Home » Blog » Al Gore is NOT your savior!
Blog for America
Al Gore is NOT your savior!
I must say I'm more than a little dismayed by the situation regarding the candidate straw poll. Do people really feel that simply because Gore can use his prominence as former VP to raise the alarm about global warming that he would be at all constructive, or not beholden to powerful interests while back in the whitehouse? Have people forgotten about his Occidental Oil ties? Or the fact that he presided over his own defeat in 2000?
Gore gets a little breathing room from elite influence, is reborn, and starts doing some good by raising awareness of global warming, and suddenly everyone who should know better gets amnesia and writes him into a really important poll? This is preposterous! The second he steps foot back into the whitehouse he'll be sitting on his hands like he did for 8 years before! Leave the man in peace to try and assuage his guilty conscience, don't write him in! He's actually doing something constructive as an almost ordinary citizen, don't take that away from him.
Here we have Dennis Kucinich in 2nd place, a real champion of peace, who has -never- taken bribes from the empire, and who is beholden to no one but the American people, and folks go out of their way to try and draft Al Gore,, who's NOT EVEN RUNNING. It's like giving someone a chalice of gold filled with everlasting life and then watching them set it down to pick up a disposable Mickey D's cup and start slurping sugar water. It's like herding cats. I'm sadly disappointed. For those of you that participated in this travesty of common sense, PUT KUCINICH INTO FIRST PLACE ON THIS POLL or rue the day there was a massive lapse in judgement by 25,000 people and counting, who should know better. AL GORE IS NOT YOUR SAVIOR!
Get behind the man with VISION! and COURAGE! two things Al Gore and his convenient publicity will never have. It's like a NeoCon wet dream, they must be laughing their asses off... I can hear them now.. "Yeah, draft Gore, we own him, that'll be perfect." You know what? I think i can even hear the sound of Karl Rove typing away at his computer in the background, yep, he just cast a vote for Gore, and another, and another..
***
What follows is a little refresher on Gore, courtesy of a Democracy Now interview from July of this year between Amy Goodman and Ralph Nader for the 25,000 amnesiacs out there who 'wrote in' Gore.
AMY GOODMAN: What does that mean, “eight more years of the Clintons”? How would you summarize the Clinton-Gore years?RALPH NADER: The Clinton-Gore years were -- they further allowed and even encouraged, with this reinventing governments movement, the further consolidation of corporate power, agency by agency, department by department. Eight years went by, and there wasn’t a single chemical control standard issued by OSHA initiated by the Clinton administration. 58,000 American workers died from worker-related disease. You’d think they’d at least issue one. And there’s a big backlog of them. There’s been a lot of scientific work done. They didn’t do it. They didn’t issue one fuel efficiency standard. Where was Gore? Gore knew about this. He called the internal combustion engine, in his first book that came out in 1992, a major threat to the planet. But when he was vice president, he was either muzzled or went along with Clinton, who right from the beginning signaled to the auto companies: you’ve got a four-year pass; in fact, we’re going to spend a billion dollars subsidizing a joint program, which was a complete waste of money, to develop some sort of improved engine efficiency -- a partnership between the White House and the three auto companies. So the Clinton-Gore years were the final evidence that the Democratic Party is now a wholly owned subsidiary of giant corporations, with a few luminous exceptions, like George Miller, Dennis Kucinich, some of the older Democrats, Ed Markey. But even Ed Markey has lost some of his vigor in the telecommunications area. [...]
AMY GOODMAN: You mentioned Al Gore. He’s seen as the major voice now on the environment. I don’t know if it’s exactly on taking on the corporations, but he was in power for eight years. So what is your assessment of a Gore candidate for president?
RALPH NADER: Gore has been environmentally reborn. He is experiencing a important redemption. He is doing something very important. He is now basically a full-time citizen alerting the world to the peril of global warming and getting some pretty muscular forces behind them, behind his efforts. Maybe he’ll be restrained in terms of what needs to be done, in terms of the democratization of technology and the expansion of solar energy. I stood in line waiting for, you know, the book signing, when he came here in Washington. There were 300 people at a bookstore, and I just stood in line and finally got up to his desk, and he was very cordial. Anybody who thinks that the Greens cost Gore the election should ask Gore. He not only won the election, he knows how it was stolen from him. He knows he made some very serious failures himself, including not winning his own state of Tennessee, which would have put him in the White House. But he was very cordial, and I said to him, “Al,” -- because I’ve known him since years ago -- I said, “Al, how does it feel to be liberated?” He said, “Very good.” And that’s really the description of his present state. It’s quite the testimony. When he had real power, he couldn’t deploy it.
AMY GOODMAN: If he were to become president, what makes you think he would remain reborn?
RALPH NADER: He wouldn’t. See, the only politicians who are liberated once they’re elected are those who come out of mass movements, so that they know who they’re accountable for. And we have an electoral system where everybody tosses their hat in the ring and then goes around trying to raise money and expects people to be spectators on their campaign voyages through their cities and states instead of participants. I mean, that’s what they do. They don’t campaign with the people, with the citizen groups, with these struggles at the local level against pig farms or blowing off mountaintops for the coal industry or South Central LA and the poverty, and so on. They parade in front of the people. And that’s no way to win elected office and expect to represent the people.
oh, brillaiint! Martha and Ralph being 'unbiased' about Al Gore. this 'amnesiac' thinks he would be better than any of the dems that are running - my second choice is Dodd, but I have doubts about his abilities as I do all the others. if you can come up with someone better to jump into the race I might listen and change my vote, even if you are calling me names, Brandon.
...AMY GOODMAN: If he were to become president, what makes you think he would remain reborn?
RALPH NADER: He wouldn’t. See, the only politicians who are liberated once they’re elected are those who come out of mass movements, so that they know who they’re accountable for.
