>>>>>>>>Hello Terry,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>...Alan was correct that Gore is the one educating the masses and raising it's profile at least on this side of the pond.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But I've yet seen or heard him in a debate concerning some of his claims. He make plenty of appreances in front of friendly crowd to speak, but not to debate. I would say he shys away from debates on the issue. I guess he leaves the debating up to those who know more about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Most politicians prefer to speak to friendly crowds. The guy Gore beat by half a million votes in 2000 could write a book on the subject, if only he could write.
>>>>>
>>>>>Gee Mike I feel bitterness in your message. Still sore about the 2000 election? Isn't it time to get over it?
>>>>>
>>>>>Let it go.... it'll be alright.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have gotten over it.
>>>
>>>Doesn't sound like it.
>>>
>>>>It's conservatives who should regret "electing" such an incompetent boob. There is no possible way Al Gore would have messed things up this badly. The U.S. will spend the rest of our lifetimes trying to undo the damage Dubya has done.
>>>
>>>I always hope the next one does better then the previous one.
>>
>>
>>That isn't setting the bar very high in this case.
>>
>>Yes, I am mad at him. You should be, too. He has "led" this country in the wrong direction in every conceivable way for the past six years. I defy you to name a single way we are better off than we were six years ago.
>
>Do you guys have the concept of "no confidence in the govt." whereby unpopularity of a leader, or the party, can lead to an unscheduled election? Or do you have to wait for them to drag the country's sorry @ss through the whole term? The PM here can call (often by being forced/coerced) an election to test faith in him/her. Thatcher and Major did this. Although a term here is nominally 5 years it can be much shorter, even with the PM being replaced mid-term.
>
>It's weird to think of the US being duped twice and I was surprised to realise you've still got another year to wait (what with the presedential election bandwagon having - unofficially - started about a year sooner this year)


Unfortunately we don't have anything like that. The only means of removing a President from office before the end of the four year term is impeachment, and as you know no President has ever left office that way. (Nixon would have but beat them out the door).

I am sure this was intentional on the part of the founding fathers. They didn't want the President to have to be TOO responsive to public opinion. It would be hard to get much done if you have to look over your shoulder every time you make a decision.

The 2008 campaign did start a bit early but not by a year, I don't think. So much depends on the early primaries. Especially if California moves its primary as they are talking about doing, a year from today we will have our two nominees. Then 8 months of mud slinging ;-(