Gore or Perpetual War ... Gore or A Non-Inhabitable Planet ... Just how difficult a choice is it?

[understandinglife]

Just ... how ... difficult ... a ... choice ... is ... it ...?

Gore is the name.

Write it on every ballot in every primary.

Just do it.

For the sake of humanity.

And, because it will launch "We the People ..." into 21st Century people-powered, internet-enabled, ethical and empathetic collaboration on the governance of America and our contributions to the well-being of people, everywhere.

Thank you,
Bob

[Captain_Nemo]

1. Wow, you are determined to lose the presidency to a republican. This is another form of Naderism.

[Der Blaue Engel]

2. Say what?

A write-in in a primary will lose the presidency? How's that exactly?

:wtf:

[Captain_Nemo]

13. Why would any American waste a vote? It is a most un-American thing to do.

Why would I take a chance and have numbskull Obama for the nominee. THAT's losing a presidency. I already saw the idotic non-strategic altruism in the 2000 election by the Naderites.
That was effective.

[Der Blaue Engel]

34. D'oh!

I should have just looked at your avatar. :hi:

edited for typo

[HamdenRice]

43. Dude, you need a civics lesson, pronto

Nadar ran in the general election. A gore write would be in the primaries.

OK?

[whopis01]

44. Dude, you need a reading comprehension lesson, pronto

Clearly the poster is concerned that if enough people write-in Gore in the primaries that it reduce Clinton's chance of winning, combined with the fact that the poster feels Obama is not capable of winning the general election.

OK?

[kenfrequed]

53. Dude

You need to get aware of the fact that the 'electable' argument has nothing to do with the issues of the day and everything to do with pulling support for the candidate that is usually the weakest on all the issues people care about.

The only time I have EVER heard "Electable" is when that candidate fails on a series of given issue-based arguments or examinations.

[whopis01]

55. You misunderstood my response.

I was not responding in favor of what Der Blaue Engel had posted. The post to which I was responding seemed to think that Der Blaue Engel was confused about the primary process versus the general election, and chose to make a rather derogatory comment while (ironically) not understanding what Der Blaue Engel had actually posted. I was merely pointing that out to HamdenRice in the same way he chose to point it out.

I was careful to state that that it was the poster's opinion and logic that I was explaining as opposed to my own.

So, while I appreciate your concern for what facts I should be aware of, I would suggest that your efforts would be better targeted towards someone who is making the argument to which you provide a counterpoint.

[kenfrequed]

58. But

There is no part of Captain Nemo's argument that actually works.

Why defend or try to reconcile an argument based off of logical fallacy or factual conflation?

[whopis01]

66. I wasn't trying to defend or reconcile the argument. n/t

[Admiral Loinpresser]

26. Naderism was built on lies.

Those backing Gore have scientific evidence backing their case. Civilization is dying and has a very short window to act or collapse. Certainly you agree with that? If you don't, you have a moral duty to educate yourself.

Gore is the only one realistically addressing our planetary crisis, just as he was the only Democratic contender in the last presidential cycle who told the whole truth about Iraq.

All of the contenders who were Senators in 2002 have blood on their hands, as well as being liars.

The bottom line is that if we don't get radical action (as proposed only by Gore) on climate change, it won't make much difference who gets in the White House. Gore is by far the best presidential bet to get such legislative and treaty action.

[Captain_Nemo]

33. You assume I disagree with science because I want this Du'er to vote with his mind not his wishlist.

I am active on the problem of global warming everyday. It is because of Global warming that I hated Nader so much in 2000. He manipulated a lot of people. And we are paying for it now. I wanted Gore. But, that day is over. The Nader voters prevented Gore from being elected.

it is 2008.


Writing in Gore's name will do nothing. It will only prevent the only logical candidate that has the skills and intelligence to actually deal with the issues - especially gobal warming (I have written in her credentials on that on Du - they are excellent. I don't want to have to cut and paste it all over again look in The Grist for Hillary's record.)

Obama will be a disaster. He cannot stand up to the resistance. She can.

I call my senators on a regular basis, I have communicated with Hillary's office, I have told the Obama staff that they are backing the wrong horse and I have put my money where my mouth is. All of this for global warming.

