gabi July 28th, 2007 5:08 pm

"You are NOT in any position to talk about who the Dems are dancing with! ..."

What's wrong with facts?
Who held hands with the Republicans to punish the League of Women Voters in order to exclude other voices?
Who joined Republicans in passing the USAPATRIOT Act?
Who joined Republicans in passing the Iraq War Resolution (IWR)?
Who rolled over for toxic Republican judicial appointments?
Who cooperated in funding our illegal invasion and continues to do so to this day?
Who joined hands with Republicans in a 97-0 vote designed to pave the way for a possible attack on Iran?
Whose complicity with Republican malfeasance extends well beyond this list?

There's only one answer, and you are advocating for it.

I find RichM much more cogent and far less likely to stoop to the personal attack like yours.

For goodness' sake, try to add something constructive.

Chibiabos, how do you know how many here voted may have for a third party candidate? You don't know. What you do, or should know is, a third party candidate, running for higher office gets little press coverage. They get little money from the major contributors and are therfore usually beat before they turn in their petitions. So you state that we are guilty and shame on us.

It is most often better to think before you speak or write. By the way, do you have any suggestions on how to get Bush impeached? No, of course you don't.

Hi CRCox, it seems as if everyone here has missed the point I am vainly attempting to argue, and so far, no one has told me I'm full of shit about my opinion on that or has explained why I am wrong. I will gladly listen to reasonable arguments that I am wrong.

I don't know how to explain my case any better, I'm sorry for being a dunce.

For one thing, Conyers is seldom in his office and going there is a almost always a long wasted trip for naught. He won't cave to that, or to letters or e-mails.

Again, my point and argument is: Conyers has violated the law and if someone in congress or even Ralph Nader, who is an excellent lawyer, would have Conyers arrested for breaking the law, he would cave. He is stopping the HR-333 bill. that is against the law and no one cares or is doing a thing about that.___ Why?

Eugene Debs and/or Gandhi could be you or be hiding in here:

http://www.progressivegovernment.org/

A Strike has been called and is being organized - join or support the Encampment:

http://mecawi.org/Sept.%2029%20Call.html

Composure, focus, solidarity, action - faith - the arc of Justice always bends toward Truth.

jstevens: How can you second-guess history and suggest that if Gore had been elected in '00 (stolen by the Rethugs, not Nader), that we'd not have invaded Iraq?

Remember Gore's VP. Liebermann is 100% onboard with Iraq, and indeed -- he's way up there with Bush/Cheney, perhaps even one step ahead of their desires to provoke war with Iran. Well over twice the population of Iraq, and our military is already stretched thin. Lieberman is a nut, so what are we to think of --> ANY

jstevens: How can you second-guess history and suggest that if Gore had been elected in '00 (stolen by the Rethugs, not Nader), that we'd not have invaded Iraq?

Remember Gore's VP. Liebermann is 100% onboard with Iraq, and indeed -- he's way up there with Bush/Cheney, perhaps even one step ahead of their desires to provoke war with Iran. Well over twice the population of Iraq, and our military is already stretched thin. Lieberman is a nut, so what are we to think of ANY ticket that had Lieberman on it?

May have been worse under Gore, it's hard to say. That's an alternate reality to second-guess. But there is no second-guessing Lieberman's record, no alternate reality. We know now, with clear hindsight, that he was lock-step with Bush/Cheney and the other neocons.

Who picked him for the Gore ticket in '00? Gore? Or did Bush & Cheney do the picking for him? Sure as hell looks that way.

Never ever forget,sjc, and others of this insane vein of thinking, that Al Gore threw in the towel AFTER WINNING THE ELECTION, because the DLC declared that it "is their turn now." This from the mouth of Donna Brazil in an interview with Terry Gross last year-from WKYC in Philadelphia. Yep, it's true. Please check it out. (Oh, I forgot to mention. Donna Brazil was Al Gore's campaign manager). Waiting for our heroes to act? Be patient. They will in good time... after THEIR TURN IS OVER !!!(Read: after the republic has been dismantled...completely).

