Sludge - "Gore under Pressure to Reconsider"

[jenk]

plus it also has a Zogby poll, 69% of Dems think Bush re-election likely. That's pathetic, Bush is slipping in most polls where people are asked if they would consider voting Bush or someone else, why do 69% of Dems think Bush re-election is likely???

Backers pressure Gore to run again next year
By Alexander Bolton


Former Vice-President Al Gore is coming under pressure from political supporters and friends to jump into the 2004 presidential campaign even though he ruled himself out in December.

Gore’s spokesperson denied that there was any change of plans, but a former Democratic National Committee official close to Gore told The Hill he believes the former vice president may enter the Democratic primary this fall.

A second Gore confidant, Steve Armistead, a local Tennessee government official, said: “I think he’d like to grit his teeth and jump back in, but I can’t speak for him. I don’t think he liked the medicine he got from the Supreme Court.”

http://www.hillnews.com/news/073003/gore.aspx

[RamboLiberal]

1. I was ticked when Gore pulled out

And as much as I'd love to see him run again, the pundits would rip him to shreds now if he tried to jump back in. They painted him a liar and waffler last election, imagine what they'd do now.

If the damn DLC would stop shooting the Dems in the foot I think Dean, Kerry and perhaps Clark if he ever sticks his foot in has a decent chance.

If Gore does jump back in and wins the nod I hope he doesn't drag Holy Joe along. In that case I'd like to see a Gore/Clark, Gore/Dean or Gore/Kerry ticket.

[On the Road]

2. I Love Gore, but It's Too Late Now

If Bush wins, Gore should run in 2008. If not, in 2012.

[Born Free]

63. Drafts work, and media can't stop the will of the people

If Al Gore is "drafted" by a large number of concerned democrats, the media will have a very difficult time accusing him of lying and re-inventing himself again. People ask me all the time , why would Al Gore wait so long to come back into the race when so many concerned democrats want him to run again - the answer is easy, if he returns too soon the media will be playing games with everything he says and does, by waiting until the public is serious about the issues takes the bite out of the corporate controlled media games. Last time America played the media games, look what it led to.... The republicans will throw everything at Al Gore, but it is easily deflected, remember these are the same people that spread all the lies about Iraq - now you want to believe them again? )Furthermore check out the executive order signed on FEB 13, 2001 NSPD, National Security Presidential Directive - I am led to belive the changes made to Harry Truman's order in 1947 included doing away with group meetings from various agencies to share information on security - could help explain WHY they didn't share the info before 9/11) --- remember these are the people telling you Al Gore can't win - these are the same people telling you democrats can't win....

Do your own personal poll, not some public poll that is influenced by media, but a personal poll of all the people you know for sure voted for Al Gore the last time, ask how many are sorry now --- then ask your friends that voted for the bush team --- bet you will find many that have second thoughts now. What does this mean? Barring voting iregularities, Al Gore will get more votes this election than last....

Personally I would like to see them draft Wesley Clarke as well, just not Lieberman.


Yes, I supported Al Gore and yes I will vote for him again, and have already pledged to donate to his campaign if he accepts the draft.


Who are YOU going to listen to this coming election? I am not going to let the coporate controlled media tell me bullshit and pass it off as important truth - that is what got America into it's current mess!

[Myra]

66. "Drafts work, and media can't stop the will of the people"

True, that's the supreme court's job.

[Lostnote03]

97. FEB 13th 2001 NSPD!!!!!!!What the #$&*#????!!!!!!!

.......Born, thanks for this lil tidbit of executive action that went by me!!!......I will certainly look this up and make certain that it is spread around......In my mind this can have a very large impact wrt the "national security?" image that the GOP has brainwashed the obedient ones with.....Certainly shoots a hole in the intelligence sharing breakdown excuse....I wonder if this falls under Mindy Kleinbergs "littany of luck" speech.....I can't help but think of the OSP and the exclusive vetting of intelligence imformation directed to the "mannequin-in-chief".....its not his fault of course!!!