There is NO chance for mistakes in 2008.

If we make a mistake on the next president we are all doomed. And this is ALL about global warming.

I am sick to death of this phony altruistic liberal shit..like "It's time for a change."

I don't want platitudes. I want action.

P.S. I told Hillary's campaign (in VA) that Global Warming had to be at the top of her list.

P.S.S. Gore is not running. But he needs a strong person in the WH who can help him fight global warming so that we can help lead the world on the survival of our species. This is strategic.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. No one is ENTITLED to the Nomination. There is NO BASIS to claim that ANY candidate is "unbeatable"

in the general election. There is NO BASIS upon which to even claim that ANY candidate is more or less "electable" in the general election. None. Zero. Nada. ZILCH.

In fact, what passes for "conventional wisdom" around who is or isn't an unbeatable candidate often turns out to be worthless. Remember 2004, when Kerry's "war hero" record was going to make him unassailable? How Karl Rove was supposedly chomping at the bit to run against Howard Dean- because he had taken the 'losing' position of opposing the Iraq War- while Kerry's vote for the IWR was supposed to be a plus in his column?

Remember how that all worked out? Do you?

I'm going to say this once, and I'm going to say it clearly- because I will support our nominee in the general election, and I will do it enthusiastically. I will do it if the nominee's last name is Kucinich, I will do it if the nominee's last name is Obama, I will do it if the nominee's last name is Clinton. I will do it in the increasingly unlikely event that the nominee's last name is Gore. But get this:

UNTIL THE PRIMARIES ARE OVER, NO ONE IS AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLED TO ANYONE'S SUPPORT.

Geezus, if your candidate is so great, why do you have to try to browbeat people, harangue them, much less bark little orders at them that they have to vote for her?

People vote for who they most want as the nominee in the primary- that's what primaries ARE. And it is deeply fucking obnoxious to try to tell DEMOCRATS who they HAVE to vote for in the DEMOCRATIC Primary. News Flash: No one has been coronated, here.

Support who you think is the best candidate, good for you- she may win- but at the end of the day, she is just ONE candidate of many. She is NOT THE NOMINEE, YET. As long as people are voting for a DEMOCRAT in the DEMOCRATIC primary, you are way out of line accusing them of Naderism.

[Captain_Nemo]

54. Browbeating and harranguing was done repeatedly by Obama supporters against

Hillary.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. He started it! No, she started it!

for the record, I'm one of the people who stands up for HRC when she does the right thing. I'm one of the people who calls others on their "If Hillary is nominated I'm leaving the party".

I stood up to the people who went nuts over her Health Care proposal- like Edwards and Obama supporters- as being ridiculous, because all the plans are pretty close to identical.

But frankly, I think both Obama AND Clinton have been acting long on entitlement and short on substance. And it's the pandering they both have done- Clinton on bullshit like "flag burning" & video games and Obama to gay-hating evangelicals- that really bugs me. I may vote for Edwards. Maybe Kucinich. Right now, I'm leaning heavily towards Dodd. Hillary's been doing better.. frankly, I think one of the most unappealing things about her candidacy right now is the "you BETTER support her in the primaries" attitude of some of her proponents.

So like I said. No one is automatically entitled to the nomination. No one is automatically entitled to ANY of our support in the Primaies. People who vote in the Democratic Party for Democrats are NOT engaged in "Naderism" just because they're not supporting your person.

[Captain_Nemo]

57. I think your post was far more obnoxious than mine and I will stand behind it - writing in Gore's

name is a waste of time. He is more effective not in the WH. I will say this once, and I'm gong to say it clearly:
I am entitled to my opinion.

[Milo_Bloom]

61. One more thing...

"UNTIL THE PRIMARIES ARE OVER, NO ONE IS AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLED TO ANYONE'S SUPPORT. "

Even after the primaries are over, no one is automatically enttitled to anyone's support, nor will they receive it.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. No, but if you read the DU rules it becomes clear what the boundaries will be

as far as candidate advocacy and the 2008 election around here.

