Text of Al Gore's speech to the Florida Democratic Party:
algore04.com - The Grassroots Site Dedicated to Re-electing Al Gore
Now, here in America patriotism does not mean keeping quiet. It means speaking up. It means speaking out. It means exercising our freedom of speech. It means drawing the line where we have strong differences with the administration. It means debating what we believe is right, and what we believe is wrong. It is in this sprit of patriotism that I appear before you here today to engage in the debate that we so vitally need to build a brighter future for our country.
The time has come to speak out boldly, not only when we believe the administration is right, but to offer constructive alternatives when we believe what they're doing is wrong for America. And a lot of what they're doing, I believe, is wrong for America........
........In each of these areas, the Administration is following the same pattern: selling out America's future in return for short term political gains. They've returned us to the days of deficits and debt, the days of irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy; the days of loosening environmental safeguards to satisfy the polluters. And they've turned their back on America's covenant with our greatest generation, raiding the Social Security and Medicare trust funds without pause, without remorse, and seemingly without even a thought to the long-term consequences of what they're doing.
4.24.2002
Much has been made about the increasing dominance of the Republican Party in the South and the Democratic Party on the Coasts, but the area of greatest dominance seems to be the Republican lock on the Southwest and Mountain West. Of the 20 Senators representing TX, OK, NM, AZ, UT, NV, CO, MT, WY, and ID, only 3 are Democrats. As long as this is true, the hard right will only need 24 out of the remaining 80 Senators to be able to filibuster any laws they don't like and 34 out of 80 to control the Senate.
This area, which gave us Mo Udall, Gary Hart, and Frank Church, now seems to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the right wing of the Republican Party. There seem to be three major reasons:
1) The rise of a poltically active Religious Right
2) Backlash against environmental policies which many see as imposed by elitist Easterners
3) Guns
The Religious Right has been able to dominate debate on "moral" issues for over two decades, since the Left won on their biggest moral issues: Women's Lib, Vietnam and Civil Rights (and, no, I'm not implying that there isn't any work left to do on Civil Rights or Women's Lib). They've defined the debate so well that anyone who considers themselves a "moral" person (especially devout Christians) will automatically identify themselves with the Republican Party solely on social issues. While the Left should never try to out-pander or out-bigot (and there are still a lot of bigots out there) the Religious Right, there is a way to defuse their rhetoric:
1) Emphasize economics above all else. Make the case that the Party of "family values" is the one that makes it easier for people to raise their families with some economic security, not the one that spews platitudes and then votes with the corporations every time. Sell economic populism as "family friendly" politics. This'll take a lot of sting out of the attacks of the Right.
2) Emphasize the "personal freedom" platform of the Left. Sell gay rights and abortion rights (the two biggest remaining social battlegrounds) as guarantees of liberty. Make the case that the government shouldn't be telling people what they can do in the privacy of their own homes and what they can do with their own bodies. Making the case in this way will play to natural distrust of intrusive government, and should be far more effective than trying to convince people to actively approve of homosexuality and abortion (which may be a good thing to do on its own, but is a political loser).
3) Make the case that protecting the environment is in the interest of Westerners themselves. Emphasize the economic benefits of a cleaner enviroment (especially tourism), the better quality of life (cleaner air and water), and the harm done to future generations by destruction of the environment. Like most Americans, Westerners will sacrifice immediate gain for the future of their children, but they won't do it just to make Joe Lieberman happy. We also need to point out that a lot of environmentally destructive activity makes no sense from a financial point of view. We spend more building roads for loggers than we get from selling the trees (this won't convince the loggers, but it will other people who only hear one side now). Let's also stop using the shorthand word "environment", which lots of Westerners have come to think doesn't apply to anything they care about. Instead, talk about "clean air", "clean water" and "beautiful countryside". Give people something tangible to imagine.
4) Tilt government spending more towards local schools, local hospitals, and other things that people experience every day. If folks think that none of their tax dollars go to help them, they'll vote for the people who want to dismantle government. If they see their tax dollars at work, they won't. This is also, frankly, what government is supposed to be doing with its money. Slash corporate welfare, spend it on schools, and you'll have the thanks of the people who have kids.
