Draft Al Gore

[Tars]

For the Dem '08 candidate. A petition can be signed at:

https://www.draftgore.com/








Democracy begins with activism; activism begins with you.

["Mad" Miles]

Tars,

You're not kidding are you. You've read the article that I linked in the following post, and you still want Al back?

https://www.waccobb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17580

"M"M

[Tars]

You've read the article that I linked in the following post, and you still want Al back?

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer:

Thanks for the link to your post Miles. In trying to give it fair heed, I looked at the article, published on "dissidentvoice.org". The home of the "Anarchist FAQ" was, not-surprisingly, critical of Gore's past record as a politician-in-office. But then, they appear to be critical of any and all politicians. OK, maybe not some Green Party candidates, or anyone who may be critical of the evil "Zionists".

As dissidentvoice.org demonstrates, it's easy to be critical; much less easy to find paths that will be workable to a significant percentage of the population. I suspect that if I waded into the site enough, I'd find similar criticisms of any known politician who doesn't expressly support "radical libertarianism".

I encourage anyone who hopes we will have a meaningful presidential election in 2008 to follow the link I provided, and petition Mr. Gore to enter the race. By signing it doesn't mean that one has unmitigated admiration for anything and everything Gore has done or said while in public life. But by petitioning, a signer might help raise the level of discourse in the election process.

I believe that Al Gore stands head and shoulders taller in comparison to the other current significant presidential hopefuls out there. We at least deserve to give ourselves a realistic alternative to Clinton, Obama, McCain, or Giuliani.

Do yourself and the rest of the world a favor, and go to the site, and sign the petition.

Tars

["Mad" Miles]

Yo Tars,

Thanks for your clear and precise reply. I have no interest in reengaging the Dems vs. Greens debate that has already taken place on this board (last winter, just open my User Profile, open all posts, go back and there it all is. Mark Green, a few others and I and go toe to toe in a sudden death match of rhetoric and logic!!).

When I replied to your laudatory post and reminded people of the post from Dissident Voice, it was because when I read it a couple of weeks ago it put together all of the reasons "An Inconvenient Truth" bugged me. The film is a great multi-media presentation that goes straight to the gut, about the evidence for and likely consequences of global warming. So far so good (so bad?).

But the "next steps", proposed "solutions" fall flat. If global warming is the consequence of how we burn petroleum to provide energy for our industrial, post-industrial society, then only a systemic change approach makes sense. And nothing like that is suggested. Buying expensive fluorescent light bulbs, and a host of similar marginal fixes, isn't going to replace a carbon economy with an economy that doesn't produce massive amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.

I judge politicians on the symmetry between what they say and what they do. Perhaps that's naive of me, but it's how I choose to be when it comes to being a politically active citizen. The disconnect between Al Gore's words, and what he did while in elected office, is enough for me to discount him. And he flaked, chickened out, in November 2000 when he didn't call for a full recount of the Florida vote. He won that election, and didn't fight for the results and his and his party's victory. We see the consequences and while he's not directly responsible for Bush's actions, he does bear indirect responsibility. And that's a responsibility he has never admitted.

About eight years ago my brother Ross claimed that to be a successful politician one needs to be a convincing and effective liar. His point was that it is impossible to get elected in our system by telling the truth. That social reality is so complex and made of of so many competing interests that one has to ignore it in order to construct an inspiring and attactive narrative that convinces enough people to back you so that one can win a major election. He was saying that people need to be told what they want to hear, not the truth, as in an accurate description of our complex reality, in order to get enough votes to win. Certainly any student of campaign strategy knows this.

Perhaps that's true. Perhaps I'm a naive, idealistic dreamer. But I do know that the politicians I admire (Lincoln, Jefferson, Paine, Woolsey) were/are able to keep the ratio between their dissembling and truth telling high. Yeah, they lied when necessary but they kept it to a bare minimum. (Well Paine probably didn't lie. And he was never elected to public office, so far as I know.)




For those of you who enjoy the lighter side of our political theater, I recommend the short series on Slate.com about fawning press coverage of Barack Obama:

https://www.slate.com/id/2159574/



As for the "Radical Libertarianism" of DV. Isn't it funny that the marginal critics tend to be right in the long run, but they're discounted as having naive and unrealistic solutions to the problems they're describing and trying to address? But a few years down the road, when the crisis reaches a point where it can no longer be ignored, even by mainstream politicians with intimate ties to the status quo, the very solutions the radicals were calling for get implemented, all-be-they in mediated, compromised ways that are designed to maintain the status quo if at all possible? Unions, Social Security, Public Health, Public Education, Penal Reform, Environmental Protection, etc., etc., were all radical, "pie in the sky" proposals, until they became messy, compromised reality.


We're in for another wild political ride leading up to '08. Has anyone learned anything from the last two presidential campaigns?


Cheers,


"Mad" Miles

[Tars]

Isn't it funny that the marginal critics tend to be right in the long run, but they're discounted as having naive and unrealistic solutions to the problems they're describing and trying to address?