[Milo_Bloom]

70. Oh for sure...

And I fully plan to abide by those rules and leave DU, as I feel it would be rude to advocate against the official democratic candidate on these boards.

However, I think it is also very important to point out at this time that my vote and the vote of millions of others like me is not a lock for any candidate with a D next to their name.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. Sho 'nuff.

There's just a big difference, to my mind, between supporting a non-Democrat in the General election and supporting a Democrat in the Democratic primary that someone else doesn't happen to approve of.

Particularly in the context of that someone hurling charges around of "Naderism", as the individual I was responding to was doing.

Peace.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

36. No, your assumption was incorrect.

I made no assumption about your views, rather I asked your opinion on climate change. I'm glad to see you consider it the number one issue.

But I have seen no evidence that it is HRC's first issue.

Also, you did not respond to my statements in paragraphs 2-4, especially four, where I am referencing the bold proposals Gore made to Congress in March of this year.

[kenfrequed]

50. Yup

And Jared Diamond wrote a whole book on the subject "Collapse"

Fairly good stuff too.

[Captain_Nemo]

59. Hey, I agree with you that Gore would be a great president. But, hear me out here:

He won't run becasue he can be far more effective not in the WH - and we desperately need a global warming leader.

Either Obama or Clinton will be good for him as the global warming leader.

I am a supoprter of Hillary because her skill level enables her to beat teh republicans (before getting the presidency and during it - I can't say Obama can effectively fight them off if he gets the WH).

Her record on global earming legislation is excellent. (She has a 90% approval rating from the League fo Conservation Voters.)

And, this is paramount to me, please read adn respect my opinion even if you don't agree:

Over two hundred years of white male ledership, where the earth has been treated like men (in general) treat women has led us to this place. I admire her record on childrens' rights and women' s rights. We need an effective female leader to break the deadlock f white male domination over the earth.

I think she will be good for Gore as he continues to lead.

I beleive this with every cell in my body and I wil fight to the end for the earth and our country.

Peace,

[kenfrequed]

49. What a load

I honestly don't know how supporting a democrat in a democratic primary is somehow equivalent to voting for a thrid party in a general election.

Of course I never equated support of Hillary with logic anyhow.

[drm604]

3. He doesn't appear to want it.

It doesn't matter how many votes we write in if he refuses the nomination.

Believe me, I desperately wish that he would run. But that's looking less and less likely.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

30. There is a huge distinction

between wanting it in such a way as to run a conventional campaign and the willingness to accept the nomination. That is precisely why he has made no effort to run a "normal" campaign and yet he refuses to make a Shermanesque statement, IMO.

I am certain he would accept the nomination. While I am not an insider, I do have limited access to inside information which indicates he would accept the nomination. If not, he would have made a definitive statement, as he did in the last cycle (on 60 Minutes) in 2002.

[RiverStone]

65. Can I then assume your waiting till after the convention....

..to concede that Al is not running?

Shermanesque statement or not, it sounds like your going to hold out hope even going into the convention in August with limited or no Gore delegates.

Carrying the run-Al-run dream to the farthest end, in theory (only) we could have a brokered convention. We could have a scenario where delegates abandon their allegiance and vote for Gore. Of course, given delegates are chosen FOR THE LOYALTY to said candidates, it would take some surprise of historic proportions.

Then Gore himself would need to be willing to accept the nod. Your limited source says he would.

I admire your persistence and if you chose to hold out for a miracle, I can think of no better person then Gore. I just don't think your being realistic. But we have crossed threads on this before...:hi:

If by some far stretch your right ---I will very humbly proclaim my mistake--- and gladly!!!

[cali]

4. I'm sorry.

Obviously you feel deeply about this. I don't agree that any one person is the savior of humanity, and I actually think it's an exceedingly dangerous way to think. If Gore were running, he'd have my ear, and probably my vote, but not because I see him as a panacea.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

28. It's not about Gore,

it's about his message. His message is that the people must demand a paradigm shift.

For me, the Gore movement is about the people. It's like the suffragette movement, the muck rakers and the civil rights movement. Sometimes a leader like Teddy Roosevelt or Winston Churchill or Dr. Martin Luther King. Like them, Gore has become a leader by virtue of his actions, not just charisma, although both are usually required.