5) To people who live on ranches and in small towns, guns are more often thought of as the solution rather than the problem. 911 doesn't help much if the police are a 30 minute drive away. You'll never convince these people that guns should be banned, so stop trying. Completely abandon any attempts to ban guns, which would be a disaster to enforce anyway. If the single issue gun voters knew for a fact that their guns wouldn't be taken away, they wouldn't have nearly the same aversion to reasonable attempts to keep guns away from kids, ex-cons, and the insane. Until they know this, they'll keep voting solely on guns for the people who hurt them economically.
This area, which gave us Mo Udall, Gary Hart, and Frank Church, now seems to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the right wing of the Republican Party. There seem to be three major reasons:
1) The rise of a poltically active Religious Right
2) Backlash against environmental policies which many see as imposed by elitist Easterners
3) Guns
The Religious Right has been able to dominate debate on "moral" issues for over two decades, since the Left won on their biggest moral issues: Women's Lib, Vietnam and Civil Rights (and, no, I'm not implying that there isn't any work left to do on Civil Rights or Women's Lib). They've defined the debate so well that anyone who considers themselves a "moral" person (especially devout Christians) will automatically identify themselves with the Republican Party solely on social issues. While the Left should never try to out-pander or out-bigot (and there are still a lot of bigots out there) the Religious Right, there is a way to defuse their rhetoric:
1) Emphasize economics above all else. Make the case that the Party of "family values" is the one that makes it easier for people to raise their families with some economic security, not the one that spews platitudes and then votes with the corporations every time. Sell economic populism as "family friendly" politics. This'll take a lot of sting out of the attacks of the Right.
2) Emphasize the "personal freedom" platform of the Left. Sell gay rights and abortion rights (the two biggest remaining social battlegrounds) as guarantees of liberty. Make the case that the government shouldn't be telling people what they can do in the privacy of their own homes and what they can do with their own bodies. Making the case in this way will play to natural distrust of intrusive government, and should be far more effective than trying to convince people to actively approve of homosexuality and abortion (which may be a good thing to do on its own, but is a political loser).
3) Make the case that protecting the environment is in the interest of Westerners themselves. Emphasize the economic benefits of a cleaner enviroment (especially tourism), the better quality of life (cleaner air and water), and the harm done to future generations by destruction of the environment. Like most Americans, Westerners will sacrifice immediate gain for the future of their children, but they won't do it just to make Joe Lieberman happy. We also need to point out that a lot of environmentally destructive activity makes no sense from a financial point of view. We spend more building roads for loggers than we get from selling the trees (this won't convince the loggers, but it will other people who only hear one side now). Let's also stop using the shorthand word "environment", which lots of Westerners have come to think doesn't apply to anything they care about. Instead, talk about "clean air", "clean water" and "beautiful countryside". Give people something tangible to imagine.
4) Tilt government spending more towards local schools, local hospitals, and other things that people experience every day. If folks think that none of their tax dollars go to help them, they'll vote for the people who want to dismantle government. If they see their tax dollars at work, they won't. This is also, frankly, what government is supposed to be doing with its money. Slash corporate welfare, spend it on schools, and you'll have the thanks of the people who have kids.
5) To people who live on ranches and in small towns, guns are more often thought of as the solution rather than the problem. 911 doesn't help much if the police are a 30 minute drive away. You'll never convince these people that guns should be banned, so stop trying. Completely abandon any attempts to ban guns, which would be a disaster to enforce anyway. If the single issue gun voters knew for a fact that their guns wouldn't be taken away, they wouldn't have nearly the same aversion to reasonable attempts to keep guns away from kids, ex-cons, and the insane. Until they know this, they'll keep voting solely on guns for the people who hurt them economically.
4.23.2002
Tom Vilsack (Gov of Iowa) wrote this Op-Ed after vetoing a budget that cut millions from education and healthcare:
DesMoinesRegister.com | News
I have heard the argument that the road fund is sacrosanct - even though we used those revenues in the general fund as recently as the year 2000. We are told that those funds are off-limits, because roads mean jobs and economic development.
But businesspeople and academic experts tell us again and again: The single most important component in attracting growth and investment is the quality of the work force. That is our advantage in Iowa. We have a highly educated population. We value learning and knowledge, and our budgets and policies have always reflected that.
