Grassroots for Gore

The Gore Portal

2006-08-04T09:49:00.001-07:00

(artwork by Tigana)

Visit the Gore Portal and join our Community!

Question for Gore? Ask him at chat

2006-07-28T18:01:00.000-07:00

Al Gore will be i- chatting with people this weekend. Check out this article and if you are in one of the States where this is happening .... go for it!

Al Gore In The News

2006-07-24T03:01:00.000-07:00

Now even the Governor of California loved Al Gore's movie. There are lots of us who support Al Gore for President and are in the process of building an organization. If you would like to help please contact us.

DC4AlGore@gmail.com

It is Election Time - Vote for Al Gore!

2006-07-20T15:30:00.000-07:00

WE & The World Are So Less Safe Now

2006-07-06T03:49:00.000-07:00

How Will President Bush Be Remembered in History?

2006-07-02T06:43:00.000-07:00

http://www.littleindia.com/
Worst President In History?
Achal Mehra
Mon Jun 12, 2006
Bush's most dangerous legacy is the erosion of America's vaunted traditions of civil rights and liberties.

A reputed historian, representing a profession that is usually very circumspect about making sweeping judgments, recently speculated that President George W Bush could go down as the worst president in U.S. history.

Sean Wilentz, a professor of history at Princeton University, wrote that great presidents, "Presented with arduous, at times seemingly impossible circumstances, they rallied the nation, governed brilliantly and left the republic more secure than when they entered office."
By contrast, "Calamitous presidents, faced with enormous difficulties -- James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Herbert Hoover and now Bush -- have divided the nation, governed erratically and left the nation worse off."

Current public opinion, which is notoriously fickle, seems to reflect Wilentz's view. Bush's favorability ratings have been hovering around 30 percent. According to Gallup Poll, which has measured presidential job approval ratings since the 1940s, only four presidents, Richard Nixon, Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter and the first George Bush, have ranked lower and none recovered.

During his 1980 presidential bid, Ronald Reagan posed a dramatic question that resonated with the electorate and crucified then Pres. Carter. "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" A recent poll found that a resounding two-thirds of the American public believes the country is worse off than when Bush assumed office. Some 70 percent think it is on the wrong track; more than half consider Bush dishonest and untrustworthy.

Gross ineptitude, reckless politicking even with national security, nepotism, cronyism and sleazy corruption are at the root of Bush's failed presidency. The administration politicized national security after 9/11 by stoking fear for the sole objective of mobilizing public opinion. Shallow and incompetent political cronies, hucksters, personal friends and business associates were rewarded with plush appointments and contracts by the Bush administration.

Disastrous as Bush's incompetence and nepotism have been and the terrible price the country has paid as a result in precious resources and lives in the politicized war on terror and the misadventure in Iraq, Bush's most dangerous legacy is the erosion of America's vaunted traditions of civil rights and liberties, which served as a beacon around the world.

The first decade of the 21st century will go down in ignominy with the Red Scare of the McCarthy era, the Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798 and the persecution of dissenters in World War I and World War II. The Bush administration has used terrorism in this decade, much as McCarthy used communism.

In the name of the war against terrorism, the Bush administration has engaged in unconstitutional and criminal abuses, including kidnapping people, torturing suspects or rendering them to other countries for torture, holding prisoners without trial and sometimes without even access to attorneys and family in Guantanamo Bay and other secret gulags, and warrantless tapping of emails and telephones of U.S. citizens.

These egregious abuses have been made possible because the Republican majority in the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives failed in its constitutional oversight responsibilities. With two-and-a-half years still remaining of the Bush term, the prospect that we are living under an incompetent and unchecked president in such perilous times ought to be sobering.

Fortunately, the American public will get an opportunity later this year for some damage control during the midterm Congressional elections. We hope that they will restore some semblance of checks and balances on a reckless, inept and constitutionally unrestrained chief executive by electing Democratic majorities in both houses so that proper investigations can be undertaken and constitutional speed breakers installed until the long Bush nightmare comes to a welcome end in 2008.

Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.

2006-06-11T16:27:00.000-07:00

‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’

English philosopher Edmund Burke

Al Gore In The News & Go See this movie

2006-06-04T10:01:00.000-07:00

Several of us went to see the new Al Gore movie AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH last night in Washington, DC. We went downtown and the movie was sold out. We couldn’t get close to the theatre so we decided to go to Georgetown and see it there. That theatre was so crowded we almost could not find a parking place. We just got inside and the movie started. Wow, we had to sit in the very last row, there were NO more seats.

Of the group I went with, I am the only partisan ‘Gore for President’ supporter. But, it was interesting, after seeing the movie everyone I was with said they wanted Gore to be President! Each one of them was totally in love with the movie and Gore. I couldn’t believe it, and I was so happy about their reaction. Go see the movie, and take you friends and family! Go early because the theatres in Washington, DC are packed. Go see this movie and you will be very surprised at what you see. It is good!!

It is an optimistic movie. Gore shows that we can do something about the environment and our economy. It isn’t hopeless, and in fact, if we act as Al Gore demonstrates, we can have a better economic climate and environmental climate at the same time.

One part of the movie that I was greatly interested in was the part about the automobile industry in America today. Gore showed several graphs and charts of car production and pollution emission requirements. The Chinese have higher requirements than the US market. And, Ford and GM are losing market share because they are not keeping up with technology. Gore challenges the notion that holding our technology back and not being vigilant on helping the environment somehow helps our economy. Fighting pollution and unleashing technology’s potential to fight pollution and help us with jobs in America is the answer. Gore has the right idea on getting our economy back on track. American jobs (good jobs) will be created.

The former Vice President discussed Global Warming, and '08 Politics on ABC's ‘This Week'. He was great in that interview. Gore has heart and you can see how much he cares about these issues. He’s very honest and that may be a problem for him. Is the voting public ready for someone who tells it like it is and tells the truth? He spoke about his new movie, and about the war in Iraq. His comments on the war were sophisticated, because the war has become extremely complex. Gore said this, he’d like the troops to come home as soon as possible, but the US has a twin obligation. We have to make sure we don’t make the situation worse by leaving too soon. On the other hand we are asking so much of our men and women in Iraq we need to dispense with the Iraq issue quickly and get on with making life better here in the United States. Gore was against getting us into the war in Iraq in the first place. He was right from the start.

It has to be said that Gore would make a great President. He has the leadership abilities and has been right on the issues. For example: he was ahead of the curve on the War in Iraq, but he did support the war against Saddam when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Vice President Gore was also ahead of the curve on global warming. He had a great book written years ago called Earth In The Balance. As I’ve said he was out front on his opposition to the war, and an advocate for the Internet, which has changed the way we do business in America and impacted all of us. Gore is a great leader.

On this Sunday’s morning talk shows Gore was mentioned several times. It was mentioned that Gore would be welcome into the Democratic Party’s primaries and he’d add to the debate. However, timing is imperative. I want Al Gore to win so he should just wait for the right moment to enter the race.

One other issue, which people are talking about, is the Congressional Vote for the War, will it matter? Yes, those candidates who voted for the war in Iraq will have to face the music. Their vote will be a defining issue. It cannot help but be defining because it shows judgment, or their lack thereof.

Is George W. Bush the worst President of the United States we have ever had?

Major Washington Post Pundit Comments on Al Gore

2006-05-18T11:07:00.000-07:00

Howard Kurtz a Washington Post Staff Writer has put together an interesting piece of analysis and research on Al Gore, and the quest for the White House, in today's paper. Take a look at it today in the Post. I am much more upbeat about Gore and his chances of winning. My take on the election is simply this: if Al Gore runs for President he's going to win. And, he'll make it look easy against any of the republicans, including the likely nominee, Senator John McCain.

The republicans are going to make the election about issues of defense and terrorism. The conservatives’ political operatives will pulverize any Democratic candidate who doesn’t have the credentials in these two areas. A Democratic candidate who hasn’t been in uniform will not be allowed to stay on message about anything like health care, the environment, jobs, globalization, etc. That’s why we need Al Gore. He’s got the right qualifications!

Al Gore on Saturday Night Live

2006-05-14T08:45:00.000-07:00

Gore was on SNL last night and was he ever funny. It was just amazing. He is just so Presidential in his delivery. Gore has presence, but he was able to bring humor to serious subjects like, "the lock box". The crowd was really into the show too. They gave him a very warm welcome.

I think Al Gore is running for President. And, if he runs he wins!! It looks to me like a McCain vs. Al Gore race. Gore will win and he's the only Democrat who would be able to beat a strong republican like McCain with his military background. The very conservative right wing of the republican party is warming to McCain because they realize he's their best chance.

Go and See “An Inconvenient Truth”

2006-05-06T14:28:00.000-07:00

Take the pledge & send it to a friend

Al Gore’s Moral Strength and Leadership

2006-03-25T13:12:00.000-08:00

In this morning’s papers from the west coast, there is word that the former Vice President of the United States, a tireless leader for the environment, spoke about the wonderful job being done in the city of Seattle. This beautiful city is working hard in the environmental arena, making the world a little bit better and a little bit healthier. Al Gore congratulated them on their efforts.

And, talking about good efforts, how about those Dixie Chicks? You’ll remember, in 2003 they were a little critical of this administration. Because of their remarks there was a boycott of Dixie Chick music. Well now they’ve come out with a new album. If you have a moment check out their lyrics to the lead song on the album below. Song sounds pretty good.

With no regrets and I don’t mind sayin’
It’s a sad sad story when a mother will teach her
Daughter that she ought to hate a perfect stranger
And how in the world can the words that I said
Send somebody so over the edge
That they’d write me a letter
Sayin’ that I better shut up and sing
Or my life will be over

This Would Be Incredibly Sad For The Country If Al Gore Were Not To Run!

2006-03-20T18:40:00.000-08:00

AP: Gore Not Planning to Run for President

MURFREESBORO, Tenn. - Former Vice President Al Gore said Monday he's not planning to run for president in 2008 but hasn't ruled out a future in politics.

"I'm enjoying what I'm doing," Gore told an audience at Middle Tennessee State University, where he gave a lecture on global warming.

"I'm not planning to be a candidate again. I haven't reached a stage in my life where I'm willing to say I will never consider something like this. But I'm not saying that to be coy; I'm just saying that to be honest - that I haven't reached that point."

Gore, a Democrat, in 2000 lost to President Bush in one of the closest presidential elections in history.

Gore, who has previously said he had no plans to be a candidate, occasionally delivers speeches on global warming other environmental issues, often criticizing Bush administration policies.

He has also helped found a new television network, Current TV, that started in August and mostly features documentaries by young filmmakers.

Gore told the audience Monday that the world faces a "planetary emergency" caused by global warming and must take immediate steps to reverse the atmospheric changes.

Ed Note (NeuvoLiberal): What Mr. Gore said here is not very different from his statements in October of last year. He still enjoys an extra-ordinary degree of support among grassroots and "netroots", as can be seen in this recent poll, and the diary, and especially this impassioned comment by a well-known critical commenter at Daily Kos. Mr. Gore, we will honor and respect whichever path you eventually decide to take. But, there is an ocean of support out there for you, and should you choose to run, I firmly believe that you won't be left to fight your battles alone the next time.

Global warming to be Gore's topic at MTSU

2006-03-18T07:01:00.000-08:00

Former Vice President Al Gore will discuss global warming during a public lecture Monday at Middle Tennessee State University. The lecture, part of MTSU's Seigenthaler Chair of Excellence in First Amendment Studies Lecture Series, is slated for 4 p.m. in the State Farm Lecture Hall of the university's Business and Aerospace Building. It is free and open to the public, university officials said.

— CLAY CAREY

Virginia Dem Wants Al To Run

2006-03-16T21:06:00.000-08:00

But really, who doesn't?

Democratic Congressman Pushes for Gore to Run Again
Wednesday, March 15, 2006

WASHINGTON-Democrat Al Gore, who in 2000 lost one of the closest presidential elections in U.S. history to Republican George W. Bush, should run for president in 2008, a congressman said Wednesday.

Questioned about the contest, Democratic Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia said: "I'd like to see him get into the race."

"He won the popular vote in 2000, and I think he's even stronger and more committed," Moran said Wednesday on C-SPAN's Washington Journal.

Is Gore Still Looking for Votes in Florida? He Won Florida, the election was Stolen

2006-03-14T14:19:00.000-08:00

by The Nation

Al Gore returned to Florida this weekend. And you know what that
means. (Insert joke about butterfly ballots, hanging chads, Katherine
Harris and Jews for Buchanan.)

He still uses the line about being a "recovering politician." It
still draws laughter. But those of us who've followed Gore know he's
emerged from the political wilderness as one of the most eloquent
critics of the Bush Administration, a favorite among the Democratic
base and even a dark horse for the '08 nomination. By all accounts,
his foray into Florida, campaigning for state candidates, only
boosted his political fortunes. From the Orlando Sun-Sentinel is report.

"Welcome back, Mr. President!" someone yelled from the crowd as Gore
took the stage.

...

"This was the scene of a crime," said West Palm Beach Mayor Lois
Frankel, whose son, Marine Capt. Benjamin Lubin, has served in
Afghanistan.

"We're very proud of him," Frankel said of her son. "But I can
tell you, if Al Gore had been president, my son would not have
been at war."

...

"I want to give you a couple of reasons to redouble your efforts,"
Gore said.

"Voter fraud!" an audience member quickly offered up, to the delight
of the crowd.

Gore smiled.

"I'll let others talk about that, but I like some of what I heard out
here," he said.
Call it the looser, freer, funnier Al. Gore 2.0. Maybe if he returned
to politics Gore would instantly tighten up and start babbling about
lockboxes. But--risking the scorn of many--I think he could pull a
Nixon or Reagan and win back the presidency.

IF he's willing to take on his former boss's wife.

Former V-P Al Gore On The March

2006-03-06T17:32:00.000-08:00

Oh how sweet it is! You know you are on a roll when the right wing nut jobs come out from under their rocks and start getting edgy with Al Gore. We had a very interesting situation today where two articles came out 4 hours apart. One news story was this weird and far-out diatribe with the pleasant title of "Al Gore – fool, demagogue". Here's the article if you can care to look at it. It is fine by me if you don't look at it because it is trash. One of the things the guy says is, Al Gore's interest in the environment is "politics". The threat of global warming, "This is not science. It's politics." What do these guys eat for breakfast to come up with this stuff?

The reason these off the wall articles come out like this is because the right wing knows Al Gore can unite the Democratic Party and win the Presidency. And their response is to attack Gore and the positive issues he supports. The strategy is to define and tear down the other candidate. They are trying to create a negative buzz about Gore now with the goal of defeating him and helping an ultimately weaker Democrat.

As luck would have it, another article appeared from the Guardian Unlimited, in the UK. Take a look at it too, as it is much more positive and outlines all the things Al Gore has been doing recently. You'll be amazed with the positive energy Gore has.

He'd make a terrific President. He certainly knows the issues and has the energy and stamina to be the Commander in Chief.

Gore the political activist – “immediate favorite to win the Democratic nomination”

2006-02-19T16:27:00.000-08:00

ALEX MASSIE in Washington, DC has written a very interesting piece below on Al Gore. The last couple of lines in the story may be the most interesting. You can read the entire story here, which also discusses the republican party’s flirtation with running Condi Rice for President.

AL GORE is learning how to laugh. "I used to be the next president of the United States," he tells the audiences that are flocking to hear him preach his message on global warming and the environment. "I don't find that to be very funny," the former vice-President says solemnly. "I'm a recovering politician."

The man who spent eight stiff years first a heartbeat and then a few hanging chads from the presidency has finally found a role for himself: the straight man with a message. So much so that thousands of Americans are flocking to screenings of a new film he has made on the threat of global warming. Gore, once again, is hot property.

Gore gracefully retreated into the shadows in 2000, even if it took him months, if not years, to recover from the shattering blow of having come so close to the presidency only to lose it on the judicial whim of the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in favor of Bush.

Cast into the political wilderness, he grew a beard and brooded upon his fate. Recently, however, Gore has stepped back onto the political stage - although this time as an activist, chivvying politicians to take a greater interest in his pet causes rather than as a candidate for office himself.

He has a new book on global warming titled An Inconvenient Truth that will be published in April and a documentary film of the same name was screened to great acclaim at the recent Sundance Film Festival in Utah.

The film was made after Seinfeld creator Larry David saw Gore's presentation and felt that it should receive as wide an airing as possible. David pulled together a team of filmmakers to follow Gore as he traveled the world, making his case that the world risks catastrophe unless it steps up its efforts to minimize and counter the adverse consequences of climate change.

That multimedia presentation has packed houses wherever Gore has delivered it as thousands of Americans flock to hear the former vice-president speak.

Gore has also begun to play a part in this year's mid-term elections, raising funds for Democrat Senate candidates.

In an e-mail sent to potential and existing Democratic donors, he spelt out the stakes: "Let me be perfectly clear. Our American values are at risk. George Bush is pursuing a truly breathtaking and unprecedented power grab that marginalizes the role of both our federal courts and the Congress.

"As a result, he has been able to enact the most extreme aspects of his right-wing agenda in virtual secret and without meaningful oversight."

Despite this increased public profile, however, Gore remains adamant that he has no interest in running for the presidency again in 2008, even though he would be an immediate favorite to win the Democratic nomination. His new popularity aside, the recovery is not yet complete.

The Gore Portal

2006-02-18T14:58:00.000-08:00

A new and powerful website dedicated to drafting Al Gore for president called the The Gore Portal has been launched. Please visit the new site, and if you support Al Gore for President, please register there and participate in our efforts.

We will continue maintaining this site alongside the Portal.

Thanks.

Gore's Jeddah Speech: A challenge to Tom Bevan of RCP

2006-02-18T13:15:00.000-08:00

Part 1:

Tom Bevan of RCP claims in this Chicago Suntimes critique of the reported Jeddah speech by Al Gore that:

``Gore is against eavesdropping on potential terrorist communications and he's against tighter screens for visitors originating from Islamic countries''.

