great gore article

[saz]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13248532/why_gore_should_run__and_how_he_can_win/1

ideologically, he isn't for me. however, considering his global warming crusade, and about face regarding his entire demeanour is invigorating. in addition, gore was one of the few who was originally opposed to the iraq war. the author presents a solid case for gore to run, and i think he should.

[DroppinScience]

It'd be great if he did run, but I don't think it's happening.

I'm glad he's gone more to the left in these recent years and have always admired his environmental stances. Having said that, it was a shame he was so centrist for 2000.

The thing that gets me is, when you're in power (or seeking more power), you're not speaking freely and frankly. When you're out of power, all of a sudden you can be so candid? THAT has to change.

[QueenAdrock]

It's not gonna change. I don't mind much, because I'd rather have a bleeding heart cover up his liberal ways in order to get elected. Because hey, liberal in office. Most people know that if they talk about how important the environment is and how we need to concentrate on it, America's not going to care. That's not a main talking point when it comes to elections...though I think it should be. It's just not in the cards, though. Either way, it's not smart to come across as a huge bleeding heart liberal when you're seeking office because truth is, this country is still full of back-asswards conservative hicks. I'll take you on a trip through the country and show you. :p

[DroppinScience]

It goes both ways. When Ari Fleischer was Press Secretary, he was a big asshole. When he left that gig and appeared on the Daily Show, he actually seemed like a pretty cool guy. He was relaxed and could say whatever he felt. He was candid and frank in a way he could NEVER get away with when he was working at The White House.

[saz]

It's not gonna change. I don't mind much, because I'd rather have a bleeding heart cover up his liberal ways in order to get elected. Because hey, liberal in office. Most people know that if they talk about how important the environment is and how we need to concentrate on it, America's not going to care. That's not a main talking point when it comes to elections...though I think it should be. It's just not in the cards, though. Either way, it's not smart to come across as a huge bleeding heart liberal when you're seeking office because truth is, this country is still full of back-asswards conservative hicks. I'll take you on a trip through the country and show you. :p

i completely disagree with all of that. people seeking office should speak candidly, because it registers with the electorate, and people respect those who speak honestly, rather than obeying all of the strategists, advisors, and their talking-points. fdr had no problems getting elected, ditto lbj in '64. and they were ultra-populist, who both implemented successful social democratic government programs and initiatives. after all, it was clinton and terry mcauliffe, and their moderate, centrist, pro-business (http://dir.salon.com/story/books/int/2004/06/28/tomfranks/index.html) bullshit which screwed everything up for the democrats for a long time, until dean put some balls back into the party. the democratic party was and is once again the party of the majority. and what made it the party of the majority was that it was left and populist: it fought for the little guy, the working man, the working class, was anti-elitist, and government was a friend, not a distant and indifferent institution. the working and middle classes were the priority, they were the heart and soul of the party. but anyways, with an inconvenient truth, gore has made global warming a hot-button and even wedge issue, with a great majority of right-wingers desperately playing catch-up now.

[QueenAdrock]

It'd be great if he did run, but I don't think it's happening.

He may be forced to.

LOL! (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/09/draftgore.2008.ap/index.html)

[QueenAdrock]

the democratic party was and is once again the party of the majority. and what made it the party of the majority was that it was left and populist

Actually, I would say now what made it the party of the majority now is the fact that they offered a different perspective on the Iraq war. And I don't even think we're a "majority" now, I think we won the Congress by disenchanted Republicans and Independents, and the core Democrats. It wasn't a landslide, we squeaked by to get the Senate, hinging on a few thousand votes in Virginia. I still think the voters are wary of the liberal ideology and are more moderate, but were sick of the same old crap when it came to Iraq and were willing to trust the Democrats to provide a different view.

We've got a tentative hold now and really don't think we can go around bleating liberal ideology in order to win. I don't think being left-leaning will hurt this election, but being labeled a complete liberal bleeding-heart could be potentially damaging still. Especially since the Republicans will be offering more moderate candidates this election, like Giuliani and McCain. I think we're still in the state that people are willing to trust the Democrats but are still kind of suspicious. If we put up someone completely to the left vs. a moderate Republican, I think the Republican would take it.

In 2004, they were more willing to elect a crazy-ass conservative than they were to elect a "moderate" Kerry, and though times are changing I don't think we're at the point that we can put up someone completely liberal. Possibly in another few years, once people start seeing the good shit we're doing in Congress. I'm hopeful at least.

