In the 70's and 80's, the oversight hearings in which my colleagues and I participated held the feet of the Executive Branch to the fire — no matter which party was in power

And they say that conservatives like to harken back to a mythical golden age. Did the Congress really hold Carter's feet to the fire? All the other administrations in the 70s and 80s were Republican.

What would be the reaction if Obama stood up and said, "I cannot, in good conscience, allow onto the Supreme Court a man who has lied to the Senate and written his desire to overturn Roe. Thus, I will fillibuster his appointment with all my ability."

Gore wouldn't sit around and whine, "Oh, I might lose the cloture vote."

Leadership, not corruption!

Oversight is for apostates - it would interfere with the Divine Right of W.

Silly Dems. Only radicals like James Madison would have supported such an unsubservient role for Congress.

Did the Congress really hold Carter's feet to the fire?

It sounds like they did. But if you're skeptical, I'm sure you can do some research and find out for us.

Hell, yes, Congress held Carter's feet to the fire. Congressional Democrats never liked him; Kennedy challenged Carter for the 1980 nomination, doing considerable damage to him.

Yeah, right Kevin. However, just a few days ago the meme seemed to be don't get pulled into a pissing match with the GOP over spying illegally. They will turn it around on the Dems as soft on terror. So, is Gore a leader or not? Or is Gore a Dem problem Kevin? Which is it? By the way where is your guy on this spying thing? What does Gen. Clark think the Dems should do? With Kevin Drum you just can't afford to stand on anything really. If you protest too much it moves too far right. If you just sit back and blame the Democrats for not speaking up when the spying game was told to them then everything in Political Animal will be as it should be. A very in-depth issues blog with no spine attached. I'm sorry Kevein, but fence sitting just seems so "wussy" to me. Is the word impeach too scary for you Kevin?

Tell me Mr. President why I should be afraid. Remind me about the fear. Terrorize me. Again.

It’s about time for the court of public opinion to come into session.

And "the war" goes on forever.

Did Congress really Carter's feet to the fire?

They also battled the Carter administration over the issue of charter legislation for each of the intelligence agencies. Essentially, this proposed legislation would have defined in law precisely the mission of each intelligence agency and the activities each could and could not undertake. The executive branch opposed such definitive legislation, and it eventually succeeded in preventing its enactment. - http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/97unclass/wagenen.html

We are entering an austere budget year. President Carter wants to hold the federal deficit at $29 billion (or less), and there will be far fewer adventurous new programs.

Instead, a good share of the work of this Congress can be expected to shift to the oversight committees in both the House and the Senate -- committees that are there to serve as watchdogs on one or another government functions, agencies or departments...Has the intent of legislation been carried out -- or badly distorted? Is money appropriated by Congress for essential programs being wisely spent -- or wasted? Are agencies that were created for a specific function really performing -- or are they just snowing us? Are the taxpayers getting the most for their money? - Mo Udall (D-AZ), "Congressional Oversight: Making Things Work", March 1979, http://dizzy.library.arizona.edu/branches/spc/udall/congrept/96th/7903.html

Notwithstanding this feature, the percentage of days devoted to oversight actually declined early in the Nixon Administration, even though divided party government continued in effect. (Later in the Nixon Administration, as would be expected, the amount of oversight escalated as his Presidency was embroiled in Watergate, which led to criminal investigations of the President and top White House staff, to high-visibility congressional inquiries, including impeachment proceedings in the House, and eventually to his resignation.) Furthermore, the Carter Administration in 1977, when the Presidency and Congress were controlled by the same political party, witnessed an increase in the number of days of oversight hearings, although the percentage was roughly the same as under his predecessor. - http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/jcoc2at.htm

...the last Senate hearing [on nuclear weapons] was before the Foreign Relations Committee in 1980 (concerning President Carter’s PD-59 on planning for a protracted nuclear war). - http://www.carnegieendowment.org/static/npp/2005conference/presentations/Schwartz.pdf

Google. Try it sometime.

Moaning about the loss of the Constitution -- that was soooooo 2001.

Good Lord, Kevin. You're shilling for Al Gore?! I thought you were interested in helping the Dems craft a majority and actually win some elections. If this is who you think is going to deliver the goods, all I can say is you don't get it. The point is to atract independents, not alienate them.

Chris, you do recall that Gore won the popular vote in 2000, don't you? (i'm not encouraing him to run in 2008, mind you, but yes, i'm all for al gore calling bush out.)

the intresting thing is that gore not only got at the specifics of bushian lawbreaking, he also did what i think that the dems must do: remind the public that terrorism is a threat, but not an existential one that should lead us to panic.

During the period when this eavesdropping was still secret, the President went out of his way to reassure the American people on more than one occasion that, of course, judicial permission is required for any government spying on American citizens and that, of course, these constitutional safeguards were still in place.

But surprisingly, the President's soothing statements turned out to be false.

Hmm ... sarcasm? I also note in the very beginning he referenced common ground with Bob Barr. A person willing to agree on basic principle with those who they greatly disagree on other matters.

Is this not something many independents look for?

Anyway, if Gore showed this much gumption in 2000, he might be President right now.

Anyway, if Gore showed this much gumption in 2000, he might be President right now.

Let's call him a late bloomer, like Carter.

And howard at 8:59: Exactly what I'd have said in response to Chris.

Well, Hoiward handled that for me...Well put.

Has it ever occurred to Algore, that maybe Congress agrees with Bush?

"Let's call him a late bloomer, like Carter."

More like a typical liberal who can trash talk before and after the game, but can't actually win on the field.

More like a typical liberal ...

I love it when Al Gore causes the Bush-following lunatics to blow a fuse... Gore is your your moral better, FF-- you DON'T bad mouth him.

"but can't actually win on the field."

Uh, except he did.

