Gore More Years (Independents like Gore)

[katinmn]

Call him "the Left’s electable presidential candidate."

Every Sunday CUIP’s (Committee for a Unified Independent Party) http://www.cuip.org/
political coordinator Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, May 21, 2006 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show,” "Meet the Press” and "The McLaughlin Group.”

Below is an excerpt from Talk Talk. To read it in its entirety, go to: www.cuip.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salit: In terms of the political chemistry of these things, what makes Gore the leading candidate to fill that void on the left?

Newman: Never lost the popular vote.

Salit: Okay. We’re not talking about mystical essence. We’re going directly to the numbers.

Newman: Right. Well, you have two big factors, that are partly political and partly psychological. He’s never lost the popular vote in the general election and that is very persuasive. And, he is the only recognizable candidate who seems to be taking seriously that the Democrats made a mistake about the war.

[savemefromdumbya]

1. this what some people are saying...

I was talking to a few people who are basically apolitical and may or may not vote - gen independent. They say the election was stolen from Gore. Although they didn't seem to go for him last time they feel he is the 'rightful heir to the throne' I'm hearing this more and more.

[katinmn]

31. I think a lot of folks are starting to realize: "What if?"

What if we had given Gore a landslide or at minimum fought against the 2000 debacle? We wouldn't be in "the long war," be afriad to talk politics with the neighbors, or have an $8 trillion deficit and grandma and grandpa eyeing the cat food again.

I think that SNL skit hit close to home, too.

[savemefromdumbya]

47. yes

[lyonn]

2. Gore high on my list of real possibilities for Pres.

He speaks without the pander. Gore's issues are my issues and he puts it all on the line, kinda like, if you don't like what I'm saying that is alright, I have a life, my country counts.

That attitude may be what got so many interested in H. Dean, him losing was not the end all.

[karynnj]

3. This is the dumbest comment I have ever heard

"And, he is the only recognizable candidate who seems to be taking seriously that the Democrats made a mistake about the war."

Under what rock has this idiot been hiding.

I find all the following recognizable and all are taking "seriously that the Democrats made a mistake about the war." Starting with Kerry (who has a plan to get out), Edwards, Clark, Feingold. Even Hillary has commented on the fact that Bush lied us into war.

I have no problem with Gore - but I think Newman, who I've never heard of is ill informed.

[LWolf]

48. For many,

a candidate who supported the war in the beginning and then decided the war was a "mistake" after it was too late will not get our vote.

That leaves people who were not in congress at the time, or people who were and did not cast votes in support of the bush administration's agenda. I don't know what Gore thought at the time; I don't know if he was speaking publicly about it. Of course, he's not a "recognizable candidate" at this point. He's said repeatedly that he is not a candidate. There are certainly other Democrats who publicly opposed the Iraq agenda from the very beginning, without making any "mistakes" that allowed GWB and his thugs to proceed with their agenda. They are "recognizable" to those of us who care.

[NYCGirl]

52. Indeed, Al Gore was speaking publicly about it:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020923-gore01.htm

[Samantha]

58. Gore gave a speech BEFORE the war stating it was wrong

Paraphrasing, to launch a war in Iraq would re-deploy resources we now utilize in Afghanistan. The terrorists there are the ones shooting at us, Saddam is not.

Gore was also contacted three days before Bush* launched the Iraq war for comment on the imminent attack. "I would not start this war," he said.

In being the only prominent Democrat (except for Carter) to specifically and repeatedly condemn this action, he offered the Democrats in the Senate cover for repudiating the pre-emptive attack. Kerry and Hillary not only did not take cover, they signed the authorization to give Bush* the authority to go in.

That's the difference. Hillary recently repeated that inane comment of staying the course.

Kerry has been so ambivalent on the whole subject since it's commencement it has been unbelievable -- even for him (sorry Kerry fans).

[FrenchieCat]

4. Can anyone tell me what this recent exchange with Gore actually meant?

"Does he, like many Democrats, think the election was stolen?


