorance or blindness on your part. PS - for what did Bush run in 1990?
Oh yeah, Gore would have screwed this all up. Osama would still be living, probably, and the Taliban would be enjoying a nice little comeback. Iraq qould be a mess, North Korea would be testing nuclear weapons, Iran would be taunting us, the Middle East would be tetering on disaster, and we would have a totally inept Defense Secretary. We would have burned through all the world's post 9/11 goodwill, and top military officials would be criticizing Washington in public. All we would hear would be excuses. No WAY Gore would have had the pinpoint focus on the real WOT like Bush has. Thanks god he was not in charge. He would have been impeached, actually - if Clinton got impeached for a Bj, can you IMAGINE what the calls for resignation would be if Gore had presided over 9/11? If that "Bin Laden Determined to Attack With U.S." memo had been glossed over by Naomi Wolf, or whoever his NSA Chair would have been? Don't worry about what would have happened had Al been in charge, he would not have been for long.
perhaps if Gore had been president, rather than be busy trying to construct a nuclear missile shield to fight the USSR, our national security people would have been focusing on terrorism like they were doing before Bush took office and September 11 woudl have been prevented. There is a lot more evidence to suggest that then anything else you have proposed. PS, if responding to terrorists is so important to you, why do you idolize Reagan? He let more terrorist attacks go unanswered than any president in your lifetime.
Voted for Bush last time, because he supported Taiwan. This time I'm gonna vote for Gore, because he supports the planet, and for once, I think the planet needs America more than Taiwan.
Maybe you are right and Gore would have done something but I personally do not think he would have. I think he would have played the political game and maybe placed embargo's on Afgahnistan if they did not turn over Osama but I personally do not think he would have sent in the military. Hey...what do I know anyway. I always thought Clinton would be the worst president since maybe Jimmy Carter (a man I have tons of respect for but sucked as president) but he turned out to be a very effective president. Although I do think he certainly shoulders as much blame as anyone for 9/11. Gore really does scare the **** out of me but if it makes you feel any better about what appears to be my anti liberal ways then let me even out that statement by saying this....Gore does not scare me as bad as some one like Bob Dole or Dan Quail.
Actually I think it would have been much worse than you describe. I don't think Gore would have taken military action. But that is just my oppionion. One that I can't prove and one that you can't disprove.
I liked Reagan because when he took over the office our country was at a very low time. -The econamy sucked...interest rates for a morgage were 13% and higher making it very painful for the average Joe to buy a house. -Terrorism was very high then...remember Iran and the year long Hostage situation? Planes were being Hijacked. -Patriotism was at an all time low. Reagan changed all of that. The econamy turned around, patriotism shot up and terrorism against US citizens dropped...a lot. The country was at an all time high for my lifetime under Reagan and the fact that he was realected by a landslide tells us a great deal about how the people felt about him then. Remember there were people that were trying to get him to run for a third term. Reagan is more responsible than anyone for the fall of the soviet empire. Reagan was certainly not with out his scandles and also must share in the blame or Osama because the U.S. helped him when with money and training when we were not so secretly supporting him and the taliban in their efforts against the soviet union. During the Iran / Contra hearings Oliver North was asked why the government needed to provide him such an outlandish security system for his personal home and his answer was Osama Bin Ladin. This was long before anyone had ever heard of Osama so Reagan is not innocent in this and I don't want to imply that the man was a saint because he was not. My stance on Reagan is much like my stance on Clinton. Like him or not he was good for the country while he was in office. I get a social security statement every so often that lists my income for every single year that I have ever paid taxes and by far my biggest leaps came during the Reagan and Clinton years. Just for the record my favorite all time presidents of the last 100 years are Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Reagan, Truman and Clinton in that order.
LOL, not a saint? you appear to be suffering from highly selective amnesia, reminiscent of Reagan in his last term of office. Let me refresh your memory about Reagan and terrorism. Now, crash, what kind of a response would you expect from Ronny for the deadliest terrorist attack in history up to that point? Mind you this attack was sponsored by Hezbollah and Iran, who had been kidnapping Americans in the offseason. Also mind you that this attack was the first major attack against the US and set a deadly precedent for things to come. I'm sure Reagan would nip that in the bud, right?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing So - tough talk, and then absolute capitulation. Mind you, not only was their capitulation, but the US went on to negotiate with and sell arms to the Iranians regarding hostage taking. To wrap things up: your fantastical hypothesis(without justification whatsoever) that Gore would let terrorists attack the country wantonly, is abso-f-ing-lutely laughable in the face of your complete ignorance and/ or endorsement of Reagan's history of being a pioneer in that aspect.
Give me a break. How do you NOT take military action after 9/11? The WHOLE world rallied behind America and continues to maintain troops in Afghanistan themselves. Canada still has freaking troops in Afghanistan. To suggest that Al Gore would have sat on his hands when even Canada is willing to send troops is just plain silly.