And CSPAN never showed DiFi... I bet she was squirming in her seat during that part of his speach. Throw in a "lazy old Senators" and a finger point and he could have brought the house down.

freedom fighter, that's a nice word choice there, "congress," but what we are told (and you wouldn't want to accuse that nice man playing attorney general of lying, now woudja?) is that they asked Congress and were told that they wouldn't get permission - and went ahead and did it anyhow.

so i'd say that on the face of it, no, congress doesn't agree with bush, although that doesn't mean that the aging money machine can't hammer out a victory if it comes to it.

just like that spectacular medicare prescription drug bill, right?

shortstop, Global Citizen, thankx.

I just finished listening to Al Gore's speech. If you haven't heard it, go to C-span and listen. It's a powerhouse. Passionate, powerful, and detailed. If Gore had spoken like this in the 2000 campaign, he'd be president for real and we would have avoided this nightmare.

I never thought I'd say this, but if he can keep this up, I'd be glad to have him head the Democratic ticket. Maybe with Warner or someone of that stripe in 2nd place.

Gore makes the rest of them sound like trimmers.

The speech took me back to Kennedy days, hearing someone delineate and defend the values we all --well, most of us -- take as bedrock. A fantastic experience to hear.

My pleasure, Howard.

Thanks for taking the lead in the "Whack a Troll" tournament!

More like a typical liberal who can trash talk before and after the game, but can't actually win on the field.

"...this will be a cakewalk..."

"...I'm taking Iraq out..."

"BRING 'EM ON!"

Gosh - Bush is a liberal! Who knew?

Oh, and BTW - you have such an honest name, "Freedom Fighter". It's a pity 'Freedom' keeps on whipping your ass - how long you going to keep fighting it?

I read Gore's speech and listened to parts. It should be listened too or read by every American. It should be shown to every high school civics class tomorrow morning. It is electric and right on point. All you trolls would be well advised to go give it a listen. The voice you would hear would be the voice of a real American patriot. Think your handlers will give you permission? I don't. They don't want you to hear the truth. It might stunt your growth or something.

Globe,

Is it whack a troll night? Hopefully, we can deliver a righteous beat-down.

Watch the whole thing: Al hits it out of the park while covering most of the bases...Should be required viewing for anyone who thinks of themselves as a patriotic American...Well worth the hour spent watching ithe clip (thanks Kev); one part I liked is about a two-minute stretch starting at about 58:30...

...And fuck that weasel Ken Mehlman. "Partisan politics" my ass. Gore just called out yer boy, Kenny...Kenny's gotta come up with something stronger than that...Or can Rove handle 'swift-boating' Murtha and Gore at the same time?...

As for the 'whack-a-troll' tournament, can I play too?

Kevin wrote: "Democratic timidity in the face of a "wartime" president who's not afraid to play the patriot card combined with Republican subservience to a president of their own party has turned Congress into an embarrassing caricature of itself."

Geez, isn't Democratic timidity what many of us have been complaining about for a long time? This is the very reason many of us would like to see a feistier bunch of Democrats in Congress, even if we have to dump the entire batch of incumbents now warming seats there.

There's a hell of lot at stake now but the normal political process has broken down. It's going to take extradordinary efforts to ever get a Democratic majority in either house of Congress again or another Democrat in the White House. I don't see any of the Republican Lite Democrats in Congress now who are able to lead this effort. They clearly need the threat of losing their jobs before they'll acquire the gumption required to even participate in the effort.

BWR--"I just finished listening to Al Gore's speech. If you haven't heard it, go to C-span and listen. It's a powerhouse. Passionate, powerful, and detailed. If Gore had spoken like this in the 2000 campaign, he'd be president for real and we would have avoided this nightmare.

I never thought I'd say this, but if he can keep this up, I'd be glad to have him head the Democratic ticket. Maybe with Warner or someone of that stripe in 2nd place.

Gore makes the rest of them sound like trimmers.

The speech took me back to Kennedy days, hearing someone delineate and defend the values we all --well, most of us -- take as bedrock. A fantastic experience to hear."

Oh,please. I am a believer in the Almighty, but I have my doubts, as does any thinking person. If there is a Diety, he will allow the completely deranged remnants of what used to be Al Gore, Vice-President of the United States, to be the Democratic candidate for President come 2008. Failing that, I beseech Gaia to allow this bloated-face caricature to have as much influence as possible over the Democratic campaign--its focus, rhetoric, and posture. Let it be, Oh Lord.

I don't care if Gore actually runs for president again, but whoever does would be wise to hire him as a speechwriter--this is one of the best I've read in years.

Oh, and I'll take Gore over a bloated moron like George Allen any day. So will most Americans--they already chose him over another moronic Republican once.

I'm up for a rousing round, Pale Rider.

Have you been by Rabbit's place lately?

I have to agree with Poncho up there. One minute we're talking about Democrats not laying into Bush over the NSA because it gives them a chance to be portrayed as "weak" on national security, and now we're castigating politicians that didn't break ranks and infurate the White House by speaking out? Which is it??

Gore was painted with the "wooden wonk" brush early in the 2000 campaign, and Bush was painted with the "affable aristocrat" brush. (Problem is, no real "affable aristocrat" actually exists.)

It didn't matter what he proposed, the frat-boys were jabbing at the dweeb.

alexander, my answer is very simple (can't speak for anyone else): i want dems to criticize bush in precisely the terms that gore used.

the program is lawless, the expansion of presidential power under the guise of his commander-in-chief status for an endless "war" is unconscionable, and the problem of terrorism, while very real, is not the gravest threat we have ever faced and doesn't call for the extraordinary rewriting of the constitution now taking place.

bitching about civil liberties isn't a winner (sadly, but there you have it); bitching about whether it's a good program isn't a winner (even though we should, of course, actually have a clue whether this program is a good or bad idea); but calling the president on lawlessness while re-examing the supposedly unprecedented nature of the threat of terrorism is a position dems should be able to pound home to the satisfaction of a modest majority of the public.

My grandchild just spit up on me for the what?--200th time, but I'm still up for a rousing diatribe against Bushhitler. My husband, who has served his country in the military, begggggsss me to stop this incessant shit(excuse me--crap), but I am compelled to log on and drop a few logs on the current Fascist Regime. I cannot understand the lack of outrage from all right-thinking(no pun intended)Americans. Oops, just got some grand-offspring feces on my hand. What can you do? Pale Rider--If you can draw yourself away from planning your next Star Trek/MST3K convention, I would love to get into this, once AGAIN, with you and secularanimist(whatever that means), et. al. Don't let me down. All I have is you guys, and my unrelenting anger.