Gore pauses a long time and stares into the middle distance. “There may come a time when I speak on that,” Gore says, “but it’s not now; I need more time to frame it carefully if I do.” Gore sighs. “In our system, there’s no intermediate step between a definitive Supreme Court decision and violent revolution.”

http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Al+Gore%3A+The+Come-Back+Kid+--+New+York+Magazine&expire=&urlID=18315696&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newyorkmetro.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2F17065%2F&partnerID=73272


Cause I don't quite "get it". If Al Gore needs more than 6 years to make a determination as to whether the election was stolen, why is that. It would seem by now that he would have made some kind of determination, one way or the other....and that he wouldn't be this timid in telling us what he really thinks.
==============
Unless someone can explain this to me, I have a problem with Gore's approach here....in saying something that doesn't say anything in reference to an issue that truly made a difference in all of our lives, not the least; his.

Edited to correct link problem.

[primative1]

5. Pretty Serious Stuff ....

Al Gore Knows but its not the kind of thing a public figure you can jump up and down yelling about unless he plans on dealing with some serious woe. I can wait. Water under the bridge.

[FrenchieCat]

7. He is "waiting" until when? If I may ask?

Al Gore has jumped up and down about quite a few issues...why not this one? Seems like he would be an excellent spokesperson to tell us "what he really thinks"....after all, isn't that part of why you like him so much; cause he's a straight talker these days?

Water under the bridge my ass! If nothing's really been done about what caused the 2000 debacle, how is that "water under the bridge"?

I like Al Gore well enough, but I ain't just gonna get stoopid now!

[primative1]

8. If Al Gore got up tommorow and said he had proof

that scalia paid off the 5th vote and where the money came from and why (this is hypothetical jibberish but whatever happened is likely similar) what would be the likely outcome? Who would that be good for? Maybe he is waiting for cooler heads to prevail or maybe he actualy thinks it was legit. I dont know. I will wait for him to answer.

[FrenchieCat]

12. What-E-ver.....

I know if John Kerry would have said what Al Gore said....even if 6 years haven't yet passed, he would be lambasted.

I like Gore in a lot of ways....compare to many others out there.....but I don't think that this non answer on the 2000 election in 2006 was a good one, because I know that he has an opinion on this....and out of all our politicians, he's the best one to speak on this.

I remember back in 2000, a lot of his hesitance in being more agressive during the "recount" was due to not wanting to be seen as a sore loser. The rationale that you just gave, is more nothing more than the same.

Al Gore has had nothing to "lose" for the last 5.5 years....yet, this is the best manner in which he could answer a question that has so effected not only his life, but the lives of all of us?

Like I said, Al Gore is probably the most qualified individual that we have out there to be the Dem leader and a potential presidential candidate....but sorry, his statement is not encouraging to me in what I thought he might say.

but I guess that I have no other choice than to wait to see what he will say, one of these days on this issue. :(

I currently support Wes Clark because of where I see our world heading, but there is a chance that he will choose not to run....and so, I have to look at others. Al Gore certainly is one of those that I will be checking out.....but I ain't on automatic pilot.

[janx]

9. Not only that, but this part of the quote:

“In our system, there’s no intermediate step between a definitive Supreme Court decision and violent revolution”

is very serious too.

[FrenchieCat]

16. certainly that statement is true.......and a serious one. n/t

[Guaranteed]

10. Well, if you read the article, the author gives his own explanation.

He calls it being "smart."

[primative1]

11. Ooops ...

Sorry, I was kind of blown away by the snip and didnt even notice the link. Think I'll get me a coffe and do some reading :)

[Guaranteed]

13. It's a very good one.

Enjoy. :)

[FrenchieCat]

14. Yep.....

Smart cause he's gonna run?

So we're back to being politically "smart" and calculated, is what you are more or less saying? Right?

I like a lot of what Al Gore has said over the years.....but this ain't one of them.

Al also said this, which I hope doesn't apply to him and future campaigns and elections!

"“It’s often true that the most important lessons any of us have to learn, are the lessons we have to learn more than once.” - Al Gore in the same article I posted.

[Guaranteed]

17. Why not just go ahead and read the article? nt

[FrenchieCat]

18. Did! thanks!

Listen, I like and respect Al Gore, as I have said throughout...But I don't necessarily "Love" him. :shrug:

[Guaranteed]

19. I think you should also think about what that quote means.

Do you understand what he's saying?

That was his response to the question of whether he thought the election was stolen.

"In our system, there’s no intermediate step between a definitive Supreme Court decision and violent revolution.”

Well, we had a definitive Supreme Court decision.

[FrenchieCat]

22. No....I don't think he says what he thinks.....

Cause then Boise, the attorney that fought for Al Gore and for all of us in trying to get the votes counted said in that same article that he believes that Al Gore DOES thinks that the election WAS stolen....