>> seems to belie the message this thread is trying to send - if Gore does jump in it will be because of a 'mass movement'.
Al Gore originated the internet and Al Gore helped to originate the DLC
Being right half the time is more than most political figures can lay claim to. But you left out being right about Iraq, and our loss of liberties when most DCDems were (and still are) kissing Bush's ass.
And then there's that Global Warming/Ocsar/Emmy/Nobel Prize stuff. That's a pretty big thing to be right about.
To tell you the truth, I'm sort of sympathetic to Brandon.
It's not that I agree with him on Gore at all. On the contrary, I have a very favorable opinion of Gore, think he would make a very powerful and effective candidate and also a very good president. After all, history is replete with corrupt establishment stooges who left office and then rediscovered their conscience and idealism. The list is endless, Attorney General Ramsey Clark, Senator Fred Harris, President Jimmy Carter, etc. etc. I have no doubt that Gore is just another person like them who recovered humanity after the traumatic experience of being kicked in the teeth and having the presidency stolen from him.
But there is another issue here: it is very important to the progressive movement, I believe, for DFA to issue an endorsement. Our movement desperately needs a rallying-point to galvanize opposition to Hillary. Right now we're split all over the map, Gore, Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, etc. etc. THIS MUST STOP!
As I see it, we've got to decide whom we can live with rather than whom we like best or we'll never get it together as progressives, as liberals, and as opponents of the current occupation of Iraq and the coming war with Iran. Then we have to come together behind that person.
I've made a tough decision myself in line with this appraisal. Originally I had voted for Edwards as one of my top three choices. But it has now become clear that Edwards cannot win the support of 66% of DFA's members. I decided it was time to drop Edwards and I replaced him with someone whom I can live with and who is receiving stronger support from DFA.
As I see it, it's time for us to treat this survey as being in its third stage, a final runoff. Those of you who voted for Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Gravel and Richardson need to think hard about whether you can live with one or more of the current frontrunners, Gore, Kucinich, and/or Obama. If you can, then please drop your vote for your dark-horse first choice and get behind someone whom you like and who can win this runoff.
We can still win this battle. We can still win the Democratic nomination for someone who shares our values and our goals but only if we form a consensus now behind one candidate. Otherwise Clinton has this nomination wrapped up and it's full speed ahead for endless occupation in Iraq and war with Iran for the next four years.
The choice is yours.
And this is why, in a way, I don't have a problem with what Brandon has said. He's posted an impassioned plea for Kucinich. Inasmuch as Kucinich is one of those who's sharing majority support with DFA members, and therefore is one of those candidates who has a better chance than others of making that magic 66% figure, arguing for his candidacy is a helpful step in helping us make that choice between the current three front-runners.
Of course, there are equally valid arguments for the other two, Gore and Obama. But those three are our options now, folks. Let's recognize that fact and make our decision.
Yours in reform,
Charles
P.S. By the way, why ON EARTH did they remove the second count, the one WITHOUT Gore? Gore is not currently an active candidate. The count minus Gore was useful and helpful in our deliberations. WHY WAS IT REMOVED??????????????????????????????????????
The Nader folks are attacking Al Gore again.
Amd using DFA to do it?
Is anyone is HQ on week-ends there in VT. I would be willing to call there and complain.
If this becomes a Nader board, I am gone and so is my money.
But there is another issue here: it is very important to the progressive movement, I believe, for DFA to issue an endorsement. Our movement desperately needs a rallying-point to galvanize opposition to Hillary. Right now we're split all over the map, Gore, Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, etc. etc. THIS MUST STOP!
Issuing an endorsement will split DFA all over the map and have no effect on the nominating process. It may get DFA on the good side of the nominee -- if DFA guesses right -- but that's about it.
Uh-oh, Brandon. INCOMING! Duck.....
Gore has changed dramatically since his time as VP and his campaign in 2000. Still, we need to know much more about what he will do on more issues than global warming. Which is why I won't vote for him UNTIL he enters the race. Then I'll consider his views like all the others.
Charles wrote: P.S. By the way, why ON EARTH did they remove the second count, the one WITHOUT Gore? Gore is not currently an active candidate. The count minus Gore was useful and helpful in our deliberations. WHY WAS IT REMOVED??????????????????????????????????????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I second that call....let us see the REAL vote. Unless Gore enters the race, the numbers will be recalculated. It isn't just about a national endorsement. Recruitment letters nationally and state-wide will be sent out by DFA.
There is nothing wrong with promoting the candidate your prefer. I too admire Kucinich for his outspoken advocacy.
However, this posting crosses a clear line-- it publicly attacks another Democrat in the kind abusive language the right wing likes to use on Democrats. Whether you agree with Gore or not, or the very many people who support or, at least, admire him, he and those who support him should be treated with dignity and respect. Innuendoes like "taking brides from the empire" should have no place here.
After all, Gore did get the most votes in 2000, whatever you may think of the process that ensued afterwards. At least show some respect for the tens of millions of frustrated Americans who voted for him.
Asking Ralph Nader to comment on any Democrat is going to get the same response. He's the one who thinks Bush and Gore are tweedledum and tweedledee.
Well, we know that's not true. Do you think we'd be in Iraq if the Supremes hadn't put Bush in power?
Ya. I remember all the posters from the Kerry blog coming along to tell us what to do, how to do it, and when to do it.
Give it UP, peeps.
Larry Dudley
Sat, 10/27/07
12:07 pm
Agree....vicious attacks on any candidate (even undeclared ones!) aren't something we should support here. Brandon doesn't do Kucinich any favors with this post.
And why does HQ promote these? Well, we're an open debating site. And it gives us an opportunity to make these points. So don't attack HQ for this.....make your points against Brandon and his attacks.
puddle
Sat, 10/27/07
12:11 pm
LOL. Yeah, that really worked out well in 04 didn't it! Good to see ya here again!