That wasn't me at 11:47. Apparently the trolls are desperate.

Al Gore for President! And this time let's inaugurate him, too.

Word, howard.

As an aside: Can anyone explain why conservatives find it amusing to refer to Gore as "Algore"? Not for the first time, I reflect that they're a strange lot.

And I always call it "BushCrimCo" - If you are going to troll me, get it right!

As fun as this could potentially be, vacation is over and it's back to work tomorrow. I gotta go to bed. Any further posts by me will be from my troll.

I like Gore-Kerry in 2008.

This will be an important contest, so let's go with the varsity.

Almost as soon as he lost the election, Gore grew a spine. Too late.

Was it because his stupid handlers deserted him? Or because he wouldn't believe he could lose until it actually happened? Either way, he now strives to channel Clinton and Kennedy. Give him credit--he's a smart guy and he's saying all the right words. Great words, in fact. Whoever the speechwriter is needs to give this material to someone with credibility. Because it's wasted coming from Too Late Boy. EVEN IF GORE HIMSELF is the speechwriter, he needs to give the material to someone else. The material is great. The messenger is crap.

Don't get me wrong ... the words are powerful, the message is compelling, it's precisely what the country needs to hear. But this presentation is a PAINFUL revisit of Gore-Bush, with Gore's inability to get his message out completely emasculating the actual content.

Oh sure. Now he's got a spine. And actually-good advice. But the Democrats better figure out how to package this blockbuster material in a better way - some way that actually makes headlines, some way that makes the prime time newscasts during the week, some way that speaks to actual voters.

"Congress might like it"

FF, are you refering to the current best Congress money can buy?

When is your armored plated tricycle coming off the line in Indiana, so you can repair to Fallujah? Remember, FF, just don't tell.

Gore ain't wooden no more - Take that Kit Seelye and Bumiller.

That wasn't me at 11:47. Apparently the trolls are desperate.

Whoever the idiot is who's posting the fake Global Citizen, or anyone else, at least use a different e-mail address.

This is just the latest in a number of remarkable speechs.

I never thought I'd say this, but if he can keep this up, I'd be glad to have him head the Democratic ticket. Maybe with Warner or someone of that stripe in 2nd place.

Al Gore for President! And this time let's inaugurate him, too.

I like Gore-Kerry in 2008.

Gotta agree with all this. If ever a man were ready for the presidency it is Al Gore now.

But nooooooooooo...... (wail of despair) to Kerry anywhere, anywhere, anywhere near the ticket - absotutely and utterly miserable. Biden too. And heaven save us from Hillary (she seems interested in people as theoretical constructs)

Obama as Vice though would really kick!! OR Jennifer Granholm (if it weren't for that being born in Canada thing) OR Brian Schweitzer.

Course I don't get to vote, just to opine.

brooksfoe, nice post up above. but does this really substantiate the claim of "oversight"? The executive branch opposed such definitive legislation, and it eventually succeeded in preventing its enactment. - That doesn't sound like holding feet to fire. And the quote from Udall is just as much self-promotion as the quote from Gore.

Has it ever occurred to Algore, that maybe Congress agrees with Bush?
Posted by: Freedom Fighter on January 16, 2006 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINK

Hell, I'd agree with Bush if I knew I had hundreds of millions of illegal brib- er, campaign contributions flowing into a smear campaign directed at me. I'd be even more likely to agree if I suspected Bush was using a tens-of-billions-of-taxpayer-dollars secret apparatus dedicated to listening to my phone conversations without judicial oversight. But I'd be especially likely to agree with Bush after noting the stunning regularity with which Democratic lawmakers small planes have fallen out of the sky over the years. . .

Curious (post above at 12:25) has it right. I think the speech was excellent in terms of hitting the right notes re: the future of governance, and how critical that is right now. It's a foundation kind of speech, with the action/tactics not yet hanging from it. But they must be placed there. The Democrat's version of a much improved "Contract with America" can be built from it.

BUT.... Gore is NOT going to come up off the stool and throw the knockout punch after already being cuffed around and beaten by a TKO. There is such a thing as momentum (he does not have it), the alternative to which is to be a "stealth candidate" with a lot of perceived potential (which he could not and cannot be, given his long history in DC and his Clinton dance card).

Let's be candid here. The man failed to beat a candidate that had very little going for him in terms of substance. Gore was probably NOT the best choice then, coming off his service to Clinton, but that's the hand history dealt him. I think he is a good man, but it's kind of like in sports --- scoreboard. Coaches get fired for losing, and they don't go back to the same team.

Giving speeches is an attribute for a POTUS candidate, but just an attribute (not the reason we should fall head over heals in love) and used to be even more important when people were starved for exposure to candidates and would hang on every word. No more. Now the speech is little more than the overture to the next 10 million words of op-eds and online commentary, at least half of which will be full of pushback and putdown.

Fair or not fair, running Gore out there again will be perceived as evidence that the Democrats lack promising new "now" candidates, and are falling back on old strategies of aligning with certain voter blocks and finding comfort in nuance.

I suppose you already can guess how I feel about the other half of that proposed Gore/Kerry '08 ticket. You are pulling our legs here, right? The "varsity"? No, it is the alums. Respected; maybe even revered by some. But no longer eligible to play.

Terry,

couldn't disagree with you more re. Al Gore (though it sounds like we're in agreement re. the junior senator from Mass) It's not the speeches themselves, it's what they reveal of the man, his hopes, his fears and his priorities.

Re. the idea, he's had his shot, I thought stories of redemption, tales of comeback were the staple of America.

I was lukewarm towards Al Gore in 2000 (my support for him more contingent on how George Bush made the hairs on the back of my neck stand absolutely straight up - especially during that creepy interview with him on his "ranch" during the showdown in Florida when he had his face apparently nicked up from a series of shaving accidents) but his eight years in the wilderness have seen him grow in an entirely good way. As for your assertions re momentum, well he has it with me at least and I suspect I am hardly alone on this.