So me.....I do believe that Al Gore does most likely thinks that the election was stolen....and I'm sure has expressed this privately. He's just not going public with what he thinks.....obviously...which really takes me back to my original post.

[janx]

23. Hint:

“In our system, there’s no intermediate step between a definitive Supreme Court decision and violent revolution.”

(Emphasis mine.)

[Guaranteed]

24. I think what he's saying is...

What do you expect him- or anyone- to DO about it? The Supreme Court made a decision.

You thinking about storming the White House?

[fujiyama]

49. My guess is

he does believe it was stolen. After all, the evidence does point that way.

But if he spoke about it, he'd be attacked for "rehashing the old election" and the it would be claimed that "Bush won in '04 anyways". He would be portrayed as "bitter" and "out for revenge".

Gore has learned how the media works and he's going to attack the repukes on the current issues. I do agree though, that one of those should be election reform, especially electronic voting.

[ldf]

57. exactly!

there is a ready made choir out there ready to leap into a high volume chourus of "Sore Loserman" at a moments notice.

it would still be spun as that, bitterness and revenge. gore knows that.

and with the m$m still playing lapdog to their owners, gore realizes that this can only be addressed after the NEXT election, not while bush can still be touted as president, with gore "whining" about it.

i think that AFTER the election of gore, all of the crimes towards this country can be addressed.

if nothing else but publicly putting all the shit they have done on the sly out there for all to see. maybe a couple of weeks of nightly "chats" with the american people, providing proof of what they have done. that would destroy the republican party for decades to come.

if we DON'T address it, we have lost our soul as a nation.

[janx]

26. BGL--

Check out this quote:

Salit: Building on your point, in 2004 the Democratic Party base was forced to choose, leaving aside how the “forced” came about, but nevertheless, forced to choose between electability and progressivism. Part of the dynamic here is that a figure that can fuse those two things would be enormously popular. And Gore is a good candidate for that niche.

This guy has it right. (I'm assuming Salit is a guy. Maybe not.)

[Guaranteed]

29. Yup. His qualifications are unmatched.

His integrity is totally intact. And he's someone that every Democrat should be quite happy with.

[Uncle Joe]

21. FrenchieCat, I believe it means Al's top priority

today, is saving life as we know it. The best chance he has of doing that, is to get the maximum turnout for his upcoming movie "An Inconvenient Truth". The best chance he has of doing that, is to stay apolitical at this time, if he were to bring up his feelings regarding the coup of 2000, it would most likely have a negative impact on the number of people willing to see this most important movie. Whatever he says regarding 2000 will be distorted by the same MSM that waged a two year war against him while enabling Bush to power, even to this day a vast majority of them cannot admit their own complicity in that tragedy.

[karynnj]

37. I would assume that means he thinks it was stolen

If he genuinely didn't know or really believed it wasn't, I assume he would say so in a very straight forward manner. That only leaves that he thought it was and feels this is not the time to speak about it.

Maybe he feels it is still possible to take back the government and then address it. The real dificulty is that the Supreme Court was complict if it was stolen.

[radio4progressives]

54. Reality Check: He didn't say he "hasn't made a Determination"...

he said There may come a time when I speak on that,” Gore says, “but it’s not now; I need more time to frame it carefully if I do.”



the GOP controls the media. If Gore were to ever state what we all know and say all the time openly and freely here and elsewhere - Gore would be Swiftboated by the GOP MEDIA so fast (they'd have to because their own complicity would be exposed wide open and Gore would have to make that point as well) - he would be relegated to complete obscurity in seconds flat.

Until Progressive Institutions and Organizations wise up and invest in the MSM - the facts of these events will never see the light of day in the Corporate/Fascists MSM. After all, Bush was their Man, they assisted in the stealing of all these elections.

[krkaufman]

55. Gore's statement *does* say it all, without being explicit

My interpretation of Gore's statement is "yeah, it was stolen, but the only recourse was a violent uprising." And he wasn't willing to call people to arms, and instigate a 2nd civil war.

At the current moment, I'd rather Gore stay focused on the climate crisis issue. Gore making any declarative statement on the 2000 election would just be a distraction from his current campaign, would have the media whores screaming "sore loser", and would be of less weight than other Democrats declaring that "the election results did not reflect voter intent." (Can you really say it was "stolen", if it was handled through the legal system?)