I simply view Gore as a vehicle for the people to save the planet. It is about saving ourselves.

[cali]

38. Please. Of course it's about Gore

And people will either get on board with saving the planet or they won't. He's still going to be working toward that goal whether he's president or not.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

40. You still don't get it.

In 1992 I read Earth In the Balance and followed it with other reading about global warming. I became convinced that this was the issue of our time. Since then I have seen a profound lack of vision and leadership on the part of mainstream media and American political figures in addressing this life or death issue. The issue is not hero worship, it is survival. Our time in history is sui generis.

Rather than personal attacks on who is or is not a hero worshiper, could we instead use facts and logical argument to debate whether: 1) this is the greatest crisis humanity has ever faced; and 2) if so, what is the best course of action?

[Pacifist Patriot]

72. I'm writing him in simply because I believe him to be the best...

person for the job right now. Not as the savior of humanity, but because I think he is best suited to the tasks at hand. I have no truck with anyone who feels differently. To each his or her own.

[robcon]

5. Hero worship is always suspect.

Saying it is "Gore or war," or "Gore for the sake of humanity" is creepy.

[understandinglife]

9. Maybe this will help you think differently ...

http://current.com/items/86188601_mr_gore_just_imagine

It's not "hero worship" -- it's reality. Other than Senator Dodd, no one is close to having the skills needed to attempt, let alone succeed, in rectifying the catastrophe that America now represents for the world.

It is simply, fact.

[robcon]

10. It is not simply fact, understandinglife.

It is your wacky opinion, based on hero worship that prevents you from understanding the problems and the solutions, IMO.

[understandinglife]

16. Thanks for your opinion ... irrespective of the insults you lace it with.

Al Gore will be President.

All the best to you,
Bob

[robcon]

41. When you called your opinion FACT it shows your level of "reasoning."

All the best as well,
Rob

[Admiral Loinpresser]

27. You are right, in the abstract.

Hero worship is always suspect. But sometimes there is a true hero and the public record is replete with why Gore is such a man. If you want to debate that, I'm ready willing and able.

But Gore is not the issue. Gore's message of saving civilization is the issue. So, I have no time for the ostrich-like, politics-as-usual behavior of the declared candidates.

Scientists are telling us that we have years, not decades to act to avoid being wiped out. Do you agree or disagree that humanity is facing its greatest crisis ever?

Was trusting the fate of the Continental Congress and the Continental Army to Washington creepy? Was entrusting the fate of the union to Lincoln creepy? Was trusting Teddy Roosevelt to be a trust buster and muck raker creepy?

It's easy to denigrate people who are saying the time is desperate. It is more difficult to refute the science upon which their message is based.

[understandinglife]

64. "It's easy to denigrate people who are saying the time is desperate. It is more difficult to ...

... refute the science upon which their message is based."

Precisely. And, thank you for your thoughtful contributions to this thread.

Bob

[Kazak]

42. It's not hero worship...

Al Gore is the most experienced and electable of the group!!

:shrug:

[Mabus]

46. What's creepy is that the climate crisis isn't front and center for every candidate

There is a difference between hero worship and a desire for strong, decisive leadership on the most important issue that we all face.

If we don't have a habitable planet what good are victories on any other issue? The climate crisis has a multitude of implications. The climate affects our food, our water, where we can live and our health. If we don't have someone in the White House who is willing to take control and make the climate crisis our top issue then humanity is lost. The best way to do this is to have someone in the WH whom others, around the world, see as a leader.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

6. Why not vote for...

...someone who's actually running for President?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

37. Can you recommend someone

who is experienced and absolutely committed to all out progress on climate change?

Also it would be nice if your suggestions did not include someone who constantly lies about Iraq.

Any ideas??

[dmallind]

7. Well nice idea maybe but I was reliably informed....

.....by a whole host of "progressives" and "real liberals" not all that long ago that there is no damn difference between Gore and Bush. Who am I to argue with "the base"?

[Kazak]

8. I love Gore and hope he runs, but he's not magic!

If Gore should happen to win the presidency it would very likely be Gore AND a non-inhabitable planet...