Al Gore has a guilty conscience??? For what?
Go real Mr. Lovejoy.
Dennis Kucinich is also not our savior for more than enough reasons.
Why does DFA allow these right-wingers to post blogs on BFA?
I respect your sincerity, Brandon, but I strongly disagree with you about Gore. In my opinion Al Gore has the breadth of vision and experience our country desperately needs. He was right on the war. He is right on the environment. He's right about the erosion of our civl liberties. If it takes a mass movement to nominate and elect him, I want to be a small part of it.
Joan* In*Florida
Sat, 10/27/07
12:23 pm
Not a right-winger, but clearly a Naderite. I'd bet he voted for Nader in 2000.
HQ is promoting blog posts by DFA members for our discussion. This one is pretty easy to counter. Let's not blame HQ for putting up provocative posts for us to discuss. They didn't write this.
Whoever the Dems nominate will win the presidency.
It is just a matter or what he/she does afterward that matters and how much pressure we will have to exert to keep that president on the liberal/progressive side of things.
So we see the usual transparent advice from those who have all but destroyed our country as to whom we on this side of the aisle should support for our next president.
It is both annoying and laughable.
20.
Perhaps HQ didn't write this Steve but they should have the good sense not to post it.
This morning I wrote a letter to our editor (progressive paper) condemning them for contually printing letters proclaiming Bush as the greatest president ever! The newspaper is trying to survive by trying to keeping all its readers happy.
But that is not possible these days. If Mr. Lovejoy is a Naderite, there is little joy in that. Gore, who originally was declared to have lost Florida, may have overcome even the election fraud had it not been for the Nader vote. Theirs was a vote against Kerry.
Theirs was a vote against Kerry IN 2004!
Whoever the Dems nominate will win the presidency.
It is just a matter or what he/she does afterward that matters and how much pressure we will have to exert to keep that president on the liberal/progressive side of things.
I'm not so sure--when 50% of prospective voters say they won't vote for Hillary under ANY circumstances, that sort of paves the way for president Giuliani or Romney, especially when you factor in the predictable GOP voter fraud............
"Do you think the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties; OR, do you think the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there?" Options rotated
ABC WAPPO Poll 9-27,9-30
Stay 43% Leave 54%
The only way to leave is to stop funding the war!
.
I called and left a message about this post.
There is enough stress and tension without quoting Nader and attacking Al Gore. This is not being open-minded, it is being ridiculous in our open door policy.
I think that Lovejoy's perspective is worth presenting. I agree that Nader's opinion on this or many other topics is worthless, but I'm concerned about the unrestrained euphoria for Gore among many (possibly most) BFA bloggers.
If Gore ran, it would appear to be a betrayal of his environmental beliefs. The argument could be made by some, that all his work on the subject was for personal political gain, and therefore would take a lot of credibility out of his revelations.
Also, the media of the opposition would perniciously shoot bogus holes in Gore's global warming and climate change theories.
Running for POTUS would be a disaster for his cause and Gore knows it. If he runs, paradoxically he would not be the same person to allow that to happen.
Also, Gore's position on the right wing in Israel and the ethocracy there, and the suppression of the Palestinian underclass, has always been with the Zionists, who see true democracy in Israel as the destruction of the "Jewish State." Arafat actually supported Bush junior in the 2000 election, because Bush senior treated the Palestinians better than Clinton-Gore did.
COORECTION ethocracy = ethNocracy
coorection = correction :~)
27. Huron John
==============
"unrestrained euphoria" sounds like a paraphrase of "irrational exuberance"
BTW ~ ~ ~ Dean's are FIRST!!!
Howdy all :-)
Holy and Moly! I welcome posts of varying positions and all but this one is inappropriate IMO. Well stated advocacy for any candidate would be welcome, not negative attacks. Bad form.
Nader took money from right wing groups last time and excused himself for it. He is no saint, and he does not mind who he gets money from.
If this is going to be a Nader forum, they don't need my money.
Read this about his funding.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/33
And I am tired enough and exhausted enough from fighting the battles here in Florida without coming here and seeing a good man like Al Gore trashed.
Florida crossed the line at their convention...with this button ridiculing Howard Dean.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1608
We have enough battles to fight.
