Al Gore's Speech--surprisingly good

[rick_reno]

Actually the sky is not falling, since the President's actions in question were a sincere effort to protect the country. Had the FISA court been asked, they might have approved the actions. The jury is still out whether the actions were illegal, despite what popular sentiment Gore wants to reinforce.

How do you know his actions were an effort to protect the county? Do you have some inside information that supports this? or are you simply parroting what he has been telling us?

I remain convinced what he did is legal.

 

[Standing Wolf]

There's more intellectual content in cartoons than anything ludicrous old Liar Gore might have to say.

 

[beerslurpy]

What about the part where congress grants to the executive beaureaucracy the power to make and enforce regulations?

How much of the federal register is passed through congress and much of it is merely enacted under "authority granted by congress" to some executive branch? I think this is a much bigger threat to liberty long term.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Arguably, it started with Reagan.

Actually - It started with George #1 -- George Washington that is.

Whiskey Rebellion.

 

[Waitone]

I'm too busy watching what Gore does to hear anything he says.

 

[Cosmoline]

Actually the sky is not falling, since the President's actions in question were a sincere effort to protect the country. Had the FISA court been asked, they might have approved the actions. The jury is still out whether the actions were illegal, despite what popular sentiment Gore wants to reinforce.

You can keep saying that, but the evidence to the contrary just keeps piling up. Let's do a brief rundown of just those steps taken since the end of the Clinton era:

--Creation of the TSA and the militarization of port and airport security
--Declaration of a "war on terror" with multiple unconnecte enemies
--Launching of several nationbuilding wars with no delcarations of war
--Unilateral declaration that certain people are detainees with no rights
--Resistance to interference by any aspect of the court system in the administration's war
--Failure to make a case against alleged terrorists in those few cases actually brought to court
--Unilateral use of wiretaps outside of even the FISA court's rubber stamp
--Unilateral seizure of US Citizens and declaration that they are "enemy combatants" outside of any court system
--Resistance to the application of habeas corpus or ANY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS for anyone considered an "enemy combatant."
--Refusal to define what the enemy is and when the "war on terror" might be over
--Creation of massive, self-sustaining government agencies and the DHS.
--Increasingly bizarre political decisions and an autocratic attitude
--Reliance on the Secret Service to act as a latter day Praetorian Guard--physically preventing anyone, including Senators and Reps, from any contact with anyone in the administration without prior approval.
--A continued pattern of almost complete obsequious weakness on the part of most in Congress
--A continued pattern of blind party loyalty to the GOP among that party in Congress, over and above loyalty to the US

It goes on and on.

And as bad as this is, imagine what it would be like with President Clinton II in charge of this executive machine. Someone who views *US* as enemy no. 1 in the war on "domestic terrorism."

 

[Cosmoline]

What about the part where congress grants to the executive beaureaucracy the power to make and enforce regulations?

How much of the federal register is passed through congress and much of it is merely enacted under "authority granted by congress" to some executive branch? I think this is a much bigger threat to liberty long term.

This is a central part of the problem. It goes back many decades. A series of opinions from the arch-liberal Warren court refashioned the structure of federal power in order to preserve FDR's siezure of power for the Executive branch. The Burger court continued these holdings. They included a repudiation of the restrictive doctrines from earlier, conservative courts, a nearly limitless definition of "commerce" in the commerce clause and destruction of the Enumerated Powers, a very broad allowance for executive agency rule-making powers, and a myriad of other doctrines. This paved the path for future trouble. And every administration since then--GOP and Dem alike--have built on this foundation in the name of some "war on xxx" or another. The matter has reached a head with GW and the GOP Congress. My fear is if nothing is done it will become impossible to reverse the power shift by any peaceful means, and the republic will fail as all other republics have failed before it.

 

[cracked butt]

Drivel.

Gore is just angry that he didn't become president so that he can lead us by appologizing to the terrorists for flying planes into the twin towers and the Pentagon, and possibly going as far as paying reperations to the families of the terrorists who lost their lives because of our evil capitalist buildings.