This budget breaks faith with that tradition. It undermines our greatest economic advantage by disinvesting in students, teachers, training, technology, community colleges and universities.
It all comes down to kids or concrete............
..........Today, the Legislature can choose either to stand with Iowa's children and families, or to stand on the side of powerful interests at their expense. I implore you to make the right choice for Iowa's families and Iowa's future.
The people are watching. Will it be kids . . . or concrete?
DesMoinesRegister.com | News
I have heard the argument that the road fund is sacrosanct - even though we used those revenues in the general fund as recently as the year 2000. We are told that those funds are off-limits, because roads mean jobs and economic development.
But businesspeople and academic experts tell us again and again: The single most important component in attracting growth and investment is the quality of the work force. That is our advantage in Iowa. We have a highly educated population. We value learning and knowledge, and our budgets and policies have always reflected that.
This budget breaks faith with that tradition. It undermines our greatest economic advantage by disinvesting in students, teachers, training, technology, community colleges and universities.
It all comes down to kids or concrete............
..........Today, the Legislature can choose either to stand with Iowa's children and families, or to stand on the side of powerful interests at their expense. I implore you to make the right choice for Iowa's families and Iowa's future.
The people are watching. Will it be kids . . . or concrete?
John Kerry on transforming our economy from one dependent on foreign fossil fuels to one using domestic renewable energy:
Earth Island Institute: Earth Island Journal - Summer 2002
America has a choice between two competing visions. The Administration sees a world where our principal effort is to drill our way out of our problem. I see a world where our primary focus shifts to exciting a new marketplace for alternative and renewable energy sources.........
...........I respectfully suggest that it is time to pursue a national Strategic Energy Initiative. Its goal is quite simply to initiate a transition from our heavy dependence on polluting and insecure fossil fuels to more efficient, clean and reliable energy.
America has made exactly this sort of energy transition more than once before. For much of the 1800s our primary source of energy was wood. By the late 1800s, coal was king. That changed when the automobile went into mass production and demand for gasoline soared. Natural gas was added to the energy mix in the '40s. Nuclear power came online in the '50s. Now we need to prepare our nation for the 21st Century and begin a transition to domestic, clean and reliable energy technologies.......
.......I believe we should set a national goal of having 20 percent of our electricity come from domestic alternative and renewable sources by the year 2020. Twenty-twenty - I think it's a vision worthy of America; a goal I believe our citizens are ready to embrace........
.......The growth of wind, solar and geothermal would spark a surge in production resulting in a net gain to our national economy, a net gain in employment, and a net gain in wages. There are simply more jobs-per-megawatt in the renewable industries than in fossil-fuel sectors.
Domestic, renewable sources are entirely under our control. No foreign government can embargo them. No terrorist can seize control of them. No cartel can play games with them. No American soldier will have to risk his or her life to protect them.
Earth Island Institute: Earth Island Journal - Summer 2002
America has a choice between two competing visions. The Administration sees a world where our principal effort is to drill our way out of our problem. I see a world where our primary focus shifts to exciting a new marketplace for alternative and renewable energy sources.........
...........I respectfully suggest that it is time to pursue a national Strategic Energy Initiative. Its goal is quite simply to initiate a transition from our heavy dependence on polluting and insecure fossil fuels to more efficient, clean and reliable energy.
America has made exactly this sort of energy transition more than once before. For much of the 1800s our primary source of energy was wood. By the late 1800s, coal was king. That changed when the automobile went into mass production and demand for gasoline soared. Natural gas was added to the energy mix in the '40s. Nuclear power came online in the '50s. Now we need to prepare our nation for the 21st Century and begin a transition to domestic, clean and reliable energy technologies.......
.......I believe we should set a national goal of having 20 percent of our electricity come from domestic alternative and renewable sources by the year 2020. Twenty-twenty - I think it's a vision worthy of America; a goal I believe our citizens are ready to embrace........
.......The growth of wind, solar and geothermal would spark a surge in production resulting in a net gain to our national economy, a net gain in employment, and a net gain in wages. There are simply more jobs-per-megawatt in the renewable industries than in fossil-fuel sectors.
Domestic, renewable sources are entirely under our control. No foreign government can embargo them. No terrorist can seize control of them. No cartel can play games with them. No American soldier will have to risk his or her life to protect them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)