Florida Gal wrote: "The Nader folks are attacking Al Gore again...Is anyone is HQ on week-ends there in VT. I would be willing to call there and complain. If this becomes a Nader board, I am gone and so is my money."The above doesn't feel right to me on a number of levels. First, this person is NOT a member of the "Nader folks". He's a Kucinich supporter. Secondly, just because some of you don't like the fact that Nader doesn't like Gore doesn't mean Nader wasn't spot on with some of his criticisms of him in 2000. Indeed, Gore had fully supported the free trade uber alles agenda, he was the guy who was indifferent enough to ethical questions that making fundraising calls from the White House seemed okay to him because there was no "controlling legal authority", etc. etc. And this from me, who's a firm fan of Gore who wants him to run and to win the presidency.And I don't see the valid basis for a complaint. If a message is posted in support of a legitimate Democratic candidate, in this case Dennis Kucinich, using quotes to support one's contention about a potential opponent, in this case Al Gore, seems perfectly legitimate to me. You know, a right-wing blog called Redstate banned any mention of Ron Paul on its board earlier this week. Are now to follow their lead and ban any mention of Ralph Nader? Is that what we're about? I sure hope not.Sitka wrote: "Issuing an endorsement will split DFA all over the map and have no effect on the nominating process."If that is your opinion, then I suggest that if you voted for any of the dark-horse candidates you need to ignore my suggestion, stick to your guns, and not change your vote. Remember that my suggestion is only valid if one accepts my premise, which is that it is of absolute and unquestioned value for progressives if DFA endorses one of the un-Hillary candidates. If you don't accept that premise, then you must conclude that this survey is only of use as a means to promote your personal favorite among the candidates. Obviously I don't agree with that conclusion, but if that is what it is, then the only logical conclusion is to vote for as many dark-horse candidates as you like.Indy Steve wrote: "It isn't just about a national endorsement. Recruitment letters nationally and state-wide will be sent out by DFA."Which is another reason why Sitka is wrong and the DFA endorsement IS important, and why we SHOULD be helping it along as much as possible by treating the latter stages of this survey as a final runoff.Larry Dudley wrote: "this posting crosses a clear line-- it publicly attacks another Democrat in the kind abusive language the right wing likes to use on Democrats...Innuendoes like "taking brides from the empire" should have no place here."Hmm. You know, Hillary's been regularly labeling any and all criticism of her positions as personal attacks, a singularly thin-skinned and insulting approach to any and all debate on legitimate policy differences. I really don't like it, and I think you're getting awfully close to that here. I'm a Gore fan, and, if he actually gets in, I will support him for president, but I don't see that Brandon's tough words are any more than legitimate arguments.Indy Steve wrote: "Asking Ralph Nader to comment on any Democrat is going to get the same response. He's the one who thinks Bush and Gore are tweedledum and tweedledee."You know, he never said that. On the contrary, while I don't remember the exact quote, he said there were some significant differences on several issues, abortion and so on. He said that on some of the most important and significant issues facing this country, like trade and the Middle East, they were Treedledum and Tweedledee. And he was right.Yours in reform,Charles
"unrestrained euphoria" sounds like a paraphrase of "irrational exuberance"
And your point is.......................................
Well, today is a first for me. To see on DFA a promoted diary filled with lies, smears and slander. One can only hope that a large group of Kucinich supporters rallied to this site, of which they apparently are now members, to write and recommend this hit piece and move it front page to help (?) their apparent presidential hopeful, Dennis Kucinich. http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/22709...
What I don’t understand is their constant need to spread lies and attacks in order to try to gain support for Dennis Kucinich. That is all I ever see them do. Why don’t they try giving maybe some reasons why folks should WANT their preferred candidate, as opposed to lying and distorting facts as an effort to push people in to not supporting someone else, hoping that will give more support to their candidate. Maybe that is their problem.
I would also like to know if this practice is supported or even encouraged by the Dennis4President campaign. Hopefully not, and he will condemn such practices and make clear his campaign does not support these lies and smears.
I have seen Kucinich supporters come to Democracy for America and make some of the most outrageous claims and lies against Al Gore. Gee, with friends like them, who needs enemies? I can only assume this is a practice they engage every where, not just on this site they have found a recent home in.
My advice is to try educate themselves about the facts, instead of being lead by lies or propaganda put out by opposition, Lobbyists or Corporate Special Interests that have ulterior motives, and they would probably me much happier learning how to deal with realities and be less angry smearing good people.
Why do I want Al Gore to serve as President of the United States, where he once already won the popular vote, but didn’t have the chance to serve the American People in the position he was elected? Because Al Gore has a tremendous record of accomplishments with a priority of doing good for the people and our world-from his years of public service and beyond in to private life, from when he volunteered to serve in Vietnam (even though he was against the war), becoming a reporter for the Tennessean for 5 years upon his return, serving in the US House, serving in the US Senate, serving as US Vice President and now spending his time in private life working tirelessly getting attention to recognize and solve the Climate Crisis. Al Gore is a proven leader with stature, vision and unmatchable experience and has been proven to be correct on some of the most important issues we still face, like the Iraq war, the deficit, health care, over-reaching powers, trampling of our Constitution, the environment and Global Warming. We deserve him to be our president. He is asking to rebuild our democracy and for citizen activism to bring about the change we need. Please, add your voice and show we know we deserve the best to be in the Oval Office to make the agenda and policy to solve the many crisis we face.
You too can vote FOR Al Gore in the Democracy for America Presidential Pulse Poll. Click on “Other” and write in Al Gore.
http://democracyforamerica.com/pulsepoll...
Time for a COOL change,
Gore
2008
http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/22719...
Charles Riggs makes some very valid points. Gore may be able to enter the race at a later date, and the elections should not last so long, but this election may not be the one to try to prove that. Without him in the race we could find ourselves standing here with Hillary dust blowing in our faces. If he decides then that he can't do it, then we're done.
unrestrained:
not restrained or controlled; uncontrolled or uncontrollable
Euphoria:
a feeling of happiness, confidence, or well-being sometimes exaggerated in pathological states as mania.
irrational:
without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
exuberance:
The quality or condition of being exuberant.
exuberant:
abounding in vitality; extremely joyful and vigorous.
28.
FRED from OR
Sat, 10/27/07
1:04 pm
If Gore ran, it would appear to be a betrayal of his environmental beliefs.
________________
LOL well, you're going to have to prove that comment on how so. Considering I have seen many folks say if he DOESN'T run, that will be betrayal of his Climate Crisis work, because he knows that he has to make the policy at the top to solve it.
BBL to hear your account.
'Spineocrat - Growth Supplement for Democrats'...
As often written here, no candidate will be perfect for everyone. In fact, probably no candidate will be perfect for any individual.
Even Howard had his faults, though I could certainly have overlooked them all with joy -- you bet!
Linda.....
I would consider us lucky if Gore entered, and we elected him Pres., especially if he chose Howard as VP. But, if he doesn't enter soon we could find ourselves in a bad situation. I know elections are too long, but we really need to get moving if we want to stop Hillary.