Course I'm a Canuck, just an outsider looking in (it looks like our Liberals btw are going to get a well-deserved kick in the backside next week; hopefully, some time in the wilderness will do them good as well).

Course I'm a Canuck, just an outsider looking in (it looks like our Liberals btw are going to get a well-deserved kick in the backside next week; hopefully, some time in the wilderness will do them good as well).

Even if it puts the Bush-clone Harper in the saddle? Maybe it's just me, but putting the Dems in the wilderness only got them more lost. I fear for the Canadian Liberals if they wind up in the same boat.

I fear for the Canadian Liberals if they wind up in the same boat.

No. I don't think the Consevatives will do too much damage - in essence in Canada the Liberals are the natural ruling party. We occasionally kick them out for a term or two then let them back in for three or four or five... They do need their time out of power though. I'm actually glad in a way (though I won't be voting Conservative!) to see that the Conservatives can pull this off. For a time it looked like they were never going to get their act together and the Liberals were beginning to get way too much of a sense of invulnerablility.

But I wouldn't worry. Last time we let the Conservatives in ended with the Conservatives in the next election going from 169 to 2 seats IIRC. And while this unlikely to be repeated (some of the factors leading to this such as the emergence of the Bloc Quebecois cannot be replicated) this is still more likely to be a conservative interregnum than mark a political shift. It's likely to be a minority government (with perhaps under 35% of the vote), with limited room to manouever and unless Harper surprises in a positive way (which wouldn't be a bad thing), unlikely to survive more than one term. And Harper and the party itself have moved considerably to the centre - our conservatives are not your conservatives. Harper, for instance, has promised not to send Canadian troops to Iraq (although his does look like he wants to revisit the issue of Canadian participation in a continental missile shield) and not to revisit abortion. I won't be enthusiastic about Harper, but I can live through him and look forward to one day having a leader I can be enthusiastic about (Martin is not it!!).

Re. the wilderness, I find parties are more likely to get lost in power than out of power. I mean look at the current Republicans, they are absolutely naked and have nothing left other than a pretense of a philosophy). Though I will admit the Democratics seem to be giving the UK's Conservatives a good run at trying to be a party getting ever more lost (the leaders, anyway). Actually, though, I do think the worm has turned in your case.

杭州饭店
杭州饭店预定
杭州酒店住宿
携成网杭州旅馆价格
杭州香格里拉饭店
浙江世界贸易中心大酒店
杭州国际大厦雷迪森广场酒店
杭州五洲大酒店
杭州华美达广场杭州海华大酒店
杭州新侨饭店
杭州之江饭店
杭州华辰国际饭店
杭州海外海·西溪宾馆
杭州南线大酒店
杭州浙江梅地亚宾馆
杭州天鸿饭店
杭州黄龙饭店
杭州浙江文华大酒店
杭州香溢大酒店
杭州新世纪大酒店
杭州红星文化大厦酒店
杭州浙江大酒店
杭州皇冠大酒店
杭州中洲大酒店
杭州新新饭店
杭州西湖饭店
杭州中豪大酒店
杭州花家山庄
杭州大酒店
杭州天杭大酒店
杭州百合花饭店
浙江饭店
杭州五洋宾馆
杭州湾大酒店
杭州中山大酒店
杭州孔雀大厦
杭州如家客栈（体育场路店）
杭州如家快捷酒店（莫干山店）
杭州玉皇山庄

国际机票
北京国际机票
国际航班
国际特价机票
北京国际机票
上海国际机票

For the first time in who knows how long, I am actually proud to be an American. I cried at this speech--especially because I was talking about some of the same stuff to someone yesterday. We are "in thrall" and need to snap out of it. Thank goodness--you go, Al.

Well,
I like Gore's speeches in 92, too. Then he played puppy dog to the centrists. He had a lot of good stuff to say in 2000, too. Then he choked. As bad as the media coverage was, if he had fought through to the end, he could have built up an invicible lead and won by a large margin. Trying to coast to a victory was suicide.
I don't trust him. He's sure to wimp out again --just like Kerry and his damned month-long vacation.

Go Gore. Gore in '08!

Ah Mickey Spittle, you ran away to this thread.

Don't you mean Abdul Hadi Awang in 08? or maybe Ong Ka Ting? Most likely Ong Ka TIng... Definitely not Wan Azizah Wan Ismail but...

Not very exciting, is it?

Let me go out on a limb. I'll lay odds it's gonna be Badawi again.

Is there ever a chance of UNMO ever, ever, ever losing a national "election" in Malaysia? (and ending the punishment of states such as Sabah when they step out of electoral line?). Not that American democracy as currently practiced is much better but at least there is a pretense that an election should be more than show...

Oh and I second your call (again)...

AL GORE (AND KEVIN, SEE NO DEMOCRAT EVIL DRUM) FORGET HOW MUCH THEY JUST LOVED SPYING ON AMERICANS DURING THE CLINTON YEARS.

AL GORE WAS FOR SPYING ON AMERICANS , BEFORE HE WAS AGAINST IT!

In the February, 2000 60 Minutes story, former spy Mike Frost made clear that Echelon monitored practically every conversation – no matter how seemingly innocent – during the Clinton years.

“A lady had been to a school play the night before, and her son was in the school play and she thought he did a-a lousy job. Next morning, she was talking on the telephone to her friend, and she said to her friend something like this, ‘Oh, Danny really bombed last night,’ just like that. The computer spit that conversation out. The analyst that was looking at it was not too sure about what the conversation w-was referring to, so erring on the side of caution, he listed that lady and her phone number in the database as a possible terrorist.”

“This is not urban legend you’re talking about. This actually happened?” Kroft asked.

“Factual. Absolutely fact. No legend here.”