Mr. Bevan:

I challenge you to point out to us exactly where in his MLK-Day speech Gore said that he was against all surveillance? FYI, in that speech, Gore opposed illegal Warrantless wiretapping, and Bush breaking the written law in the process of doing so, and resoundingly indicted the broader powergrab by the administration. Therefore, this claim by you is a mere prevarication.

then, have you yet seen the full transcript of the Jeddah speech that you talk about? Can overreaching assertions be made without presenting the full context in which those remarks were made? Isn't it entirely possible that Gore made his case addressing all sides of the isssue? If you indeed have access to the full-transcript, isn't it incumbent upon you to post either the full text or a link to it before you pass your judgements? Until you do so, your credibility doesn't stand much taller than that of Ann Coulter, whom you aptly excoriate in your other writings.

Part 2:

In his post Al Gore's Jeddah Speech and Conservative Cluelessness, The Anonymous Liberal has this to say:

Al Gore's Jeddah Speech and Conservative Cluelessness

The other day Al Gore gave a speech to a largely Arab audience at the Jeddah Economic Forum in Saudi Arabia. At one point in the speech, Gore observed that, following 9/11, Arabs in the United States had been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable." He assured the audience that most Americans do not support such treatment.

Conservatives seized upon Gore's remarks and went into a spasm of hyperbolic and misplaced rage. Michelle Malkin hammered out a quick post entitled "Al Gore Slanders America" in which she linked to a bunch of other right-wing bloggers who said pretty much the same thing. Scott of Powerline accused Gore of "defame[ing] his country before a foreign audience for fun and profit." Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters asked : "We held mass roundups of Arabs? When? Where?" And my personal favorite was a post at RealClearPolitics which framed the issue this way: "Now ask yourself: between the asinine comments of Gore and Coulter, who's done more harm to the cause of the United States?" RCP's answer: clearly Al Gore (For those of you who've been under a rock for the last week, Ann Coulter--while speaking at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)--commented "I think our motto should be post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences'").

In the face of cluelessness of this magnitude, it's always hard to know where to begin. But I guess a good place to start is by pointing out that everything Al Gore said in his speech was true. I'm sure this will come as a surprise to well-informed people like Captain Ed, but following 9/11, people of Arab descent were indeed rounded up for minor visa violations and held in limbo for months, most of them eventually deported. This was well documented. Here's an excerpt from an NBC News article from May 2002 entitled "Caught in the Dragnet":

Across the nation, the Sept. 11 sparked detentions of scores of Arab and Muslim

immigrants on technical violations of visa regulations. These immigrants, many of

whom do not speak English and have little family in the country, are left in jail for

months on end, some without legal representation or even the knowledge that they can demand it. . . .

Exact numbers of detainees since Sept. 11 are nearly impossible to come by. Figures

released by the INS show that 537 individuals were detained between Sept. 11 and Nov. 27. Of those, only 5 percent were from countries outside of the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa.

But legal aid organizations estimate that thousands have been detained since Sept. 11.

Second, every one of these knee-jerk Gore-bashing posts seems to assume that Al Gore was informing his audience of something they didn't already know, and thereby needlessly stirring up anti-American sentiment. Quite the opposite is true. Gore was simply addressing a widely-held greivance. Stories of such treatment have been chronicled in the Arab media for years. Not surprisingly, those who were mistreated and/or deported told their stories to friends, to family, and to various Arab and Muslim media outlets. Nothing Al Gore said was news to anyone in the Muslim world.

Far from fanning the flames of anti-Americanism, Gore was actually doing damage control. He was trying to de-fuse a source of strong anti-American sentiment by making it clear to his audience that the actions at issue were not condoned by most Americans. It's hard to understate just how important it is to make it clear to the Muslim world that American policy almost never represents the views of all Americans. The Osama bin Ladens of the world--who depend on strong anti-American sentiment for their political support--do their best to blur the distinction between American policy and the views of everyday Americans; it's much easier to get people to hate a monolithic, undifferentiated mass. When we allow the Muslim world to see our diversity of viewpoints and our internal political dissent, it humanizes us; it breaks down stereotypes and misconceptions. And that is exactly what we have to do if we are going to win over the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. The Michelle Malkins of the world seem to think we would be better off if we always presented a unified front to the rest of the world, if we never admitted error, and simply refused to address any legitimate grievances people might have with any U.S. policy. That is exactly the wrong approach to take.

Conservatives (at least the ones worked into a frenzy over this speech) seem to think that any criticism of U.S. policy directed at a foreign audience amounts to "slandering America." How childish. First, in the age of the internet and global telecommunications, it's ridiculous to think that political dissent directed at a purely domestic audience goes unnoticed by the rest of the world. So, on a practical level, why would Gore's speech be any more damaging to American interests simply because it was made on foreign soil to a largely foreign audience?

More importantly, though, how in the world does Gore's speech harm American interests? Are people really more likely to hate America because Al Gore mentioned something they already knew and then apologized for it? Hardly. If his speech has any effect at all, it will be to reduce anti-American sentiment.

Compare that to Ann Coulter's crude slurring of every Muslim in the world at an event attended by the top leaders of our ruling party, a remark which apparently prompted a "boisterous ovation" from the Republican crowd. It's hard to imagine a single remark with more potential to engender hatred of America.

Conservatives need to understand that it's going to take more than just tough talk and military muscle to win the fight against Islamic extremism. It's also going to take occasional humility and a willingness to at least address legitimate greivances. We have to sell America to the world, and that means making it clear that Americans do not all speak with one voice and acknowledging that American policy, while guided by good faith, is not beyond error. Al Gore understands this. Many conservatives do not.

Al Gore to Address Congress on Climate Change

2006-02-02T11:02:00.000-08:00

He'll be addressing the Democratic caucus, anyway - I'm sure the republicans don't want to hear it.

For House Democrats, they are looking to gain some insight from Gore, who stars in the new global warming documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," that just debuted at the Sundance Film Festival. Democrats will spend the next three days in Williamsburg, Virginia discussing how best to promote the party's goals on the environment and other policy matters as well as discuss political strategy for the midterm elections.

"This important event enables our caucus to explore issues in-depth that are important to the American people like national security, health care, immigration, and the lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina," House Democratic Caucus Chairman James Clyburn (South Carolina) tells the Grind. The Democrats will also hear from several governors and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who delivered the Spanish version of his party's response to President Bush's State of the Union address.

Sing it, Al!

Just wanted to check in

2006-02-01T09:00:00.000-08:00

I am really hoping to hear something from Gore about the national health crisis. He said several years ago that he was in favor of Universal single payer healtcare. This is an idea whose time has come. I think people are going to be willing to listen to the argument for UHC now that our system is so broken.
Of course the insurance lobby is going to fight tooth and nail to keep it from happening, but someone who is not afraid to make the case could have a LOT of traction.

Are you all aware that in Candada they voted the person who created their system the "Greatest Canadian of all Time" or some such thing? Obviously they are happy with their healthcare.
I heard Doctor Tim Johnson on ABC this morning, advocating for the idea. He criticized the bush plan.

Does anyone want to join me in asking Gore to explore the idea and speak publically about it?

What Tom Knapp says about Al Gore

2006-01-24T13:08:00.000-08:00

I still say Gore would be a cinch in '08 ... and he talks like a guy who's running, even if he says he isn't.

Al Gore to Publish Book about Global Warming

2006-01-24T12:59:00.000-08:00

Rodale Books today announced its agreement with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore to publish a book about global warming entitled An Inconvenient Truth to be released in April 2006. Rodale Books President Tami Booth and Vice President and Executive Editor Leigh Haber acquired the book and audio rights in an agreement with Andrew Wylie of the Wylie Agency. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed.

The book, to be edited by Leigh Haber, will be released in April and was announced at the screening of the documentary film An Inconvenient Truth at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah on January 24. In the film, Mr. Gore guides audiences through indisputable evidence of the environmental impact of global warming.

In the book, the former U.S. Vice President writes about global warming and shares his personal story about how the issue became of urgent importance to him. His 1992 book, entitled Earth In The Balance, was critically praised and became a national bestseller, establishing him as an expert and leading spokesperson on the issue. The subject has become increasingly vital to him in the intervening years.

Tracking the Al Gore Response

2006-01-23T19:04:00.000-08:00

SusanHu has posted a great round-up on Gore over at bootrib.

We've covered Al's great speech (posted at Raw Story) in the week following, with these stories:

* "Al Gore's Triumph Gives Us Reason To Fight On,"
* "Gore Video & Media Reactions,"
* "What Al Said,"
* "Al Gore Speech Live-Blogging," and
* "Al Gore Speech: 9am PT/Noon ET."

Today, here are three more, thanks to Howie in Seattle:

* "Warmer Al Gore finds a new stump" from the LA Times reviews Al's performance in a 90-minute documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth" and the reaction Al is receiving when he shows up at screenings.

* Howard Dean ... "We fully stand by Al's speech. He is a great American, and should have been President."-quoted in comments in this post last night on Howard-Empowered People. Reader Advisory: There is also a photo of a young, shirtless Howard Dean.

* From Pacific Views: "When Al Gore spoke this week, he showed what we should demand of our leaders: honesty and forthrightness.

Tags: Bush, NSA. spying, Al Gore

John Aloysius Farrell on Al Gore

2006-01-23T15:25:00.000-08:00

Which raises the issue of Gore's own future. His speech was honed and polished, obviously well-rehearsed. Maybe he is contemplating a return to presidential politics.

Gore bridges divisions in the Democratic Party; he's as at home with conservatives as with lefties. He watches NASCAR, sings Nashville and speaks Ivy League.

Another blogger for Gore

2006-01-23T11:33:00.000-08:00

Green Zombie’s blog

While I like Russ Feingold and Wes Clark, the irony of Gore coming back and winning the election again and cleaning up Bush’s mess would be great. Here’s a link to the video of Gore’s speach that has caused the momentum to shift to him for president.

Speech gives Gore a boost

2006-01-23T04:29:00.000-08:00

From Avedon Carol we learn that his speech has boosted his popularity:

Gore's favorable ratings among Democrats increased from 64 percent to 77 percent among those who viewed it. Favorable ratings among Independents increased from 25 percent to 36 percent after viewing the speech. However, among Republicans, Gore's unfavorable ratings increased from 75 percent prior to viewing the speech to 81 percent after viewing it.

Growing support for Gore

2006-01-22T10:50:00.000-08:00

It's time to get serious about this draft Gore movement, people. I wasn't particularly impressed with him in 2000, but I respect tremendously everything he's done since the march to war started in 2002. Listening to him speak, one can't help but be impressed with his depth of knowledge, command of history, love for his country, and now, pure moral courage. I could go on and on here, but the bottom line is I don't think we will find a candidate who is smarter, more principled, more qualified or more electable!

So what can we do to make Gore's reported dream of being drafted to run for president a reality?

Al Gore, leading man?

2006-01-20T05:52:00.000-08:00

To borrow a cliché from the Hollywood marketing playbook, the new global warming documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" stars the former vice president as you've never seen him before.

Al Gore wheeling his own suitcase through airports, taking off his shoes and emptying his pockets at security. Al Gore firing up crowds with his one-man PowerPoint presentation show on arctic melt rates, devastating heat waves and dangerous changes in ocean currents.

Al Gore cracking jokes, reflecting candidly on his own foibles.

The failed presidential candidate doesn't immediately come to mind as the kind of charismatic star Hollywood might turn to to dramatize a pet cause. But his quest caught the attention of a group of filmmakers — among them "Pulp Fiction" producer Lawrence Bender — who have translated it to the screen in a documentary slated to premiere Tuesday at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah.

OpEd (David Broder): Gore's Challenge

2006-01-19T22:01:00.000-08:00

In a Washingon post OpEd on Thusday, David Broder gives his opinion about Gore's resounding DAR speech.

For those interested in reading or watching the speech (it's worth a second reading or viewing), the transcript and video are available here:

speech transcript link
full-length speech video can be found here

Below the flip, please find Mr. Broder's fairly positive take on Gore's speech. Here is a Daily Kos diary on Broder's editorial that appeared as I was drafting this post. I will be posting my own thoughts on Broder's arguments in a couple of days. Thanks.

Gore's Challenge

By David S. Broder
Thursday, January 19, 2006; Page A19

Former vice president Al Gore has turned himself into a one-man grand jury, ready to indict the Bush administration for any number of crimes against the Constitution. Whether you agree with Gore's conclusions or not, the speech that the 2000 Democratic nominee for president gave this week in Washington was as comprehensive a rundown of George W. Bush's ventures to the limits of executive authority as anyone could hope to find.

Gore is hardly an objective observer. Having outpolled Bush in the popular vote only to see his apparent victory taken from him by a divided Supreme Court, Gore cannot be expected to be dispassionate about the way Bush is operating as president. His speech is just an indictment. The proof of the charges can come only in congressional hearings and, ultimately, in the courts.

But even after discounting for political motivations, it seems to me that Gore has done a service by laying out the case as clearly and copiously as he has done. His overall charge is that Bush has systematically broken the laws and bent the Constitution by his actions in the areas of national security and domestic anti-terrorism. He is not the first to make that complaint. My e-mail has included many messages from people who have leaped far ahead of the evidence and concluded that Bush should be impeached and removed from office for actions they deem illegal.

Gore stops well short of that point and contents himself with citing the cases that cause many others concern. The first -- and to my mind weakest -- instance is the claim that Bush took the nation to war on the basis of false intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But there is no clear evidence as yet that Bush willfully concocted or knowingly distorted the intelligence he received about Saddam Hussein's military programs. Interpretations of that intelligence varied within the government, but the Clinton administration, of which Gore was an important part, came to the same conclusions that Bush did -- and so did other governments in the Western alliance.

It is a reach to attempt to make a crime of a policy misjudgment.

But the other cases Gore cited are more troubling. The Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, for which only low-level military personnel have been punished, traces back through higher and untouched levels of command to the Pentagon, the Justice Department and the White House, all of which failed in their duties to ensure that the occupation forces were adhering to recognized international standards for the treatment of prisoners.

Similarly, the administration's resistance to setting and enforcing clear prohibitions on torture and inhumane treatment of detainees in the war on terrorism raises legitimate questions about its willingness to adhere to the rule of law. From the first days after Sept. 11, Bush has appeared to believe that he is essentially unconstrained. His oddly equivocal recent signing statement on John McCain's legislation banning such tactics seemed to say he could ignore the plain terms of the law.

If Judge Samuel Alito is right that no one is above the law, then Bush's supposition deserves to be challenged.

Gore's final example -- on which he has lots of company among legal scholars -- is the contention that Bush broke the law in ordering the National Security Agency to monitor domestic phone calls without a warrant from the court Congress had created to supervise all such wiretapping. If -- as the Justice Department and the White House insist -- the president can flout that law, then it is hard to imagine what power he cannot assert.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter has summoned Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to a hearing on the warrantless wiretap issue, and that hearing should be the occasion for a broad exploration of the willingness of this administration to be constrained by the Constitution and the laws.

The committee should keep the attorney general on the witness stand as long as it takes -- as long as it spent examining the qualifications of Judge Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, if it comes to that. The stakes for the country are that high.

Gore is certainly right about one thing. When he challenged the members of Congress to "start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of government you're supposed to be," he was issuing a call of conscience that goes well beyond any partisan criticism.

davidbroder@washpost.com

For American Democracy

2006-01-19T17:15:00.000-08:00

I went to Constitution Hall last Monday to listen to Al Gore speak. What a good speech! Mr. Gore presented the NSA wiretapping fiasco, torture and extraordinary rendition in an interwoven manner that captured the stunning disregard this administration has to the Constitution and the rule of law.

Anatomy of a Smear

2006-01-19T15:27:00.000-08:00

Al Gore "invented the Internet" - resources

About sums it up

2006-01-19T15:21:00.000-08:00

Al Gore has guts; George Bush is nuts

Andy Ostroy says Gore is running

2006-01-19T06:59:00.000-08:00

Make no mistake, Al Gore is running for president. Bet the farm on it. He's been running for some time now. And Monday's fire and brimstone speech, delivered on a day celebrating the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., should be a wake up call to every Democrat who's set his/her sights on the White House. Gore has more passion and more mojo than any of them, and has been front and center on a number of key issues including Iraq, the environment and executive power, aggressively taking on the president while others in the party are too afraid to go for the political jugular. And he's been exciting Democrats in ways Hillary Clinton and John kerry wish they could. His overall presentation and message is resonating extremely well with voters. He's The Comeback Kid.

I don't think Comeback Kid quite covers it. American Restoration would be closer to the mark.

(Updated) Draft Petition Being 'Freeped'

2006-01-18T23:08:00.000-08:00

Note to folks visiting us from from the link in our Draft petition: some unknown malicious person is filling out fake and offensive signatures on our petition.

The attacker is relentless and persistent, making it impossible to delete the signatures in real-time.

We'd like to assure genuine signees that appropriate actions will be taken to prevent this attacker from spamming the petition. The interspersed legitimate signatures will be preserved.

Thank you for your patience and consideration.

Grassroots for Gore Team

UPDATE (1/21/06): It appears that the disruptive attacks by the prankster(s) have been addressed by the folks at care2.com, thepetitionsite.com that are hosting our Draft petition. We thank them for their help and for their ongoing contributions to activist communities.

Paul Craig Roberts says Gore Is Right

2006-01-18T16:45:00.000-08:00

Former vice president Al Gore gave what I believe to be the most important political speech in my lifetime, and the New York Times, "the newspaper of record," did not report it. Not even excerpts.

For the New York Times, it was a nonevent that a former vice president and presidential candidate, denied the presidency by one vote of the Supreme Court, challenged the Bush administration for its illegalities, rending of the Constitution and disrespect for the separation of powers.

