If Gore Enters Race He Will Be President

[Linkster]

http://www.draftgore.com/index.htm

Polls reflect that even on the republican side - Gore would win the race in all primaries and a general election

[Betty Blowtorch]

I'd vote for Gore without any reservations, but I don't think
he wants the job now. If he had become President in 2000,
he would have inherited an America that was in much better
shape than it is now. His job would have been much easier.

Whoever becomes President in 2009 will probably get blamed
for problems caused by the Bush gang. The next President
will inherit the Iraq quagmire and an American economy that
is on the verge of disaster. That's not an enviable position
in which to start a new administration.

If the next President withdraws from Iraq, he (or she) will be
blamed for losing the war. But if the Iraq quagmire is allowed
to continue, it will no longer be considered Bush's war, it will
become Gore's war or Hillary's war, in the same way that the
Vietnam War switched from being LBJ's war to Nixon's war.

I can't blame Gore if he doesn't want the job after the Bush
gang has made such a mess of it.

[Linkster]

Betty - I think he is just sitting back watching the polls right now and being good and quiet about his plans - which is a real good thing as looking at the primary polls he would stomp anyone else that is in the way

[Betty Blowtorch]

Personally I like Gore more than Hillary. I'd like to see him as
the Democratic nominee. It would be interesting to see if he
could upset Hillary in the early primaries.

I wonder, however, if Gore would really want to interfere with
Hillary's march to the White House by making her look bad in
the primaries.

The early primaries are only a few months away. If Gore
wants to run, he better show his hand pretty soon.

[Linkster]

Looking at the polling they did in 5 primary states - Gore would win over Hillary hands down by a huge percentage - funny thing is that when they asked if it were Gore vs Guiliani Gore also won that - the primary polling is showing Rudy way out in front of the other reps - so he will probably be their front runner unless Thompson can hide a bunch of stuff and come out swinging - but the polls even asked Gore vs him and Gore still won by a large margin

[disrupter]

Gore did win the popular vote in 2000 already.

Without the racist, criminal voter purges of Bush's Mafia bro, Jeb,
Gore would have handily won in Florida, the electorial college & the nation.

If he runs he will almost certainly have my vote again.

But he has said he won't run in 08, & unlike almost everyone else in the presidential campaign he actually has the integrity to stick to the conviction of his words. My apologies to Paul, Kucinich, & Edwards, one of whom i will vote for.

[Betty Blowtorch]

My apologies to Paul, Kucinich, & Edwards,
one of whom i will vote for.
You'll have plenty of choices in the primary, but in the
general election, there will only be two candidates who
have a realistic chance of being elected President, and
it probably won't be any of the three you mentioned.

In the general election there will only be four choices
available: you can vote Democratic, vote Republican
or throw your vote away on a third party candidate
who has no chance to win. Or not vote at all.

Personally I'll be voting for the Democratic nominee
regardless of who it is. We need to get the Repugs
out of the White House.

[Jennifer]

Gore's a radical conservative. I might even vote for him. He's for less governmental impact, for protecting the environment and for more freedom for women to do what women want to do. Unless his platform has changed.

That's right out of the Republican Playbook of the 1950s, 60s and 70s.


Though, he is WAY over doing it on environmental protectionism. There's global climate change, but that's not our fault. Poisoning of the fish, killing of the forests, pumping smog into the air causing asthma, etc are our fault.

[disrupter]

How is the Iraq war 'less government impact'?

Which side of your forked tongue are you speaking with today?

[Jennifer]

The Iraq War was inevitable. Since 1991 Saddam had been violating the laws. but I agree, it would have been preferably to just assassinate him and his immediate successors and advisors in the middle of the night. Too bad Bill Clinton made it illegal to use the CIA and Special Forces of the US Military in such activities.

[disrupter]

The reason he wasn't assassinated by the NSA/CIA is because he was to wily for them, using doubles etc.

North Korea has nukes.
Pakistan has nukes.
Iran is certainly getting nukes.

Iraq had NOTHING.

inevitable?

you are a fool.

Bechtel, Halliburton, Blackwater & ex-patriot oil companies just love little gullible fools like you.

[Jennifer]

Iran has more oil then Iraq, I believe. Kuwait would have been easier to knock over.

If you honestly think with oil prices as they are, that this was a war for cheep oil, you're a fool. Then again, you probably vote a straight democrat ticket, so what am I saying, obviously you are a fool.

[Linkster]

Could you point me to that law that he passed (of course we know presidents cant make laws - but his republican congress might of) but Ive never heard of that law - especially since he would have violated it many times when he sent the CIA out to kill people

[Jennifer]

When did Billy send the CIA out to do anything but get evidence on his domestic enemies to shut them up?


