Al Gore Secretly Assembling Campaign

Thank you pastor for a well-thought out response. I don't agree with a lot of your positions, but I do respect your right to believe the way you do.

I don't have the time to respond individually to your points, except to say one thing that you will understand to be a key area where we disagree. I favor a strong federal government over a strong state government. I think that we face many things today that can only be solved on the federal level.

 

One may not agree with or even like Hillary Clinton, but to say she lacks experience is sheer nonsense. She has far more experience that Edwards and in fact has even more than George Bush did when he took the Oath of Office in 2000. As for ambition, that is something that ALL political candidates possess regardless of party.

 

That's one big difference between a republic and a democracy, freedom and socialism.

 

What the Supreme Court actually did is stop the endless recounts that had become untenable since Florida needed to certify their results so that there could be a smooth transition of power.

Furthermore, you criticism of the Court’s decision is obviously foolish since the recounting of the votes (in multiple ways) by an independent media panel concluded that G.W. Bush won the election in every way proposed by both the Gore and Bush camps. In effect, you want to criticize the Supreme Court for making a verifiably correct decision!

I don’t know what kind of connection you are trying to make between the Supreme Court making a [correct] decision, and the concept of state’s rights. And for your information, I don’t consider myself part of the Religious Right, nor do I bow to the altar of “conservatism” (whatever that means today). I am a moderate that leans toward the Republican Party because, in my lifetime, the Democrats have not had a strong, realistic vision for the United States that I could support. If the Democrats can get their act together and act ethically and credibly (and stop repeating misinformation about the 2000 election), I'd be interested in hearing their positions and considering their candidates. I believe that a strong federal government is important for upholding basic civil rights (as outlined in the Bill of Rights), defense, etc., but states are better equipped for handling local/regional issues.

It’s strange that we’ve heard these assertions for years, but no one have been able to produce any real evidence.

 

George Bush was elected governor of Texas in 1994 and served in that position until the election of 2000. That's a total of six years (in a state with a weak executive). Hillary Clinton is in her second term in the Senate, which means that she's already served six years and will have been that office for eight years by the time of the 2008 election. Like it or not, she also had a very active role in the White House during the eight years her husband was President. While George Bush likewise worked for his father during the years George Sr. was President and Vice-President, the role he played doesn't come close to matching that of Hillary when she was in the White House.

I am not saying that one should necessarily vote for Hillary. What I am saying is that "experience" argument is a canard given the fact that she will have had more experience than the current President did when he took office.

 

:laugh:
Sorry Timothy, but I thought this part of your quote was particularly funny. I can see how this applies to all our Politicians.

 

Oh I see, Clinton's time as Senator of New York doesn't count, but Bush's time as governor of Texas does, right?

 

And that's precisely what is so hypocritical about Republicans: they want it both ways. For instance, Republicans endlessly criticised Hillary all the while she was First Lady because it was said she was too involved in policy decisions. Now, of course, they say that experience doesn't count because she was "only" the First Lady. Likewise, the experience gained as a Senator doesn't count but six years as governer of a state with a weak executive apparently does count if it's a Republican. Meanwhile, many Republicans are holding out hope that a movie actor turned one term Senator, Fred Thompson, will get into the presidential race. Perhaps I'm missing something, but does former Senator Thompson also have more experience than Hillary?

 

A divergence from the threat ... but isn't that Luther's badge that you are using as your symbol, Rooselk? Any story behind that?

I have to feel some allegiance to a man like Al Gore, who accepted my invitation to speak to the D. C. Baptist Ministers' Conference years ago when he was just a congressman, and who brought then an impassioned plea for environmental responsibility; and who has remained faithful to and supportive of a rather small Baptist church in Alexandria, VA, near his DC-area home. This is a sincerely Christian man, in my opinion.

 

I am meeting Al Gore in person next week. I'll pass along everyone's good wishes.

 

Tell him there is at least one Baptist who supports him and hopes he decides to run.

 

And that is different from the current WH how? Have you seen the news over the last few years?

Jamie

 

[sarcasm]You just don't understand! When it is the democrats being investigated, it's because they are attempting to turn the country into a socialistic state, which will, no doubt be the end of civilization as we know it. Now, when it is the republicans who are being investigated, it's because they are being persecuted by the evil democrats![/sarcasm]

 

Yes, there is a story of sorts. While I used to be a Baptist I became a Missouri Synod Lutheran about ten years ago. Thanks for asking.

 

Those investigations you mention were instigated and conducted by Republicans who simply had it in for the Clintons. And what was the result of those investigations? For what was Hillary charged much less convicted? As for her accomplishments as Senator, I think that the polls clearly show that the citizens of New York state have a much higher opinion of their senator than you do.

But again you miss my point. Each person has to decide for themselves whether or not they can or even should vote for Hillary should she become the Democratic nominee. For instance, I personally have no plans to either support or vote for Hillary in the Democratic primaries. The only thing I am saying is that the experience argument you make is a canard. Frankly, that cannot be taken seriously when Republicans like Fred Thompson or even the current President had even less experience. I'm just saying that if you want to oppose Hillary, then set aside the experience nonsense and do it because of honest political differences with her as you did in your post above.