I guess you could call me a Kucinich supporter at this time, There's nobody else except Dodd who is a real candidate now. I have never told any lies about Dennis on this blog or anywhere. He is a real deal, known him for years. I would feel equally lucky if Dennis won. Gore is enabling Hillary at this point, I'm sure he doesn't intend that, but he needs to get in now. We need to get going.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_allen_l__071023_in_iraq__2f_success_is.htm
In the Orwellian world of Bushspeak ~ success is a relative matter whereas failure is always avoided, incompetence is always competence , accountability is ignored at all costs and apathy reigns: Allen L RolandOnly the Onion can satirically make sense of the catastrophe of Bush's recent face saving surge as well as the continued illegal and bloody occupation of Iraq.For example, the fact that the daily count of maimed, wounded and killed is a small percentage less that the previous days count is looked at as progress and certainly a justification for billions more in spending for Bush and Cheney's brutal folly.Bush is in denial, Cheney is in denial and Congress is in denial as Iraq continues to implode to the point where the daily bombings and deaths become an irrelevant distraction to be avoided at all costs by apathetic Americans. "Apathy is the glove into which evil slips its hand” : Bodie Thoene
The above, I feel, is quite an unspired and narrow-minded view. Why I support Al Gore:
1.) He has, from the beginning, support his passion of improving our environmental awareness.
2.) He has, from the beginning, opposed our failing excursion into Iraq.
3.) He stands for something positive and stands by it with unwavering passion.
4.) He has done all of this in the public eye.
Al Gore is a leader. I feel he would and is in a fine position to lead our country through the mess we're in. I choose to draft Al Gore.
Cheers,
Erik Brown
To keep his war going - Bush wanted the 'U.S. killed' number DOWN. How to do it?
Petraus’s Indiscriminate Bombings
Example: U.S. soldiers were searching for a leader of a kidnapping ring in Baghdad's Sadr City. The soldiers came under fire from a building. Rather than engage in dangerous door-to-door conflict, they called in air support. Army helicopters flew overhead and simply destroyed the building, killing several of the fighters but also at least six innocent civilians. (The bad guy got away.) This is happening ALL the time now.
Bush chose Petraeus for his expert counterinsurgency experience. He wrote the book on it – remember? (which was Bull) In December, the Army formally released its counterinsurgency manual, The next month, Petraeus promptly threw large chunks of the manual out the window
According to the manual, "an air strike can cause collateral damage that turns people against the host-nation government and provides insurgents with a major propaganda victory.
From January to September of this year, according to unclassified data, U.S. Air Force pilots in Iraq have flown 996 sorties that involved dropping munitions. By comparison, in all of 2006, they flew just 229 such sorties—one-quarter as many. http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/in-december-the.html35. Huron John
=============
No explanation john, just a literal observation.
well, and a good saturday mornin' to all.
this thread: this type of mean spirited, teeth gnashing, thrashing about on the shoulders of nader to promote kucinich makes me feel like lashing out against its author and his supporters. but, i won't go there because to go there is to sustain their petty attack. i would say the same thing if "any" supporter of one candidate performed this way against "any" other candidate including dennis. having an opinion pro or con of any/all candidates is something different from what's posted above.
1. there are no saviors anywhere, any time, at all.
2. strong leadership is what is needed at this point in our history. and better that we select our leader than the other way around.
3. hillary??? i attended an edwards meet-up the other night and one person said that gore divides, or further divides, the opposition to a hillary shoe-in. i replied that if this is true, then shouldn't the other candidates meet and select one from among themselves, while the others, all others, drop out and ensure that hillary's beaten. think about it.
4. DFA doesn't "need" to endorse any candidate. not endorsing doesn't make us light weights, keep us out of the game, or any of that other non-sense. i believe with others that an endorsement would be divisive here.
5. i don't oppose the fact that this type of thread is either posted or promoted. free speech and all. if we can't take this now then how are we going to react post-convention when the nasties really come out.
28.
The argument could be made by some, that all his work on the subject was for personal political gain, and therefore would take a lot of credibility out of his revelations.
Fred, Gore has been interested as well as trying to educate on global warming for 30+ years. It has been his life for that long -- hardly something he imagined to turn a quick buck on, and in fact has not to this day.
All his winnings from Nobel went to the cause of fighting global warming. Much of his other income has gone to the same.
the media of the opposition would perniciously shoot bogus holes in Gore's global warming and climate change theories.
They would look foolish doing so since the entire legitimate scientists around the world agree with those "theories" which are no long that, but now known fact. No theory is perfect to begin with, it is built upon to come the the ultimate conclusion.
Running for POTUS would be a disaster for his cause and Gore knows it. If he runs, paradoxically he would not be the same person to allow that to happen.
I agree with you on this one.
INSANITY IS TRUMP
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_sdrobny_071026_insanity_is_trump_3a_b.htm
You can throw away the rule book for the Bush Administration because he and Cheney have lost their minds. We are dealing with desperate wounded irrational people in those two. And that is cause for great alarm to those in the Democratic leadership that believe that they can ride out the storm until January 20, 2009. They cannot and human survival is in jeopardy if they do.
Bush once flubbed on a an old saying. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." That is exactly the way I feel about the Democrats and those who voted with Bush on the recent Iran condemnation in the Senate. Any prudent Democrat should now know that this President is unbalanced and is dangerous to US and himself. That is why the Democrats have to stop playing politics with Bush. He is irrational and cannot be moved. The idea of winning the 2008 Presidential election by riding this out is not reasonable given this irrational adversary. They have to move now to de-fund the war in Iraq no matter what the perceived political cost. I personally believe that de-funding the war would actually strengthen the Democrats politically. That was what the 2006 voters wanted. It is time for the Dems to stop being naive and understand that "insanity is trump."
What's this?! CONDI is asking advice from - intelligent, experienced people?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Anxious not to repeat mistakes of past Middle East peace-making, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has turned to former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter for tips ahead of her own conference this year. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071026/ts_nm/mideast_rice_advice_dc_150.