Even as the Times defended Echelon as “a necessity” in 1999, evidence already existed that electronic surveillance had previously been misused by the Clinton Administration for political purposes. Intelligence officials told Insight Magazine in 1997 that a 1993 conference of Asian and Pacific world leaders hosted by Clinton in Seattle had been spied on by U.S. intelligence agencies. Further, the magazine reported that information obtained by the spying had been passed on to big Democrat corporate donors to use against their competitors. The Insight story added that the mis-use of the surveillance for political reasons caused the intelligence sources to reveal the operation.

“The only reason it has come to light is because of concerns raised by high-level sources within federal law-enforcement and intelligence circles that the operation was compromised by politicians—includingmid- and senior-level White House aides—either on behalf of or in support of President Clinton and major donor-friends who helped him and the Democratic National Committee, or DNC, raise money.”

So, during the Clinton Administration, evidence existed (all of the information used in this article was available at the time) that:

-an invasive, extensive domestic eavesdropping program was aimed at every U.S. citizen;

-intelligence agencies were using allies to circumvent constitutional restrictions;

-and the administration was selling at least some secret intelligence for political donations.

These revelations were met by the New York Times and others in the mainstream media by the sound of one hand clapping. Now, reports that the Bush Administration approved electronic eavesdropping, strictly limited to international communications, of a relative handful of suspected terrorists have created a media frenzy in the Times and elsewhere.

GORE EVEN PASSED NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE DATA TO BIG WIG DEMOCRAT DONORS AND THE DNC.

SHOULDN'T WE REALLY BE IMPEACHING AL GORE???

Howard YANKS ONE:

"""Chris, you do recall that Gore won the popular vote in 2000"""

Just what is the 'popular' vote? is that like a concellation prize or something?? Ohh, Gore won most congenial. Ha ha ha ah

Gore also won the dead people vote, the felon vote and the ever popular, most likely to die in a hostage shoot out and most likely to be shot by his own troops votes.

Ha

You guys are sooo funny

A Patton Montage: LOVE... SUCKING... Massive... YANKS

um, yeah... right (Pat, I think you're right about this one)

Alice my screechinomious friend, I'm all for bombing eschelon (think that combo'll warrant an alert?) too. It has no place in the country I'd like (and my government participated too). But I'll discuss it with someone with at least an inkling of respect for facts. You my harpy dear, are not it.

Watch or read all of Gore's speech, Patton, then get back to us with more of your inane blather...

Gores a complete idiot.....is he even aware that FDR illegal arrested and interred THOUSANDS people of Japanese descent before he claims no past war led to violations of civil liberties...IS HE ON CRACK???

EVEN THE ACLU COULDN'T STOMACH THE CLINTON/GORE VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL LIBERITIES, CALLING THEM THE MOST WIRETAP HAPPY ADMINSTRATION IN HISTORY.

ACLU Launches Web Site On Global Surveillance System (11/16/1999)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact:
Tuesday, November 16, 1999 DC Media Relations Office

WASHINGTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union today launched a web site designed to shed light on a global electronic surveillance system known by the code name "Echelon" that reportedly allows the United States and other governments to eavesdrop on private citizens.

"Echelon is perhaps the most powerful intelligence gathering network in the world," said Barry Steinhardt, Associate Director of the ACLU. "But it is still very much a black box, which apparently operates without the oversight of Congress or the courts."

The website -- www.echelonwatch.org -- encourages public discussion of the potential threat that Echelon poses to civil liberties, and allows visitors to fax free letters to Congress, urging their support for a congressional inquiry into the Echelon project. It also provides a collection of research documents on Echelon.

After many years of reports by investigative journalists, the existence of Echelon became an international issue when the European Parliament received two reports detailing its operations and after the Australian government confirmed its participation in the operation. According to those reports, Echelon is led by the U.S. National Security Agency in conjunction with its counterpart agencies in England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Echelon reportedly attempts to capture all satellite, microwave, cellular and fiber-optic communications worldwide, including communications to and from North America. Computers then use sophisticated filtering technology to sort through conversations, faxes and emails searching for keywords or other flags. Communications that include the flags are then forwarded to the intelligence agency that requested them. The report to the European Parliament charged that Echelon had been used in the United Kingdom to spy on charities such as Amnesty International and Christian Aid.

"Echelon can no longer be dismissed as an X-Files fantasy," Steinhardt said. "The reports to the European Parliament make it quite clear that Echelon exists and that its operation raises profound civil liberties issues."

The NSA has refused to share with Congress and the public the legal guidelines for the project. This refusal prompted passage of a bill, now in the final stages before becoming law, requiring the intelligence agencies to prepare a report on the legal standards they use for monitoring communications. Within the next few months, the U.S. House Government Reform and Oversight Committee will hold hearings on Echelon.

"It appears that the U.S. government is once again spying on Americans' private communications," said Gregory T. Nojeim, a legislative counsel in the ACLU's Washington National Office. "Congress must determine if Echelon is as sweeping and intrusive as has been reported, and most importantly, it must ensure that Americans' conversations are not intercepted without a court order."

The ACLU created and administers the site in conjunction with the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Omega Foundation of Great Britain, which prepared the first report to the European Parliament.

Obama on the ticket is a superb idea. In fact, if Gore doesn't run or cools, Obama just might do it. The guy has the magic, and he could give a speech with the same themes as Gore's, and make it sail. People would believe him.

It makes you wonder if Algore even knows what his own adminstraion was upto.

DOES ALGORE KNOW THAT RENDITION OF TERRORISTS TO COUNTIES THAT TORTURE BEGAN UNDER CLINTON/GORE???

DOES ALGORE KNOW THAT CLINTON ASKED SAUDI ARABIA (A KNOWN TORTURE STATE) TO TAKE OSAMA BIN LADEN IF WE CAPTURED HIM IN THE SUDAN???

Extraordinary Rendition - FACT SHEET (12/6/2005)
ACLU

Beginning in the early 1990s the Clinton/GORE, Central Intelligence Agency, together with other U.S. government agencies, has utilized an intelligence-gathering program involving the transfer of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism to detention and interrogation in countries where -- in the CIA's view -- federal and international legal safeguards do not apply. Suspects are detained and interrogated either by U.S. personnel at U.S.-run detention facilities outside U.S. sovereign territory or, alternatively, are handed over to the custody of foreign agents for interrogation. In both instances, interrogation methods are employed that do not comport with federal and internationally recognized standards. This program is commonly known as "extraordinary rendition."

