Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Clinton vs. Bush Poll Results & Is it Time for Al Gore to Run & Win Again?

host · 05-13-2006, 06:00 AM

CNN is out with this story, and you can vote in their Clinton vs. Bush honesty poll:

Quote:

Which man was more honest as president, President Bush, or President Clinton ? Results...so far.... Clinton leads in the more honest POTUS category, 38000 to 13200 votes for Bush!

Didn't Clinton lie in a sworn deposition....wasn't he only the second POTUS to be impeached in the house....for high crimes and misdemeanors ???

Link to story and to poll: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/...oll/index.html

Quote:

Poll: Clinton outperformed Bush

Friday, May 12, 2006; Posted: 10:41 p.m. EDT (02:41 GMT)
(CNN) -- In a new poll comparing President Bush's job performance with that of his predecessor, a strong majority of respondents said President Clinton outperformed Bush on a host of issues.

The poll of 1,021 adult Americans was conducted May 5-7 by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush). (Watch whether Americans are getting nostalgic for the Clinton era -- 1:57)

On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.

Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.

When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers -- 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush -- falling within the poll's margin of error. The same was true for a question on handling national security: 46 percent said Clinton performed better; 42 percent picked Bush.....

Clinton's VP, Al Gore won the national popular vote, by more than one million votes, in Nov., 2000, even before people got to experience what a Bush presidency could do for (to) them, and the country.....is Al Gore saying the right things, since then...to attract an even greater plurality of votes if he decides to run again, in 2008?

A timely Gore interview, on the eve of the release of his new movie !

Quote:

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/
Al Revere An interview with accidental movie star Al Gore
By David Roberts
09 May 2006
Al Gore is on the campaign trail again, and he actually seems to be enjoying it......In the years since his dramatic "loss" in 2000, he has, largely under the media radar, been practicing a form of retail politics: traveling the globe with a computer slideshow on global warming, educating small crowds, trying to boost the public profile of the problem through sheer force of door-to-door persistence.

At one of those presentations, Hollywood producer Laurie David was in the audience. Galvanized, she recruited a team of producers, filmmakers, and philanthropists, and together they persuaded Gore to star in a documentary based on his climate slideshow. Deadwood producer Davis Guggenheim was brought on to direct, and the movie was done in little over a year.......

.....Now, as anticipation builds for the May 24 wide release of An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore is squarely back in the public eye. Despite denials from Gore's camp, rumors of a 2008 presidential run are rampant. Grist met with Gore during his recent stay in Seattle and found him hale, jovial, and relaxed -- a man invigorated.....

....and there are more signs.... http://draftgore2008.org/

....and this, in tomorrow's LA Times:

Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...ck=1&cset=true
In the heat of the moment
Global warming gets Al Gore fired up again, and a new documentary testifies to his long-standing passion.
By Tina Daunt, Times Staff Writer
May 14, 2006

...........Gore's quest is the subject of a new documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," which opens here on May 24. His almost-professorial plea to save the planet finds him center stage once again. The straightforward but quietly devastating film is a long way from Michael Moore, and the issue it raises isn't in the forefront of the public's concerns, but many expect it to have a significant effect on the public consciousness.

Meanwhile, some of Hollywood's top politicos have been lobbying him privately to run for president in 2008, raising the tantalizing possibility of a Clinton-Gore showdown. For the record Gore, 58, says he's not interested — at least not at the moment.

Regardless of whether he enters the race, or closes the door to politics forever, the former vice president has clearly found an issue that gives him purpose like no other. Audiences may well walk out of theaters not only compelled to do something about the environment but impressed by a Gore they've rarely seen. Onstage, and in the documentary, he displays a side of himself that never came across during his presidential race: affable, funny, passionate and — at times — vulnerable.

"It's hard to describe it in a way that doesn't sound excessive, but the issue of global warming is something that's always with me," he said recently over breakfast at the Regency Hotel in New York City. "You feel like you are entrusted with a very important message that you have to deliver."..............

Quote:

http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2006_...19201266832588
Think about it. Do you really want a President who says things like <a href="http://www.newshounds.us/2006/01/16/al_gores_speech_january_16_2006.php">this:</a>

Quote:

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. 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."

or <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0807-15.htm">this:</a>

Quote:

Here is the pattern that I see: the President's mishandling of and selective use of the best evidence available on the threat posed by Iraq is pretty much the same as the way he intentionally distorted the best available evidence on climate change, and rejected the best available evidence on the threat posed to America's economy by his tax and budget proposals.

In each case, the President seems to have been pursuing policies chosen in advance of the facts -- policies designed to benefit friends and supporters -- and has used tactics that deprived the American people of any opportunity to effectively subject his arguments to the kind of informed scrutiny that is essential in our system of checks and balances.

The administration has developed a highly effective propaganda machine to imbed in the public mind mythologies that grow out of the one central doctrine that all of the special interests agree on, which -- in its purest form -- is that government is very bad and should be done away with as much as possible -- except the parts of it that redirect money through big contracts to industries that have won their way into the inner circle.

For the same reasons they push the impression that government is bad, they also promote the myth that there really is no such thing as the public interest. What's important to them is private interests. And what they really mean is that those who have a lot of wealth should be left alone, rather than be called upon to reinvest in society through taxes......

........The administration hastened from the beginning to persuade us that defending America against terror cannot be done without seriously abridging the protections of the Constitution for American citizens, up to and including an asserted right to place them in a form of limbo totally beyond the authority of our courts. And that view is both wrong and fundamentally un-American.

But the most urgent need for new oversight of the Executive Branch and the restoration of checks and balances is in the realm of our security, where the Administration is asking that we accept a whole cluster of new myths:

For example, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was an effort to strike a bargain between states possessing nuclear weapons and all others who had pledged to refrain from developing them. This administration has rejected it and now, incredibly, wants to embark on a new program to build a brand new generation of smaller (and it hopes, more usable) nuclear bombs. In my opinion, this would be true madness -- and the point of no return to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty -- even as we and our allies are trying to prevent a nuclear testing breakout by North Korea and Iran.....

Al Gore already demontrated that he could win, once. IMO, he seems like a good choice to rehabilitate the presidency, open government with integrity, a responsible foreign policy and restoration of respect for the U.S. in the world community, draft environmental and energy policies that are responsible and in synch with the concerns of the rest of the world and the majority of scientists, and the restoration of science itself, over religion and myth.

Gore brings experience, he knows how to make smaller government, fair taxation policies, and will lessen tensions in the middle east and in the broader muslim world, to lower the chances that we will "get hit" again, and this should appeal to conservatives who are not religious fundamentalists.
Bush's performance makes the Clinton legacy and a Gore candidacy look stellar, in contrast, IMO! Bring 'em on !!!