[katinmn]

56. Yes, the highest court in the land voted 5-4 Bush

Voted to stop the recount which had already gone on 2-1/2 months.

We can say it was stolen and we can also say we have a corrupt Supreme Court, both of which are true. The result is the same.

Aside from a few hundred or thousands who were out throwing eggs at Bush's limo on his first inauguration, America did not protest the theft of the presidency.

And here we are.

[janx]

6. Fascinating!

Newman: And, if they’re looking strong – as some pundits are saying – for ’08, then the reason for it is that the base of the Democratic Party is consolidating. This is not primarily an old Left constituency, but something of a new and newer Left. If the Democrats find themselves in this better position, even in very conventional races like the midterms, that’s how they got there.

Salit: Right.

Newman: And, I think that Gore is emerging, in some sense, as their electable national heir.

Salit: As the Left’s electable presidential candidate.

Newman: Yes. Not Dennis Kucinich. Not this one or that one.

Salit: But Al Gore.

Newman: He’s the convert. And Americans love a convert.

Salit: Building on your point, in 2004 the Democratic Party base was forced to choose, leaving aside how the “forced” came about, but nevertheless, forced to choose between electability and progressivism. Part of the dynamic here is that a figure that can fuse those two things would be enormously popular. And Gore is a good candidate for that niche.

How do you read, from your distance, Gore’s relationship to the Clintons?

[katinmn]

25. "A new and newer Left." I liked that comment, too.

I think these people are pretty asute and perceptive observers.

[janx]

28. Amazingly so, yes. n/t

[ourbluenation]

15. oh you know I'm kicking this up and a big, fat rec as well

:kick:

[katinmn]

27. Thanks! Can't forget the indies. 60% of voters i.d. themselves

as independents in some places.

[Minnesota Libra]

20. Hey Liberals like Gore and Independents like Gore - let's draft...........

....the man. I've just got this feeling he might have something more to say after November elections, although I am the first to admit there is a whole lot of wishful thinking involved in that too.

[katinmn]

30. Can you imagine what would happen to him if he said he was

even considering it right now?

(Vultures!)

Timing is everything. I too hope that early next year he says he running, though. :)

[Minnesota Libra]

39. OH YES, the fundies/neocons would rip him apart so I don't blame..........

.....him for not saying anything now. But I'm hoping!!O8)

[autorank]

32. Proud #5...Gore is the BEST CANDIDATE...

:patriot:Al Gore's Devastating Indictment of President *. January 16, 2006:patriot:

[katinmn]

33. Whoo-hoo! Thank you, autorank.

:toast:


edit: I bookmarked your Scoop article. Great job.

That January speech was the best, most hopeful thing I'd heard and read in a year.

[autorank]

34. You're always on my "Greatest lList"

:toast:

[katinmn]

35. Thanks. Hope you don't lose any friends over it.

:rofl:

[autorank]

44. None that I'lli miss but they'll be back;) It's nice to be nice...I like

everbody:grouphug:

[janx]

36. Nice posts! n/t

[katinmn]

38. I always appreciate yours, too, janx!

:pals:

You've been around a lot longer than me, make great comments and still manage not to annoy people. What's your SECRET?

[Minnesota Libra]

41. Thank you for providing that link - I've been looking for it. Thanks nt

[autorank]

45. Thanks you...more stuff and a pic;)

(and a funny thread...and these are my friends...lord)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=426649&mesg_id=426649

[Minnesota Libra]

46. COOL!!!!!! Thanks!! nt

[meganmonkey]

40. Well, if he picks someone other than Lieberman this time

I'd consider voting for him :shrug:

[Minnesota Libra]

42. I want Gore to run and pick Feingold as a VP - talking about..............

.....turning the fundies/neocons on their heads. :bounce: :applause:

[NYCGirl]

43. I don't think Lieberman will be part of the equation. Especially since

this event:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/09/elec04.prez.gore.dean/

[krkaufman]

50. And there might be some subconscious pull within people....

... for a 2000 election do-over, and hand the reigns to Gore.

[janx]

51. Maybe so, but enough time has passed that people won't

be tired of Gore, thank goodness.

It was probably a good thing he decided against running in 2004.

[peabody71]

53. GORE 2008!!

He can do it. Are we ready?