Actually, Gore’s always been a nuts and bolts kind of guy. He was a very active vice president, and as I recall, he did a lot of work shrinking the internal federal government. Hm.
Wikipedia says…
He was a member of the US Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
He’s since spent his career lecturing on, among other things, democracy. I don’t know much, but if I wanted to pick one man who knew things about rules, regulations, and limitations of federal government… yeah, he’d be on my short list. I heartily approve of Al Gore.
Not to mention, of course, he took the initiative in making the internet what it is today. No, that’s not a joke.
As numerous people elsewhere have pointed out, it would be helpful if he’d square this with the Clinton administration’s position – even after the FISA court was created – that they had the right to do warrantless searches. It’s entirely possible that this was a position Gore opposed from within the administration; but if so, it sure as heck seems like he ought to clear things up now.
Criticism of this policy is fair; raising the possibility that it stepped over the line into illegality is fair (wrong, IMO, but a case can be made); Al Gore acting shocked, shocked that this was happening is disingenuous to the point of self-mockery.
Well, Gore never finished law school (he quit to run for Congress); but he was a congressman, a senator, and vice-president of the United States for eight years. You think he doesn’t know what he’s talking about? His credentials in that area are much better than W’s, at any rate.
Am I missing something? I read the 1994 statement as pertaining to outside-our-borders communication, and the new flak is about listening to American citizens inside the country talking to somebody outside the country - without a warrant.
I think that’s just wishful thinking from his fan club, at this point, but you never can tell…
I like everything I’ve heard from Gore since he lost in 2000. He’s got a lot of work to do if he’s going to shake the “automaton loser” image that dogged him last time around, but I still think he’s a stronger canidate than HR Clinton or any other Democrat I can think of offhand.
Heh. If other folks weren’t focusing on Gore instead of on the speech, I’d be pretty pissed at this blatant ad hominem. As it is, the focus is on the man and not on his words, so I suppose this is not out of place.
What about his words? Do folks have specific disagreements with the points he makes, divorced from the guy who’s making them?
The speech is extremely broad in the areas it criticizes, ranging from illegal wiretaps to Medicare. It might be good for us to choose a few small bits to debate.
For example, here are his recommendations from the end of the speech:
The second and the fourth one seem most controversial. WHat do y’all think?
So, against foreign agents in the United States, and physical break ins when the issue had not been settled, but clearly not insofar as wiretapping, which was already covered by FISA. (The breakins were later put under FISA)
As the warrants are retroactive, the only thing that would restrict the president’s ability would be the inability of FISA to process retroactive warrants fast enough. Or, of course, if all the judges were suborned by foreign powers. Am I wrong?
I generally agree with the second and fourth, though the second may be something the President has to do, the fourth is something Congress has to do, and the fifth is most interesting… as, according to Body of Secrets, it is something the phone companies have been doing for decades.
So what? The Powers That Be in the GOP are not going to accept McCain as their candidate. I’d be far more shocked by McCain than Jeb Bush getting the nomination for 2008.
No way Jeb is going to run. There’s going to be a groundswell of support for McCain. The “powers that be” might try to prevent him from getting the nomination, but they may not be able to stop it.
There was more than one dog in that cite. What about this dog?