So much for "the liberal press" that right-wingers rant about. If a "liberal press" exists, the New York Times is certainly no longer a member.

The Washington Post had a short report on Gore’s address at Constitution Hall, but the newspaper, if that is what it is, managed to water down the seriousness and urgency of the message that Gore brought to the country with sneers.

Gore’s address is the first sign of leadership from the Democratic party in six years. This alone makes it a major news event. But not even his own party took notice. According to reports, only one Democratic senator, Dianne Feinstein (CA) was in the audience. One would have thought the entire Democratic congressional delegation would have turned out in support of Gore’s challenge to Bush’s extraordinary claims of power.

The lack of an opposition party makes the media vulnerable to intimidation by a dictatorial-minded administration.

History has a funny way of tapping someone on the shoulder

2006-01-18T13:27:00.000-08:00

In a passionate - yes, passionate - speech, the former vice president indicted George W. Bush for arrogating to himself powers that the Constitution does not confer on him or any other president. Gore accused the president of eavesdropping on Americans without warrants in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act, of torturing prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions, of imprisoning Americans as enemy combatants without a charge.

Gore called for the attorney general to appoint a special counsel to investigate the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping, and he called on Congress to find the backbone to fulfill its constitutional duty to oversee the executive branch of government and check its power.

We believe that Gore is right, both in his analysis and in his proposed remedies. We second his call for a special counsel to investigate his claim - an absurd claim, in our view - that Congress' authorization of the use of military force in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 gave the president the inherent power to violate the Bill of Rights and the FISA statute.

The best hope we have of taking back America

2006-01-18T12:01:00.000-08:00

Frankly, to my mind he is no longer a politician but a statesman. He has a unique place in American politics that I am sure no one would wish to trade with him, but the events that have brought him there obviously have--I must repeat, as there seems no other way to say it--transformed him. He has gone through political Hell and survived, and more remarkable still, has gained immeasurably from it.

No other possible candidate from either party is his equal. They are all beholden to just the sorts of interest groups and political calculations, the obvious insincerity, that alienates and repulses voters and in the end leads to voter disaffection and alienation. Even the so-called invincible McCain looks like a tawdry panderer in comparison.

Put bluntly, Al Gore has nothing left to lose. He already did. He can't be swift-boated; it would look grotesque. He has been freed to speak his mind, his principles, and that gives him an amazing power. He makes all the others, of both parties, look like the petty pols they are.

He is the best hope we have of taking back America.

Gore looks like a leader because he is a leader

2006-01-18T06:05:00.000-08:00

Avedon Carol

Note that Clinton and Kerry, both of whom want to claim the mantel of leadership for the Democratic Party, have been pretty quiet about this issue until Al Gore spoke up about it.

Despite the fact that the Clintons were the ones who were supposed to deliver healthcare, Al Gore was the first to mention single-payer. Gore was also the first high-profile Democrat to make the case against invading Iraq. Up until now, the Democratic leadership has carefully ignored Gore, partly because they were too cowardly to agree with positions which were clearly right but not popular among the Washington blitherati, but mainly because acknowledging that Gore is right (when they have been wrong) would have threatened their own ambitions for the presidency.

But this week Gore was too hard to ignore, and so clearly right that even these climbers were forced to agree with him. Gore has been showing the leadership that these people lack, and they are falling behind him in spite of themselves, because he is a leader.

Look, the GOP works hard to dismiss Gore, to call him crazy, to marginalize him, and it's helped to convince some Democrats that he's not someone they need to pay attention to. Meanwhile, please note that the GOP works not nearly as hard to attack Clinton, consistently playing her up as the incipient party nominee for the presidential race in '08. Why do you think they're doing that?

They're a lot more afraid of Gore than they are of Hillary, and not without good reason. Hillary looks like a panderer because she is pandering, but not showing any real leadership. Gore is the leader, and Gore has that one big thing that voters have complained is missing from other candidates: passionate commitment to what he is saying - honesty. Gore is the real thing and that's getting harder and harder to hide. He is obviously not pandering. Even a few members of the press may start to get it soon. I'll be interested to see if MoDo has another column about how Gore is boring.

Whether he wants it or not

2006-01-17T13:21:00.000-08:00

Al Gore MUST Run for President in 2008

Blogosphere respond's to Gore's speech

2006-01-17T12:24:00.000-08:00

Gore spoke as a patriot

2006-01-17T09:06:00.000-08:00

Lisa Brown of the American Constitution Society opened the event by asking Gore to enter, whereupon there was a standing ovation. After Gore sat down, Brown reminded the audience that Martin Luther King Jr. had been the victim of government spying. She emphasized that liberty is not a partisan issue and went on to introduce Bob Barr. Barr was scheduled to introduce Al Gore via video feed, but there was a technology glitch that spoiled the effect, so Michael Ostrolenk introduced Gore.

There was a thunderous applause and standing ovation as Gore rose and crossed to the podium. Gore began by thanking the Liberty Coalition and the American Constitution Society. He acknowledged distinguished guests including Senator Feinstein.

Gore said that while he and Bob Barr disagreed on many things (general laughter) they did agree on the risk posed by an expansive executive. He said it was imperative that the rule of law be restored. Gore said, “That is why I have come to Constitution Hall” and went on to say that Martin Luther King Day was an appropriate occasion for such remarks.

Gore reminded the audience that Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. had been the victim of government spying, saying that the FBI had called King the “most dangerous and effective negro leader in the country” and vowed to “take him off his pedestal.” The Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA) had been written as a response to those abuses. Gore said he had voted for FISA and that it had worked well for thirty years.

He said that "Yet, just one month ago, Americans awoke to the shocking news that in spite of this long settled law, the Executive Branch has been secretly spying on large numbers of Americans for the last four years and eavesdropping on large volumes of telephone calls, e-mail messages, and other Internet traffic inside the United States.” without any search warrants or any new domestic law.

Gore pointed out that Bush had gone out of his way to reassure Americans that constitutional protections were being preserved. In a slightly satiric voice Gore said, “But surprisingly, the President’s soothing statements turned out to be false." to general laughter. When the New York Times reported the abuses, the President brazenly asserted that he had those powers.

Gore observed that a President who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our founding fathers made a government of laws, not men. A President not bound by laws of the legislature or the check of the judiciary becomes a threat to our system of government.

Gore repeatedly pointed out that adherence to the rule of law strengthens our democracy and America. He pointed out that lack of openness and honesty had led to mistakes such as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the Iraq War. He concluded that America was “better off knowing the truth” to thunderous applause.

He said that, “the President and I agree that the threat of terror is all to real; where we disagree is that we have to break the law” to protect the country. Once the rule of law is broken, lawlessness grows, and democracy itself is threatened. Gore said, “Incredibly, the Administration claims instead that the surveillance was implicitly authorized when Congress voted to use force against those who attacked us on September 11th.” Gore reminded us that the Attorney General must have known such surveillance was illegal because he conferred with members of congress asking for new legislation as was turned down; so how can they now argue that their actions had been legal all along?

When Congress denied the President these powers, he secretly assumed them anyway.

These abuses are part of a larger pattern of disregard for the constitution. The President has assumed the power to seize and imprison any American, deny him access to a lawyer, even to imprison him the rest of his life without even bringing charges. And here, in a low, angry voice, Gore said, “No such right exists”.

Here Gore came to what I regard as the most moving part of his speech, which dealt with torture. I can only quote it directly:

At the same time, the Executive Branch has claimed a previously unrecognized authority to mistreat prisoners in its custody in ways that plainly constitute torture in a pattern that has now been documented in U.S. facilities located in several countries around the world.

Over 100 of these captives have reportedly died while being tortured by Executive Branch interrogators and many more have been broken and humiliated. In the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, investigators who documented the pattern of torture estimated that more than 90 percent of the victims were innocent of any charges.

This shameful exercise of power overturns a set of principles that our nation has observed since General Washington first enunciated them during our Revolutionary War and has been observed by every president since then – until now. These practices violate the Geneva Conventions and the International Convention Against Torture, not to mention our own laws against torture.

The President has also claimed that he has the authority to kidnap individuals in foreign countries and deliver them for imprisonment and interrogation on our behalf by autocratic regimes in nations that are infamous for the cruelty of their techniques for torture.

Some of our traditional allies have been shocked by these new practices on the part of our nation. The British Ambassador to Uzbekistan – one of those nations with the worst reputations for torture in its prisons – registered a complaint to his home office about the senselessness and cruelty of the new U.S. practice: “This material is useless – we are selling our souls for dross. It is in fact positively harmful.”

Can it be true that any president really has such powers under our Constitution? If the answer is “yes” then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited? If the President has the inherent authority to eavesdrop, imprison citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can’t he do?

The Dean of Yale Law School, Harold Koh, said after analyzing the Executive Branch’s claims of these previously unrecognized powers: “If the President has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution.”

The fact that our normal safeguards have thus far failed to contain this unprecedented expansion of executive power is deeply troubling. This failure is due in part to the fact that the Executive Branch has followed a determined strategy of obfuscating, delaying, withholding information, appearing to yield but then refusing to do so and dissembling in order to frustrate the efforts of the legislative and judicial branches to restore our constitutional balance.

For example, after appearing to support legislation sponsored by John McCain to stop the continuation of torture, the President declared in the act of signing the bill that he reserved the right not to comply with it.

When Gore said he reserved the right not to comply there was general laughter.

Gore reviewed the times in our history when we strayed from the Bill of Rights: The Alien and Sedition Act, Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, the Palmer Raids, the internment of Japanese Americans, and the COINTELPRO program; but observed in each case we had restored rights under the law and learned from the experience.

He described the expansion of executive power during the cold war and the increased danger the present administration poses by putting us on a war footing that will last, in the administration's words, “for the rest of our lives”. Gore then went on to describe the danger posed by new technology in eavesdropping and surveillance.

Gore repeatedly acknowledged the danger of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. He went on to say that there is an inherent power in the Presidency to respond to threats that cannot be precisely legally defined. However, the existence of that inherent power cannot be used to justify a gross and excessive power grab lasting for years that produces a serious imbalance in the relationship between the executive and the other two branches of government.

This is not just another cycle of overreach and regret. The administration proponents have put for a, “theory of the unitary executive but which is more accurately described as the unilateral executive, threatens to expand the president’s powers until the contours of the constitution that the Framers actually gave us become obliterated beyond all recognition.” Bush has pushed this theory to the max and when added to the idea of perpetual war, “the implications of this theory stretch quite literally as far into the future as we can imagine.”

The common denominator is an instinct to intimidate and control.

Gore compared the current suppression on dissenting voices in the CIA with the previous suppression of dissenting voices in the FBI during Hoover’s era:

Ironically, that is exactly what happened to FBI officials in the 1960s who disagreed with J. Edgar Hoover’s view that Dr. King was closely connected to Communists. The head of the FBI’s domestic intelligence division said that his effort to tell the truth about King’s innocence of the charge resulted in he and his colleagues becoming isolated and pressured. “It was evident that we had to change our ways or we would all be out on the street…. The men and I discussed how to get out of trouble. To be in trouble with Mr. Hoover was a serious matter. These men were trying to buy homes, mortgages on homes, children in school. They lived in fear of getting transferred, losing money on their homes, as they usually did. … so they wanted another memorandum written to get us out of the trouble that we were in.

In a proper system the court acts as an umpire, the administration has attempted to thwart this by appointing compliant judges. The President’s domestic spying program is a direct challenge to the power of the courts.

Gore said the most serious challenge was to the legislature, which now operates as if it were completely subservient to the executive. Now members spend the majority of there time on raising money for thirty second commercials, “and they’re not the federalist papers” (general laughter). There have now been two or three generations of congress where who don’t know what a true oversight hearing looks like.

Gore said both Democrats and Republicans were responsible for failing to protest a clearly unconstitutional program. He said, “I call upon Democratic and Republican members of Congress today to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution.” to a sustained, thunderous, standing ovation. Gore said over the ovation, “Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of government you’re supposed to be.” Again and again Gore spoke over applause, over even standing ovations. He was not a candidate. He spoke as an American patriot.

He reminded that audience that we the people are the key to the survival of American democracy. We must examine our own role in the decay of our democracy.

Gore spoke about the administration’s use of fear to short-circuit debate. He endorsed the words of Bob Barr who said, “The President has dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will.”

Gore called for:

A special counsel to investigate serious violations of the law by the President

Strengthened whistle-blower protection laws

Serious, not superficial, hearings into abuses of power by the President. To follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Under no circumstances should the patriot act be extended without proper constitutional protections.

Telecommunications companies must cease and desist any complicity with administration domestic spying without a proper warrant.

Freedom of the Internet must be preserved.

He said that there was reason for hope and he could feel it in the hall.

Gore closed by quoting Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.:

Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.

Watching Gore speak you could only be reminded of Ben Franklin’s words upon being asked what sort of government the Constitutional Conventionhad produced, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Video Highlights of Gore's Speech

This was not a campaign speech

2006-01-16T13:23:00.000-08:00

Today Al Gore gave a speech that was a call to action to American citizens to defend the constitution. Speaking to an audience at DAR Constitution Hall that was 75% full, Gore gave a speech laying out how Bush has set himself up as a tyrant. He specifically called on members of the House and Senate to uphold your oath of office.

His voice was nothing like when he was candidate, instead he spoke mostly on a low tone, sometimes with righteous anger. He had clearly made a decision to speak thought the applause lines in keeping with the seriousness of his purpose.

I will give a further report later.

Text of prepared remarks.

Gore's Speech Today: Transcript and Video Link

2006-01-16T12:46:00.000-08:00

Al Gore delivered a powerful speech today at the DAR Constitution hall in Washington DC. Please read the transcript below the flip, but you may also watch the speech video at C-Span (scroll down to locate the video link under the "Recent Programs" tab).
The transcipt follows, courtesy of a gnostic's diary at Daily Kos. Two of our team members attended the speech today, and will be most likely be posting diaries on the event within the next day or so.

Former Vice President Al Gore:

Congressman Barr and I have disagreed many times over the years, but we have joined together today with thousands of our fellow citizens-Democrats and Republicans alike-to express our shared concern that America's Constitution is in grave danger.

In spite of our differences over ideology and politics, we are in strong agreement that the American values we hold most dear have been placed at serious risk by the unprecedented claims of the Administration to a truly breathtaking expansion of executive power.

As we begin this new year, the Executive Branch of our government has been caught eavesdropping on huge numbers of American citizens and has brazenly declared that it has the unilateral right to continue without regard to the established law enacted by Congress to prevent such abuses.

It is imperative that respect for the rule of law be restored.

So, many of us have come here to Constitution Hall to sound an alarm and call upon our fellow citizens to put aside partisan differences and join with us in demanding that our Constitution be defended and preserved.

It is appropriate that we make this appeal on the day our nation has set aside to honor the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who challenged America to breathe new life into our oldest values by extending its promise to all our people.

On this particular Martin Luther King Day, it is especially important to recall that for the last several years of his life, Dr. King was illegally wiretapped-one of hundreds of thousands of Americans whose private communications were intercepted by the U.S. government during this period.

The FBI privately called King the "most dangerous and effective negro leader in the country" and vowed to "take him off his pedestal." The government even attempted to destroy his marriage and blackmail him into committing suicide.

This campaign continued until Dr. King's murder. The discovery that the FBI conducted a long-running and extensive campaign of secret electronic surveillance designed to infiltrate the inner workings of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and to learn the most intimate details of Dr. King's life, helped to convince Congress to enact restrictions on wiretapping.

The result was the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA), which was enacted expressly to ensure that foreign intelligence surveillance would be presented to an impartial judge to verify that there is a sufficient cause for the surveillance. I voted for that law during my first term in Congress and for almost thirty years the system has proven a workable and valued means of according a level of protection for private citizens, while permitting foreign surveillance to continue.

Yet, just one month ago, Americans awoke to the shocking news that in spite of this long settled law, the Executive Branch has been secretly spying on large numbers of Americans for the last four years and eavesdropping on "large volumes of telephone calls, e-mail messages, and other Internet traffic inside the United States." The New York Times reported that the President decided to launch this massive eavesdropping program "without search warrants or any new laws that would permit such domestic intelligence collection."

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. Moreover, as soon as this massive domestic spying program was uncovered by the press, the President not only confirmed that the story was true, but also declared that he has no intention of bringing these wholesale invasions of privacy to an end.

At present, we still have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the President of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently.

A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. Indeed, they recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution - our system of checks and balances - was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said: "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."

An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the Founders sought to nullify in the Constitution - an all-powerful executive too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free. In the words of James Madison, "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet, "On Common Sense" ignited the American Revolution, succinctly described America's alternative. Here, he said, we intended to make certain that "the law is king."

Vigilant adherence to the rule of law strengthens our democracy and strengthens America. It ensures that those who govern us operate within our constitutional structure, which means that our democratic institutions play their indispensable role in shaping policy and determining the direction of our nation. It means that the people of this nation ultimately determine its course and not executive officials operating in secret without constraint.

The rule of law makes us stronger by ensuring that decisions will be tested, studied, reviewed and examined through the processes of government that are designed to improve policy. And the knowledge that they will be reviewed prevents over-reaching and checks the accretion of power.

A commitment to openness, truthfulness and accountability also helps our country avoid many serious mistakes. Recently, for example, we learned from recently classified declassified documents that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized the tragic Vietnam war, was actually based on false information. We now know that the decision by Congress to authorize the Iraq War, 38 years later, was also based on false information. America would have been better off knowing the truth and avoiding both of these colossal mistakes in our history. Following the rule of law makes us safer, not more vulnerable.

The President and I agree on one thing. The threat from terrorism is all too real. There is simply no question that we continue to face new challenges in the wake of the attack on September 11th and that we must be ever-vigilant in protecting our citizens from harm.

Where we disagree is that we have to break the law or sacrifice our system of government to protect Americans from terrorism. In fact, doing so makes us weaker and more vulnerable.