[saz]

And I don't even think we're a "majority" now, I think we won the Congress by disenchanted Republicans and Independents, and the core Democrats. It wasn't a landslide, we squeaked by to get the Senate, hinging on a few thousand votes in Virginia.

well first of all, there were only a handful of seats up for election, in the senate, in this past congressional election. remember, senators serve six year terms. and since the summer, the democrats had at least a 10-12 point lead in the majority of polls taken. even bush himself said that his party got a 'good ol' fashioned whipping' on election day. the democrats have a massive majority in the house of representatives, and they will pick up even more seats, and therefore add to their majority in the senate in the '08 congressional elections. there are going to be many vulnerable republican senate seats by then. 70% of americans now disapprove of the war in iraq/bush's handling of it, and a majority also want the troops to start coming home. in addition, a majority of americans also believe that the war was a mistake, and they are fed up and overly fatigued with this administration. in addition, i saw another poll last week which concluded that 59% of americans simply want the bush administration to be over. so, what does this all ad up to? republican fatigue. iraq fatigue. look for the dems to make more gains in '08. also, these moderate democrats in the house and senate simply aren't taking enough action on iraq. americans want the troops out now, and want the war to end. not all of them, but a lot of the moderate democrats are merely opposing the surge, and are not outright addressing the need to simply cut off the funding for the war, and to start getting the troops out.


I still think the voters are wary of the liberal ideology and are more moderate, but were sick of the same old crap when it came to Iraq and were willing to trust the Democrats to provide a different view.

so, is america a politically regressive country then? it was alright in the past for the democrats to have the guts, to stand up for the little/working man, campaign for and initiate socially democratic and populist programs and initiatives, but not now? as time passes in the us, is american society becoming much more conservative? i don't think so. first, try reading this link (http://dir.salon.com/story/books/int/2004/06/28/tomfranks/index.html) i've previously posted. it clearly outlines, demonstrates, and proves that when the democrats, under bill clinton and terry mcauliffe, pandered to the centre, centre-right, and the right, especially with their economic agenda, they failed miserably. this is what precisely seperated the democrats from the republicans: their economic agenda. when the democrats abandoned the working class with nafta, it was a recipe for complete disaster. for instance, just read this telling passage, it explains everything:

"Bill Clinton is, in their minds, the great success story for this strategy. He signed off on NAFTA, on welfare reform, on so many other Republican issues. He basically accepted the Reagan agenda on economic issues, whether it was deregulating the banks, doing away with New Deal farm policy, doing away with welfare, deregulating telecom, free trade. In all those ways, he was essentially a Republican. But he fought it out very vigorously on the cultural issues. And according to the New Democrats, this is the way to do it.

They point to Clinton and say, "Look, we won the presidency! We won twice! Therefore this is a great strategy." And I would point out that while they won the presidency, they are no longer the majority party, either in Congress or the nation. That is a staggering reversal. Look, when you and I were growing up, the Democrats were always the majority. It was the party of the working class. Duh! It was the party of the majority. I thought the day would never come that they were no longer in that position. Now, I believe Republicans actually outnumber Democrats in registration. That is staggering.

It has happened because of this strategy. You take people who would be natural Democrats -- because they work in industry, they're blue-collar people -- and you suddenly remove the economic issues from the table. You say, well, the Democrats are the same as the Republicans on those issues now. And all that's left for them to consider are the cultural issues.

I talked to several people in Wichita -- I quote one of them in the book -- who come right out and say, "When the Democrats went with NAFTA, they no longer had anything to offer me, and I started voting Republican." That is a catastrophe.

A friend of mine pointed out that when the Democrats decided they would no longer contest these elections on economic issues -- of course none of these blanket statements are 100 percent true. There are still Democrats who do fight it out on economic issues, and they tend to do all right.

I guess John Edwards would be this year's example.

Yeah, or Howard Dean. They both talked old-school populism. I thought Edwards was great. At least the way he talked was great. Kerry is trying to talk that way now, but it's not as persuasive coming from him. Anyhow, my friend pointed out that when you drop the economic issues, and when the nation's politics are about culture, it pushes down voter participation. Look at the 1920s, when both parties agreed on the economic issues and the fights were about Prohibition and Americanism and these other silly issues that are nonetheless precursors to the things we fight about today.