Hmmm....you must be referring to someone else that said that; it wasn't me.

The founding fathers were radical leftists.

[psaltz]

Minor point here: Raley's in Windsor is now selling compact fluorescent light bulbs, 75 or 100 watt equivalent, 4-packs for $1.99 each (50 cents a bulb), with a 9-year warranty. I have several in use every night, have not changed even one bulb in at least 2 1/2 years ... That seems rather INexpensive to me ...

Yo Tars, ...Buying expensive fluorescent light bulbs, and a host of similar marginal fixes, isn't going to ...

[miz editor]

What about this dream team: Gore and Obama??!!

For the Dem '08 candidate. A petition can be signed at:

https://www.draftgore.com/








Democracy begins with activism; activism begins with you.

[Tars]

What about this dream team: Gore and Obama??!!

That would be a very liberal-loaded ticket. Maybe too-so to get elected. Not to say that I wouldn't love to see it happen. Potentially opening the door to 16 years of progressive leadership!

More electable - Perhaps Gore/Richards or Gore/Clark?

[Sara S]

As Jon Carroll said in the Chronicle of Jan.24, being President is the only job where wanting it should result in immediate disqualification.

[Tars]

As Jon Carroll said in the Chronicle of Jan.24, being President is the only job where wanting it should result in immediate disqualification.

Heh...so true! But, since Jesus and Buddha aren't currently applying for the job, Al Gore is the least "disqualified" person potentially available for POTUS, by far!

Tars

["Mad" Miles]

Yo Mr. Tars,

I respectfully submit, all of my objections to the Democratic Party from my Green Party perspective set aside (and we Greens have our own sets of Warts and Handicaps), that you're beating the rotting corpse of a long dead horse.

Briefly, here's why (from a mainstream political perspective.)

Gore Lost (OK, technically he won, but the proof is in the pudding, as they say), Americans don't like to think of themselves as Losers (even when we deservedly are, see Vietnam Era). So any standard political consultant who knows the biz wouldn't recommend Gore if he was the last waterhole in the desert.

Gore isn't running. He insists on that. I don't think he's being coy. Nobody out there in the "real world" of mainstream politics thinks he's being coy. It ain't gonna happen'.

A central part of the American (U.S.) ethos is: forget the past, move on, so what's new?

A Gore re-candidacy would fly in the face of all that. This has been a successful approach to reparations for the excrescences of Slavery and Jim Crow, apologies and reparations for the Slaughter of Native Americans, admitting fault and apologizing for the Crime of the Vietnam War, making amends for polluting the planet with radiation from atmospheric nuclear arms testing, etc., etc.

So why not Go Gore Again?

Please....

That's it, done.

What, pray tell, leads you to sweep aside the patently obvious points above and still want to push for a Gore candidacy?

I really am curious; I'm not just being snarky. (Well, obviously I'm being snarky as well, but I am also sincerely curious. The two aren't mutually exlusive, at least not in my world.)

"M"M

[Tars]

Gore Lost (OK, technically he won,

You answered your own point. He didn't lose that election, it was stolen. He didn't lose, we all lost.

So any standard political consultant who knows the biz wouldn't recommend Gore if he was the last waterhole in the desert.

Don't know who you've been listening to, not the pundits I've heard for the last several months. your "Standard" political consultants evidently haven't learned anything from the history of presidential politics of the last half century.

Gore isn't running. He insists on that. I don't think he's being coy. Nobody out there in the "real world" of mainstream politics thinks he's being coy. It ain't gonna happen'.

Again, who are you listening to? Apparently not the same ones I'm hearing, and I make an effort to get the full spectrum of political opinion. Check again. Gore does not "insist" that he won't run. He's being vague, as many politicians do up until they announce their candidacy.

I happen to agree with you that Gore will not run, even though he hasn't "insisted" he won't. Of all the announced or not-yet-announced candidates in these quite early stages of the next election, Gore is by far the best qualified potential candidate. I'm one of those who hopes he can be convinced to run. If for no other reason than to raise the bar on the publics' expectations for candidates' abilities and integrity. Even if it was as you believe, that Gore couldn't win again. His mere presence in the field would eliminate some of the knuckleheads that otherwise might gain some actual chance at the office. We all owe it to ourselves to do what we can get the best field of candidates out there, don't we? I urge anyone reading this to go to the Draft Gore site & put in a vote.

In typical election recent presidential primary elections, candidates would not be announcing until much closer to the end of this year in the cycle. Gore doesn't need to announce yet. He's getting all that free publicity & speculation that the other candidates are having to work their hind parts off for. He's a smart guy, he's been around the track a few times.

A central part of the American (U.S.) ethos is: forget the past, move on, so what's new?

I disagree completely with that. Do you really believe it? I much more believe that those who forget about history are doomed to repeat it.

So why not Go Gore Again?

Please....

Agreed!

Tars