[mopinko]

11. man, the bashers are sure coming out.

getting worse and worse with each gore thread.
face it people, there is one candidate that is speaking the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and that is al gore.
take heart, bob. i think he has a plan. all will be revealed in time.

[understandinglife]

17. "face it people, there is one candidate that is speaking the truth, the whole truth and nothing ...

... but the truth, and that is al gore.

take heart, bob. i think he has a plan. all will be revealed in time."

Thank you for your empathy and for your insights. I agree with you - 100 %.

Peace,
Bob

[Blashyrkh]

18. He's not a fucking candidate. If you don't have to declare, we are ALL candidates.

[understandinglife]

20. Indeed, "We the People ..." are. Think about it ... peacefully.

[Blashyrkh]

25. I get it.

I'm just sick of people acting like Gore is running until he says he's not. You don't advocate guilty until innocent.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

39. Yeah, and

we're left with a bunch of FUCKING BULLSHIT candidates. I'm going with Gore.

[Mabus]

12. What you wrote

The environment is the most important issue. For me, the climate crisis equals the environment and I've always voted for the environment first. If we don't have a habitable planet all the other issues don't mean a thing.

Gore is the leader on environmental issues and he's trusted around the world. As POTUS Gore would help make America part of the world community and the make us the leader in saving our planet and our selves.

Until Gore says, "no way in hell," then I will continue to work to convince him to throw his hat into the ring.

K&R

[understandinglife]

19. "Until Gore says, "no way in hell," then I will continue to work to convince him to throw his ...

... his hat into the ring."

As will I.

Our semantics regarding our one and only habitat are aligned, as well.

Thank you,
Bob

[2 Much Tribulation]

14. Gore's got great leadership prior to any campaign, which is a real plus

though I wonder why his approval rating is supposedly only in the 40s somewhere. Does anyone know?

[TheDoorbellRang]

15. I'm still waiting, too.

After all, something's got to go right sometime soon, right? I can't think of anything more positive for our country's future than for Al Gore to declare his candidacy. K&R

[understandinglife]

21. "I can't think of anything more positive for our country's future than for Al Gore to declare ...

... his candidacy."

In_Deed!

Thank you,
Bob

[dysfunctional press]

22. sorry to burst your bubble....

but it's most likely too late for our current civilization, if not the species as a whole.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock

The Prophet of Climate Change: James Lovelock
One of the most eminent scientists of our time says that global warming is irreversible — and that more than 6 billion people will perish by the end of the century

...In Lovelock's view, the scale of the catastrophe that awaits us will soon become obvious. By 2020, droughts and other extreme weather will be commonplace. By 2040, the Sahara will be moving into Europe, and Berlin will be as hot as Baghdad. Atlanta will end up a kudzu jungle. Phoenix will become uninhabitable, as will parts of Beijing (desert), Miami (rising seas) and London (floods). Food shortages will drive millions of people north, raising political tensions. "The Chinese have nowhere to go but up into Siberia," Lovelock says. "How will the Russians feel about that? I fear that war between Russia and China is probably inevitable." With hardship and mass migrations will come epidemics, which are likely to kill millions. By 2100, Lovelock believes, the Earth's population will be culled from today's 6.6 billion to as few as 500 million, with most of the survivors living in the far latitudes -- Canada, Iceland, Scandinavia, the Arctic Basin.

By the end of the century, according to Lovelock, global warming will cause temperate zones like North America and Europe to heat up by fourteen degrees Fahrenheit, nearly double the likeliest predictions of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations-sanctioned body that includes the world's top scientists. "Our future," Lovelock writes, "is like that of the passengers on a small pleasure boat sailing quietly above the Niagara Falls, not knowing that the engines are about to fail." And switching to energy-efficient light bulbs won't save us. To Lovelock, cutting greenhouse-gas pollution won't make much difference at this point, and much of what passes for sustainable development is little more than a scam to profit off disaster. "Green," he tells me, only half-joking, "is the color of mold and corruption."

even if Gore were to take office TOMORROW- it would be too late. and even if it weren't- he still wouldn't be able to get people and businesses to make the sacrifices that would be neede to facilitate meaningful change, environmentally.