 

[carebear]

Take the sore loser name-calling by Gore out and re-read it just for content.

We do NOT want an executive branch able to do what has been done in the past and able to act as the current administration is. If those powers aren't curtailed now, then the day we lose the Presidency to an anti-gun Democrat is the day our rights go away by fiat rather than law, that honest gun owners are treated as "suspected terrorists" are being treated now.

That will be the day it is time to go to war for this country.

Don't let dislike or disdain for the messenger to override the essential truth of what he speaks. Don't let personal political conservatism override the necessity for personal liberty above political affiliation, even for people you don't like.

If there ever was a time to in all seriousness and accuracy to invoke the old "They came for my neighbor..." credo, we are living in it.

 

[Waitone]

We do NOT want an executive branch able to do what has been done in the past and able to act as the current administration is. If those powers aren't curtailed now, then the day we lose the Presidency to an anti-gun Democrat is the day our rights go away by fiat rather than law, that honest gun owners are treated as "suspected terrorists" are being treated now.

Interesting comment in view of http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/presidency_0.htm

President Bush's advisers are resigned to the Democratic capture of the White House in 2008, according to senior Republican sources close to the White House.

GOP sources said White House strategists have attempted to persuade Mr. Bush that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat and her party’s current front-runner to be the next presidential nominee, cannot be defeated in 2008. Bush strategists said the president should instead focus on seeking to retain the Republican majority in both houses of Congress in 2006 and 2008.

"There is nobody in the White House that will openly say we lost the presidency in 2008," a senior GOP source said. "But while the Democrats are completely focused on 2008, the White House has been completely aloof."

The strategists have argued that given the forecasts of a downturn in the economy, crises with China and Iran, Mrs. Clinton would be besieged with major problems that would ensure a one-term presidency, the sources said.

The strategists have pointed out that Mr. Bush, given the failing health of Vice President Dick Cheney, does not have a natural successor. Recently, Mr. Cheney, who suffers from heart problems, was rushed to the hospital because he had difficulties in breathing.

The sources said the strategists have assessed that Mrs. Clinton would easily win the Democratic leadership and the subsequent race for president. They said Mr. Bush has pledged to campaign vigorously for any GOP presidential nominee.

Administration sources said Mr. Bush has discussed the prospect of a Clinton presidency. But they asserted that the president has focused on the 2006 elections for Congress and the need to maintain the GOP majority.

"If we lost our majority in Congress, then the president immediately becomes a lame duck," an administration source said. "So, the talk of 2008 is not only premature, it's harmful."

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

You can keep saying that, but the evidence to the contrary just keeps piling up. Let's do a brief rundown of just those steps taken since the end of the Clinton era:

--Creation of the TSA and the militarization of port and airport security
--Declaration of a "war on terror" with multiple unconnecte enemies
--Launching of several nationbuilding wars with no delcarations of war
--Unilateral declaration that certain people are detainees with no rights
--Resistance to interference by any aspect of the court system in the administration's war
--Failure to make a case against alleged terrorists in those few cases actually brought to court
--Unilateral use of wiretaps outside of even the FISA court's rubber stamp
--Unilateral seizure of US Citizens and declaration that they are "enemy combatants" outside of any court system
--Resistance to the application of habeas corpus or ANY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS for anyone considered an "enemy combatant."
--Refusal to define what the enemy is and when the "war on terror" might be over
--Creation of massive, self-sustaining government agencies and the DHS.
--Increasingly bizarre political decisions and an autocratic attitude
--Reliance on the Secret Service to act as a latter day Praetorian Guard--physically preventing anyone, including Senators and Reps, from any contact with anyone in the administration without prior approval.
--A continued pattern of almost complete obsequious weakness on the part of most in Congress
--A continued pattern of blind party loyalty to the GOP among that party in Congress, over and above loyalty to the US

It goes on and on.

And as bad as this is, imagine what it would be like with President Clinton II in charge of this executive machine. Someone who views *US* as enemy no. 1 in the war on "domestic terrorism."