All a ploy by Rice to look "non-partisan" and eager to do right. She would then exploit the advice using her usual distortions and misstatements.
Clinton and Carter would no doubt be anxious to help but I wonder if they will see through this ruse or play along.
REPUBLICANS started the war; REPUBLICANS voted against the Democrats to stop the war; Bush has his VETO to stop the Democrats - from stopping the war or funding healthy children. REPUBLICANS voted down the bill for healthy children. But who are we upset with? If you read the real stats on what 'the people' think of Congress - you'll find they are 'somewhat or tending to be unhappy' - and their SOMEWHAT is definitely aimed at the REPUBLICANS.
UNLIKE our brilliant media - and the spinners, the American people know who's to blame.
Huron – ‘when 50% of prospective voters say they won't vote for Hillary under ANY circumstances’Mostly true – but the figures don’t tell the tale. In 2006 almost 50% of the Evangelicals stayed home and didn’t vote. (Note: 25% of Evangelicals are DEMOCRATS who did vote) And that goes for a lot of other very frustrated, unhappy Republicans. Judging by their non-enthusiasm for the present candidates – I would bet that MORE than 50% won’t vote. And in this case a NON-VOTE is a vote for Hillary. : )
It's obvious DFA will not be endorsing a presidential candidate in the near future, there is no consensus. The reason there is no consensus, despite the overwhelming majority of us not prefering Clinton, is that none of the ther declared contenders' campaigns has ignited, and their various strengths & weaknesses seem to cancel each other out. Each one seems to be faltering just a little at this point, and not making the case why supporters of other non-Clinton candidates should switch.
39.Linda*in*SFNM
28.FRED from OR
If Gore ran, it would appear to be a betrayal of his environmental beliefs.
________________
LOL well, you're going to have to prove that comment on how so. Considering I have seen many folks say if he DOESN'T run, that will be betrayal of his Climate Crisis work, because he knows that he has to make the policy at the top to solve it.
==================
It is just my opinion and, as such, does not require any reference or "proof"
People who think Gore is the only one who can implement policy changes (and can do it single-handedly) as POTUS are living in La La land. The all-consuming nature of that job leaves little time for personal causes.
As POTUS any reforms Gore tried to mandate or legislate, would provoke perceived self-grandizement by the Neocons and corporatists, for political reasons, and would cause even more reaction and resistance to such attempts.
IMO he can do more from the sidelines as an advisor to the POTUS, or better yet an EPA appointee, where he could dedicate the time, resources, and focus towards the work of rebuilding that department infrastructure and personnel, and rewriting its policies. That department needs an incredible shakeup and reorganization from the ground up.
Gore, as an EPA department head, would not be hindered (by partisan politiking) from maximizing his influence on the reawakening of an anti-toxic, anti-pollution consciousness in this country. As EPA head, it would be his job to do so.
51. Huron John
==============
Creative writing is an art, John, not a science. If you did more composing and less cut-and-paste, you might realize that yourself.
how would serving in an appointed position differ from an elected position concerning thwarting politics???
PS: Re my comment #54 above. Because none of the non-Clinton candidates is showing significant strength above the others, I switched my 1st place preferrence to Gore. If he actually declared (which I personally doubt he will) I think his campaign would build very fast, and I think many of our best and most experienced grassroots and netroots organizers would support him. If there is any chance of avoiding Clinton as our nominee, I think Gore is it.
By the way, I do not hate Hillary and will be very happy with her winning the presidency if she becomes our candidate. She is admirable in many ways, just too beholden to big money for my democratic tastes.
45. So, they've gone from flying less than one bombing mission a day to flying less than three bombing missions a day. The reality is that Iraq has been bombed almost daily for the last four and a half years. And then there are the helicopter gunships.
The air war has recieved almost no coverage? Why? Because all the information is classified. Even the House Armed Services Committee has not been able to get figures.
Here's what we're about:
“Cross-domain dominance means being able to deliver effects in all domains at the same time, at the speed of sound and at the speed of light. We cannot afford to allow an enemy to achieve cross-domain dominance before us. This is the nature of the transformational mission the chief and the secretary gave us.....
“What I see in the future is true cross-domain integration, to deliver effects, like we deliver in air and space, where the commander has at his disposal, truly sovereign options, as stated in our mission, which is the ability to do whatever we want, wherever we want, whenever we want, and however we want — kinetically, and nonkinetically and at the speed of sound and at the speed of light.”
48.Joan* In*Florida
Fred wrote, "the media of the opposition would perniciously shoot bogus holes in Gore's global warming and climate change theories."
They would look foolish doing so since the entire legitimate scientists around the world agree with those "theories" which are no long that, but now known fact. No theory is perfect to begin with, it is built upon to come the the ultimate conclusion.
================
Don't be so sure. You could say the same thing about evolution, which they actually use, ironically, to find fossil fuel.
There are many balkers and skeptics already. If the politics gets mean enough, and the stakes are high enough, I am sure the corporatists have a whole slew of "scientific" counterpoints to global warming and climate change, whether it is actually happening and/or whether it is a natural process or man-made.
And if you have enough money to present bogus "facts" and innuendo on TV enough times, people will actually believe it.
They have their proverbial ammunition in their arsenal already, and have been preparing it for a long time.
Well, Brandon Lovejay, you can support your candidate without smearing mine ... or me, and those like me who voted for Gore.
I am NOT an amnesiac. For example, I remember quite clearly how Dennis Kucinich in 2004 completely went against his anti-war stance and directed his supporters NOT to vote for Dean in Iowa when Dean was the other anti-war candidate. Talk about mean-spirited and nasty. That is one reason why Kucinich will not be my candidate, while the candidate who came out in support of Howard Dean ... and against the Iraq War ... was Al Gore.