There are only two natural positions in a two-party system. One party is going to be the party of money, and the other party is going to be the party of numbers. You can only be one or the other, and the Republicans have pretty much got the money sewn up. The Democrats decided, when they made this jump to fighting the culture wars only, that they were essentially giving up on being the party of the majority. They want to contest for the money as well."

and 'liberal ideology'? 'liberal'? that's just a republican/right-wing b.s. boogeyman term. it's funny, because americans had no qualms or problems whatsoever electing franklin delano roosevelt to multiple terms, ditto lyndon johnson to one of the largest landslide victories in american history. and plus, how many decades did the new deal democrats hold a majority in the house of representatives? i believe it was from the mid-50s to '94. this had nothing to do with being 'liberal'. this was the democratic party at their very best: a grassroots, populist party for the people. they had the balls to stand up for working people: farmers, workers, families, etc., and make the government a friend which provided assistance, and not cut it to shreds, for the benefit of, and to help out corporate america. bottom-line: 'liberal' is an irrelevant term. and fighting the culture wars is a dead end. fight for the people instead.


Especially since the Republicans will be offering more moderate candidates this election, like Giuliani and McCain. I think we're still in the state that people are willing to trust the Democrats but are still kind of suspicious. If we put up someone completely to the left vs. a moderate Republican, I think the Republican would take it.

how is mccain a moderate? he has proven himself to be not only a lapdog of the administration, ie supporting the surge and not accepting reality that america wants out of iraq, but also by being a total hypocrite. john mccain has openly embraced the religious right and jerry falwell. mcain was once an aggressive foe of both falwell and the religious right. he has done a complete 360, and it is quite sad. mccain has also hired former bush smear machine cronies to join his campaign. in addition, mccain fully embraced bush in '04, the same man in '00, along with slimebucket karl rove, who did everything in their power to smear, and destroy his reputation, ie the south carolina primary comes to mind. giuliani meanwhile supports the war in iraq, and i think he also supports the surge. so yeah, they're really going to go over well with the electorate. regardless, the bottom line is that the republican's hopes, and their projected candidates for '08, look incredibly weak, and weaker than ever.


In 2004, they were more willing to elect a crazy-ass conservative than they were to elect a "moderate" Kerry, and though times are changing I don't think we're at the point that we can put up someone completely liberal. Possibly in another few years, once people start seeing the good shit we're doing in Congress. I'm hopeful at least.

kerry lost because as a national candidate, he was a disaster. as a senator and a man, i have tremendous respect for him. however, on the national stage, he blew it. he repeated the exact same mistakes as gore in '00: too aloof, distant, didn't respond fast enough to smearing, and overall came across as a total pushover. fdr, lbj, truman et al would have told bush, rove and co. exactly where to go without a seconds hesitation, and wouldn't have simply doddled around after receiving a smear. ditto the religious right. overall, this warm, feel-good, nice guy, 'let's be bipartisan', moderate but pander to the right (ie pro-nafta), and utterly spineless approach, ie not fighting fire with fire, so to speak, simply doesn't cut it.


anyways getting back to gore: he's been nominated (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16920923/) for the nobel peace prize, his top policy advisor from '00 and other supporters have recently met (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/02/supporters-mulling-whether-gore-should.html) (they wouldn't have if gore is pondering a run, which strong rumours and capital hill buzz suggest he is), and donna brazille thinks gore might make an announcement (http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-4brazilejan31,0,2339833.story?coll=all-newslocal-hed) on oscar night.

[QueenAdrock]

TOO MUCH TO READ, SAZI!

From what I've skimmed though, I sure hope you're right. I'm still cynical towards this country, but you've brought up some hopeful points.

[Schmeltz]

Speaking of too much to read, Arthur Silber posted the sixth part (http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/02/dominion-over-world-vi-global.html) of his look at American foreign policy the other day. A little slanted, but it's an intriguing take on the cultural background to the events we're witnessing right now, and maybe the most cogent point is the notion that it really doesn't matter which party is in power in the USA - because it really never has. It makes one wonder whether the Democrats really have it in them to reverse the course not just of this war, but of the entire American foreign policy apparatus in general. Check out the other five parts too, they make interesting reading.

Another interesting thing I read today, directly related to the above, was John McCain's take on the possibility of an Iraqi version of the Tet Offensive:


McCain, a Vietnam war veteran who spent 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war, said in an interview with The Associated Press that it's not the U.S. presence in Iraq that upsets voters but rather the number of casualties and the possibility those numbers could rise. - Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070212/ap_on_el_pr/mccain2008)


So McCain is less concerned with the fact that this war has been from start to finish a monumental blunder, a colossally destructive, horrifically bloody clusterfuck with which the world will be dealing for years to come, and more concerned with how many Americans have died perpetrating it. And this is supposedly the moderate opinion.

Until there can be an actual, candid, forthright admission that there have been vicious errors made in the conduct of American foreign policy, it really does look like we're simply in for more of the same no matter who wins the next election.