You left out the PATRIOT Act and the supposedly abortive TIA.

 

[Mad Chemist]

Frankly I couldn't care less what Al Gore said or didn't say. I am just thrilled that he didn't end up as our president. Would we be in Iraq? Afghanistan? No... What would he have done after 9-11? Probably send a couple cruise missles toward Afghanistan and said he got retribution. We would now have a nuclear Iraq, and Iran claiming Iraq and Isreal as justification for its nuclear program. If you like would prefer this writing of history, Al Gore is your man.

A nuclear Iraq? It sounds like you're rewriting history.

 

[cracked butt]

Take the sore loser name-calling by Gore out and re-read it just for content.

We do NOT want an executive branch able to do what has been done in the past and able to act as the current administration is. If those powers aren't curtailed now, then the day we lose the Presidency to an anti-gun Democrat is the day our rights go away by fiat rather than law, that honest gun owners are treated as "suspected terrorists" are being treated now.

That will be the day it is time to go to war for this country.

Don't let dislike or disdain for the messenger to override the essential truth of what he speaks. Don't let personal political conservatism override the necessity for personal liberty above political affiliation, even for people you don't like.

Carebear, I agree with you, but I simply can't seperate the message from the messenger on this one. It sounds like Al Gore is 'coming out of the wilderness' in time for the next election. While the message is important, I doubt his sincerity greatly.

 

[Cosmoline]

I absolutely hate the man. I don't trust him. I don't like him. I don't like the people who like him. Which makes it all the more disturbing that I agree with him this time. I don't think we should start support Gore, though in fairness he's so disconnected with the Democratic power base at this point he'd stand almost no chance against Hillary in the primaries.

But there's no denying the power of the Executive MUST be curtailed or we're going to be facing a world of pain that will make the Clinton years look like a cake walk.

I absolutely do not trust GW to keep things together for 2008. He's demonstrated some really enormous lapses in judgment lately (Justice Myers??), and the GOP faithful who keep trying to defend him are looking more and more absurd. The man has his good points but esp. this term he seems to have lost anyone in his cabinet who can stand up to him and slap him around. The only legacy he may end up leaving is a bloated executive branch with unlimited detention and surveillance powers--ready and waiting for whatever Dem can take it.

 

[RealGun]

How do you know his actions were an effort to protect the county?

Why would you ask that question?

 

[MarkDido]

After what Al Gore did to the country during the 2000 election, and especially what he TRIED to do to the military, if I bumped into him on a street corner at high noon and he told me it was daytime, I would have to check.

I heard on the news that one of the factions in Iraq (don't remember which one) said the election was invalid due to "voting irregularities".....

Gee, I wonder where they got THAT idea from? :banghead:

 

[Camp David]

I just read the text of Gore's MLK day speech and I must say I'm surprised. I actually agree with most of what he said. I expect to see the four horsemen coming anytime now....

I am so glad everytime I hear some Gore sighting... each time the GOP gains more voters! I hope Gore decides to run in the primaries; the GOP can use the extra voters and new Republican converts! God bless 'ya Al!

 

[HankB]

Expressed concerns about executive branch power from a man who was part of an administration that misused both FBI files and IRS audits against political opponents just doesn't ring true.

On those rare occasions when Gore does get something right, I put it down to the "broken clock" effect, i.e., even a broken clock is right two times a day. (For the younger reader . . . not all clocks are digital, some acutually have hands.)

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I absolutely hate the man. I don't trust him. I don't like him. I don't like the people who like him. Which makes it all the more disturbing that I agree with him this time. I don't think we should start support Gore, though in fairness he's so disconnected with the Democratic power base at this point he'd stand almost no chance against Hillary in the primaries.

Given that Gore is not a player in the '08 race, maybe he can inject some of the ideas he talked about earlier this week into the Democratic party. Right now even the Bush administration is conceding a Democratic presidential victory in '08 (though they could be as wrong about this as they were about WMDs and post-war planning). If they are right, it would behoove us all to see the Democratic party gain a modicum of common sense.