[understandinglife]

24. Hey, burst away. But, since I don't live in one and am not about ...

... to walk away from the challenge, it's of no consequence.

We have all it takes to preserve and improve our relationship with our habitat and with each other. All it takes is persistent, thoughtful, creative and productive effort.

Peace,
Bob

[dysfunctional press]

32. "All it takes is persistent, thoughtful, creative and productive effort..."

wanna bet?

[Basileus Basileon]

31. Because Malthusian predictions of mass death

have always been spot-on in the past. Sure.

It's basically his opinion against the entire scientific community on this one. Just as I'll go with the evidence base in the fight between global warming and the deniers, I'll go with the evidence base on this one.

[kenfrequed]

51. I don't want to agree

Even if I feel Lovelock (and by extension, you) may well be right about this.

Actually the climate change is nothing compared to the seas refusing to contain oxygen and co2 when they heat up a bit.

I think there may be some efforts that could be made to contain this, but the problem is that it would require extremely massive multinational effort and we would have to stop wringing our hands about retail sales and the economy.

Sadly species survival and the environment are not traded on Wallstreet.

Still the argument stands, I think that Gore is probably the best candidate though Kucinich would be a good choice as well.

[understandinglife]

23. "New York is drafting Al Gore!"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/29/211640/09

Most excellent ... people-powered, internet-enabled 21st Century American politics, at work ...

[Basileus Basileon]

29. President John Edwards would fire nukes at Greenland, apparently. nt

[Stephanie]

45. Petition for Gore in NY >

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2163784

[breathe peace]

47. "We the People" want Gore

UL, I am right with you. ONLY If Gore is aggressively recruited, will it have the impact and credibility needed to change politics as usual. No more games and business as usual. Stakes are perilously high.
There are no miracles, only great leaders and motivated citizens can have significant positive impact on our planets future. Cut the crap...let's go!
Jackie

[breathe peace]

48. BTW UL...keep talking

You have a wise, reasoned and strong voice. Please keep talking, writing, doing...
Thanks....
Jackie

[understandinglife]

60. Welcome to DU, and I'm in this for the duration, not to worry ...

Thank you,
Bob

[tuckessee]

52. Gore had his chance to be a leader & he blew it.

Abandoned his duty & left us with 8 years of Bush.

Sorry, Al, go shuck tobacco or whatever it is you did before you became a gadfly.

[blues90]

56. If Gore is not on the ballot then I will write him in .

There is no one else i trust as far as I could toss the whitehouse .

The repugs are all freaks , Hillary , Obama and the others I have no confidence or trust in at all .

I must add , if I were Gore I would not run , he has his calling and after what was done to him he owes this country nothing in politics .

[ecstatic]

62. Gore can't fix everything

He is human.

[Uncle Joe]

63. This is true, he needs all our help, having said that,

the most powerful job in the land, requires a single human, and I believe Al Gore to be the best qualified person for this most critical job.

[understandinglife]

69. Well stated - and the following article describes why Gore can be President ...

... and have a sustainable effect on the progressive future of America:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/11/the-50-year-strategy-2.html

Peace,
Bob

[Uncle Joe]

71. Thanks for the link, understandinglife.

:thumbsup:

[understandinglife]

76. Happy to provide it, UJ!

:hi:


Peace.

[seafan]

74. Saw this great piece yesterday, and it is very good news, indeed.

The 50 Year Strategy: A New Progressive Era (No, Really!)

By Simon Rosenberg And Peter Leyden
November/December 2007 Issue, MotherJones



Also, check out the graphics included in the piece. Here are some of them:


DAWN OF THE MILLENNIALS

THE UNDER-30 VOTE IN '04

18- TO 29-YEAR-OLD VOTE, U.S. HOUSE

THE HISPANIC VOTE, U.S. HOUSE

THE BIG DIVIDE: VOTER PREFERENCES

DEMS IN THE HOUSE, 1901-2007




The demographics, they are a-changing!

[understandinglife]

75. "The demographics, they are a-changing!" -- In_DEED!!!

Thank you for contributing these details,
Bob