And the legislation was signed by him. Maybe the Republicans wrote the law, maybe the Democrats did. He did have a Democrat Congress/Senate in 1992-1994 when Republicans finally got it.

[disrupter]

Iraq has oil that can & is being stolen, where the world community will cast a blind eye when it is handed over to ex-patriot oil companies,

American, Iraqi, blood, death & all.

there NOTHING that justifies the Iraq war, now or then.

Do you base all your political positions on sock puppets?

The iraq war is crazy, was crazy & you ARE crazy to continue supporting it.

it may very easily be the iconic historical death of the American Republican party,
where all their rhetoric was exposed as empty AND corrupt.

it is your blind, stupid, complete unwillingness to accept throwing in the towel that makes all your arguments irrational.

If you are unwilling to say no, then your 'yes' will always be irrational.

[Linkster]

Jennifer - I believe the law you are referring to was actually enacted by Pres Ford in the 1970s after watergate when it came to light that the CIA had tried to take out Castro a few times - the law is reaffirmed by every president and was upheld until Carter and Reagan when they bombed a few places trying to take out some leaders, then Bush I did the same, Clinton did it also and finally Bush II trashed it to send the CIA after Bin Laden and Al Quaeda on the legal advice of one of his advisers that since 4 other presidents had done it he could also

[Jennifer]

Jennifer - I believe the law you are referring to was actually enacted by Pres Ford in the 1970s after watergate when it came to light that the CIA had tried to take out Castro a few times - the law is reaffirmed by every president and was upheld until Carter and Reagan when they bombed a few places trying to take out some leaders, then Bush I did the same, Clinton did it also and finally Bush II trashed it to send the CIA after Bin Laden and Al Quaeda on the legal advice of one of his advisers that since 4 other presidents had done it he could also

Well, I knew it was a law. Only heard about it under the Clinton Administration, so obviously, beings as English is my second language, took that to mean Clinton is the one who signed it.

However, as you said, he DID sign it, he just didn't sign it FIRST.

[Linkster]

Basically - its really not a "law" - its a policy statement - presidents have all kinds of little executive orders they make like what to do in case we are attacked, what you should and shouldnt do as the president. When each one takes over they sign all of them and make what changes they want

These policies are updated every few years to change anything that might not be applicable anymore or if say you want to be able to implement Martial Law - but all the other presidents said you had to have oversight from congress - you can change that directive to say that only you have to say Martial Law and congress has no say in it - and then you sign it and you go merrily on your way waiting for another hurricane to come along :) (BTW - that actually just happened when Bush changed the directive for Martial Law a few months ago - he doesnt have to get congress approval anymore and they dont have any oversight anymore - if he declares martial law - he is instantly made into a dictator legally)
I believe if you would like to see it the white house has a copy on their web site of all of their little presidential directives

[Jennifer]

A policy statement uttered from the Chief Executive (who runs the Attorney's, the Police and the Military) is basically a law. It just hasn't been signed off by the legislature yet.

[Linkster]

A policy statement uttered from the Chief Executive (who runs the Attorney's, the Police and the Military) is basically a law. It just hasn't been signed off by the legislature yet.

wow - you just defined a dictatorship - did you not have to take the citizenship test when you came to the US - we have a constitution that says otherwise

[Jennifer]

wow - you just defined a dictatorship - did you not have to take the citizenship test when you came to the US - we have a constitution that says otherwise


In case you have never read the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it IS a dictatorship. Perfect Socialism under a dictator. Military soldiers do NOT have the rights in the Bill of Rights. They are usually afforded the privalege of using them, but they don't have them.


Furthermore, if you knew anything about how public administrators worked or how elected officials work or how the US Government works, you'd understand that laws are written by Congress, but it is the President who implements them.

Just like a policeofficer not pulling you over for doing 57 in a 55 is setting policy, same with a president who decides that US Attorneys are going to focus on prosecuting rapes more then murders or the US Military is going to use it's budget for new Tanks instead of new Helicopters, etc.

Executive Privilege coupled with an Energetic Executive. Check it out. Both words are used by our fore-fathers when they wrote and described our Constitution.

[mwillman]

Yes and they also wrote much on what a bad presidency would look like and if you bothered to accually study rather then just spew the same old party lines you would know that this president is a dead ringer.

Even the guy that wrote Clintons impeachment agrees. Its just you goose stepping monarchists that seem to disagree.

[Linkster]

I do know exactly how law works - and the president does not implement a single one of them - in the case of a Federal Regulation that is done by the DOJ - which is a separate arm of the government away from the president - why do you think there has been so much stink lately about Gonzales going over that line

I also know the UCMJ - and know that it is not a dictatorship - it is based on British maritime law - but I have no idea why you brought up the rights of a military person under the UCMJ??? - that has nothing to do with the laws that US citizens live under - and the dictatorship you so eloquently defined as existing right now