As for agreeing with someone you don't like, I find myself agreeing with Pat Buchanon more often than not, and I believe Brother Buchanon is crazy as a bed bug.

 

[bogie]

Yeah, the "public awareness" campaign is succeeding. A lot of people aren't going to vote for a Democrat - but they're going to vote against a republican.

I guess y'all want the 2nd amendment to go away.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I guess y'all want the 2nd amendment to go away.

I don't understand how you get to this conclusion over and over again? Many of us don't trust the Bush adminstration, we don't believe in its policies, and we strongly feel that its centralization of power in the Executive branch is dangerous and borderline unconstitutional. I can understand you disagreeing with this. What boggles my mind is the leap of logic from disagreeing with us on these issues to your assumption that we support the Democrats and want to repeal the Second Amendment.

Many of us believe Bush is leading the country down the path to tyranny. We feel that is as grave a danger as this country has ever faced. We are not going to abandon our beliefs in liberty and the Constitution to play petty party politics, which is the direction such comments as the one above are trying to take this debate.

 

[USNCHIEF]

CSPAN is right next to the channel where I watch the UFC fights. Well last night I accidently hit CSPAN and there to my amazment was the Nam vet that was there as a "reporter" for a few months. He sounded more like a preacher than a politician!!! I hate the S.O.B....but.....lest we forget "He invented the internet" ...and without that we would not be able to communicate like we are now.....

God Bless America

 

[Manedwolf]

I think it's sickening to hear this ....um.... gentleman talk about the "rule of law".

Funny how he suddenly has such concern over the Constitution.

From Al Gore's presidential campaign:

I'd rather hear him talk about "rule of law" than hear shysters like DeLay and Frist (and Blunt) drawl about it while they've got dirty money spilling out of their pockets.

 

[Manedwolf]

Actually the sky is not falling, since the President's actions in question were a sincere effort to protect the country. Had the FISA court been asked, they might have approved the actions. The jury is still out whether the actions were illegal, despite what popular sentiment Gore wants to reinforce.

The report's out on it. From that huge dragnet, from all those Americans listened to, we got...bzzt! NOTHING. No cells, no al-qaeda.

If the president wanted to make a sincere effort to protect the country, then Osama bin Laden's head would have been on a pole at least FOUR YEARS AGO, the ports would be secure, and some of the insane pork would be vetoed out of bills to divert money to ACTUALLY securing things!

 

[Camp David]

I don't understand how you get to this conclusion over and over again? Many of us don't trust the Bush adminstration, we don't believe in its policies, and we strongly feel that its centralization of power in the Executive branch is dangerous and borderline unconstitutional. I can understand you disagreeing with this...

The problem I have with your statement, Lobotomy Boy, is this (and by the way I respect your position): When has the current Bush administration or any of its officials ever wavered in its full and complete support of the 2nd Amendment? Cite date and official and his position against the 2nd Amendment? Thus, why would you say you don't "trust the Bush adminstration" and make a seeming leap to say they'll attack the 2nd Amendment? Have they?

As I have said on numerous posts, Bush's use of Executive Power is front and center during a war, of which we are engaged. Questions on his use of that Executive Power are sure to arise, and those are rightly addressed by the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) which will field and has fielded questions and issues to address your concern of something being " borderline unconstitutional." Understand, the president's use of his Executive Power is different during a war as it would be in peacetime; the same sort of measures he invokes and powers that he utilizes during the current war would not be proper during peacetime. Further, any measure of Executive Power that you disagree with, which is used by the President under the Executive Powers clause of the Constitution in order to further national security, must be paired with an alternate plan; i.e., should you disagree that the president not wiretap a suspected terrorist or that he lacks such a right, kindly explain how you would provide the same national security guarantees without such action? While I don't begrudge or deny your right to criticize the actions of the Chief Executive in the time of war, criticism of such action should be paired with an alternate process of action, on your part, to accomplish a like result: prevention of terror.