Al Gore not running for President

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
I really don't think he would of had much of a chance at the nomination as he is rather bizarre, but I do agree with at least 50% of the things he would of done different than the wackos we got in the oval office now



STOCKHOLM, Sweden - Former Vice President Al Gore said Wednesday he had no intention of ever running for president again, but he said the United States would be "a different country" if he had won the 2000 election, launching into a scathing attack of the Bush administration.

"I have absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a candidate again," Gore told reporters after giving a speech at an economic forum in Sweden.

When asked how the United States would have been different if he had become president, though, he had harsh criticism for Bush's policies.

"We would not have invaded a country that didn't attack us," he said, referring to Iraq. "We would not have taken money from the working families and given it to the most wealthy families."

"We would not be trying to control and intimidate the news media. We would not be routinely torturing people," Gore said. "We would be a different country."

Gore did not elaborate. But last year, he blamed Bush administration policies for the inmate abuse scandal at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Mike Feldman, Gore's spokesman, did not immediately comment on Gore's remark when reached by phone in Washington.

Tracey Schmitt, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, called Gore's comments "fictitious rants that border on dangerous."

"To accuse Americans of participating in 'routine torture' is absurd and reveals that while Al Gore may no longer be a leader in his party, he still embodies the maniacal anger that guides Democrat leaders in Washington today," Schmitt wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

Gore also reiterated his criticism that the Bush administration was too slow in responding to the crisis in New Orleans after the city's levees failed during Hurricane Katrina. He said that should have been predicted.

"There were specific warnings that the levees might break," he said. "But for whatever reason those warnings were not acted upon in a timely way."

He said the United States and other countries are similarly ignoring the threats that global warning pose to the environment.

"My country is extremely attentive to the slightest increase in a risk from terror, and that's appropriate," he said. "But why should we be so tolerant of risk where the future habitability of our planet is concerned?"

Gore, who now runs a cable TV channel and is the chairman of an investment company, did not completely shut the door to future political endeavors.

"I don't completely rule out some future interest, but I don't expect to have that," Gore said.

He declined to comment on New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's possible run for the White House in 2008, but he said he believes the country is ready for a female president.

"Of course a woman could get elected president," he said. "I am not going to make any comment on individual candidates. It's quite premature."
 

Palehose

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 22, 2005
590
1
0
Doh !!!!!! Again if ya havent figured out yet that Hillary will represent the Dems in 2008 yet you really have no buisness posting here... really everybody figured this out back in 2000 to 2002
 

Clem D

Mad Pisser
Forum Member
May 26, 2004
11,277
31
0
53
Long Branch NJ
Palehose.. Care to make a friendly wager that she does not get the Nomination? She maybe on the ticket.. but not in the top spot.

Most Dem boosters know she can't win and are tired of supporting a loser.
 

Palehose

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 22, 2005
590
1
0
Clem D said:
Palehose.. Care to make a friendly wager that she does not get the Nomination? She maybe on the ticket.. but not in the top spot.

Most Dem boosters know she can't win and are tired of supporting a loser.


What ever you want to lose bro name it ! :mj07:
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,483
157
63
Bowling Green Ky
When asked how the United States would have been different if he had become president, though, he had harsh criticism for Bush's policies.

"We would not have invaded a country that didn't attack us," he said, referring to Iraq. "We would not have taken money from the working families and given it to the most wealthy families."

---Seems he's in line with Kerry-Shroader and Chirac--and we found out why Shroader and Chirac--per oil for food payoffs--evidently he wouldn't have invaded Afgan either--The WORLD would be diff had he been pres during Germany.

--Tax interpretation-- he would have no tax cuts but maybe increases per his past voting record.

"We would not be trying to control and intimidate the news media. We would not be routinely torturing people," Gore said. "We would be a different country."

--Yep we'd be a diff country as would Afgan-Iraq-Lybia-Pakistan-N Korea ect. Believe he was vice pres during Clinton tenure and we see what that dynamic duo accomplished on war on terror and the result.