Another reason is your post. I realize that Kucinich is not responsible for your actions, but if you are trying to persuade, you are doing a very poor job of it. Go take a refresher course on how to win friends and influence people.
Whether Al is running or not, he is my first choice (since Howard isn't running either). If Al does not enter the race, I will vote for another candidate who is not a Rethug.
But only if Al does not enter the race. Until that time, my vote is his.
I have finally found time to have a look at the most recent National Journal that arrived.
This snippet is from N.H.--
The Race Officially Begins
New Hampshire opened its presidential ballot process this week, and a convicted felon living in Italy officially became the nation's first presidential candidate. But that wasn't the only colorful event on the first day of qualifying.
"This is unusual. We haven't had one quite like this on the first morning," said New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner, who has held the post since 1976.
Jack Shepard, a Republican, gave St. Paul, Minn., as his mailing address but he claimed residence in Rome, according to a FedEx overnight package. Shepard's filing, logged in at 11 a.m., edged out one from another ex-felon, Robert Haines, who spent more than two hours trying to convince Gardner that he was the first to qualify.
A former dentist, Shepard has been a fugitive from his home state for more than two decades since violating terms of his parole, which stemmed from a 1979 fourth-degree sexual assault conviction. Before Shepard's disappearance, Minnesota authorities sought him for questioning in an arson at his dental office.
Shepard's website calls for world peace and endorses President Bush's surge of American troops in Iraq. In the past five years, he has lost three campaigns for federal office in Minnesota.
Almost-first candidate Haines arrived at the Statehouse well before the doors opened at 8 a.m. Monday, but he needed 20 minutes to make a splashy, costumed appearance outside Gardner's office. He whipped off a mock fur coat, two other jackets, and two belts before getting down to a navy-blue business suit. Initially, the unemployed laborer tried to qualify as poor enough to be exempted from the $1,000 filing fee.
"I'm indigent, unemployed, and running for president full-time," Haines said.
Gardner told Haines that if he was judged to be poor, he could not complete the filing process on Monday, because he lacked the necessary petitions from 100 voters across the state.
Haines then dashed to his car and returned 15 minutes later with the money.
"That's it. I'm in, but I want a refund on the check when I refile by November 2 with the petitions," Haines said. "You aren't going to keep my money. I know the kind of racket you run up here in New Hampshire."
He has run in three other presidential elections as a Republican but has only been on the New Hampshire ballot once before, getting 579 GOP primary votes in 2004. Haines spent more than four years in state prison on a 1995 conviction for brandishing a weapon in Manchester while wearing a bulletproof vest.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., became the first generally known candidate from either party to sign up for the still-unscheduled primary. Filing concludes on November 2. (Telegraph, Nashua, N.H., 10/16)
Spent time out this morning getting to know some of my new neighbors and had a tour of the refurbished garden of the local chateau (the garden dates from 1723). Some in this tiny municipality have spent the past year in a renovation project, refurbishing the original stones of the benches, that were quarried nearby although the quarry has been long gone, and installing new ones to encourage citizens to stroll through the area, which is lovely, and rest on the benches.
Imagine that: a beautiful area open to all! We used to believe in such things ourselves.
Steve Lopez
Los Angeles Times
October 27, 2007
The moment firefighters began to get an edge on the fires, pundits, bloggers and other gasbags couldn't wait to proclaim San Diego's superiority over New Orleans in government response to disaster.
A writer on the conservative Red State Web site said the difference, of course, was firm Republican leadership in San Diego.
"New Orleans, on the other hand," said the writer, "was a city on the federal dole dominated by Democrats, racial politics, and the legacy of Huey Long's populist-socialist dreams."
Everybody got that?
Republicans are better at evacuations than Democrats. This seems to be particularly true when the Republicans in question can flee down the highway in Yukons while Democrats wait for buses trapped under water.
"We've evacuated more people than were evacuated in Katrina," San Diego County Sheriff Bill Kolender said Wednesday.
Not only was that ridiculously untrue, but one might argue the evacuations in the San Diego area were made necessary by a lack of firefighting personnel and equipment in a region that shuns taxes and happily sticks outside agencies with the tab when the bill comes due.
Talk about being on the dole.
And I hate to break up the back-slapping party President Bush, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and various local officials staged Thursday, but the equipment shortage in the state's wildfires was indisputable. In 2004, a Schwarzenegger panel recommended that the state buy 150 new fire trucks, and only 19 have been ordered.
Continued:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/views/orl-lafire2707oct27,0,2097487,print.story
67.
Imagine that: a beautiful area open to all! We used to believe in such things ourselves.
~~~~~
So true and sad Judy.
The beauty in life has been replaced by war, partisanship, two-job days, and the ugliness of this administration.
Oh, and remember Sara Taylor, the political director in the White House who resigned before having to testify?
We'll she's landed with an outfit that calls itself Blue-Front one of whose clients is the Iowa based Renewable Energy Group. Think of that. She'll be doing "message crafting" and "microtargeting."
Your history and current events are both dead wrong.
Half the Democrats in Congress supported and voted for the invasion of Iraq in 2002 (and they sure didn't protest when it actually occured in 2003.)
And at this time they don't need 60 votes to override Bush's veto in order to end the occupation. They just have to not bring funding it to the floor. Civics 101.
Dennis Kuc. was a reliable anti-choice vote till he decided to run for pres. in 2003; he switched only after Katha Pollitt raised the alarm.
For the Iowa caucuses January 2004, Mr Anti War Kucinich struck a deal with then wholeheartedly pro-Iraq war John Edwards: whoever got the least votes would switch their supporters to the other's campaign. This was a way to stick it to the REAL anti-war candidate, Howard Dean.