Once violated, the rule of law is in danger. Unless stopped, lawlessness grows. The greater the power of the executive grows, the more difficult it becomes for the other branches to perform their constitutional roles. As the executive acts outside its constitutionally prescribed role and is able to control access to information that would expose its actions, it becomes increasingly difficult for the other branches to police it. Once that ability is lost, democracy itself is threatened and we become a government of men and not laws.

The President's men have minced words about America's laws. The Attorney General openly conceded that the "kind of surveillance" we now know they have been conducting requires a court order unless authorized by statute. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act self-evidently does not authorize what the NSA has been doing, and no one inside or outside the Administration claims that it does. Incredibly, the Administration claims instead that the surveillance was implicitly authorized when Congress voted to use force against those who attacked us on September 11th.

This argument just does not hold any water. Without getting into the legal intricacies, it faces a number of embarrassing facts. First, another admission by the Attorney General: he concedes that the Administration knew that the NSA project was prohibited by existing law and that they consulted with some members of Congress about changing the statute. Gonzalez says that they were told this probably would not be possible. So how can they now argue that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force somehow implicitly authorized it all along? Second, when the Authorization was being debated, the Administration did in fact seek to have language inserted in it that would have authorized them to use military force domestically - and the Congress did not agree. Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Jim McGovern, among others, made statements during the Authorization debate clearly restating that that Authorization did not operate domestically.

When President Bush failed to convince Congress to give him all the power he wanted when they passed the AUMF, he secretly assumed that power anyway, as if congressional authorization was a useless bother. But as Justice Frankfurter once wrote: "To find authority so explicitly withheld is not merely to disregard in a particular instance the clear will of Congress. It is to disrespect the whole legislative process and the constitutional division of authority between President and Congress."

This is precisely the "disrespect" for the law that the Supreme Court struck down in the steel seizure case.

It is this same disrespect for America's Constitution which has now brought our republic to the brink of a dangerous breach in the fabric of the Constitution. And the disrespect embodied in these apparent mass violations of the law is part of a larger pattern of seeming indifference to the Constitution that is deeply troubling to millions of Americans in both political parties.

For example, the President has also declared that he has a heretofore unrecognized inherent power to seize and imprison any American citizen that he alone determines to be a threat to our nation, and that, notwithstanding his American citizenship, the person imprisoned has no right to talk with a lawyer-even to argue that the President or his appointees have made a mistake and imprisoned the wrong person.

The President claims that he can imprison American citizens indefinitely for the rest of their lives without an arrest warrant, without notifying them about what charges have been filed against them, and without informing their families that they have been imprisoned.

At the same time, the Executive Branch has claimed a previously unrecognized authority to mistreat prisoners in its custody in ways that plainly constitute torture in a pattern that has now been documented in U.S. facilities located in several countries around the world.

Over 100 of these captives have reportedly died while being tortured by Executive Branch interrogators and many more have been broken and humiliated. In the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, investigators who documented the pattern of torture estimated that more than 90 percent of the victims were innocent of any charges.

This shameful exercise of power overturns a set of principles that our nation has observed since General Washington first enunciated them during our Revolutionary War and has been observed by every president since then - until now. These practices violate the Geneva Conventions and the International Convention Against Torture, not to mention our own laws against torture.

The President has also claimed that he has the authority to kidnap individuals in foreign countries and deliver them for imprisonment and interrogation on our behalf by autocratic regimes in nations that are infamous for the cruelty of their techniques for torture.

Some of our traditional allies have been shocked by these new practices on the part of our nation. The British Ambassador to Uzbekistan - one of those nations with the worst reputations for torture in its prisons - registered a complaint to his home office about the senselessness and cruelty of the new U.S. practice: "This material is useless - we are selling our souls for dross. It is in fact positively harmful."

Can it be true that any president really has such powers under our Constitution? If the answer is "yes" then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited? If the President has the inherent authority to eavesdrop, imprison citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can't he do?

The Dean of Yale Law School, Harold Koh, said after analyzing the Executive Branch's claims of these previously unrecognized powers: "If the President has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution."

The fact that our normal safeguards have thus far failed to contain this unprecedented expansion of executive power is deeply troubling. This failure is due in part to the fact that the Executive Branch has followed a determined strategy of obfuscating, delaying, withholding information, appearing to yield but then refusing to do so and dissembling in order to frustrate the efforts of the legislative and judicial branches to restore our constitutional balance.

For example, after appearing to support legislation sponsored by John McCain to stop the continuation of torture, the President declared in the act of signing the bill that he reserved the right not to comply with it.

Similarly, the Executive Branch claimed that it could unilaterally imprison American citizens without giving them access to review by any tribunal. The Supreme Court disagreed, but the President engaged in legal maneuvers designed to prevent the Court from providing meaningful content to the rights of its citizens.

A conservative jurist on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that the Executive Branch's handling of one such case seemed to involve the sudden abandonment of principle "at substantial cost to the government's credibility before the courts."

As a result of its unprecedented claim of new unilateral power, the Executive Branch has now put our constitutional design at grave risk. The stakes for America's representative democracy are far higher than has been generally recognized.

These claims must be rejected and a healthy balance of power restored to our Republic. Otherwise, the fundamental nature of our democracy may well undergo a radical transformation.

For more than two centuries, America's freedoms have been preserved in part by our founders' wise decision to separate the aggregate power of our government into three co-equal branches, each of which serves to check and balance the power of the other two.

On more than a few occasions, the dynamic interaction among all three branches has resulted in collisions and temporary impasses that create what are invariably labeled "constitutional crises." These crises have often been dangerous and uncertain times for our Republic. But in each such case so far, we have found a resolution of the crisis by renewing our common agreement to live under the rule of law.

The principle alternative to democracy throughout history has been the consolidation of virtually all state power in the hands of a single strongman or small group who together exercise that power without the informed consent of the governed.

It was in revolt against just such a regime, after all, that America was founded. When Lincoln declared at the time of our greatest crisis that the ultimate question being decided in the Civil War was "whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure," he was not only saving our union but also was recognizing the fact that democracies are rare in history. And when they fail, as did Athens and the Roman Republic upon whose designs our founders drew heavily, what emerges in their place is another strongman regime.

There have of course been other periods of American history when the Executive Branch claimed new powers that were later seen as excessive and mistaken. Our second president, John Adams, passed the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts and sought to silence and imprison critics and political opponents.

When his successor, Thomas Jefferson, eliminated the abuses he said: "[The essential principles of our Government] form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation... [S]hould we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty and safety."

Our greatest President, Abraham Lincoln, suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Some of the worst abuses prior to those of the current administration were committed by President Wilson during and after WWI with the notorious Red Scare and Palmer Raids. The internment of Japanese Americans during WWII marked a low point for the respect of individual rights at the hands of the executive. And, during the Vietnam War, the notorious COINTELPRO program was part and parcel of the abuses experienced by Dr. King and thousands of others.

But in each of these cases, when the conflict and turmoil subsided, the country recovered its equilibrium and absorbed the lessons learned in a recurring cycle of excess and regret.

There are reasons for concern this time around that conditions may be changing and that the cycle may not repeat itself. For one thing, we have for decades been witnessing the slow and steady accumulation of presidential power. In a global environment of nuclear weapons and cold war tensions, Congress and the American people accepted ever enlarging spheres of presidential initiative to conduct intelligence and counter intelligence activities and to allocate our military forces on the global stage. When military force has been used as an instrument of foreign policy or in response to humanitarian demands, it has almost always been as the result of presidential initiative and leadership. As Justice Frankfurter wrote in the Steel Seizure Case, "The accretion of dangerous power does not come in a day. It does come, however slowly, from the generative force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most disinterested assertion of authority."

A second reason to believe we may be experiencing something new is that we are told by the Administration that the war footing upon which he has tried to place the country is going to "last for the rest of our lives." So we are told that the conditions of national threat that have been used by other Presidents to justify arrogations of power will persist in near perpetuity.

Third, we need to be aware of the advances in eavesdropping and surveillance technologies with their capacity to sweep up and analyze enormous quantities of information and to mine it for intelligence. This adds significant vulnerability to the privacy and freedom of enormous numbers of innocent people at the same time as the potential power of those technologies. These techologies have the potential for shifting the balance of power between the apparatus of the state and the freedom of the individual in ways both subtle and profound.

Don't misunderstand me: the threat of additional terror strikes is all too real and their concerted efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction does create a real imperative to exercise the powers of the Executive Branch with swiftness and agility. Moreover, there is in fact an inherent power that is conferred by the Constitution to the President to take unilateral action to protect the nation from a sudden and immediate threat, but it is simply not possible to precisely define in legalistic terms exactly when that power is appropriate and when it is not.

But the existence of that inherent power cannot be used to justify a gross and excessive power grab lasting for years that produces a serious imbalance in the relationship between the executive and the other two branches of government.

There is a final reason to worry that we may be experiencing something more than just another cycle of overreach and regret. This Administration has come to power in the thrall of a legal theory that aims to convince us that this excessive concentration of presidential authority is exactly what our Constitution intended.

This legal theory, which its proponents call the theory of the unitary executive but which is more accurately described as the unilateral executive, threatens to expand the president's powers until the contours of the constitution that the Framers actually gave us become obliterated beyond all recognition. Under this theory, the President's authority when acting as Commander-in-Chief or when making foreign policy cannot be reviewed by the judiciary or checked by Congress. President Bush has pushed the implications of this idea to its maximum by continually stressing his role as Commander-in-Chief, invoking it has frequently as he can, conflating it with his other roles, domestic and foreign. When added to the idea that we have entered a perpetual state of war, the implications of this theory stretch quite literally as far into the future as we can imagine.

This effort to rework America's carefully balanced constitutional design into a lopsided structure dominated by an all powerful Executive Branch with a subservient Congress and judiciary is-ironically-accompanied by an effort by the same administration to rework America's foreign policy from one that is based primarily on U.S. moral authority into one that is based on a misguided and self-defeating effort to establish dominance in the world.

The common denominator seems to be based on an instinct to intimidate and control.

This same pattern has characterized the effort to silence dissenting views within the Executive Branch, to censor information that may be inconsistent with its stated ideological goals, and to demand conformity from all Executive Branch employees.

For example, CIA analysts who strongly disagreed with the White House assertion that Osama bin Laden was linked to Saddam Hussein found themselves under pressure at work and became fearful of losing promotions and salary increases.

Ironically, that is exactly what happened to FBI officials in the 1960s who disagreed with J. Edgar Hoover's view that Dr. King was closely connected to Communists. The head of the FBI's domestic intelligence division said that his effort to tell the truth about King's innocence of the charge resulted in he and his colleagues becoming isolated and pressured. "It was evident that we had to change our ways or we would all be out on the street.... The men and I discussed how to get out of trouble. To be in trouble with Mr. Hoover was a serious matter. These men were trying to buy homes, mortgages on homes, children in school. They lived in fear of getting transferred, losing money on their homes, as they usually did. ... so they wanted another memorandum written to get us out of the trouble that we were in."

The Constitution's framers understood this dilemma as well, as Alexander Hamilton put it, "a power over a man's support is a power over his will." (Federalist No. 73)

Soon, there was no more difference of opinion within the FBI. The false accusation became the unanimous view. In exactly the same way, George Tenet's CIA eventually joined in endorsing a manifestly false view that there was a linkage between al Qaeda and the government of Iraq.

In the words of George Orwell: "We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

Whenever power is unchecked and unaccountable it almost inevitably leads to mistakes and abuses. In the absence of rigorous accountability, incompetence flourishes. Dishonesty is encouraged and rewarded.

Last week, for example, Vice President Cheney attempted to defend the Administration's eavesdropping on American citizens by saying that if it had conducted this program prior to 9/11, they would have found out the names of some of the hijackers.

Tragically, he apparently still doesn't know that the Administration did in fact have the names of at least 2 of the hijackers well before 9/11 and had available to them information that could have easily led to the identification of most of the other hijackers. And yet, because of incompetence in the handling of this information, it was never used to protect the American people.

It is often the case that an Executive Branch beguiled by the pursuit of unchecked power responds to its own mistakes by reflexively proposing that it be given still more power. Often, the request itself it used to mask accountability for mistakes in the use of power it already has.

Moreover, if the pattern of practice begun by this Administration is not challenged, it may well become a permanent part of the American system. Many conservatives have pointed out that granting unchecked power to this President means that the next President will have unchecked power as well. And the next President may be someone whose values and belief you do not trust. And this is why Republicans as well as Democrats should be concerned with what this President has done. If this President's attempt to dramatically expand executive power goes unquestioned, our constitutional design of checks and balances will be lost. And the next President or some future President will be able, in the name of national security, to restrict our liberties in a way the framers never would have thought possible.

The same instinct to expand its power and to establish dominance characterizes the relationship between this Administration and the courts and the Congress.

In a properly functioning system, the Judicial Branch would serve as the constitutional umpire to ensure that the branches of government observed their proper spheres of authority, observed civil liberties and adhered to the rule of law. Unfortunately, the unilateral executive has tried hard to thwart the ability of the judiciary to call balls and strikes by keeping controversies out of its hands - notably those challenging its ability to detain individuals without legal process -- by appointing judges who will be deferential to its exercise of power and by its support of assaults on the independence of the third branch.

The President's decision to ignore FISA was a direct assault on the power of the judges who sit on that court. Congress established the FISA court precisely to be a check on executive power to wiretap. Yet, to ensure that the court could not function as a check on executive power, the President simply did not take matters to it and did not let the court know that it was being bypassed.

The President's judicial appointments are clearly designed to ensure that the courts will not serve as an effective check on executive power. As we have all learned, Judge Alito is a longtime supporter of a powerful executive - a supporter of the so-called unitary executive, which is more properly called the unilateral executive. Whether you support his confirmation or not - and I do not - we must all agree that he will not vote as an effective check on the expansion of executive power. Likewise, Chief Justice Roberts has made plain his deference to the expansion of executive power through his support of judicial deference to executive agency rulemaking.

And the Administration has supported the assault on judicial independence that has been conducted largely in Congress. That assault includes a threat by the Republican majority in the Senate to permanently change the rules to eliminate the right of the minority to engage in extended debate of the President's judicial nominees. The assault has extended to legislative efforts to curtail the jurisdiction of courts in matters ranging from habeas corpus to the pledge of allegiance. In short, the Administration has demonstrated its contempt for the judicial role and sought to evade judicial review of its actions at every turn.

But the most serious damage has been done to the legislative branch. The sharp decline of congressional power and autonomy in recent years has been almost as shocking as the efforts by the Executive Branch to attain a massive expansion of its power.

I was elected to Congress in 1976 and served eight years in the house, 8 years in the Senate and presided over the Senate for 8 years as Vice President. As a young man, I saw the Congress first hand as the son of a Senator. My father was elected to Congress in 1938, 10 years before I was born, and left the Senate in 1971.

The Congress we have today is unrecognizable compared to the one in which my father served. There are many distinguished Senators and Congressmen serving today. I am honored that some of them are here in this hall. But the legislative branch of government under its current leadership now operates as if it is entirely subservient to the Executive Branch.

Moreover, too many Members of the House and Senate now feel compelled to spend a majority of their time not in thoughtful debate of the issues, but raising money to purchase 30 second TV commercials.

There have now been two or three generations of congressmen who don't really know what an oversight hearing is. 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. Yet oversight is almost unknown in the Congress today.

The role of authorization committees has declined into insignificance. The 13 annual appropriation bills are hardly ever actually passed anymore. Everything is lumped into a single giant measure that is not even available for Members of Congress to read before they vote on it.

Members of the minority party are now routinely excluded from conference committees, and amendments are routinely not allowed during floor consideration of legislation.

In the United States Senate, which used to pride itself on being the "greatest deliberative body in the world," meaningful debate is now a rarity. Even on the eve of the fateful vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq, Senator Robert Byrd famously asked: "Why is this chamber empty?"

In the House of Representatives, the number who face a genuinely competitive election contest every two years is typically less than a dozen out of 435.

And too many incumbents have come to believe that the key to continued access to the money for re-election is to stay on the good side of those who have the money to give; and, in the case of the majority party, the whole process is largely controlled by the incumbent president and his political organization.

So the willingness of Congress to challenge the Administration is further limited when the same party controls both Congress and the Executive Branch.

The Executive Branch, time and again, has co-opted Congress' role, and often Congress has been a willing accomplice in the surrender of its own power.

Look for example at the Congressional role in "overseeing" this massive four year eavesdropping campaign that on its face seemed so clearly to violate the Bill of Rights. The President says he informed Congress, but what he really means is that he talked with the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate intelligence committees and the top leaders of the House and Senate. This small group, in turn, claimed that they were not given the full facts, though at least one of the intelligence committee leaders handwrote a letter of concern to VP Cheney and placed a copy in his own safe.

Though I sympathize with the awkward position in which these men and women were placed, I cannot disagree with the Liberty Coalition when it says that Democrats as well as Republicans in the Congress must share the blame for not taking action to protest and seek to prevent what they consider a grossly unconstitutional program.

Moreover, in the Congress as a whole-both House and Senate-the enhanced role of money in the re-election process, coupled with the sharply diminished role for reasoned deliberation and debate, has produced an atmosphere conducive to pervasive institutionalized corruption.

The Abramoff scandal is but the tip of a giant iceberg that threatens the integrity of the entire legislative branch of government.

It is the pitiful state of our legislative branch which primarily explains the failure of our vaunted checks and balances to prevent the dangerous overreach by our Executive Branch which now threatens a radical transformation of the American system.

I call upon Democratic and Republican members of Congress today to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution. Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of government you're supposed to be.

But there is yet another Constitutional player whose pulse must be taken and whose role must be examined in order to understand the dangerous imbalance that has emerged with the efforts by the Executive Branch to dominate our constitutional system.

We the people are-collectively-still the key to the survival of America's democracy. We-as Lincoln put it, "[e]ven we here"-must examine our own role as citizens in allowing and not preventing the shocking decay and degradation of our democracy.