PJD: I promise you I am not writing anything in hindsight. I formulated my opinion of George Junior when his father was running for office. I heard a brief interview of Jeb and George Junior, and I was struck by how idiotic George came across. Jeb, for the record, did not strike me as stupid. I didn't give it much thought, it never occurred to me that Junior would run for office. During Junior's campaign, it was well known that he was a C student and a party boy in college. I don't have anything against alcoholics necessary, but I wondered if Junior's well documented disease was a good idea considering the stresses of office. It was also a matter of record that Junior's campaign received a lot of money from coal and oil industries. One of the first things Jr. did in office was to raise the acceptable standard for arsenic allowed in the water. Who wants that???? Yet he was elected a second time.

I formulated my opinion of Al Gore when he wrote his book "Earth in the Balance." Gore gained nothing politically from this book. It was clear that he was truly concerned about the environment. When he was a young man, he looked at a chart showing a steep rise in CO-2 levels in the atmosphere and he was alarmed. I had the exact same reaction when I first learned of the rising CO-2 levels.

Please reflect on the implication here because I believe this is important: How many politicians care about ANYTHING real by the time they become President? The only thing I've seen in my life time (except for Jimmy Carter, who was unfortunately not that effective) is presidents who want power. There is no indication that they have anyone's interests in mind except their own. A true passion for good is incredibly rare and incredibly powerful. It is very hard to go far in politics without becoming tainted, without compromising. Again, this is a reality that I don't like, but I can recognize. I don't hold the Clinton years against Al Gore. It really doesn't seem probable that Hillary or Bill gave Al ANY say.

I trust Mr. Gore to do everything in his power to prevent the destruction of the planet. I expect him to be subtle and coy and clever because there are a lot of powerful people who feel threatened by him. Give him a little credit for his vision in recognizing the environmental crisis we are facing, and for recognizing it a LONG time ago.

The 2000 election was staggering in its importance. I can't help but think of it as some kind of cosmic test. It was as if we were presented with the epitome of good and evil--the worst candidate ever against the best candidate ever--the planet versus the anti-planet. We made the wrong choice and I can't get over it.

If Al Gore were to run again, it would be the second chance that we don't deserve. I don't want anything to screw it up again.

At this point, saving the planet is going to be very difficult if not impossible. Good intentions aren't going to be enough here. It will take a genius and a miracle to pull off the global cooperation required. Al Gore is the best chance.

Oh, and as for war in Iraq, going to war with Iraq was so stupid and unprovoked I don't think anyone would have attempted it except for you know who.

"I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don't want, and get it." - Eugene Debs

That's been one of my chief worries about pinning everything on impeachment. In complex systems you often need to approach these things like a Gantt Chart. It turns out that the impeachment movement runs the risk of slowing absolutely everything else, even those which may not have the same dependencies, from moving forward.

Why not also promote secession? Article V as one other poster mentioned? And other ideas?

Damn! Now that they know that Ralph Nader favors impeachment, there's no chance of the Democrats doing it.

Future Generations?

check out this email:
The following recipients have been sent your petition: autodelete@democrats.com

Text:

I support the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney and I authorize Rep. Dennis Kucinch to enter my name into the Congressional Record.

For his role in violating the United States Constitution
To restore the rule of law to this country
Vice President Dick Cheney must be impeached.

Incredibly sincerely,
Mary Lou

why would activist@democrat.com send petition signatures to autodelete?

What are they afraid of?

If anyone watched the Democracy Now exchange between Cindy Sheehan and Dan Gerstein, with Ray McGovern on the phone, how is it possible to say that the Democrats have any justification for refusing to impeach?

Gerstein is a propaganda hack, if not an actual Israeli spy, an emissary from Joe Lieberman/AIPAC, representing the Democrat "strategy".

There is no actual strategy. There is only fear and craven calculations of political expedience.

What are they afraid of?

"What a lesson for future generations."

IMPEACH them for their crimes, IMPEACH them to save our democracy!

Fellow Citizens of this World of Ours. You have thought enough ,heard enough and seen enough. Save your energy, your own, your food and survival. This insanity has gone on for long enough - it is beyond the realms of religion and politics. Face them or we all perish in death or as slaves - to their amusement and massive profit.

REAL BLAME FOR BUSH POLICIES
Blame the Bush team all you wish for the disastrous consequences of their environmental and social policies, and this ill conceived war. But those who must shoulder the blame for are: the thoughtless voters who helped Bush steal the elections, the five Supreme Court justices who violated their oath by placing politics and favoritism over principle when planting Bush in office, and our legislators who have succumbed to intimidation and tolerated these unprecedented abuses.

As the late Molly Ivins, who always seemed to be right with incredible insight, stated in her last column "We run this country and we are the deciders. Every one of us needs to take action and make the ridiculous look ridiculous".

So what else is new...

QUOTE:

gabi July 29th, 2007 12:55 am

It's sad to see Common Dreams turning into a Dem bashing pub site….

END QUOTE

The truth hurts doesn't it, Gabi? I'm glad to see a "progressive" website that FINALLY tells the truth about the worthless and useless Bush-Enabling Dems. It's about time! By contrast, other so-called "progressive" forums are too often saturated with pathetic Dem apologists and excuse makers, trying to make excuse after excuse for the Dems' mountain of failures and wearing blinders to all the "YES" votes the Dems have willingly given Bush/Cheney and the Repugs.

These days, only a Dem koolaid drinker in denial is STILL supporting these Bush-Enabling Traitors to the US Constitution. And that makes you (and other Dem koolaid drinkers) no better than they are because you are enabling The Enablers.

"Instead of a sex scandal, as with Clinton, there is a serial constitutional scandal oozing ongoing repeated constitutional crimes. For which alas, there is only one constitutional remedy arranged by the framers - impeachment."

IMPEACH - IMPEACH - IMPEACH!

"It is time to hold the Bush-Cheney-Administration responsible for their indefensible acts."

Nader, a usual, comes to the exactly correct conclusion: IT IS TIME TO HOLD CHENEY AND HIS MOUTHPIECE BUSH ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIGH CRIMES, MISDEMEANORS, WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND VIOLATIONS OF OATHS OF OFFICE. Not to mention general sleaziness and lousy aesthetics.

Whether the Congress "has the votes" or not, to impeach is largely irrelevant. The act of holding these monsters accountable with all the accompanying publicity will create numerous positive outcomes.

The first is that the Bully-in-Chief and Emperor-Without=a-Brain will see that there are political forces that have the chutzpah to stand up to their fascism and reign of terror.

Another is the quite obvious political fact that tying up these fools in an impeachment process will make every Democratic candidate stronger in the general election in 2008.

It is obvious that the Dems don't have an ounce of political integrity or a strand of moral fiber, but you'd think that they at least have enough mental capacity to understand the survival and self-interest aspect. While they clearly failed as human beings log ago, shouldn't their animal survival instincts kick in here at least?

"A more rational government [is] one in which the will of the people should have... a moderating and salutary influence." --Thomas Jefferson to William Bentley, 1815.

I've mentioned it many times -- keep writing and calling your elected representatives. Outline your reasoning, which isn't a difficult task, that the House of Representatives must take action to commence with impeachment proceedings. There is ample justification. Explain that political reasons are never a reason to fail to undertake the constitutional remedy to oust an administration that has, as the known evidence indicates, committed high crimes and misdemeanors. The constitution allows for this, as a matter of fact, requires this, when crimes against the United States have been committed by a sitting president.

Call Monday. Do not procrastinate. Call.

The logic I've been using is "Just because Pelosi is ignoring her San Francisco constituency on impeachment does NOT mean you should do the same. Support impeachment. Let's let an open process decide."

Are you kidding? You're one to speak. You are part of this on-going problem that's been created by the Bush-Cheney administration. Give me a break. And don't use the excuse that 80,000 Democrats voted for Bush because they to are traitors and part of a problem that we'll never get out of. It's just starting to snowball.

Ralph,

If you had not run your vain, futile attempt at a campaign in 2000, we probably would not be in the mess at all!

"It is time to hold the Bush-Cheney-Administration responsible for their indefensible acts.

"hear, hear!"

"(Bush) was so charming," said Pelosi, daughter of House Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco. "I thought some of us were in love with him."

http://www.dailycal.org/printable.php?id=8486

"A life spent making mistakes is not only more honourable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing." - George Bernard Shaw

I wonder how many people walk away from an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling declaring that they will: "Take this to a higher authority!"

Brother Bush was the Florida governor, calling all of the shots. The Supreme Court ruled. So what is a visionary to do? Walk away with some dignity, knowing a lost cause when he sees one.

Al Gore's choice of Lieberman for VP was very unfortunate, however, Al Gore knows better than anyone that the only power a VP has is in the rare Senate tie-breaker. VP's are chosen mainly for campaign strategy based on geography or to supposedly balance the President in some way.

Al Gore really wanted to lead the world and prevent impending doom. You don't become President (at least in 2000) by appearing radical. Moderation is key for anyone serious about winning an election. Had Gore been elected, he would have educated people about the environment and we would have seen real change. Modern Presidents never really educate the public; they just hurl rhetoric. As President, Al Gore would have convinced Americans to embrace environmental reforms.

Nader was able to be the dream candidate for progressives because he doesn't worry about winning. He could say anything he wanted to. He was outside of the political fray so he was spared the inevitable taint. He has a taint now, however, and it's a big one. He caused George Bush. In an election that pitted, say, Hillary against Guilliani, it wouldn't matter if Nader ran, because there isn't much difference there. There is a huge difference between Gore and Bush, too obvious to describe.

Despite all of the spin Greg Palast has placed on the 2000 election, if Nader hadn't entered, Al Gore would have won. I have to say, I am baffled at how proud the Nader voters seem of their decision. There is no time for a protest vote. I am terrified that Nader will Third Party us into doomed elections over and over.

George Bush is a disaster, but he is truly ignorant and delusional. Ralph Nader knew exactly what he was doing in 2000. Plenty of people begged him not to run, none of them from the Right Wing.

Nader needs to apoligize for his role in the 2000 election and for his claim that Bush and Gore are the same. His name is mud until then.

Statement on the Articles of Impeachment

Barbara Charline Jordan Statement on the Articles of Impeachment

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barbarajordanjudiciarystatement.htm

hey gang - stop playing the "ain't it awful" and "blame" games and start noticing who's on our side. Thanks, Ralph, all is forgiven and welcome to the tent.

80000 democrats who voted for Bush in 2000 are traitors. Nader gave people a choice--unlike the democrats.

It is such a rare honor in these dreadfully depressing times to read what a true American hero thinks. Since the phony Orwellian War the Bush Administration created I thought all heroes were simply myths. It has been proven time and time again our generals are simply moronic, sycophantic, who are equally responsible for this horrific yet phony war. The corporate/white house press is anything but a "free press". Thank god for Greg Palast.

The average person is so beat down with hopelessness and legitimate fear of this insanely belligerent government they do nothing. These are they most disgraceful and fearful times in this countries history. Thank you, Mr. Nadar for being a ray of hope for us little people. You are and should always be recognized as a True American Hero.

Robert Settgast:You hit the nail on the head-the fool's who voted for the moron, the criminal Supreme's who broke the law and installed him and the gutless congrass are all to blame.This most corrupt administration should have been IMPEACHED long ago.

I used to say that Dems are spineless. But now I have changed my mind. May be what they are doing is just what they really want to do. So my new motto is:

Democrats = Bush-enabler

That's what they have been doing since 2000. Remember this, when you interact with any Democratic representative, and when you contemplate voting in 2008.

Democrats = Bush-enabler

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/video_popups/pop_vid_impeachment1-2.html

According to John Nichols of the Nation magazine, "Impeachment isn't a constitutional crisis. It's a cure for a constitutional crisis" and "The Founders said monarchical behavior — the behavior of a king, acting like one — is an impeachable offense. You need not look for specific laws or statutes. What you need to look for is a pattern of behavior that says the presidency is superior not merely to Congress but to the laws of the land — to the rule of law."

Using Campaign Spending Limits to Get America Better Politicians is the Only Way to Solve America's Problems Enough

Thank you Mr. Nader, a TRUE American hero! I am so tired of those who do NOT have their facts straight still tyring to blame Nader for Bush being handed the presidency! Don't you think if they managed to marginalize LEGAL Black voters, and get their henchmen to alter the counts, they would have had a plan for the votes that went to Nader? They had the machinery of the Florida state vote in place (nothing like a brother waiting in the wings, and a well financed machine behind him) and a willingly complicit court.
Robert Settgast: It's true the court is responsible, and the castigation would hold for those voters who voted on the basis of what they TOOK to be true. We cannot presume that because we have the wit and fortitude in this forum to question the "usual sources" of info, that average Americans, particularly those raised to respect "authority" do likewise. I am not excusing ignorance entirely, but I do feel that many might have had good intentions or voted differently HAD THEY been given the truth! We know that the elections are smoke and mirrors. No one brought up the Bush family participation in the S & L scam; and Bush's Texas record as governor was largely under the MSM radar. The FIX was in! And still is! I thank Nader for spending most moments of his time on earth acting as watchdog to the very corporations that have gutted this nation, its treasury, constitution and civil liberties under the guise of a political pay per view (i.e. lobby system).

When will you all comprehend? I've sent hundreds of emails day after day. I've made almost as many calls. I've participated in protests carrying "IMPEACH BUSH" signs.
Cindy Sheehan showed up in DC with an impeachment petition bearing the signatures of A MILLION American citizens and was PUT IN JAIL!
IT'S TOO LATE!
If you stop to think about it, it's been too late for a long time. When the 2000 election was stolen, people took to the streets in protest. Nothing happened.
During the run-up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, MILLIONS of people, WORLDWIDE, took to the streets in protest. Nothing happened.
With the stealing of the 2000 election a point of no return was crossed.
With the false flag of 911 and the murder of American citizens by their own government the fate of our nation and probably the human race was sealed.
Next month, with the annexation of Canada and Mexico, America will cease to exist and the North American Union will be born.
The machinery of total, global military domination has been set in motion.
No amount of emails, phone calls, people yapping on the Internet or peace marches are going to stop it.
No political party is going to stop it.
The American people are obviously not going to stop it.
I seriously doubt that anything will.

relayer@q.com

Ralph's campaign in 2000 was a courageous attempt to 'speak truth to power' and it was not responsible for Gore's "losing" the election, as Greg Palast's research has pointed out. Gore won.

This disastrous administration has pressed to the limit whatever prerogatives it enjoys (and some it doesn't), without any sense of restraint, decorum, proportion. High-handedly firing nine (9!) U.S. Attorneys for being insufficiently zealous in implementing the Bushies' political agenda, then justifying it by noting that these members of the Justice Department serve "at the pleasure of the president," is a case in point. For too long, Democrats have been content to make a token show of "standing up" to this administration. That's not enough. This thuggish, arrogant administration must be knocked down. It's time for impeachment.

Impeaching an unpopular fascist dictator so the oligarchy can replace him with a more popular fascist seems counterproductive. At least Bush serves to wake people up.

The question, "what are they afraid of?" is a good one.
Are these Democrats (and some Republicans) being threatened?
Are they being victimized/influenced by Mafioso tactics?

How can we ever know?

I think that some people who oppose Nader are actually afraid. So they speak out against Nader because they are afraid of speaking out against the supposed democratic party because they don't want to face the reality that the true betrayal will come (and has come) from the democrats.

And other liberals who speak out against Nader are protecting their pocket because they don't want to 'sacrifice' anything to achieve justice. But if we are going to have less wars, we are going have to 'want' less material goods. Yes, Virginia, you don't have a god-given right to an SUV, 3 television sets, 2 cordless phones, a cell phone, a laptop, 2 cars, a 2,000 sq. foot house. All this comes at the expense of someone else's misfortune.

Even Kucinich (whose values I admire) withdrew from the last presidential primary to show his loyalty with the democratic party rather than peace, truth, and justice.

Chosing between the republicans and the democrats is like asking 'do you want your ass fucked, or do you want to get fucked in the ass.' Either way, you're fucked.

It's sad that mainstream America fails to support and recognize what Nader is doing, what Cindy Sheehan is doing, and what the thousands of other people are doing.

Embrace fairness and justice, no matter who it comes from. And unfortunately, as of this moment, it is not coming from the Democratic party leadership.

Don't Fear Nader - http://www.wordsareimportant.com/nader.htm

peace, justice, and human rights for all.

Soundchaser,
you're probably right.
no-one in elected office is going to stop the war or impeach bush. (hillary will say what she needs to say to get elected, and then proceed to keep bases in iraq for her entire administration)
the democrats for the most share responsibility for the war.
those who voted against the war did not exhibit the courage and tenacity to effectively air the truth about the war.
the system is broken.
this is not a democracy anymore;we have the symbols and veneer of a democracy, but its all theatre.
what runs the system is money.
the providers of that money are overwhelmingly, corporations.
our representatives say what we want to hear in public but in reality they dance to the tune of their corporate masters.
we have to get the corrupting influence of money completely out of the system.
publicly financed elections - or nothing changes...

