Al Gore
The Rocky Mountain News - Re “Earth’s habitability at increasing risk, Gore tells summit” (July 19) A sure fire way to make the Earth less risky in the future is to elect, or as many of us 2000 voters believe, re-elect Al Gore. Supreme Court Justice Scalia was the most vocal of the five justices to order stopping the counting the vote count in Florida said: “If the vote count was not stopped, irreparable harm would have been done to George W. Bush.” Duh! Yeah, Al Gore won Florida.
This letter has not been edited.
Bush is "green". Ooops! He threatened to close down NREL.
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandvetbennies on July 24, 2007 09:32 PMwow someone who is still mad he lost. well you and algore can cry together for as long as you want. maybe in 08 the flordia election commission will make a ballot for all the liberal far left down there that has only one place to put their 'x' and it will be for a dumocrat. seems when they had to read and punch they couldnt do it. just remember the county that had the most problems was a democrat county and the election commission was run by the same and created the ballot that their own couldnt read or understand how to use.
Posted by on July 25, 2007 06:12 AMSelective memory...Al Gore had military votes in Florida tossed out. Outside of discounting those who serve this country, Al makes me laugh...the political mad uncle.
Posted by T on July 25, 2007 06:39 AMNeither we nor Al Gore are the same as we were seven years ago.It makes me wonder what the outcome would have been had Al had enough public spirit to speak plainly and bluntly about his then-boss' bimbo-bumping.That kind of backbone might have won him a clear victory,might have enabled him to conduct the War on Terror with the ferocity necessary to win.Heck,maybe the Democrats would be on board with good solutions instead of the ones their increasingly frustrated and radicalized leadership comes up with.I'm just sorry that Al,for all his talent,good heart,and basic decency,wouldn't free himself from the Clinton team,and went down to defeat.Now he's marginalized and regarded as just another voice in the wilderness.
Posted by Jimminy on July 25, 2007 12:33 PMNeither we nor Al Gore are the same as we were seven years ago.It makes me wonder what the outcome would have been had Al had enough public spirit to speak plainly and bluntly about his then-boss' bimbo-bumping.That kind of backbone might have won him a clear victory,might have enabled him to conduct the War on Terror with the ferocity necessary to win.Heck,maybe the Democrats would be on board with good solutions instead of the ones their increasingly frustrated and radicalized leadership comes up with.I'm just sorry that Al,for all his talent,good heart,and basic decency,wouldn't free himself from the Clinton team,and went down to defeat.Now he's marginalized and regarded as just another voice in the wilderness.
Posted by Jimminy on July 25, 2007 12:37 PMDouble post.Sorry!
Posted by Jimminy on July 25, 2007 12:41 PMThere have been at least two major investigations into the 2000 presidential election in which Gore still lost. It truly is amazing that liberals continue to use the excuse that they lost that election "because Bush cheated." No, sometimes you really do just screw up!
I’m not thrilled with Bush’s performance. But to envision Gore conducting the war on terror with ferocity seems delusional. And it IS because he would not have the backbone to do so. Besides, most Democrats, especially those on the far left of the spectrum, think Bush has used way too much ferocity against terrorists.
My point exactly...Al Gore didn't have what it took to win,so the scenario of his being in charge of the War on Terror will see the light of day only if Harry Turtledove decides to write an alternate history novel about it.I can't help but wonder,though, if the Democrats would have been less obstructionist had their guy been the CINC.
Posted by Jimminy on July 25, 2007 08:18 PM"I’m not thrilled with Bush’s performance. But to envision Gore conducting the war on terror with ferocity seems delusional. And it IS because he would not have the backbone to do so."
The problem is that Bush's backbone is in his head where his brain should be. And does it take backbone to invade the wrong country? Or ignorance and arrogance? We need less backbone and more brainbone.
Posted by Truth on July 26, 2007 10:18 AMTruth,you're making this way too easy."Less backbone and more brainbone."?Takes no backbone or brains,bony or otherwise,to surrender.In fact it'd be the mother of all boners.
Posted by Jimminy on July 26, 2007 10:39 AM