Thomas Jefferson said: "An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will."

The revolutionary departure on which the idea of America was based was the audacious belief that people can govern themselves and responsibly exercise the ultimate authority in self-government. This insight proceeded inevitably from the bedrock principle articulated by the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke: "All just power is derived from the consent of the governed."

The intricate and carefully balanced constitutional system that is now in such danger was created with the full and widespread participation of the population as a whole. The Federalist Papers were, back in the day, widely-read newspaper essays, and they represented only one of twenty-four series of essays that crowded the vibrant marketplace of ideas in which farmers and shopkeepers recapitulated the debates that played out so fruitfully in Philadelphia.

Indeed, when the Convention had done its best, it was the people - in their various States - that refused to confirm the result until, at their insistence, the Bill of Rights was made integral to the document sent forward for ratification.

And it is "We the people" who must now find once again the ability we once had to play an integral role in saving our Constitution.

And here there is cause for both concern and great hope. The age of printed pamphlets and political essays has long since been replaced by television - a distracting and absorbing medium which sees determined to entertain and sell more than it informs and educates.

Lincoln's memorable call during the Civil War is applicable in a new way to our dilemma today: "We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country."

Forty years have passed since the majority of Americans adopted television as their principal source of information. Its dominance has become so extensive that virtually all significant political communication now takes place within the confines of flickering 30-second television advertisements.

And the political economy supported by these short but expensive television ads is as different from the vibrant politics of America's first century as those politics were different from the feudalism which thrived on the ignorance of the masses of people in the Dark Ages.

The constricted role of ideas in the American political system today has encouraged efforts by the Executive Branch to control the flow of information as a means of controlling the outcome of important decisions that still lie in the hands of the people.

The Administration vigorously asserts its power to maintain the secrecy of its operations. After all, the other branches can't check an abuse of power if they don't know it is happening.

For example, when the Administration was attempting to persuade Congress to enact the Medicare prescription drug benefit, many in the House and Senate raised concerns about the cost and design of the program. But, rather than engaging in open debate on the basis of factual data, the Administration withheld facts and prevented the Congress from hearing testimony that it sought from the principal administration expert who had compiled information showing in advance of the vote that indeed the true cost estimates were far higher than the numbers given to Congress by the President.

Deprived of that information, and believing the false numbers given to it instead, the Congress approved the program. Tragically, the entire initiative is now collapsing- all over the country- with the Administration making an appeal just this weekend to major insurance companies to volunteer to bail it out.

To take another example, scientific warnings about the catastrophic consequences of unchecked global warming were censored by a political appointee in the White House who had no scientific training. And today one of the leading scientific experts on global warming in NASA has been ordered not to talk to members of the press and to keep a careful log of everyone he meets with so that the Executive Branch can monitor and control his discussions of global warming.

One of the other ways the Administration has tried to control the flow of information is by consistently resorting to the language and politics of fear in order to short-circuit the debate and drive its agenda forward without regard to the evidence or the public interest. As President Eisenhower said, "Any who act as if freedom's defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confess a doctrine that is alien to America."

Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: "Men feared witches and burnt women."

The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.

Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.

Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously?

It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.

We have a duty as Americans to defend our citizens' right not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is therefore vital in our current circumstances that immediate steps be taken to safeguard our Constitution against the present danger posed by the intrusive overreaching on the part of the Executive Branch and the President's apparent belief that he need not live under the rule of law.

I endorse the words of Bob Barr, when he said, "The President has dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will."

A special counsel should immediately be appointed by the Attorney General to remedy the obvious conflict of interest that prevents him from investigating what many believe are serious violations of law by the President. We have had a fresh demonstration of how an independent investigation by a special counsel with integrity can rebuild confidence in our system of justice. Patrick Fitzgerald has, by all accounts, shown neither fear nor favor in pursuing allegations that the Executive Branch has violated other laws.

Republican as well as Democratic members of Congress should support the bipartisan call of the Liberty Coalition for the appointment of a special counsel to pursue the criminal issues raised by warrantless wiretapping of Americans by the President.

Second, new whistleblower protections should immediately be established for members of the Executive Branch who report evidence of wrongdoing -- especially where it involves the abuse of Executive Branch authority in the sensitive areas of national security.

Third, both Houses of Congress should hold comprehensive-and not just superficial-hearings into these serious allegations of criminal behavior on the part of the President. And, they should follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Fourth, the extensive new powers requested by the Executive Branch in its proposal to extend and enlarge the Patriot Act should, under no circumstances be granted, unless and until there are adequate and enforceable safeguards to protect the Constitution and the rights of the American people against the kinds of abuses that have so recently been revealed.

Fifth, any telecommunications company that has provided the government with access to private information concerning the communications of Americans without a proper warrant should immediately cease and desist their complicity in this apparently illegal invasion of the privacy of American citizens.

Freedom of communication is an essential prerequisite for the restoration of the health of our democracy.

It is particularly important that the freedom of the Internet be protected against either the encroachment of government or the efforts at control by large media conglomerates. The future of our democracy depends on it.

I mentioned that along with cause for concern, there is reason for hope. As I stand here today, I am filled with optimism that America is on the eve of a golden age in which the vitality of our democracy will be re-established and will flourish more vibrantly than ever. Indeed I can feel it in this hall.

As Dr. King once said, "Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us."

Gore to deliver scathing speech Monday on 'constitutional crisis' in D.C.

2006-01-13T11:35:00.000-08:00

Tivo and VCR alert! Let us pray that C-Span will broadcast Gore's speech. This could well be a watershed moment - for the country and for our candidate.

I also hope that some of our more high-visibility posters on dkos will diary this. Al is going to give them hell. I can't wait!

Gov. fires top aide over remarks made at Gore event

2006-01-10T19:40:00.000-08:00

I cannot help but feel that the republicans are really afraid of an Al Gore candidacy for President. They know he'd win and unite the country. Just look at what they've done to someone who speaks up and tells the truth. This is an interesting story and it also shows how weak Arnold Schwarzenegger is, and afraid he will lose his base of support.

Here's an older article about Gore, check it out if you have not read it. And, let me know what you think of it.

Howard Dean on CNN Today

2006-01-08T10:48:00.000-08:00

"Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" was broadcasting live from Israel today. Blitzer had Howard Dean on the program and they discussed what’s happening politically here in the United States. Dean definitely got the better of Blitzer. Blitzer wanted to pin Dean down that the Democrats were somehow involved with this Abramoff lobby scandal. Dean was very well primed for this line of questioning and was able to make the republicans look really really bad about the entire issue. They have become the party of corruption and they were not able to shake that label with Blitzer. Dean knew how to respond because the Dean Party Organization has done its homework and demonstrated that not one penny has gone to the Dems from republican Jack Abramoff. This is a Republican Party scandal - 100%.
There is one thing I would like to see all dems say when they are on TV or in front of a group. That is to reiterate that the GOP controls everything in Washington, DC. They govern the House and Senate, the Executive branch of Government, plus they control the courts. So, if the American people don’t like the direction of the country they know whom to blame! It is the GOP that’s in control and has messed things up!!

Gore won Florida by 30,000 votes!

2006-01-08T05:21:00.000-08:00

Lance Dehaven-Smith is a professor in the Askew School of Public Administration and Policy at Florida State University. He has long been deeply immersed in the politics of Florida, and has just published a book through University Press of Florida entitled "The Battle for Florida:An Annotated Compendium Of Materials From The 2000 Presidential Election."

Read the rest. Excellent analysis.

Please contact your local newspaper and ask them to review the book. You might also contact your favorite radio and/or TV news show and ask them to interview Dehaven-Smith.

Gore documentary surfaces

2006-01-04T15:27:00.000-08:00

A short documentary showing a more personal side of Al Gore and shot during his failed 2000 presidential election bid has recently become available to the public.

The 13-minute film shows Gore at his family home in Carthage, Tenn., resting before entering the last sprint of the election. It captures Gore the family man, surrounded by his daughters, grandchildren, wife and mother; and includes shots of Gore bodysurfing in the North Carolina coast and dismissing the Mel Gibson film The Patriot at the dinner table.

For more information, visit www.wholphindvd.com.

They still fear him

2006-01-04T04:54:00.000-08:00

Avedon Carroll does not understand why the press will not admit Al Gore is a strong Presidential contender. Because the celebrity press corps have a vested interest in ignoring Gore.

Will Al Gore Run? Meet The Press Doesn't Think So; Fails to Make Their Top '08 List

As we've said several times in this blog, Gore stands as good a chance as any based on his proven electability (he did win the popular vote); his firm anti-war position from the get-go; his unrivaled 20+ year environmental leadership; his stewardship with Bill Clinton over 7 years of unprecedented economic prosperity; and his skeleton-less closet (he's already been vetted several times). He's the comeback kid; the New Nixon. And he's more viable in our opinion than those that Russert mentioned, including, yes, Hillary. Only Warner has the makings of a candidate who could achieve some broad national crossover appeal.

Nobody understands our times better than Al Gore. Why would we settle for anyone else?

Talking about what matters

2005-12-31T11:05:00.000-08:00

The indispensable Avedon Carroll points to PolicyByBlog’s analysis of Hillary Clinton’s declining grassroots support. It includes Robert Kunst’s open letter to Hillary Clinton:

Two weeks ago, I made CNN, St. Pete Times, Air America, News Max and NY Post, trying to overcome doubts about you, when you were pushing a ban on flag desecration as your priority on the very same day that the '9/11' Commission was giving Bush and 'f' for failing to see their recommendations to thwart another terrorist attack with any real urgency or commitments.

While you had a grand opportunity to expose Bush's failures that is putting this nation at risk, and offer the answers regarding what dangers we are facing....while you could have led an identity missing in the Dem. Party that they even care about national security....while you could have demanded for New Yorkers, what Bush is ignoring....all of this and more was missing, while you focused on a 'non-issue' of banning flag desecration.

At a time when the current maladministration is pursuing a policy of torture in the name of national security, when a CIA Case officer has been betrayed, when the administration is engaged in systematic abuse of power, to talk about a flag burning is to make a joke of public discourse. It insults our intelligence and shames us before the world as a nation unwilling to confront reality.

Of all the possible Presidential contenders, only Al Gore is talking about the real problems that confront the United States of America.

Restore the constitution, Al Gore for President

2005-12-27T03:10:00.000-08:00

Senator Feingold has promised to fix the Patriot Act after the Senate recess. That is a little like fixing small pox. Of all the possible Democratic contenders, only Al Gore has called for the repeal of the Patriot Act. This is the same Al Gore who knew the Iraq War would be a disaster. This is the same Al Gore who has been consistently right about everything since the theft of 2000.

If we want to halt the cycle of defeat so brilliantly described by Peter Daou we need a leader free of all illusions about the nature of our opposition of the uselessness of our press. We need Al Gore.

Open Thread

2005-12-26T13:39:00.000-08:00

Open discussion thread.

EXPOSE'? National Debt Ceiling to be breached again

2005-12-18T16:57:00.000-08:00

An observation: the run away Bush National Debt. which stood at $8.1 trillion on 12/15 will soon hit the National Debt Ceiling that was raised in November of 2004 to $8.18 Trillion (yes, after the election).

A simple estimation shows that the Federal Government will default on its payments, effectively a bankruptcy, from around the 12th of January, if not earlier, unless the Congress plays along with thisgrotesque mismanagement by Bush, Cheney & Co and raises the debt ceiling again.

Being X-posted across: Daily Kos, My Left Wing, Booman Tribune, myDD, political Cortex. Volunteers for posting this at Democratic Underground (I can't post a new topic there yet) are welcome.

Key Words: National Debt, Debt Ceiling, Patriot Act, Legislative Activism, Activism

Statutory National Debt Ceiling: $8,180 Billion
Current National Debt (12/15) $8,099 Billion
Rate of increase in debt: $2.83 Billion per day
Number of days to max out: 28
Est. date of Federal Bankruptcy: 1/12/06

Resources:

The Public Debt online by Bureau of the Public Debt (BOPD): link
National Debt FAQ: link
zfacts.com's National Debt page
brillig.com's National Debt Clock

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In fact, it may be worse. Brillig.com link at the moment of this writings claims that The Outstanding Public Debt as of 18 Dec 2005 at 10:24:49 PM GMT is $8,156,993,192,732.62. Interestingly, there was a precipitous drop in the BOPD figures on 12/15 compared to 12/14. If we work with Brillig's numbers, we get:

Current National Debt (12/18) $8,156 Billion
Number of days to max out: 8.5
Est. date of Federal Bankruptcy: 12/26/05

(Merry Christmas! Just a little something special from uncles Chimpy and Darthy.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The politics

I am a bit surprised that this apparently hasn't been observed by the Democrats nor has it been reported on the media. A quick google news search at the time of writing gave these headlines:

Wilder floats spending plan
Richmond Times Dispatch, VA - Dec 17, 2005

Saudi Arabia's 2006 Budget,
Saudi Arabia United States Relations, D.C. - 2 hours ago

CHELSEA New hope for school fix-up
Kennebec Journal, ME - Dec 15, 2005

(hmm, interesting. Didn't know that Saudi Arabia actually puts out a budget plan.)

My guess is that as before, BushCo was hoping to sneak it through after the Congress votes on the Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy (i.e, tax cuts for buddies), some of which are apparently due to expire.

Now that we know, what can be done to thwart these biblical levels of incompetence, mismanagement, and corruption?

In most other democratic nations, the government would be brought down and either new leaders would be elected by the parliament or fresh elections would be called for.

In our case, with impeachment being the only constitutionally available option (other than resignations; and that option being ruled out since the tooth fairy apparently doesn't really exist), and with the presidential line of succession being stacked with none too comforting choices, I have no idea what can and should be done. Any opinions?

A few more figures and thoughts:

BushCo assumed a national debt of $5.7 Trillion on 1/21/01 following their SCOTUS-assisted coup in 2000.
the projected budget surplus then was $5.6 Trillion over a ten year period
the current debt of $8.1 Trillion is a 2.4 Trillion dollar bump up in just under 5 years, which is about $480 Billion per year.
each citizen's share of the national debt is $27,371.51
the Debt Ceiling was raised a few times in the last five years, with the last one having been on Nov. 17, 2004, after successfully hiding it from the public through the election. See these articles: 10/14/04, 11/04/04, 11/08/04, and 11/17/04. Given that Treasury Sec. Snow was "pleading" days before the election as reported in that 10/14 article, why didn't Kerry's economic team expose this before the election?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can you help?

You should call your Members of Congress (MoC) and talk to them about this and the also critical patriot act (Friday's vote was just the beginning of the struggle to fix the act)

Here are two key links for contacting your congresspersons and senators:

congress.org
EFF's detailed help page

Visit both the pages, equip yourself with the contact info, and call/write/fax your MoCs. Here are suggested talking points:

tell them not to raise the debt ceiling again
suggest that they explore possible options to oust this incompetent and corrupt administration from power
on the PATRIOT Act, thank your house representative if he/she voted against the conference report version of the bill H.R. 3199, and express your utter dismay and strong disappointment if they voted for it (don't let the 44 democrats that voted for it get away with it)
thank your senators if they voted against "invoking cloture" in the senate (and anger, dismay etc otherwise)
as I have written earlier, ask them to co-sponsor/vote for Leahy/Sununu's S. 2082 bill in the Senate that extends the debate by 3 months, and Conyers' H.R. 4506 in the house. Read the justification for this bill by Leahy/Sununu here. It is important for you to know that even the Senate version that was unanimously approved (without a public debate) in July is only compromise (and issues such as the NSLs and spygate that have surfaced since that version was written, as well as other possible administrative excesses, should be thoroughly scrutinized), and most provisions will become permanent even with that version. Please ask your MoCs to make way for and hold open floor debates, and ask for a 2 year sunset on the entire Act which would allow for a periodic review of the Act.

Thanks.

When in our history

2005-12-11T20:37:00.000-08:00

has there ever been such a disjunction between the majority of our 'leadership class' - journos, pundits and pols, including national Dems (Al Gore is a brave exception) - and the majority of the American people?

The former flatter themselves with the conceit that they are fighting another WWII (with other peoples' kids). The latter know that we are stuck and getting stucker in another Vietnam.

As Barbara Tuchman pointed out so eloquently in her many books, men in possession of both great stupidity and great power can lead the rest of us into messes so intractable that there is no 'right', much less good, way out of them.

None of the options now available to us will allow us to feel good about ourselves in the end, because even when we try to do good our very presence will only fuck things up the more. We need to get out of a place where we never should have been. Bringing the criminals to justice who caused this war is now the only honor we can give the dead.

Al Gore (11/03): Repeal the PATRIOT Act + ACTION ITEMS!

2005-12-08T15:04:00.000-08:00

Yahoo! News is reporting that a deal has been reached between the house and the senate representatives on patriot act reauthorization. It appears that the conference committee will propose 4 year sunsets on two or three provisions and make the rest permanent.

This is time for action!

Here are some of my thoughts on what we should seek (by calling our respective members of congress): LINK

Briefly, IMO, we should ask for:

1. rejecting or filibustering the conference committee version
2. open floor debate on a new smaller version
3. 2 year sunsets on the entire bill, so that it can be reviewed periodically.

Please start calling your members of congress (the DC officies are probably closed, but most of their local offices should be open), and follow through next week. Please post feedback on your calls.

>><<

Links for Contacting Members of Congress: The links below provide comprehensive information on Members of Congress (website, phone, fax, address, and web-forms and/or email) based on your zip code:

congress.org directory listing
Senate's own member listing
visi.com search tool
ACLU's search page
Congressional leadership listing
dKosopedia's Election 2006 page

You may need cookies turned on for some of these links to work.

Below the fold, please find Al Gore's 11/03 speech and several recent diaries by Rep. Conyers and Sen. Feingold.

