In 1999, Al Gore wrote a book called "Earth in the Balance", in which he proposed an ecological presidency of sorts. If one looks at it today, it is amazing how well Mr. Gore predicted the future. In his book, Mr. Gore asserted that the core problem of America was the internal combustion engine, whose gas slupping ineffiency, global warming pollutant production and its ravenous need for Middle East oil would in the end be the bane of this nation. For this, Mr. Gore was held up by the right as "unpatriotic", as if belief in the internal combustion engine was tantamount to belief in flag and country, as Limbaugh and Hannity asserted that the V8 and Apple Pie were the same thing. I cannot help but feel that Mr. Gore is being proved catastrophically correct, as we face the loss of a war in the Middle East and a meteroic rise in oil prices, as we witness an unprecedented hurricane that gained strength more rapidly than expected over the fossil-fuel warmed waters of the Gulf. I am becoming increasingly convinced that the election of 2000 will be seen as one of those watershed elections, like that of Lincoln in 1860, whose repurcussions are only now being seen. It is unfortunate the Democrats did not run Mr. Gore in 2004, on the "I told you so" platform. Perhaps we can start a movement to get Gore to run for the House, where he can be elected Speaker by the next obviously future Democrat Congress, followed by the impeachment of Cheny and Bush, which would place Gore in the Presidency. Looking at current polls, I can see that a majority is easily in favor of correcting this national mistake.

I don’t think the Dem bosses seriously thought they had a chance. That has to be why Kerry got the nodd.

Second, the problems the country faces have less to do with the political parties than they have to do with the harsh reluctance of our “leaders” (about all of ‘em) to embrace change. It has come to be the case that both parties share alike in this problem.

Third, while I agree that the car is emblematic of the USA, the more important question is to how to begin the long path away from excess? Everyone is afraid that change will be ruinous. That’s why Detroit is propped up like a dead dictator, who is little other than a front piece for several unions. The irony here is that by getting rid of making most vehicles in the USA, we’d save about 50% to 75% on the up front cost of a new car, be all but guaranteed a huge increase in fuel economy, reliability, and, the vast majority of jobs related to the auto industry would be unchanged. But since the government profiteers right along with the unions, the gov serves their own interest by acting as if they are protecting something by their actions. It boils down to fear.

So ultimately, the question is not what party but how to encourage our political system to encourage and work towards change?

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

I've always been curious about this. Isn't it a fact that the party really has no control of the nominee? They all go out and attempt to garner votes via the primaries by bashing the hell out of each other. The one with the most votes becomes the nominee. Of course, there exists the possibility that the party could oust the individual with the most primary votes at the convention, but, in reality, what's the chances of that happening?

I see it as a mini-election of sorts. The person who can garner the most votes wins, without regard to his chances in the general election.

If one were to suppose that the political process is really a horse race, I'd agree with you. But it doesn’t appear to be done that way.

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

The nomination was probably Gore's if he wanted it. It was his dropping out of the race that made a turd like Kerry possible. This may be an unorthodox opinion, but I believe that if Gore had entered the race, Hillary would have too, because Gore had a chance to beat Bush and Hillary would have had to wait eight years instead of four for her shot. Billary probably decided that either a Kerry candicacy or Gore-Hillary bloodbath would guarentee what they really wanted - four more years of Bush buffoonery, which would guarantee them the White House in 2008. Gore spared them the bloodbath, which as you say, would have taken place between the moderates and the Screaming Morons who support Hillary. As a stated in a previous post, the end result will be that the Screaming Morons will return to power. As usual, Bill Clinton proves that he is a really, really smart politician.

That is the question, isn't it? In fact, the point of my post was that we as a nation failed to realize the time for this decision was in 2000, and we blew it. It probably end up like everything we do, it will be solved the hard way, by civil war or Great Depression, probably the later.

Explain please.........

Well, it's not a horse race, it's a money race.

Naturally, but the frontrunner in the horse race seems to garner the most money, and, therefore keeps out ahead of the pack because of this.

The case of Dean is interesting. He had far more money than Kerry going in.

After a few primaries, Kerry had far more money going out.

So, the horse race still seems to apply.........................

I have always felt Dean was assasinated by the media, who are in cahoots with the old-guard faction of the Democrat party whom they have had an incestous relationship with since Watergate and Nam. Kerry was really nothing more than Ted Kennedy's boy. I really wish Dean was given a better chance, but he would have eventually lost to the Rove Swiftboat Machine as Kerry did. The real place the dems blew it is in nominating Gore. He was the only one who had the national stature to stand above the rest of the yappers.

I disagree. Dean effectively committed suicide with the infamous display after he lost one of the primaries. The media simply reported it. It was his effective downfall. He was, by far, the clear frontrunner in terms of popular vote, and money. Then he blew it.

Again, you feel that the Dems failed to nominate Gore. Gore failed to nominate himself. If he ran, I have no doubt that he would garner more votes than the remainder of the pack and would have been the nominee.

I don't give the machine as much credit as you fellows.

I read the book and pretty much agreed with Gore on his assessment. I part ways with him in some instances on dealing with the issues he raised. I'll bet in 50 years people will wring their hands and gnash their teeth, "Why didn't we listen?"

Need a better spokesman. Right now anybody who wears green will be toasted in the voting booth. It will take somebody like Richard Nixon to make a real change in how we address environmental issues. Nixon was the 2nd best environmental president we've had in the USA. Both were Republicans. Go figure.

Bot

Tricky Dick was a good liberal who responded in kind to the noble efforts of a good progressive; Ralph Nader

Maybe. OTOH, he could have taken the route most presidents take when dealing with pesky oustiders: attack them, abuse them, dismiss them, then ignore them.

Sometimes they deserve it, sometimes they don't. That would depend on how you look at the outsider's goal and methods. Nixon chose to embrace parts of it and igore parts. The USA is better for the efforts he made.

Now what was it that Harding, Hoover, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, St John, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II did?

Bot

Do tell...

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone