| Courtney Sturgeon If I lost an election by a few mistakes in the voting system, I would be upset. In fact, I would probably throw a few temper tantrums on national television.
Luckily for the Democrat Party, former Vice President Al Gore is much more composed in the public view than I could ever be. He said in a recent interview he is not bitter about the disputed outcome of the 2000 presidential election.
Gore also explained that he would do some things differently than President Bush, particularly concerning a potential war with Iraq and the struggle with terrorism. He said the current administration did not maintain a focus on the war on terrorism in the months following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
Gore said he thinks that removing Saddam Hussein from power is a worthy objective he supports. He also believes there will soon be a war with Iraq.
He said the first thing done with the Iraq situation should have been to build the international coalition first because the way the Bush administration has gone about it has taken time and energy away from the war against terrorism. It is always good to have a group behind you instead of fighting the good fight all alone.
Since the focus has shifted to Hussein, it has had bad results. We unfortunately still have threats from bin Laden and al-Qaida. The Taliban is still in Afghanistan. The threat is as real as it was leading up to Sept. 11.
Gore considers capturing bin Laden and finishing off the al-Qaida terror network the most important goal. He said they are the greatest problems right now because they continue to publicly threaten the United States. Although President Bush has said he considers Hussein and bin Laden as virtually the same, Gore said he doesn't believe there is a connection between the Iraqi president and bin Laden.
Gore has continued to praise Bush, though, for how he handled things just after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. He said the President did an excellent job and pulled the country together in a splendid way. Gore said he would have used that national unity in another way, perhaps to decrease our reliance on oil from the Middle East.
I happened to watch his interview with David Letterman on Friday night. There, Gore criticized his own performance in the 2000 campaign. He said he made a lot of mistakes and said if he could do something differently he wouldn't hold back and 'just let it rip.' He cracked a lot of jokes and also plugged the two books he and his wife, Tipper, just wrote on the American family.
He spoke very suspiciously about running for President in the next election. Do I think he will run again? Probably. Gore said he would officially decide on that issue over the holidays.
Do I think he will win? Probably not. I think he has some fantastic ideas for the federal government and is a great politician but he isn't fit for the job of President.
Maybe it's just me, but I would love to see Evan Bayh on the next presidential ballot.
Write to Courtney at cjsturgeon@bsu.edu |
Justin Syndram Faithful democrats, loyal republicans (what few of each that are left), who is it that reappears on our television screens giving us a gentle reminder with his soft monotones that it is naptime once again?
That's right, Al Gore has returned. After indulging in Twinkies and being cradled to sleep in Tipper's arms night after night, Gore is rejuvenated. At this point I can't tell if there are more democrats or republicans rolling their eyes at this one.
This friendly moderate democrat, taking a page from the Clinton book, has turned to the dark side of liberalism for his second chance at the White House,
One must admire the courage to try, try, again. On the other hand how many times does it take to be humiliated in front of the entire nation by losing your home state in a presidential election before you take whatever dignity you have left and call it a day?
Do any of you honestly think that the White House is the least bit concerned with Gore's reappearance? I think not. If you don't believe me, look at the midterm elections; America spoke. You have to stand for something to get elected. It's hard to find any democrat who does anymore.
When it is discovered in Iraq that there are indeed weapons of mass destruction everywhere, we will do what is necessary to eliminate that threat. Now there are varied views on whether war is justified in Iraq, but at least we have a president in office that will be able to make that decision when the time comes.
Gore wouldn't have even looked that far into the Middle East. We talk about beefing up security - put Gore in office and you might as well have our military use Nerf guns against al-Qaida or Saddam. The United States' SuperSoaker 3000 vs. SCUD missiles. Oh yeah, real tough decision.
Gore will not make it past the primary. He will not receive the nomination for President, and that will be the last we see of him. In the ridiculous circumstance that we do see Gore as the democratic candidate, the democrats won't need the republicans to tarnish their reputation, they will destroy themselves.
Having Gore compete once again for the spotlight as the democrat nominee will not serve the party or the nation well. Assuming Bush maintains his current strategies and avoids any huge foreign policy blunders, it is going to take a unified front from the democrats to even dent the reputation of President Bush.
I think that most democrats would agree that Gore isn't the man for the job, especially pumping his newfound liberal policies. This approach may work for a fresh candidate without any history, but not for Mr. Gore.
Finally I ask now, as I asked three years ago, where do you stand on anything Mr. Gore? For the man who invented the Internet I'd think you'd be a tad swifter on your toes. I'm going to hate to see how many pounds you gain after you lose this election.
Write to Justin at jtsyndram@bsu.edu |