To follow is a speech by Al Gore on 11/9/2003, where he called for a repeal of the original PATRIOT act, asking instead for a few of its provisions to be crafted into a new, smaller, law. Please see below the fold for the text of the speech.

Some suggested action items follow the transcript.

Freedom and security

by Former Vice-President Al Gore, November 9, 2003.
(Delivered at a moveon.org and American Constitution Society event, DAR Constitution Hall, Washington, DC)

... pleasantries ...

And perhaps the most important of these issues is the one I want to talk about today: the true relationship between Freedom and Security.

It seems to me that the logical place to start the discussion is with an accounting of exactly what has happened to civil liberties and security since the vicious attacks against America of September 11, 2001 --- and it's important to note at the outset that the Administration and the Congress have brought about many beneficial and needed improvements to make law enforcement and intelligence community efforts more effective against potential terrorists.

But a lot of other changes have taken place that a lot of people don't know about and that come as unwelcome surprises. For example, for the first time in our history, American citizens have been seized by the executive branch of government and put in prison without being charged with a crime, without having the right to a trial, without being able to see a lawyer, and without even being able to contact their families.

President Bush is claiming the unilateral right to do that to any American citizen he believes is an "enemy combatant." Those are the magic words. If the President alone decides that those two words accurately describe someone, then that person can be immediately locked up and held incommunicado for as long as the President wants, with no court having the right to determine whether the facts actually justify his imprisonment.

Now if the President makes a mistake, or is given faulty information by somebody working for him, and locks up the wrong person, then it's almost impossible for that person to prove his innocence --- because he can't talk to a lawyer or his family or anyone else and he doesn't even have the right to know what specific crime he is accused of committing. So a constitutional right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness that we used to think of in an old-fashioned way as "inalienable" can now be instantly stripped from any American by the President with no meaningful review by any other branch of government.

How do we feel about that? Is that OK?

Here's another recent change in our civil liberties: Now, if it wants to, the federal government has the right to monitor every website you go to on the Internet, keep a list of everyone you send email to or receive email from and everyone who you call on the telephone or who calls you --- and they don't even have to show probable cause that you've done anything wrong. Nor do they ever have to report to any court on what they're doing with the information. Moreover, there are precious few safeguards to keep them from reading the content of all your email.

Everybody fine with that?

If so, what about this next change?

For America's first 212 years, it used to be that if the police wanted to search your house, they had to be able to convince an independent judge to give them a search warrant and then (with rare exceptions) they had to go bang on your door and yell, "Open up!" Then, if you didn't quickly open up, they could knock the door down. Also, if they seized anything, they had to leave a list explaining what they had taken. That way, if it was all a terrible mistake (as it sometimes is) you could go and get your stuff back.

But that's all changed now. Starting two years ago, federal agents were given broad new statutory authority by the Patriot Act to "sneak and peak" in non-terrorism cases. They can secretly enter your home with no warning --- whether you are there or not --- and they can wait for months before telling you they were there. And it doesn't have to have any relationship to terrorism whatsoever. It applies to any garden-variety crime. And the new law makes it very easy to get around the need for a traditional warrant --- simply by saying that searching your house might have some connection (even a remote one) to the investigation of some agent of a foreign power. Then they can go to another court, a secret court, that more or less has to give them a warrant whenever they ask.

Three weeks ago, in a speech at FBI Headquarters, President Bush went even further and formally proposed that the Attorney General be allowed to authorize subpoenas by administrative order, without the need for a warrant from any court.

What about the right to consult a lawyer if you're arrested? Is that important?

Attorney General Ashcroft has issued regulations authorizing the secret monitoring of attorney-client conversations on his say-so alone; bypassing procedures for obtaining prior judicial review for such monitoring in the rare instances when it was permitted in the past. Now, whoever is in custody has to assume that the government is always listening to consultations between them and their lawyers.

Does it matter if the government listens in on everything you say to your lawyer? Is that Ok?

Or, to take another change --- and thanks to the librarians, more people know about this one --- the FBI now has the right to go into any library and ask for the records of everybody who has used the library and get a list of who is reading what.

Similarly, the FBI can demand all the records of banks, colleges, hotels, hospitals, credit-card companies, and many more kinds of companies. And these changes are only the beginning. Just last week, Attorney General Ashcroft issued brand new guidelines permitting FBI agents to run credit checks and background checks and gather other information about anyone who is "of investigatory interest," --- meaning anyone the agent thinks is suspicious --- without any evidence of criminal behavior.

So, is that fine with everyone?

Listen to the way Israel's highest court dealt with a similar question when, in 1999, it was asked to balance due process rights against dire threats to the security of its people:

"This is the destiny of democracy, as not all means are acceptable to it, and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it. Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back, it nonetheless has the upper hand. Preserving the Rule of Law and recognition of an individual's liberty constitutes an important component in its understanding of security. At the end of the day they (add to) its strength."

I want to challenge the Bush Administration's implicit assumption that we have to give up many of our traditional freedoms in order to be safe from terrorists.

Because it is simply not true.

In fact, in my opinion, it makes no more sense to launch an assault on our civil liberties as the best way to get at terrorists than it did to launch an invasion of Iraq as the best way to get at Osama Bin Laden.

In both cases, the Administration has attacked the wrong target.

In both cases they have recklessly put our country in grave and unnecessary danger, while avoiding and neglecting obvious and much more important challenges that would actually help to protect the country.

In both cases, the administration has fostered false impressions and misled the nation with superficial, emotional and manipulative presentations that are not worthy of American Democracy.

In both cases they have exploited public fears for partisan political gain and postured themselves as bold defenders of our country while actually weakening not strengthening America.

In both cases, they have used unprecedented secrecy and deception in order to avoid accountability to the Congress, the Courts, the press and the people.

Indeed, this Administration has turned the fundamental presumption of our democracy on its head. A government of and for the people is supposed to be generally open to public scrutiny by the people --- while the private information of the people themselves should be routinely protected from government intrusion.

But instead, this Administration is seeking to conduct its work in secret even as it demands broad unfettered access to personal information about American citizens. Under the rubric of protecting national security, they have obtained new powers to gather information from citizens and to keep it secret. Yet at the same time they themselves refuse to disclose information that is highly relevant to the war against terrorism.

They are even arrogantly refusing to provide information about 9/11 that is in their possession to the 9/11 Commission --- the lawful investigative body charged with examining not only the performance of the Bush Administration, but also the actions of the prior Administration in which I served. The whole point is to learn all we can about preventing future terrorist attacks,

Two days ago, the Commission was forced to issue a subpoena to the Pentagon, which has --- disgracefully --- put Secretary Rumsfeld's desire to avoid embarrassment ahead of the nation's need to learn how we can best avoid future terrorist attacks.

The Commission also served notice that it will issue a subpoena to the White House if the President continues to withhold information essential to the investigation.

And the White House is also refusing to respond to repeated bipartisan Congressional requests for information about 9/11 --- even though the Congress is simply exercising its Constitutional oversight authority. In the words of Senator McCain, "Excessive administration secrecy on issues related to the September 11 attacks feeds conspiracy theories and reduces the public's confidence in government."

In a revealing move, just three days ago, the White House asked the Republican leadership of the Senate to shut down the Intelligence Committee's investigation of 9/11 based on a trivial political dispute. Apparently the President is anxious to keep the Congress from seeing what are said to have been clear, strong and explicit warnings directly to him a few weeks before 9/11 that terrorists were planning to hijack commercial airliners and use them to attack us.

Astonishingly, the Republican Senate leadership quickly complied with the President's request. Such obedience and complicity in what looks like a cover-up from the majority party in a separate and supposedly co-equal branch of government makes it seem like a very long time ago when a Republican Attorney General and his deputy resigned rather than comply with an order to fire the special prosecutor investigating Richard Nixon.

In an even more brazen move, more than two years after they rounded up over 1,200 individuals of Arab descent, they still refuse to release the names of the individuals they detained, even though virtually every one of those arrested has been "cleared" by the FBI of any connection to terrorism and there is absolutely no national security justification for keeping the names secret. Yet at the same time, White House officials themselves leaked the name of a CIA operative serving the country, in clear violation of the law, in an effort to get at her husband, who had angered them by disclosing that the President had relied on forged evidence in his state of the union address as part of his effort to convince the country that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of building nuclear weapons.

And even as they claim the right to see the private bank records of every American, they are adopting a new policy on the Freedom of Information Act that actively encourages federal agencies to fully consider all potential reasons for non-disclosure regardless of whether the disclosure would be harmful. In other words, the federal government will now actively resist complying with ANY request for information.

Moreover, they have established a new exemption that enables them to refuse the release to the press and the public of important health, safety and environmental information submitted to the government by businesses --- merely by calling it "critical infrastructure."

By closely guarding information about their own behavior, they are dismantling a fundamental element of our system of checks and balances. Because so long as the government's actions are secret, they cannot be held accountable. A government for the people and by the people must be transparent to the people.

The administration is justifying the collection of all this information by saying in effect that it will make us safer to have it. But it is not the kind of information that would have been of much help in preventing 9/11. However, there was in fact a great deal of specific information that WAS available prior to 9/11 that probably could have been used to prevent the tragedy. A recent analysis by the Merkle foundation, (working with data from a software company that received venture capital from a CIA-sponsored firm) demonstrates this point in a startling way:

* "In late August 2001, Nawaq Alhamzi and Khalid Al-Midhar bought tickets to fly on American Airlines Flight 77 (which was flown into the Pentagon). They bought the tickets using their real names. Both names were then on a State Department/INS watch list called TIPOFF. Both men were sought by the FBI and CIA as suspected terrorists, in part because they had been observed at a terrorist meeting in Malaysia.

* These two passenger names would have been exact matches when checked against the TIPOFF list. But that would only have been the first step. Further data checks could then have begun.

* Checking for common addresses (address information is widely available, including on the Internet), analysts would have discovered that Salem Al-Hazmi (who also bought a seat on American 77) used the same address as Nawaq Alhazmi. More importantly, they could have discovered that Mohamed Atta (American 11, North Tower of the World Trade Center) and Marwan Al-Shehhi (United 175, South Tower of the World Trade Center) used the same address as Khalid Al-Midhar.

* Checking for identical frequent flier numbers, analysts would have discovered that Majed Moqed (American 77) used the same number as Al-Midhar.

* With Mohamed Atta now also identified as a possible associate of the wanted terrorist, Al-Midhar, analysts could have added Atta's phone numbers (also publicly available information) to their checklist. By doing so they would have identified five other hijackers (Fayez Ahmed, Mohand Alshehri, Wail Alsheri, and Abdulaziz Alomari).

* Closer to September 11, a further check of passenger lists against a more innocuous INS watch list (for expired visas) would have identified Ahmed Alghandi. Through him, the same sort of relatively simple correlations could have led to identifying the remaining hijackers, who boarded United 93 (which crashed in Pennsylvania)."

In addition, Al-Midhar and Nawaf Alhamzi, the two who were on the terrorist watch list, rented an apartment in San Diego under their own names and were listed, again under their own names, in the San Diego phone book while the FBI was searching for them.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but what is needed is better and more timely analysis. Simply piling up more raw data that is almost entirely irrelevant is not only not going to help. It may actually hurt the cause. As one FBI agent said privately of Ashcroft: "We're looking for a needle in a haystack here and he (Ashcroft) is just piling on more hay."

In other words, the mass collecting of personal data on hundreds of millions of people actually makes it more difficult to protect the nation against terrorists, so they ought to cut most of it out.

And meanwhile, the real story is that while the administration manages to convey the impression that it is doing everything possible to protect America, in reality it has seriously neglected most of the measures that it could have taken to really make our country safer.

For example, there is still no serious strategy for domestic security that protects critical infrastructure such as electric power lines, gas pipelines, nuclear facilities, ports, chemical plants and the like.

They're still not checking incoming cargo carriers for radiation. They're still skimping on protection of certain nuclear weapons storage facilities. They're still not hardening critical facilities that must never be soft targets for terrorists. They're still not investing in the translators and analysts we need to counter the growing terror threat.

The administration is still not investing in local government training and infrastructures where they could make the biggest difference. The first responder community is still being shortchanged. In many cases, fire and police departments still don't have the communications equipment to talk to each other. The CDC and local hospitals are still nowhere close to being ready for a biological weapons attack.

The administration has still failed to address the fundamental disorganization and rivalries of our law enforcement, intelligence and investigative agencies. In particular, the critical FBI-CIA coordination, while finally improved at the top, still remains dysfunctional in the trenches.

The constant violations of civil liberties promote the false impression that these violations are necessary in order to take every precaution against another terrorist attack. But the simple truth is that the vast majority of the violations have not benefited our security at all; to the contrary, they hurt our security.

And the treatment of immigrants was probably the worst example. This mass mistreatment actually hurt our security in a number of important ways.

But first, let's be clear about what happened: this was little more than a cheap and cruel political stunt by John Ashcroft. More than 99 percent of the mostly Arab-background men who were rounded up had merely overstayed their visas or committed some other minor offense as they tried to pursue the American dream just like most immigrants. But they were used as extras in the Administration's effort to give the impression that they had caught a large number of bad guys. And many of them were treated horribly and abusively.

Consider this example reported in depth by Anthony Lewis:

"Anser Mehmood, a Pakistani who had overstayed his visa, was arrested in New York on October 3, 2001. The next day he was briefly questioned by FBI agents, who said they had no further interest in him. Then he was shackled in handcuffs, leg irons, and a belly chain and taken to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. Guards there put two more sets of handcuffs on him and another set of leg irons. One threw Mehmood against a wall. The guards forced him to run down a long ramp, the irons cutting into his wrists and ankles. The physical abuse was mixed with verbal taunts.

"After two weeks Mehmood was allowed to make a telephone call to his wife. She was not at home and Mehmood was told that he would have to wait six weeks to try again. He first saw her, on a visit, three months after his arrest. All that time he was kept in a windowless cell, in solitary confinement, with two overhead fluorescent lights on all the time. In the end he was charged with using an invalid Social Security card. He was deported in May 2002, nearly eight months after his arrest.

The faith tradition I share with Ashcroft includes this teaching from Jesus: "whatsoever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me."

And make no mistake: the disgraceful treatment suffered by many of these vulnerable immigrants at the hands of the administration has created deep resentments and hurt the cooperation desperately needed from immigrant communities in the US and from the Security Services of other countries.

Second, these gross violations of their rights have seriously damaged US moral authority and goodwill around the world, and delegitimized US efforts to continue promoting Human Rights around the world. As one analyst put it, "We used to set the standard; now we have lowered the bar." And our moral authority is, after all, our greatest source of enduring strength in the world.

And the handling of prisoners at Guantanamo has been particularly harmful to America's image. Even England and Australia have criticized our departure from international law and the Geneva Convention. Secretary Rumsfeld's handling of the captives there has been about as thoughtful as his "postwar" plan for Iraq.

So the mass violations of civil liberties have hurt rather than helped. But there is yet another reason for urgency in stopping what this administration is doing. Where Civil Liberties are concerned, they have taken us much farther down the road toward an intrusive, "Big Brother"-style government --- toward the dangers prophesied by George Orwell in his book "1984" --- than anyone ever thought would be possible in the United States of America.

And they have done it primarily by heightening and exploiting public anxieties and apprehensions. Rather than leading with a call to courage, this Administration has chosen to lead us by inciting fear.

Almost eighty years ago, Justice Louis Brandeis wrote "Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards.... They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty." Those who won our independence, Brandeis asserted, understood that "courage [is] the secret of liberty" and "fear [only] breeds repression."

Rather than defending our freedoms, this Administration has sought to abandon them. Rather than accepting our traditions of openness and accountability, this Administration has opted to rule by secrecy and unquestioned authority. Instead, its assaults on our core democratic principles have only left us less free and less secure.

Throughout American history, what we now call Civil Liberties have often been abused and limited during times of war and perceived threats to security. The best known instances include the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798-1800, the brief suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, the extreme abuses during World War I and the notorious Red Scare and Palmer Raids immediately after the war, the shameful internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, and the excesses of the FBI and CIA during the Vietnam War and social turmoil of the late 1960s and early 1970s.

But in each of these cases, the nation has recovered its equilibrium when the war ended and absorbed the lessons learned in a recurring cycle of excess and regret.

There are reasons for concern this time around that what we are experiencing may no longer be the first half of a recurring cycle but rather, the beginning of something new. For one thing, this war is predicted by the administration to "last for the rest of our lives." Others have expressed the view that over time it will begin to resemble the "war" against drugs --- that is, that it will become a more or less permanent struggle that occupies a significant part of our law enforcement and security agenda from now on. If that is the case, then when --- if ever -- does this encroachment on our freedoms die a natural death?

It is important to remember that throughout history, the loss of civil liberties by individuals and the aggregation of too much unchecked power in the executive go hand in hand. They are two sides of the same coin.

A second reason to worry that what we are witnessing is a discontinuity and not another turn of the recurring cycle is that the new technologies of surveillance --- long anticipated by novelists like Orwell and other prophets of the "Police State" --- are now more widespread than they have ever been.

And they do have the potential for shifting the balance of power between the apparatus of the state and the freedom of the individual in ways both subtle and profound.

Moreover, these technologies are being widely used not only by the government but also by corporations and other private entities. And that is relevant to an assessment of the new requirements in the Patriot Act for so many corporations --- especially in the finance industries --- to prepare millions of reports annually for the government on suspicious activities by their customers. It is also relevant to the new flexibility corporations have been given to share information with one another about their customers.

The third reason for concern is that the threat of more terror strikes is all too real. And the potential use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups does create a new practical imperative for the speedy exercise of discretionary power by the executive branch --- just as the emergence of nuclear weapons and ICBMs created a new practical imperative in the Cold War that altered the balance of war-making responsibility between Congress and the President.