Would Palestine be fighting Hezbalah--who'd have thought--Would UN and Lemenon be putting heat on Syria--Syrian Interior Minister Ghazi Kanaan has committed suicide in his office, officials said, three weeks after being questioned by a UN team investigating the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri

Yep Lots of historical changes in middle east--however appears some still prefer the "old days" Damn sure the terrorists-UBL-- and Saddam & sons did !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
We obviously would have invaded Afghanistan no matter who was Prez. We probably would have gone quicker in fact and with more troops. Maybe we would have even captured Osama. Who knows, a different prez may have paid more attention to the 9-11 memos to begin with.

I just don't see how even staunch Bush supporters can't recognize how badly he's managed the country. Y'all keep claiming someone else would be much worse. I just don't see how that can be true.
 

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
"We would not have invaded a country that didn't attack us," he said, referring to Iraq. "We would not have taken money from the working families and given it to the most wealthy families."


Are you misreading what the guy said? Of course he would of went into Afghanistan since they were responsible for 9/11. He is implying that he would have not went into Iraq since they had not attacked us nor was there any terrorist links between Iraq and the USA.

Yep we'd be a diff country as would Afgan-Iraq-Lybia-Pakistan-N Korea ect. Believe he was vice pres during Clinton tenure and we see what that dynamic duo accomplished on war on terror and the result.


With the exception of Lybia all of the other countries that you listed are still unstable and Iraq has become a training ground for terrorists. You forgot to list Saudi Arabia as a terror source since they are the main money players that support terror, and I think Gore would of at least pointed this out as would any other sane person.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,483
157
63
Bowling Green Ky
"We obviously would have invaded Afghanistan no matter who was Prez. We probably would have gone quicker in fact and with more troops. Maybe we would have even captured Osama."

"With the exception of Lybia all of the other countries that you listed are still unstable and Iraq has become a training ground for terrorists. You forgot to list Saudi Arabia as a terror source since they are the main money players that support terror, and I think Gore would of at least pointed this out as would any other sane person."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If memrory serves me correctly they were offered UBL and refused?? Yep they might have invaded Afgan (like Somolia) and ran at 1st hint of pressure AGAIN. You can bet one thing they would submit to any presure from media or protestors if they thought it ment 1 vote.

and on Saudi --would you like me to put up once again the terrorist they captured or killed since 2000 ???--and you put up the ones captured or killed prior???

And about the terrorist congregating in Iraq---don't know about you but I'd much rather be fighting the bulk of em in one country than have them train openly all over the world--especially in light of having Iraqi support as well.Much easier to have them come to you than seeking them out in surrounding countries--wouldn't you think?

and one final note on Gore/Liberals and Media

Have read several papers of other countries and many carrying his quote---
this one from Sweden--
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051012/D8D6N2081.html
""We would not be trying to control and intimidate the news media. We would not be routinely torturing people," Gore said. "We would be a different country."

Now you tell me---are liberals looking out for OUR country or a political agenda.Case Closed
 
Last edited:

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Clem, I have to say at this point I think Hillary will be the democratic candidate. I think the republicans think that too, as the Freeh thing was tossed out there early to start the political effort against her. This is just my opinion about that...nothing to back it up. Also, the nomination of a female for the Supreme Court...that can't get lost either.

Say what you want about Hillary, she is one tough bird. She is extremely intelligent and an excellent speaker. This would give the democrats (let alone the Republicans, for God sakes) something they haven't had since Bill, and she has been positioning herself nationally as more of a centrist ever since becoming Senator. Of course there will be all kinds of things thrown up against her from the past and present, but she will be able to handle it better than most.

She has the political and financial backing to win the nomination. For the most part, I would say that those who liked Bill from a political and Presidential (NOT sexual...) perspective would also support Hillary. There will be some that just do not like her...many do not feel comfortable with a strong female figure, period. I think that considering the current administration that she would be a galvanizing figure for the female and minority vote alike. Good lord, AL GORE won more than half the popular vote...with everything that has happened in the last six years and what we have in store for the next two...it CAN'T be that hard for her to be looked at as a strong candidate against the republicans.