I would never trust this guy.
To #4 Sitka. I don't expect the Federal government to do any more( and I wish less) than they are doing now for me and my self-reliant family. Number One is providing a secure cap under which ALL other activities i.e. business, education, health care and free religious expression then become possible.
Thanks to the efforts of our brave men and women in the military and intelligence communities, we all can enjoy the fruits of freedom they have sacrificed for over the last 231 years of a fragile existence.
All advances in the human experience have not been without sacrifice and hardship. In these final chapters of conflict with evil, who can say how close we are to the day when we can finally turn 'swords to plowshares'. Victory is at hand for all free-loving people but more work lies ahead. We have come far from the Magna Carta to the Declaration of Independence. Another hundred years may well be the difference between a peace like the world has never known or back-sliding to a 7th century caliphate.
In the end, all anyone around the world wants to do is to be able to provide for their families in a safe and prosperous environment and watch their families grow and do the same. I know that sounds naive and simple, considering our current reality, but why capitulate now.
74. Yes, and his quick change on Stem Cell research too.
It is unfortunate that such a mean post such as this one would appear here at the DFA site. Fear is one of the tactics that is used to assault reason, an essential component of a healthy democracy. To anyone who has not yet had a chance to read Al Gore's new book, The Assault on Reason, I strongly recommend you make time to get it and read it. As for Kucinich, I will trust my friend Carolyn's advice (posted above). At the end of the book, Gore writes "It is my greatest hope that those who read this book will choose to become a part of a new movement to rekindle the true spirit of America." Is that too much to ask? Is that something that we all, regardless of our current candidate, can agree on. DFA is the beginning of that movement. The Draft Gore campaign is the beginning of that movement as well. It is a movement that embraces reason, logic, hope, honesty, courage and, most importantly, action. Fear, deceit and disrespect have no place in this movement. It's too easy to point the finger at this person or that person in an attempt to place blame. We are all responsible for being where we are. We are all responsible for getting us out of this mess. We are all responsible to choose and inspire a candidate, and eventually a President, to lead us. But make no mistake, it will be "us" who change the course history. If we want to go to place we've never been before, we must go a way we've never gone before. For me, that leader is Al Gore, not because the other candidates are "less than," but because Gore is "more than."
Not to be picky here and actually ask for facts and information, but I have yet to see a policy on solving the Climate Crisis from DK....do you have something to share?
Hey everyone.
So, first off, i'm real, i'm not a Naderite, though i did canvass for MPIRG at one point in my youth, that was a terryfying experience by the way, lost in the suburbs of insanity trying to convince the people living in pre-fab edward scissorhand edition homes to do something about saving our planet, terrifying.
Ok, i see no sense in laboring over a recanting of my statement from before. I still think it's silly, yes.. silly, to put so much energy into drafting a politician who is not even running when there are a whole host of reasonable candidates to chose from, but that is your right, and i accept it. I don't understand it, but there it is.
Also, saying that i'm promoting fear, and deception, and likening my post to a neocon fear mongering play, is really way off base. I am not your enemy. You are entirely responsible for the amount of fear in your own heart. That we have a nation of people who are filled with fear and afraid of being attacked by some evil other is not my doing.
However, since this thread seems to have died down, and as that saddens me just a little. I only just tonight looked in to see the response and was overwhelmed.
So, i do wan't to clarify a few points.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/27697
http://www.oilempire.us/gore.html
I'm only stopping with thins because i must sleep now, more to come.. let me know what you think of the thoughts contained in these links.
I'm only interested in helping DFA members decide whether or not they really want to support Al Gore, and i can be less attacking and impassioned and more researched if you all prefer. Just takes more time.
peace, b
Add your comment
(to reply directly to a comment, click the reply icon for that comment)Post closed to commenting
Videos of some of the 64 House Healthcare Heroes standing strong for a public health insurance option
Congressman Emanuel Cleaver
Congressman Lloyd Dogget
Congressman Keith Ellison
Congressman Bob Filner
Congressman Phil Hare
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey
Congresswoman Maxine Waters
Blog for America
-
1 Turncoat Senator vs. 410,649 Americans
By Mary R on Nov 19, 2009 3:06 PM EST -
Send a message they can't miss
By Mary R on Nov 17, 2009 12:00 PM EST -
Will the real Democrat please stand up?
By Mary R on Nov 11, 2009 2:03 PM EST -
3 Million and Counting
By Mary R on Nov 6, 2009 12:47 PM EST -
Is Sen. Nelson listening to Nebraska?
By Mary R on Nov 6, 2009 12:31 PM EST
Recent Blog Posts
-
Dreams wow gold
By wow gold w on Nov 22, 2009 3:17 AM EST -
the Psychobiology talk about the pc wow gold game
By wow gold w on Nov 21, 2009 11:39 PM EST -
Spring Trend 2009 Abercrombie & Fitch
By Abercrombie F on Nov 21, 2009 9:44 PM EST -
Vacationing?
By Phoenix V on Nov 21, 2009 2:07 PM EST -
Bags And Shoes Gucci or Louboutin
By Buy l on Nov 21, 2009 2:37 AM EST
-
By Martha Miller on Oct 26, 2007 9:39 AM EDTAnd, a refresher course is needed. Al Gore originated the internet and Al Gore helped to originate the DLC, which has been the single most devastating organization for the working people of America, by the DLC's, while supposed democratic, have polarized right wing politics against the 70% Majority Common Population of America, as well as all other countries the DLC's devastating N.A.F.T.A , C.A.F.T.A and all the DLC's free to autocratic capitalist trade agreements touch, as the DLC's "Project For The New American Century's Plan" decimates the 70% Majority Common Population in every country these Right Wing Trade Agreements are forced upon.
http://www.newamericancentury.org
http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/22628#more