But President Bush has stretched this new practical imperative beyond what is healthy for our democracy. Indeed, one of the ways he has tried to maximize his power within the American system has been by constantly emphasizing his role as Commander-in-Chief, far more than any previous President --- assuming it as often and as visibly as he can, and bringing it into the domestic arena and conflating it with his other roles: as head of government and head of state --- and especially with his political role as head of the Republican Party.

Indeed, the most worrisome new factor, in my view, is the aggressive ideological approach of the current administration, which seems determined to use fear as a political tool to consolidate its power and to escape any accountability for its use. Just as unilateralism and dominance are the guiding principles of their disastrous approach to international relations, they are also the guiding impulses of the administration's approach to domestic politics. They are impatient with any constraints on the exercise of power overseas --- whether from our allies, the UN, or international law. And in the same way, they are impatient with any obstacles to their use of power at home --- whether from Congress, the courts, the press, or the rule of law.

Ashcroft has also authorized FBI agents to attend church meetings, rallies, political meetings and any other citizen activity open to the public simply on the agents' own initiative, reversing a decades old policy that required justification to supervisors that such infiltrations has a provable connection to a legitimate investigation.

They have even taken steps that seem to be clearly aimed at stifling dissent.

The Bush Justice Department has recently begun a highly disturbing criminal prosecution of the environmental group Greenpeace because of a non-violent direct action protest against what Greenpeace claimed was the illegal importation of endangered mahogany from the Amazon. Independent legal experts and historians have said that the prosecution --- under an obscure and bizarre 1872 law against "sailor-mongering" --- appears to be aimed at inhibiting Greenpeace's First Amendment activities.

And at the same time they are breaking new ground by prosecuting Greenpeace, the Bush Administration announced just a few days ago that it is dropping the investigations of 50 power plants for violating the Clean Air Act --- a move that Senator Chuck Schumer said, "basically announced to the power industry that it can now pollute with impunity."

The politicization of law enforcement in this administration is part of their larger agenda to roll back the changes in government policy brought about by the New Deal and the Progressive Movement. Toward that end, they are cutting back on Civil Rights enforcement, Women's Rights, progressive taxation, the estate tax, access to the courts, Medicare, and much more. And they approach every issue as a partisan fight to the finish, even in the areas of national security and terror.

Instead of trying to make the "War on Terrorism" a bipartisan cause, the Bush White House has consistently tried to exploit it for partisan advantage. The President goes to war verbally against terrorists in virtually every campaign speech and fundraising dinner for his political party. It is his main political theme. Democratic candidates like Max Cleland in Georgia were labeled unpatriotic for voting differently from the White House on obscure amendments to the Homeland Security Bill.

When the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, Tom DeLay, was embroiled in an effort to pick up more congressional seats in Texas by forcing a highly unusual redistricting vote in the state senate, he was able to track down Democratic legislators who fled the state to prevent a quorum (and thus prevent the vote) by enlisting the help of President Bush's new Department of Homeland Security, as many as 13 employees of the Federal Aviation Administration who conducted an eight-hour search, and at least one FBI agent (though several other agents who were asked to help refused to do so.)

By locating the Democrats quickly with the technology put in place for tracking terrorists, the Republicans were able to succeed in focusing public pressure on the weakest of the Senators and forced passage of their new political redistricting plan. Now, thanks in part to the efforts of three different federal agencies, Bush and DeLay are celebrating the gain of up to seven new Republican congressional seats in the next Congress.

The White House timing for its big push for a vote in Congress on going to war with Iraq also happened to coincide exactly with the start of the fall election campaign in September a year ago. The President's chief of staff said the timing was chosen because "from a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

White House political advisor Karl Rove advised Republican candidates that their best political strategy was to "run on the war". And as soon as the troops began to mobilize, the Republican National Committee distributed yard signs throughout America saying, "I support President Bush and the troops" --- as if they were one and the same.

This persistent effort to politicize the war in Iraq and the war against terrorism for partisan advantage is obviously harmful to the prospects for bipartisan support of the nation's security policies. By sharp contrast, consider the different approach that was taken by Prime Minister Winston Churchill during the terrible days of October 1943 when in the midst of World War II, he faced a controversy with the potential to divide his bipartisan coalition. He said, "What holds us together is the prosecution of the war. No... man has been asked to give up his convictions. That would be indecent and improper. We are held together by something outside, which rivets our attention. The principle that we work on is, 'Everything for the war, whether controversial or not, and nothing controversial that is not bona fide for the war.' That is our position. We must also be careful that a pretext is not made of war needs to introduce far-reaching social or political changes by a side wind."

Yet that is exactly what the Bush Administration is attempting to do --- to use the war against terrorism for partisan advantage and to introduce far reaching controversial changes in social policy by a "side wind," in an effort to consolidate its political power.

It is an approach that is deeply antithetical to the American spirit. Respect for our President is important. But so is respect for our people. Our founders knew --- and our history has proven --- that freedom is best guaranteed by a separation of powers into co-equal branches of government within a system of checks and balances to prevent the unhealthy concentration of too much power in the hands of any one person or group.

Our framers were also keenly aware that the history of the world proves that Republics are fragile. The very hour of America's birth in Philadelphia, when Benjamin Franklin was asked, "What have we got? A Republic or a Monarchy?" he cautiously replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

And even in the midst of our greatest testing, Lincoln knew that our fate was tied to the larger question of whether ANY nation so conceived could long endure.

This Administration simply does not seem to agree that the challenge of preserving democratic freedom cannot be met by surrendering core American values.

Incredibly, this Administration has attempted to compromise the most precious rights that America has stood for all over the world for more than 200 years: due process, equal treatment under the law, the dignity of the individual, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from promiscuous government surveillance.

And in the name of security, this Administration has attempted to relegate the Congress and the Courts to the sidelines and replace our democratic system of checks and balances with an unaccountable Executive. And all the while, it has constantly angled for new ways to exploit the sense of crisis for partisan gain and political dominance. How dare they!

Years ago, during World War II, one of our most eloquent Supreme Court Justices, Robert Jackson, wrote that the President should be given the "widest latitude" in wartime, but he warned against the "loose and irresponsible invocation of war as an excuse for discharging the Executive Branch from the rules of law that govern our Republic in times of peace. No penance would ever expiate the sin against free government," Jackson said, "of holding that a President can escape control of executive powers by law through assuming his military role. Our government has ample authority under the Constitution to take those steps which are genuinely necessary for our security. At the same time, our system demands that government act only on the basis of measures that have been the subject of open and thoughtful debate in Congress and among the American people, and that invasions of the liberty or equal dignity of any individual are subject to review by courts which are open to those affected and independent of the government which is curtailing their freedom."

So what should be done? Well, to begin with, our country ought to find a way to immediately stop its policy of indefinitely detaining American citizens without charges and without a judicial determination that their detention is proper.

Such a course of conduct is incompatible with American traditions and values, with sacred principles of due process of law and separation of powers.

It is no accident that our Constitution requires in criminal prosecutions a "speedy and public trial." The principles of liberty and the accountability of government, at the heart of what makes America unique, require no less. The Bush Administration's treatment of American citizens it calls "enemy combatants" is nothing short of un-American.

Second, foreign citizens held in Guantanamo should be given hearings to determine their status provided for under Article V of the Geneva Convention, a hearing that the United States has given those captured in every war until this one, including Vietnam and the Gulf War.

If we don't provide this, how can we expect American soldiers captured overseas to be treated with equal respect? We owe this to our sons and daughters who fight to defend freedom in Iraq, in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world.

Third, the President should seek congressional authorization for the military commissions he says he intends to use instead of civilian courts to try some of those who are charged with violating the laws of war. Military commissions are exceptional in American law and they present unique dangers. The prosecutor and the judge both work for the same man, the President of the United States. Such commissions may be appropriate in time of war, but they must be authorized by Congress, as they were in World War II, and Congress must delineate the scope of their authority. Review of their decisions must be available in a civilian court, at least the Supreme Court, as it was in World War II.

Next, our nation's greatness is measured by how we treat those who are the most vulnerable. Noncitizens who the government seeks to detain should be entitled to some basic rights. The administration must stop abusing the material witness statute. That statute was designed to hold witnesses briefly before they are called to testify before a grand jury. It has been misused by this administration as a pretext for indefinite detention without charge. That is simply not right.

Finally, I have studied the Patriot Act and have found that along with its many excesses, it contains a few needed changes in the law. And it is certainly true that many of the worst abuses of due process and civil liberties that are now occurring are taking place under the color of laws and executive orders other than the Patriot Act.

Nevertheless, I believe the Patriot Act has turned out to be, on balance, a terrible mistake, and that it became a kind of Tonkin Gulf Resolution conferring Congress's blessing for this President's assault on civil liberties. Therefore, I believe strongly that the few good features of this law should be passed again in a new, smaller law --- but that the Patriot Act must be repealed.

As John Adams wrote in 1780, ours is a government of laws and not of men. What is at stake today is that defining principle of our nation, and thus the very nature of America. As the Supreme Court has written, "Our Constitution is a covenant running from the first generation of Americans to us and then to future generations." The Constitution includes no wartime exception, though its Framers knew well the reality of war. And, as Justice Holmes reminded us shortly after World War I, the Constitution's principles only have value if we apply them in the difficult times as well as those where it matters less.

The question before us could be of no greater moment: will we continue to live as a people under the rule of law as embodied in our Constitution? Or will we fail future generations, by leaving them a Constitution far diminished from the charter of liberty we have inherited from our forebears? Our choice is clear.

Please see there diaries by Rep. Conyers and Sen. Feingold both of whom have been fighting on this front in Congress:

Thank you.

Why I hope Al Gore is our next President

2005-12-04T16:41:00.000-08:00

In 1988 when I was first aware of Al Gore he seemed young, but there was something special about him as a candidate. When he spoke you could tell that he cared about the things he was talking about, that he was knowledgable about his subject and that being knowledgable was also important to him.

Here are the things I know about Gore...

Cross posted at dkos
Cross posted at PoliticalTheaterBlog

He is dedicated to the environment:

There are scientific warnings now of another onrushing catastrophe. We were warned of an imminent attack by Al Qaeda; we didn't respond. We were warned the levees would break in New Orleans; we didn't respond. Now, the scientific community is warning us that the average hurricane will continue to get stronger because of global warming. A scientist at MIT has published a study well before this tragedy showing that since the 1970s, hurricanes in both the Atlantic and the Pacific have increased in duration, and in intensity, by about 50 %. The newscasters told us after Hurricane Katrina went over the southern tip of Florida that there was a particular danger for the Gulf Coast of the hurricanes becoming much stronger because it was passing over unusually warm waters in the gulf. The waters in the gulf have been unusually warm. The oceans generally have been getting warmer. And the pattern is exactly consistent with what scientists have predicted for twenty years. Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration in the history of humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming. [applause] It is important to learn the lessons of what happens when scientific evidence and clear authoritative warnings are ignored in order to induce our leaders not to do it again and not to ignore the scientists again and not to leave us unprotected in the face of those threats that are facing us right now. [applause]
more

He is not afraid to criticize Bush or republican policy:

The direction in which our nation is being led is deeply troubling to me -- not only in Iraq but also here at home on economic policy, social policy and environmental policy.

Millions of Americans now share a feeling that something pretty basic has gone wrong in our country and that some important American values are being placed at risk. And they want to set it right.

The way we went to war in Iraq illustrates this larger problem. Normally, we Americans lay the facts on the table, talk through the choices before us and make a decision. But that didn't really happen with this war -- not the way it should have. And as a result, too many of our soldiers are paying the highest price, for the strategic miscalculations, serious misjudgments, and historic mistakes that have put them and our nation in harm's way.

I'm convinced that one of the reasons that we didn't have a better public debate before the Iraq War started is because so many of the impressions that the majority of the country had back then turn out to have been completely wrong. Leaving aside for the moment the question of how these false impressions got into the public's mind, it might be healthy to take a hard look at the ones we now know were wrong and clear the air so that we can better see exactly where we are now and what changes might need to be made.

In any case, what we now know to have been false impressions include the following:

(1) Saddam Hussein was partly responsible for the attack against us on September 11th, 2001, so a good way to respond to that attack would be to invade his country and forcibly remove him from power.

(2) Saddam was working closely with Osama Bin Laden and was actively supporting members of the Al Qaeda terrorist group, giving them weapons and money and bases and training, so launching a war against Iraq would be a good way to stop Al Qaeda from attacking us again.

(3) Saddam was about to give the terrorists poison gas and deadly germs that he had made into weapons which they could use to kill millions of Americans. Therefore common sense alone dictated that we should send our military into Iraq in order to protect our loved ones and ourselves against a grave threat.

(4) Saddam was on the verge of building nuclear bombs and giving them to the terrorists. And since the only thing preventing Saddam from acquiring a nuclear arsenal was access to enriched uranium, once our spies found out that he had bought the enrichment technology he needed and was actively trying to buy uranium from Africa, we had very little time left. Therefore it seemed imperative during last Fall's election campaign to set aside less urgent issues like the economy and instead focus on the congressional resolution approving war against Iraq.

(5) Our GI's would be welcomed with open arms by cheering Iraqis who would help them quickly establish public safety, free markets and Representative Democracy, so there wouldn't be that much risk that US soldiers would get bogged down in a guerrilla war.

(6) Even though the rest of the world was mostly opposed to the war, they would quickly fall in line after we won and then contribute lots of money and soldiers to help out, so there wouldn't be that much risk that US taxpayers would get stuck with a huge bill.

Now, of course, everybody knows that every single one of these impressions was just dead wrong.

link

He is a man of faith but a real one who believes that we should value diversity and strengthen all families:

Two reviews of his and Tipper's book JOINED AT THE HEART :

From Publishers Weekly:

"For us, as for most Americans," write the former vice-president and his wife, "family is our bedrock, and we believe the strength of the American family is the nation's bedrock." But the American family has changed substantially in the last half century and so have the cultural and economic conditions under which it exists. The families the Gores have encountered in a decade of research reflect these changes: one couple has children from the husband's three different relationships, a gay white couple adopts two black children, a single mother struggles with poverty. The couple add stories from their own marriage and consult with historians, sociologists, psychologists and educators, giving the American family the same comprehensive treatment Al's Earth in the Balance gave the environment. Al and Tipper examine subjects as diverse as the increased divorce rate, the parent-teen gap, dual-income households and the health problems associated with sleep deprivation. They divide the book into themes, including love, communication, work, play and community, and show how these factors influence one another, taking a holistic approach to the underlying problems affecting today's families. Yet although they declare America should "provide every possible support to those most important to us," they make very few firm recommendations on government policy; those reading with an eye toward identifying planks in another Gore presidential campaign will have their work cut out for them. "

Photos not seen by PW.
Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal:

"Coauthoring this very readable work, the Gores affirm their respect and support for culturally and structurally variant American families, loving individuals committed to each other's welfare. Based on personal experiences and interviews with others in traditional and nontraditional relationships, the authors offer a sampling of caring individuals struggling to balance family, work, play, and community to support one another, adults and children, together with the future of this country. The Gores relate these families' experiences to the environments in which they live, offering a critique of the social programs needed to support successful family life: affordable shelter, reliable and competent child care, pre- and post-school time supervised activities, employee family-leave provisions, well-run community facilities, and services for all age levels. They argue that it is increasingly critical to maintain and grow our country's various sources of "social capital," to understand and support families, the too often unacknowledged vital units of our American society. This convincing, multiresourced work is recommended for public and academic library purchase. [Previewed in Prepub Alert, LJ 7/02; also released this November is The Spirit of the Family, a photography book edited by the Gores.-Ed.]-Suzanne W. Wood, formerly with SUNY Coll. of Technology at Alfre."

--Suzanne W. Wood, formerly with SUNY Coll. of Technology at Alfred
Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc.

link

Yes while he is a brilliant policy wonk he is also very funny:

The veep's playful antics are particularly legendary among staff members. On one flight home after a trip to the former Soviet Union, Gore ambled back through the staff section and came across his national security adviser, Leon Fuerth, fast asleep against a window. Sensing a photo op not to be missed, he sat down beside him and launched into an animated discussion of U.S. policy toward Russia. Gore leaned into him and grew increasingly demonstrative as Fuerth remained slumped down, totally oblivious to the tongue-lashing, the photographer and the circle of giggling staff members who had gathered around. According to his aides, Gore is notorious for such stunts -- and usually makes sure his unsuspecting target receives a copy of the photo.
.......snip......

Presidential adviser Paul Begala called Gore's dry wit "a really rare gift because it deflates egos, it eases tension. In a very deadpan, exaggerated, comic sort of way," Begala said, "he'll make fun of the president or of other big-shots by sort of pretending to be an absolute yes man: 'That's a great idea. We should definitely do that. Why stop there?' It's a kind of humor that requires a deep reservoir of self-confidence, a sense of real familiarity with your colleagues ... and obviously high intellect to be able to turn it around."

link

He is visionary in matters of the environment and technology:

"The project, which would need approval by Congress, is expected to cost between $20 million and $50 million. Gore sees it as an invaluable resource for scientific, educational and weather research.

It would show hurricanes and other threatening weather patterns, forest fires, cloud formations and other phenomena in real time. There are no full-Earth images now available, although existing satellites track regions of the world.

The vice president announced the program Friday at a technology conference at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.

"As we connect all our classrooms to the Internet, we have the opportunity to bring new education and potential scientific projects as well as global weather observations to millions of American classrooms and living rooms via television and computer," Gore told an audience of academics, industry leaders and politicians."

more

He was right about Social Security:

Stance on Social Security reform featuring private accounts: opposes.