Honestly, I have not studied her votes and her positions enough yet to say she is the best candidate for me. But I think she will be the nominee, when all is said and done. I only wish we could witness a Hillary and Dubbya debate. THAT would be the most lopsided public embarrassment I could imagine for the Crawford Cringer.
 

Palehose

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 22, 2005
590
1
0
Chadman said:
Clem, I have to say at this point I think Hillary will be the democratic candidate. I think the republicans think that too, as the Freeh thing was tossed out there early to start the political effort against her. This is just my opinion about that...nothing to back it up. Also, the nomination of a female for the Supreme Court...that can't get lost either.

Say what you want about Hillary, she is one tough bird. She is extremely intelligent and an excellent speaker. This would give the democrats (let alone the Republicans, for God sakes) something they haven't had since Bill, and she has been positioning herself nationally as more of a centrist ever since becoming Senator. Of course there will be all kinds of things thrown up against her from the past and present, but she will be able to handle it better than most.

She has the political and financial backing to win the nomination. For the most part, I would say that those who liked Bill from a political and Presidential (NOT sexual...) perspective would also support Hillary. There will be some that just do not like her...many do not feel comfortable with a strong female figure, period. I think that considering the current administration that she would be a galvanizing figure for the female and minority vote alike. Good lord, AL GORE won more than half the popular vote...with everything that has happened in the last six years and what we have in store for the next two...it CAN'T be that hard for her to be looked at as a strong candidate against the republicans.

Honestly, I have not studied her votes and her positions enough yet to say she is the best candidate for me. But I think she will be the nominee, when all is said and done. I only wish we could witness a Hillary and Dubbya debate. THAT would be the most lopsided public embarrassment I could imagine for the Crawford Cringer.

Except for the part about how great Hillary is I agree with ya ...in fact I think she is going to win :cursin: and we are all gonna take it up the ass with a national health care system that will be even worse than Canada's which has are border hospitals filled with a 50% occupancy of Canadians.
I dont know about you all but I dont want to wait 6 months for a bypass surgery like Canadians have to .
 

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
Palehose,

I disagree with you on three fronts:

1. I don't think she will win since the Republicans will more than likely run someone like McCain to get most of the Center votes.

2. I don't think she will be the nominee since I think the Dems will go with someone with Southern or Western roots to try and chip at the stronghold of the Reps. Perhaps we might see a ticket of Richardson and Warner since I do not feel that H. Clinton would want to be VP.

3. We wont have a National Health Care Plan but we will have changes to the current system of the the medical insurance and care areas. Something has got to give as the cost of health insurance has skyrocketed in the past few years to the point that it is even putting the squeeze on the upper middle class business owners. If you add in the increased costs of gas and heating oil the upper middle class business guy is getting hammered and health care insurance will be one of the things they have to eliminate.
 

Palehose

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 22, 2005
590
1
0
1. I think Hillary will win because we had what like 120,000,000 ?
lemmings Vote for a moron that really as hard as that is to believe would have been worse than Hillary ...so we get those same 120,000,000 plus all of the cross over Woman who will vote for a Women president just to see it happen and presto easy victory for Hillary .... The only way the Repubs can counter this is ... "Rice for VP"

2. Ummmmmm a New York Senator moving to the middle and you dont think she will be the Nominee ???? You best take a good look at the history of that position .

3 . I hope your right I agree that we should maybe help regulate it a little ....a very little but a National Health Care Sys would be a compleate and utter disaster .
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
120 million? Get yer facts straight, kid.

Anyone who thinks 120 million people voted for anyone in any election in this country really has no business posting here.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,483
157
63
Bowling Green Ky
She's doing all the right things to make run--saw where Kennedy said he would support Kerry over Hilliary which got to be plus hor Hilliary--if gun was put to my head I'd support Hilliary before Kerry.
--however if Hilliary does get nomoinated she will have to explain lots of flops since trying to look like moderate -Example wanted National Health Care--yet complained about Medicare bill being too costly and having huge impact on deficeit--which I will agree with, but drop in bucket to National health care.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top