[waggawagga]

67. Gore In 2004

I think Gore should run and if he did he'd be a strong candidate. No one who isn't a Republican would blame him for changing his mind (it's not as though this was some kind of ironclad promise he made to constituents). If the media raked him across the coals all I can say there are times when this can work to your advantage (and this, I think, is one, because Gore, so obviously, lost out during the last election and people expected him to run).

Here's why I think Gore would be a strong candidate, though (forget about whether he deserves it, every election is new). First, I think a large number of independents who voted for him in 2000 would vote for him again. He's the only candidate for whom people have actually voted. I think there is brand loyalty in politics. To a large number of people he wouldn't have to sell himself again (especially given how the last election ended).

Second, Gore does fall somewhere in the middle between Dean and Kerry (and I think currently this will turn into a two man race). Kerry supporters might accept a Dean candidacy. I don't think Dean supporters, on the other hand, would accept Kerry (especially after the bruising primary battles which are coming). I think both sides would accept Gore (not suggesting the other two withdraw, and they won't, but if Gore wins it this would save the Democratic party from a split).

Third, and this is just guesswork, I think a lot of traits which people like in Al Gore in 2000 would play a lot better today. No one denies that he's intelligent, temperate, and responsible. In 2000 a lot of people voted for Bush, I think, because they thought that Gore was boring. It's just my hunch that given everything which has happened during the past three years people might be ready for this kind of boredom. They'd want it. Would go out of their way to vote for it.

Lastly, there's just no denying that the 2000 election was a mess and Gore lost out on an election he essentially won. I don't make a big deal out of this. Gore lost the legal and political battle which occured after. I don't think Bush stole the election (realize there are people here who disagree but read on).

I think independent voters would feel a sense of that the system had corrected itself if Gore won in 2004. Tit for tat. Bush had his chance, now it's Gore's turn. That's a very simple and unscientific idea but what this would reflect, in a sense, is a yearning for equilibrium.

If Gore runs in 2004 I'd advise that he not bring up Florida at all. His presence is the reminder of what happened. Gore, when you get down to it, doesn't have the kind of personality which polarizes the electorate (unlike Bush, Clinton, the other Clinton, and, once the primaries are underway, my strong hunch, Kerry and Dean).

That's really his strongest card. Gone also would be any sense that he won the slot by default (because if he ran he'd have to win the nomination, what the current poll numbers reflect, though, is this built in constituency of people who would vote for him out of loyalty, I think he has a lock on 40%, that's enough to win the nomination and certainly puts him in striking distance to take the whole thing).

[metisnation]

73. more independents

I voted for nader in 2000 I agonize about every day this bafoon is in office. I will vote for whatever Dem that makes it out of the primaries.


:kick:

[lumpy]

100. A Gore victory would bring back some hope to this country

that the will of the people will be recognized and not the will of the Supreme court. Perfect for those that would love to claim "I told you so". The Democrat party is still alive and kicking ass. Why ? Because it is the people's party.

[Heddi]

88. wow! what reasonsed

explanations. I had never really thought about it in those terms, but I think you are absolutely correct.

There are alot of people in this country that don't want Bush in office, and there were alot of people in 2000 that didn't want Bush in office as well. Those people, in addition to the continuing masses that Bush keeps eliminating, I think Gore would definately win, and it wouldn't be in the "by 5,000 votes" context either.

States will go OVERWHELMINGLY dem, I think, solely because of their dismal financial statuses right now. People *KNOW* this isn't the 'downfall of the Clinton Economy' bullshit that Republicans keep spewing. EVERYTHING wrong in our contry now is because of Bush, and people know this. Businesses know this. Financial planners know this.