"We have the chance to reform Social Security the right way, in a way that preserves its basic guarantees, pays down our debt, keeps our economy strong, and enables us to meet our other great challenges." Gore has detailed a plan to keep Social Security solvent through at least 2050. As President, Gore would use today's budget surpluses to pay down the national debt and use the interest saved from debt reduction to shore up the Social Security Trust Fund. Gore would also raise benefits for widows and eliminate the motherhood penalty that reduces benefits for women who take time off from work to raise their children. Gore supports a guaranteed benefit for Social Security and opposes raising the retirement age. "Social Security isn't supposed to be a system of winners and losers. It's supposed to be a bedrock guarantee of a minimum decent retirement,"

[Source: press release for speech delivered at Fordham University, NY May 16, 2000] more

And he was right about about the war in Iraq:

"I want to talk about the relationship between America's war against terrorism and America's proposed war against Iraq.

Like most Americans, I've been wrestling with the question of what our country needs to do to defend itself from the kind of focused, intense and evil attack that we suffered a year ago September 11th. We ought to assume that the forces that are responsible for that attack are even now attempting to plan another attack against us.

I'm speaking today in an effort to recommend a specific course of action for our country, which I sincerely believe would be better for our country than the policy that is now being pursued by President Bush. Specifically, I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century.

To begin with, to put first things first, I believe that we ought to be focusing our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and who have thus far gotten away with it. The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold-blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized. I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than was predicted.

Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another. We should remain focused on the war against terrorism.

(APPLAUSE)

And, I believe that we are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, while simultaneously taking those steps necessary to build an international coalition to join us in taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion. If you're going after Jesse James, you ought to organize the posse first, especially if you're in the middle of a gunfight with somebody who's out after you.

I don't think we should allow anything to diminish our focus on the necessity for avenging the 3,000 Americans who were murdered and dismantling that network of terrorists that we know were responsible for it. The fact that we don't know where they are should not cause us to focus instead on some other enemy whose location may be easier to identify. We have other enemies . . ."

more

I have no idea if Al Gore has any plans to run for President. But I do know that he is the best qualified candidate for the job IMO.

I wanted to include this information on Gore's new position on healtcare. As one of the posters below reminded me, Gore decided that single payer healtcare was the only thing that would save our broken system.

In Surprising Shift, Gore Says He Favors Single-Payer Health Care System WASHINGTON – Noting that 40 million Americans now have no health insurance, Al Gore says he now favors "single-payer" national health coverage, a proposal that would require a massive change in the health insurance system

With single-payer coverage, money to pay for health care – such as insurance premiums and tax dollars – would be collected by a single agency, which would then pay for comprehensive coverage for all citizens.

Gore, the 2000 Democratic presidential nominee and a potential candidate in 2004, offered his views in response to a question at a synagogue in New York during a tour promoting his book "Joined at the Heart," written with his wife, Tipper.

"I was planning to wait and make a major speech on this and I probably should, but I'll just answer your question candidly," Gore told the moderator.

Gore's comments Wednesday night were first reported by ABC News' Internet political report "The Note" and were confirmed by Gore spokesman Jano Cabrera, who said any details would come in a future speech on health care.

"I think we've reached a point where the entire health care system is in impending crisis," Gore said. "I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that we should begin drafting a single-payer national health insurance plan."

Depending on the details, calling for a single-payer plan could be a very dramatic step for Gore. During the 2000 primary campaign, Gore attacked Democratic rival Bill Bradley's central proposal – universal health care – calling it too expensive and not expansive enough to help poor people afford full coverage.

Another potential Democratic candidate for president, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, pushed for health care for all Americans in a speech Thursday night to an education group in Washington. He wants to expand coverage under Medicare and Medicaid to cover people who don't have insurance.

How to split posts and other posting tips

2005-12-04T16:30:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone,

just posting a brief note on splitting your posts. Here is how it can be done.

See below the fold..

1. Draft your post as if it is a single long post Using either the "Compose" mode or the "Edit hmtl" mode (the former editor mode is more user-friendly, and the latter is for better control but it requires some knowledge of html).

2. Use the "preview" feature to see how the post will look like. Repeat the editing process until you are satisfied with how your post looks and reads.

3. When the post is good to go, decide if and where you want to split the post into frontpage portion and the rest. If you don't want to split, just click "Publish Post" and revisit the blog to see how the post looks. You can re-edit the post anytime afterwards.

4. If splitting, switch to the "Edit Html" mode of the editor (unless you were already using it), and identify where you decided to split, and copy and paste these two lines at that spot:


More below the fold..
<span class="fullpost">

5. Then while still in the html mode, at the very end of the post, add the following code line:


</span>

6. That's it. Go ahead and publish your post, and reload the frontpage to see if the post and the split worked as intended.

Have fun (splitting and) posting!

Update: I will start compiling a collection of posting tips in this post. For starters, here are some blogger.com help pages for the (WYSIWYG) editor available:
- Posting and Editing FAQ
- How do I make a link to another webpage?

More help and links to follow in due course.

If you are having trouble with any feature of the blog including posting, this would be a good place to post your feedback as comments.

Al Gore Has the Good Judgement

2005-12-02T20:57:00.000-08:00

Al Gore has done a couple of things that really put him in a good position with the base of the party. The issue that is on everyone’s mind right now is the War in Iraq, and how we got into the war.

While several other well-known Democrats are now trying to explain themselves to voters. This article from the New York Post explains it all. And, please note how Al Gore is mentioned. But, before everyone gets too excited, I’d like to suggest to people that a lot more issues will come and go before 2008, so in my opinion, we all should stay calm. We may not actually have many forces in Iraq in 2008. The issue will be one of judgment. Who was correct in voting and speaking out against the war?

We know that Al Gore was on the right side of this issue from the beginning.

Let's Make Al Gore 'Inevitable'

2005-12-01T20:40:00.000-08:00

While many wise heads in the blogosphere counsel against premature endorsement, I feel we Democrats need to impose our own brand of inevitability on the 2008 election before the msm and dlc get any more of a head start than we've already given them.

As we all know, Al Gore should have been president for the past five years. Imagine how different our world would be today if the SCOTUS had not staged a coup in 2000! No one is more aware of this than Gore himself. It's Gore who has been giving the well-reasoned, ballsey policy statements on the critical issues facing us today. It's Gore who opposed a pointless - now edging toward genocidal - war from the very start. Al Gore has taken the full measure of our enemy as has no other Democrat. Yes, let's make him inevitable. Let's make him president!

National AIDS Day

2005-12-01T08:41:00.000-08:00

Good Morning,
Today is National AIDS Awareness day. Wear your ribbons or tell a friend to get tested, or get tested yourself. It's not just an illness in Africa. Evidently a lot of young gay men think now that it's an "older" gay man's disease. The fact is, it's still a problem in this country, especially among young black women. Anyway, educate yourself at the link above and spread the word, not the disease.

Blessings,
Joy

Saying Hello, you Gore-o-philes

2005-11-30T18:50:00.000-08:00

Hi ya'll!

Joy here, or Fancy Pants Elitist or Hummingbird as I am on DKos.

Ok, granted, Gore-o-phile sounds a bit like you get into slasher movies, but don't blame me for Al's last name! I thought it apt, as we all seem to be real Al Fans. Maybe Alophile? no... that sounds like a disease or plant. Teehee.

Anyhow I thought we might start to introduce ourselves, and let folks know where we are, and all that rot. I'm sitting in my office in a little cabin in Scotts Valley which is about 5 miles north of Santa Cruz, CA, a liberal mecca of beach, mountains, redwood and art. I'm also very near Monterey, a little less liberal, and about 90 miles south of one of the most beautiful and progressive cities in America, maybe only surpassed by Seattle (that's debatable), San Francisco, the city O'Reilly targets for Al Qaeda. We have about 32 acres here and I live in an intentional community that was established back in 1982 and is still going. We have about 7 households that share the LAND in common, but not the kitchen - a surefire way to destroy a commune, btw, is to share a kitchen!

Also Gore-o-philes?

Celeborn and Kahlua

More below the fold..

I think I've been a liberal since I was born (and maybe in a previous life), and in fact when I was a baby I accompanied my Mother in a stroller as she passed out flyers about a Democratic candidate running for office in Phoenix, and at the age of 6 I sang Hubert Humphrie's campaign song to him when he visited the military base we were stationed at in Michigan, and got myself in the paper and got a kiss from the candidate. I've been pretty informed on politics all my life, in fact at 13 I stopped Sam Irvin for an autograph as he was on the shuttle between the House and Senate, and he almost didn't sign it (though was surprised someone my age recognized him) because Nixon had JUST resigned. I think I probably knew about his resignation before the press did. He signed it anyway when he saw me get disappointed. :) I did my own little "Earth Day" thingie at the age of 8 in 1970, and WANTED to be a flower child as well, even then I was against war, even though I was a military brat. But my Dad was in USAFJAG as a judge, so he wasn't a soldier, perse, and peace to our family was one of the reasons to HAVE a military. At least that's the way it used to be. In High School during our government class '79-'80, we kept abreast of current affairs and we did a world power game. The Valedictorian and I ended up being Libya and the world's terrorists, respectively, and we decided to spin a little "reality" into the class and came in dressed as "t'ists" (I was in fatiques and had a bandalier and an empty grenade... yes we checked with the Principle beforehand) and "Qadaffi" was dressed in a very similar Qadafi uniform with an empty baretta and we took the teacher hostage as the other "world powers" decided how to deal with an act of terrorism while they were also figuring out economic issues, etc. It was an education for all of us. ;) We actually were talked about 20 years later.

I've worked on nuclear issues and alternative energy, (we lived in the shadow of Calvert Cliffs in MD, and we monitored the plant with geiger counters and did actions to try and get accountability for that plant and Peach Bottom in Baltimore) and later I worked on the Clinton Inaugural and then after that had a choice between working for Clinton's staff or the Environmental Defense Fund. I chose EDF because I decided it was better to be a fox then a chicken. I worked on the Toxics campaign as a program assistant, specifically on lead and dioxin issues and on pollution of the Chesapeake Bay, a world estuary in danger.

After I met my husband via email (yes, a real "e-mail order bride", one of the first internet romances that worked) I moved to California from DC to marry him and spend my life here in a beautiful part of the country. I love it here. I moved into this intentional community and also saturated myself in Paganism for quite a while, and though I'm still a Pagan, I really don't practice anymore, other than an awareness of the world, and working with the earth through my organic gardening and raising my alpacas (which isn't really Pagan but is hands on with the living aspect of creation). My religion is what I call Gaianism, because I believe the planet is a living breathing and conscious being, that we are all a part of, not only on a physical level but on a collective consciousness level. This neither disputes with nor repudiates any other religion or science, it's merely a manifestation of my believing that everything is alive and we are integrally part of that expression of life. I have no problem at all with evolution or most mystical traditions. The only thing I have trouble with is fundamentalism, because it flies in the face of experiential reality and common sense.

I was turned onto Daily Kos by listening to Air America Radio, and I love the hosts there, and I love the blog. I hope my experience and passion for Democratic and Gaian principles will be of benefit here to make not only our blog a productive experience but also to help heal our world by help getting elected a candidate with exemplary qualifications that will help to heal this nation of the wounds inflicted by the current regime. Additionally, I hope that this candidate can lead this world by showing that even when challenged by the worst thing that our nation can face, that the Democratic process can show how we (the people) can wrest back control from the bastards and show that the REAL America can change, grow, and become a light of hope, once again, for the world. I have that much faith in Al Gore. I hope you do too.

Bright Blessings and Greetings,
Joy

What Should Have Been

2005-11-29T22:08:00.000-08:00

I won't quote the whole thing, because I don't know how to do the spiffy "split screen" effect that hides ridiculously long text. But if this speech by President Gore doesn't convince you that he's the man, you may just be inconvincible.

I came here today because I believe that American democracy is in grave danger. It is no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse. I know that I am not the only one who feels that something has gone basically and badly wrong in the way America's fabled "marketplace of ideas" now functions.

...On the eve of the nation's decision to invade Iraq, our longest serving senator, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, stood on the Senate floor asked: "Why is this chamber empty? Why are these halls silent?"

The decision that was then being considered by the Senate with virtually no meaningful debate turned out to be a fateful one. A few days ago, the former head of the National Security Agency, Retired Lt. General William Odom, said, "The invasion of Iraq, I believe, will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history."

But whether you agree with his assessment or not, Senator Byrd's question is like the others that I have just posed here: he was saying, in effect, this is strange, isn't it? Aren't we supposed to have full and vigorous debates about questions as important as the choice between war and peace?

...But some extremely important elements of American Democracy have been pushed to the sidelines . And the most prominent casualty has been the "marketplace of ideas" that was so beloved and so carefully protected by our Founders. It effectively no longer exists.

It is not that we no longer share ideas with one another about public matters; of course we do. But the "Public Forum" in which our Founders searched for general agreement and applied the Rule of Reason has been grossly distorted and "restructured" beyond all recognition.

And here is my point: it is the destruction of that marketplace of ideas that accounts for the "strangeness" that now continually haunts our efforts to reason together about the choices we must make as a nation.

Oi! I'm verklempt! Just go read the whole thing...you know you wanna. And by all means, please talk amongst yourselves...

[Ed. Adding a couple of pictures to this introductory post by Cedwyn -- NeuvoLiberal.
Not sure where the first picture is from the one below is from the We media address:

Image sources:
1. B/W snap: url
2. We Media: url ]

Welcome to our new members

2005-11-27T18:49:00.000-08:00

I would like to welcome all the folks that joined the blog in the last couple of days:

- Alice Marshall
- TeresaInPa
- RhetoricalRubberneck
- Lefty Metalhead
- DC4AlGore
- MadCasey

Thanks to all of you for joining, and please make yourself comfortable. I hope that you will enjoy blogging here, and that we can all, together with Michael and MSOC, start forging a successful movement to draft Vice-President Al Gore for a run in 2008.

best
NL

ps: my hospitality skills are rather poor as I demonstrated once again :)

Al Gore is a DC Favorite

2005-11-27T15:51:00.000-08:00

Vice President Gore has a lot of support here in the Nation's Capitol for President of the United States. He is respected for his work on helping our environment, strong national defense and support and action on helping the citizens of Washington DC achieve representation in Congress. Because of this, we are urging Al Gore to run for President in 2008, so we are a grass roots effort to draft Gore for President. An additional reason for our blog is to support Al Gore in the Washington, DC primary in the spring of 2008. There will be a Presidential Primary in DC and we intend on helping Al Gore win DC and in other States. This is going to be a very exciting process.

Discussion Forum

2005-11-12T00:43:00.000-08:00

Draft Gore Petition

2005-11-12T00:35:00.000-08:00

OpEd: Al Gore, Unleashed

2005-10-28T12:56:00.000-07:00

David Michael Green of opednews.com says:

Al Gore, Unleashed
by David Michael Green http://www.opednews.com

If it’s not too early - 37 months before the election - I’d like to make an endorsement for president in 2008.

It is an endorsement I could not have imagined making in 2000, and certainly not in 1988. But it is one I make today with only a slight degree of trepidation. I’ve had my heart broken in political love affairs more times than I can count, but somehow this one feels like a keeper.

I call for Al Gore to run for president in 2008.

He is, within the limitations of the possible, precisely what America requires in this hour of need, and perhaps just what American progressivism requires as well.

...

Today’s Al Gore - the real Al Gore - reminds me of no one so much as Warren Beatty’s fictional Senator Jay Billington Bulworth, a man about to die, and therefore liberated from the need to play the game any longer, with refreshing and delightful results.

Gore is not about to die, of course, but in some ways he already has. They took everything from him, and he strikes me now as someone ironically unburdened in the process. Gore won the presidency, and they stole that from him, leaving him us with the American Caligula instead. Along the way they took his public reputation from him, to boot. Now Al Gore seems like a man set free, as anxious to serve the country as he is to atone for his past failures at living up to his own standards of honesty and courage, and as ready to rumble as is necessary. The guy’s not playing beanbag this time.

Howard Dean was probably pretty close to being that candidate in 2004, but when Kerry started aping his line on Bush and the war, Democrats figured they could get both the good politics and the resume in one package, and were fooled into going for the junior senator from Massachusetts. There is every reason to believe that could happen again with Hillary Clinton, but one of the best chances of avoiding that fate would be a Gore candidacy.

I therefore hope, for all these reasons, that Al Gore runs in 2008. He is just what the Democratic Party needs, and a revived, progressive Democratic Party in power is just what the country and the world badly needs as well.

Run Al, run. Run for our lives. Run hard, say what you know to be true, and don’t look back.

Run as if the fate of the nation and the world depends on who is next chosen to lead the world’s only superpower, lately and dangerously gone pathologically amok.

Because it does.

Read the rest of his powerful statement at the source here.

Indictments to Come?

2005-10-25T17:16:00.000-07:00

Many of us have been waiting with baited breath for Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to come out with his decision in the Valerie Plame case. Let's face it, indictments are what we're all waiting for.

More below the fold...

From The Washington Note

October 25, 2005

Indictments Coming Tomorrow

Targets Received Letters Today

An uber-insider source has just reported the following to TWN (since confirmed by another independent source):

1. 1-5 indictments are being issued. The source feels that it will be towards the higher end.
2. The targets of indictment have already received their letters.
3. The indictments will be sealed indictments and "filed" tomorrow.
4. A press conference is being scheduled for Thursday.
The shoe is dropping. More soon.
-- Steve
Clemons

What will happen in the following months will go a long way in deciding 2006 Congressional and 2008 Presidential elections. Till these indictments come out and the fallout is sorted through, ALL BETS ARE OFF.

Welcome!

2005-10-25T13:52:00.000-07:00

Hi folks,

I take this opportunity to welcome you to the weblog of our group "Grassroots for Gore".

We are a group of grassroots activism oriented volunteers that support Al Gore for a Presidential run in 2008. We also support Al Gore's various public service endeavors.

Useful blogger.com help links

Here are some blogger.com help pages for the (WYSIWYG) editor available:

- Posting and Editing FAQ

- How do I make a link to another webpage?

More help links as and when I find them.

Test

2005-05-12T01:43:00.000-07:00

by philgoblue on Mon Sep 19, 2005 at 08:31:04 PM PDT

by philgoblue on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 06:34:01 PM PDT