The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton and AL GORE.

GEE AL, SHOULD YOU NOT HAVE RESIGNED WHEN CLINTON IMPELMENTED HIS TORTURE BY THIRD COUNTRY POLICY???

ou will be able to play some great table games all for free! Click for a preview and youll find a host of poker and more fun games of chance and skill available for free, that you can play right on your desktop.

here's an excerpt that probably won't get the attention it deserves:

Congratulations!

You've picked the one part that actually DID get covered.

You're ready for prime time, Drum. Totally lacking in any insight, you are ready to get paid for your insight.

Way to go.

Democratic timidity

I don't think it's timidity so much as plain old fashioned not-doing-your-jobbity. On both sides, not just dems. If Bush briefed any of congress on this, as the people's reps they should have raised all of the questions that are now being raised, and done so back when they found out. Who was the 'tard senator who said he was unqualified to judge the material? Kripes. Gore got that one right.

On both sides, not just dems.

Well, to be fair--when you can't get the committee that you're serving on to do anything except protect the administration, there's a real problem.

Democrats like John Conyers have repeatedly called for investigations--which are within the oversight purview of Congress--and he can't get the Republicans to budge.

No one is suggesting that every time a Democrat says 'let's investigate' that the Republicans should jump up and down and say, 'heck yeah!'

I'm thinking they should have been looking into vehicle armor and body armor sometime in late 2003, and that would have been a good thing. But since then, Democrats have been trying to perform some sort of oversight on the DoD; the Republicans have been scrambling to cover Rumsfeld's ass since day one.

The case for Gore-Kerry.

These guys both came as close to winning as is possible to do without being sworn in. If you imagine that Bush was a pushover, then you can fault them, but there is little evidence that Bush--or his brother--is a pushover. My guess is that any other Democrat would have been beaten worse, both times.

But I don't know what WOULD have happened, and neither do you. What DID happen is that both men piled up huge vote totals.

Suppose JFK had lost to Nixon? Would that have meant that he should never have run again?

The country will still be at war, and voters are more likely to trust two experienced names than a new face. Warner looks good now, but we have to imagine how he will look after the GOP smear machine cranks up. These attacks don't last forever, but they usually last until the day of the election. John McCain, for example, is now the most popular Republican in South Carolina.

Both Gore and Kerry have taken all that could be thrown at them and are still standing. The voters (as distinguished from the activists) know generally like them.

The weakest part of the Gore and Kerry tickets were their respective running mates, neither of whom could throw a punch in part because they were so recently introduced to the voters. Kerry is an honest-to-god war hero and everyone knows it. He would be a very effective attack dog, and god knows he has the motivation.

As liberals, we are always ready to try something new, but to win conservative votes, let's try the tried and true.

One thing Gore can offer Americans that no other candidate can is the ability to do it over. The nineties were an excellent time for most Americans, and then we went and elected these malevolent incompetents, and have had most of a decade of economic malaise, unprecedented corruption, and needless war.

Well, we're sorry. We made the wrong choice and we want to go back and choose differently.

And Gore can offer that, and frame his message accordingly. We can once again have a time of responsible, intelligent, honest government. Government that doesn't [insert interminable list of Republican failures here].

There are some long years before '08, but if Gore has learned how to keep the fire in his belly he could certainly win, and win big. Remember, they can only steal it again if it's close.

One thing Gore can offer Americans that no other candidate can is the ability to do it over.

Heck. Gore could be the first President since FDR to win three elections.

And he has the fire.

snicker-snack

Al Gore has gone whacko! There's no shot of him running again. Even his friends in the press realize he's gone off the deep end. He's been on the wrong side of every issue starting with his comically mismanaged voter recount. What is about to get worse for him is his long record of insane ranting on the environment. He was the champion of Kyoto and it's on the verge of total collapse. Sure 30% of the population think that's a tradegy but 70% knew it was a dumb deal to begin with. Few treaties get voted down 95 - 0.

As we now know Steve Harper and the Conservatives in Canada are running double digit leads in the polls 6 days from the election and after a very public statement of intent to pull out of Kyoto. They pulled into the lead AFTER that annoouncement. This was only a few weeks after Bill Clinton made his impassioned plea to the Kyoto faithful to keep at it. We're going to have an ecological disaster all-right. 95% of the eco-freaks living off of Kyoto are going to have to find real jobs.

None of this will be happening immediately. Harper will maximize the political advantage by waiting to see how far over their limits the Camadians are and how much this liberal scheme will cause the Canadian people to pay to the Russians so they can drill even more. Kyoto is going to be held up for the ridicule it so richly deserves just as you think Albert should take a higher profile. Perfect timing!

Even consider the irony of advancing the cause of the guy who invented the internet knowing how much damage this interent has caused liberals? (Think Dan Rather and Sam Alito) I get none of my news from the MSM

Al Gore has gone whacko! There's no shot of him running again.

Since the opposite is always true in rdw world, Gore must have done something right yesterday.

Al Gore showed America what a responsible adult looks like. But for Ralph Nader, America could have had a responsible adult as President, not a puppet controlled by Karl Rove.

I agree that this part about Congress not fulfilling it's Constitutional duties of overseeing the President's actions was a strong, but easily overlooked point. The whole speech was one really good point after another. It may have suffered from information overload. But given the wide scope and sheer number of Bush crimes, Gore no doubt felt compelled to cover as many as he could.

Pale Rider, Snicker-snack,

If you are going to dig up a dinosaur like Albert why not try Teddy? Here's why the interent Al invented is so destructive for liberals. This news will make Talk Radio and Fox again and again and again. You just can't make this stuff up.