QUOTE:

sjc_1 July 28th, 2007 1:44 pm,

If you had not run your vain, futile attempt at a campaign in 2000, we probably would not be in the mess at all!

END QUOTE

We would not be in this mess if Al Gore had not run a pathetic campaign and had not acted like a wet doily during the so-called "debates" where he let Bush walk all over him.

The pathetic Dems seem unable to take any responsibility for their own miserable failures. It's always somebody else who is to blame. That's the same strategy the Repugs use. So in that area, the Dems and the Repugs are the same too!

We would not be in this mess if Gore had not conceded to a stolen election and his useless party gave their powder to the Repugs at that time and they have been Bush-Enablers ever since.

I don't understand this thinking where The People should not vote for the candidate they feel is the best choice, which for many people was Ralph Nader.

According to you, people were wrong to vote their conscience. Instead, they should limit themselves and keep spinning their wheels in this damn rut called the dismal one-party system with 2 right wings.

The RNC can control their senators by withholding funding during reelection time or doing a Wellstone on them. However I also think they have used extortion on the democrats to prevent impeachment. Maybe a promise not to bomb Iran or declare martial law. Or else a promise to run the most incompetent slate of presidential candidates so a democrat will easily win the presidency. Or a promise not to destroy the economy by crashing the dollar. Maybe no dirty tricks. In the end if this is true, then the democrats are as corrupt as the republicans and are just the other side of the same coin.

erma: I think it was troll bait. I had no doubts against Nader back in '00 and I think more and more people are coming to see how very correct he was.

One could blame Nader with more ammunition if idealistic progressives had a Gore-Kucinich or Gore-Wellstone ticket. But Gore's pick of Lieberman spoke volumes -- Lieberman has come out of the closet for what he is. Did Gore have any voice whatsoever in the selection of his running mate? Would Lieberman have orchestrated Gore from the "no branch" VP office in the way that Cheney somewhat orchestrates Shrub?

angrydem,

Are you aware that last week the Senate voted 97-0 (that includes Bush-Enabler Dems) to give Bush the go ahead to attack Iran.

And the Dem koolaid drinkers STILL insist there's a difference between the so-called "two parties."

One day when people finally are able to see the Dems for who and what they truly are as opposed to what people wish they were, many people will see that we do indeed have a one-party system rather than this charade they call a "two party system."

They are indeed one in the same and that is why impeachment is not going to happen and is scoffed at by the Bush-Enablers. They are not about to impeach two of their own people...Bush/Cheney and the very people they have been helping since 2000.

To me, it's as clear as day. But to those in denial who are still drinking the Dems' koolaid they say:

the Dems don't have a spine, they need to grow a spine, they are afraid... and other such nonsense.

No, the Dems have a remarkably strong spine...for helping Bush/Cheney and the Repugs. They posture with their theatre as some supposed "opposition" on occasion to dupe the pathetic and gullible Dem koolaid drinkers who are still clinging on to them and sending them $$$, I bet. In some cases the Dem koolaid drinkers are sending money to a millionaire politician! Why would anyone send money to a millionaire? DUH. What a bunch of sad people.

as much as nader is a voice of sanity in these troubling times, do not forget that nader supported the clinton impeachment.

Nader could have been sharing recipes with us and the Democrats would still find a way to attack him for the 2000 election.

I remember arguing with a friend of mine who voted for Nader in 2000. I was ready to hit him in the face! Then the Democrats co-operated with Bush for the next 8 years, just like they were on his payroll. They had at least 40 Senators every second of every day from 2000 to now, and they could have blocked every one of Bush's criminal enterprises. Instead they did nothing.

As a party, the Democrats have no reason for being. They aren't a labor party, they aren't a peace party, they aren't a party for social justice. Hillary and Obama are all about Hillary and Obama... "We really really want to be President, and we're a little better than Bush." Edwards occasionally makes a noise about social justice, but when he campaigned with Kerry, it all went away. Gore is happy to have his big fat face back on TV, long after his 8 years a Vice-President, when he did absolutely nothing for the environment, and carbon emissions increased 12% during the Clinton-Gore term. So what? Global warming wasn't a hot-button issue in 1992, and it wouldn't make you $100 million for rehashing old news in a movie. An inconvenient truth? Back when it was really inconvenient, Gore ran away from it along with all the rest of his corporate sponsors.

The Democrats have no firm conviction about anything.

Flush those bums down the toilet of history!