HIGH-FRICK'N-LARIOUS

Ted Kennedy is going to quit an organization he's been a member of for five decades -- and to which he still pays dues -- because he's just discovered that it discriminates against women. When Kennedy tried to smear Alito as a sexist, critics noted the Senator belongs to an all-male group called the Owl Club. In 1984 Harvard cut ties to the group because of legislation Kennedy sponsored but he remained a member nonetheless.

But here's the best part. He says he will quit, “as fast as I can.”

Because, you know, the Owl Club is like one of those LA gangs where you gotta walk the line of a beat down by other members and so it takes a while to get in good enough shape to quit.

Oh, he also says that he "probably" couldn't pass muster on the Judiciary Committee himself.

Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.

Courtesy of nationalreviewonline.com

Steve High. I won't change your mind, but I would like to point out the flip side of your Gore/Kerry proposal. The spirit of my comments is, "let's look at this from all possible angles".

I don't think Bush was a pushover, but he was poorly qualified. Bush got people to overlook that. Gore's job was to expose that "empty suit" thing and look better than ever by comparison. He (Gore) was obviousy better qualified (resume-wise) but enough people didn't buy. I'm capable of imagining (and voting for) a "new improved version", but more leery of imagining a voter reaction like "there you go again." Those of us on this site are not typical voters.

"Suppose JFK had lost to Nixon? Would that have meant that he should never have run again?" He didn't, so it is hypothetical. But, Kennedy had a charisma and vision that Gore never came close to articulating. He didn't do that in this speech either, not that he HAD to. To paraphrase: "I voted for John F. Kennedy, and you are no JFK, Mr. Gore." Kennedy was indeed the poster child for "fresh face" was he not?

As for the "at war" argument, And, Kerry was portrayed as thinking we needed to use a law enforcement approach, not an "eradicate them" approach. Kerry has more of a problem here than Gore, but the Clinton administration's record on combating terror is not very stellar.

"Both Gore and Kerry have taken all that could be thrown at them and are still standing. The voters .... generally like them." Kerry has returned to the only job he has had long term, one of 100 senators and representing a liberal state. Gore is out of the mainstream in politics, looking back in through the window.

If Kerry is an honest-to-God war hero, I missed that part of his resume. War heroes don't work the system to get back to an office job and tout their battlefield action. Let's just say, "he served" and leave it at that. I don't think we want to crank up the Swift Boaters all over again. And I don't think serving in the military is much of a qualification for being POTUS, although it CAN be a nice resume builder if someone is a high ranking officer (Eisenhower; Clark) in terms of showing an ability to "run something".

"Conservative votes" is not what this is about. "Fed up with Bush" votes is what this is about. The LAST thing people like me need is evidence that there is no new blood, or new thinking, on the Democrat side.

But for Ralph Nader, America could have had a responsible adult as President, not a puppet controlled by Karl Rove.

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Ralph was there and clowns like Tim Robbins promoted him. I suspect Timmy is none too happy about that one today. The good news is Ralph refuses to go away. He owns that whacko core the left needs to have a prayer of winning elections. Here's the bad news. They're all getting old. These are the 60's freaks. Many of them are moving into their 70's and they just don't make them that way anymore Even since Dick Nixon created the EPA and gave it teeth this country is getting cleaner by the day.

It's not the issue you want it to be and the small segment still enamored shrinks every day. At some point you need to realize this is a new century.

rdw: Even consider the irony of advancing the cause of the guy who invented the internet knowing how much damage this interent has caused liberals?

Still promoting the Al Gore invented the internet lie, I see.

Ho-Hum.

GOP loses another one at the Supreme Court: Oregon's assisted suicide law upheld & Scalia and Thomas once again prove what liars they are when it comes to discussing their own claimed judicial philosophy which they ignore anytime it conflicts with the outcome they desire.

rdw: I get none of my news from the MSM.

We know. You get all of your news from WhiteHouse.gov and that mendacious rag National Review.

Which is why 99% of what you post is lies.

rdw: Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.

rdw is morally and intellectually unavailable, still pushing swill as truth and defaming Kennedy.

Ho-Hum.

Bush 44% approval and going nowhere fast.

DOW once again falling and going nowhere fast.

rdw lying again and again and going nowhere fast.

rdw: traitor, liar, and hypocrite.

All rolled up into one.

Even since Dick Nixon created the EPA and gave it teeth this country is getting cleaner by the day.

What dementia must feel like, only rdw can tell us.

It must be comforting to those people in West Texas who have to live in the shadow of chemical processing plants that cause their kids asthma to know that Dick Nixon solved their problems. Of course, those same people will continue to vote Republican right along with dementia sufferer rdw as the chemical companies shove wads of cash down Karl Rove's pants and get exemptions from the now-gutted EPA to spew poison into the atmosphere.

Spew poison...spew poison...I knew rdw was good for something.

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

No one cares which family member is currently sodomizing you, rdw.

Pale rider,

Sorry, the environment is getting demonstrably cleaner. The air, land and water are all much cleaner and getting cleaner every day. As the wealthiest country in the world we have more to invest and we are doing so. After 30-yrs experience we're getting better at it as well. We create a lot less pollution and we're cleaning it up faster. Even today the Philly papers are covering a big story about the development of the waterfront. The Delaware River is the cleanest it's been in 150 years and they're making sure it gets even cleaner.

Even today the Philly papers are covering a big story about the development of the waterfront. The Delaware River is the cleanest it's been in 150 years and they're making sure it gets even cleaner.

Notice how I mentioned West Texas and ignorant ass rdw took it to mean his own backyard?

Who runs Philadelphia, by the way, rdw? Who runs Pennsylvania? In fact, who's run both for the last decade?!?

Democratic governor Ed Rendell.

The EPA didn't clean up Philly; Ed Rendell did.

Among his many accomplishments as Mayor, Mr. Rendell eliminated a $250 million deficit; balanced the City's budget and generated five consecutive budget surpluses; reduced business and wage taxes for four consecutive years; implemented new revenue-generating initiatives, and dramatically improved services to the City's neighborhoods. The New York Times called the Philadelphia renaissance under Rendell “the most stunning turnaround in recent urban history.”

Dubbed “America's Mayor” by Al Gore, then-mayor Rendell worked tirelessly to revive Philadelphia's economy and position it as a destination city. During the Rendell administration, Philadelphia saw the end of six years of job losses and enjoyed six straight years of job gains. Philadelphia is nationally and internationally recognized for its enhanced historical tourist attractions, a thriving downtown, and a vibrant Convention Center.

Remember, if Al Gore says he's a good guy, he must be.

What say you now, dementia-boy?

Thanks for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that we can hang you with your own words and reduce you to shamefaced lies and bullshit without even trying.

rdw: Sorry, the environment is getting demonstrably cleaner.

Due to legislation by Democratic congresses.

A clean environment doesn't happen overnight. It is the result of years of implementation of Democratic legistlation.

It is the GOP that is trying to undo that and the effects will be felt years from now as they roll back environmental efforts.

Once again, you lie.

It's not the issue you want it to be and the small segment still enamored shrinks every day.

That segment could shrink for 100 years and not be as small as your brains and balls combined.

Democratic governor Ed Rendell.

I firmly believe if hte dems want to get back in charge on the national stage, it needs to do so from the states, not from the senate or congress. The best dems can do in Washington right now is be obstructive. No matter how correct that obstruction might (be percieved to) be, its still a form of whining. And everybody hates a whiner.

In the states and cities they run, they can be constructive and lay rightful claim to it. All the difference in the world. Just don't use Kathleen Blanco as an example.

Red State Mike,

Hold on--rdw us trying to think of a reason to link Ed Rendell to moveon.org and the Black Panthers.

A really good Democratic ticket in 2008 would be Mark Warner-Ed Rendell. How much more 'competence' could you get?

In 2000 Gore was the bigger man and he proofs in 2006 he still is the bigger man. He is heads taller than Bush.

His speech was great, he knows and believes what he said.

Bush gave a speech too, but no one talks about it. What did he say, did anyone see it? Could we compare and see them side by side? We could see the incompetence of the little man who is president and the competence of the man who was elected in 2000.

Red State Mike: I firmly believe if hte dems want to get back in charge on the national stage, it needs to do so from the states, not from the senate or congress.

More advice for Democrats from someone who hates Democrats.

Just pretend Red State Mike is the scorpion in the tale of the Scorpion and the Frog.

Red State Mike,

the dems need to be a true red blooded opposition, do what is good for the country and the hell with worrying about the next election. That is not obstructionist, that is what democracy is all about.

Just pretend Red State Mike is the scorpion in the tale of the Scorpion and the Frog.

Ah, dear Advocate, you are quite correct; RSM is the scorpion.

But remember that the scorpion teaches us many things, and when he is no longer useful, he stings himself in the abdomen and cries out in pain for his country, and then he falls alone on the field of battle, bemoaning the lack of grace amongst the multitudes that he has defeated and the shame of those who have forgotten to erect a white granite obilisk to mark the place where he fell.

Or not, I dunno.

A "revised" version of the story of the frog and the scorpion has the scorpion saying this (I had to add the bracketed text also since conservatives truly do care about their own lives, and only their own lives) . . .

"I am not like you; we don't care about [others] dying or making friends. We lie and sting. It is our nature, didn't you know that?"

Isn't this a direct quote from the Bush administration and one that the Red State Mikes and rdws of the world embrace?

the dems need to be a true red blooded opposition, do what is good for the country and the hell with worrying about the next election. That is not obstructionist, that is what democracy is all about.

Hey, fine. Read what I wrote...that the obstructionism may well be what is most needed from the dems in congress. Everyone should be doing their part. Cool.

But, that's not the point of my post. The point is, along the lines of people talking about who should run in 2008, is that you should look to the states where democrats have been able to demonstrate constructive actions through their leadership and having their hand on the tiller (vice back seat driving) that they can take credit for. Frankly, that one deserves a hearty "duh". I live in PA, and I generally like Rendell.

And Advocate for God (why'd you stop using Conspiracy Is Nuts, by the way? Figured out it was stupid to name yourself after a conservative?) You are THE BIGGEST moron on this blog. You single-handedly and repeatedly lower the group average IQ of liberals in threads by 10 points with your mere presence.

Cheers!

You are THE BIGGEST moron on this blog. You single-handedly and repeatedly lower the group average IQ of liberals in threads by 10 points with your mere presence.

Advocate is actually brilliant, and rdw is the stupidest sumbitch on this blog, bar none.

Red State Mike: You are THE BIGGEST moron on this blog.

Better than being the biggest liar, like you and rdw compete to be!

Cheers!

:-)

I LOVE IT!

BTW, I was "Advocate" before I was "conspiracy".

PS, look up the word "mockery" - it will be instructive for you.

rdw is the stupidest sumbitch on this blog, bar none.

Don't be pickin' on my relatives...

Thanks for the defense, Pale Rider!

But "brilliant" may be going a bit of an overstatement.

Let's just say I'm a competent aggravating thorn in the side of Bush and conservative apologists who can't seem to get their terms, facts, history, or logic straight.

Don't be pickin' on my relatives...

rdw: a Navy veteran who admitted to shortstop that he lied to his children about the service medals that he was awarded while serving on an Atlantic fleet supply vessel.

RSM: a Navy veteran who has served honorably, and will continue to do so.

You guys ain't related.

Bush gave a speech too, but no one talks about it. What did he say, did anyone see it? Could we compare and see them side by side?
From what I saw, Bush gave a completely dutiful but uninspired speech yesterday to honor Dr. Martin Luther King and his unfinished legacy, full of his trademark smirk. He looked like he would rather be on the ranch watching reruns of Bonanza. The audience at the Kennedy Center probably had to be electro-shocked at the end to politely applaud.

Al Gores BIGGEST job was running the airline safety commission during the Clinton years.

He declared airlines safe rom terrorism and made no requirements for the airlones to increase security, hardened cockpit doors, etc.

Of course he declared airline travel safe after substantial donations to the DNC from those same airlines.

DON'T BELIEVE ME...GO LOOK IT UP.