Between Enron (which I think is going to be brought up, or I hope so), The pre-Depressionistic Economy, loss of jobs, "The War", Osama, 9/11, complicity in EVERY MAJOR FUCKING BAD THING FOR THE PAST 2 YEARS....Republicans are in a really bad place right now. Even THEY"RE abandoning Bush.

Happily, though, I haven't heard of any serious Repub contenders that are planning on running against the Prez...which is even BETTER.

I really don't see Bush winning in 2004. That's not to say that he won't pull another 2000, but hands down the people in this country are NOT going to vote Bush back into office.

[Nashyra]

5. I was just about to post the same thing

I am merely asking for opinions here because I am going to a Clark meetup in Reno on the fourth. What about a Gore/ Clark ticket? Gore can run on the economic sucess of the Clinton administration since it is one election removed and any credibility arrows thrown at Clinton/Gore administration could be slung back at current administration 10 fold, also with such a dismal economy it would resonate loudly in the ears of the voters and Clark would be the answer to the National Security problem for the Dems that the MEDIA has created. Please note I did not accuse the Dems as soft on National Security, IMHO the media has made this the case for the Repugs

[rocktivity]

21. Gore a liar and waffler? Compared to whom--his opponent-to-be?

Originally posted by Nashyra:
...any credibility arrows thrown at (the) Clinton/Gore administration could be slung back at current administration (ten)fold...

That's right! I think that if Gore jumped back in, he could say it's because he can't stand the sight of Bush screwing up any longer. And if he took Clark or Dean with him, it would be OVER for the Pretzel-Dunce--and the GOP knows it. Let them attack Gore for changing his mind--I say, "bring 'em on!!!!"

[RamboLiberal]

55. Yeah but the pundits would paint him as a liar and a waffler

And the RW controls the majority of the media. Unfortunately that message was pounded in to the heads of the sheeple of this country. I heard that message "Oh, Gore is such a liar - he should just quit" over and over again from blue-collar types who were destined to be screwed over by * if he won the recount.

The media were determined to screw over Gore. It will be ten times worse this time. Hopefully Gore would fight back, but he may be too cultured and too nice a guy to do so.

That's why I want a pit-bull this race and am right now leaning to Dean. And I sure would settle for Clark's credentials and savvy.

[mightywurlitzer]

70. Thing is...

A RW-controlled media will bash ANY candidate whose last name doesn't start with a B, end in H, and has a US in the middle. Gore at least has this going for him: He represents the feel good times of the Clinton years, and after 4 years of death, destruction, cronyism, and recession, I think the great center wouldn't mind having another taste of the good 'ol days of Big Dog.

[Heddi]

89. Yup! Yup! Yup!!!

He represents the feel good times of the Clinton years, and after 4 years of death, destruction, cronyism, and recession, I think the great center wouldn't mind having another taste of the good 'ol days of Big Dog.

I do. My husband does. My friends do. My family does. The company I worked for sure does. My school most CERTAINLY does as do the people I go to school with (over 50% of the people in my classes are in school because their jobs were eliminated, they were laid off, or their companies closed in the last year---so they're not ex-dot-commers. They're ex factory workers, ex-school teachers. Ex-Boeing employees....)

yep yep yep

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. Trying to discredit the announced candidates

meanwhile, they would pillory Gore if he entered the race twice as bad as last time.

Boy they must be desperate if chimp needs this kind of help.

[dfong63]

14. good call

at the very least, i want a president who is a man of his word. if gore gets back in the race, he'll have proven immediately that he is not such a man.

if gore gets back in, after publicly declaring that he was out, then right out of the blocks he'll have confirmed the wishy-washy image that he had in the last race. a man who wants to lead the nation, should be able to make up his own mind. a great president does not make decisions like this based on others "pressuring" him. is that the kind of decision-making style we can expect if he becomes president: announces one thing, then caves in to "pressure" from insiders?

meanwhile, the speculation that gore might jump back in, is hurting the real, announced candidates. so once again, gore's indecisiveness is hurting the party. if gore was a smart leader, he'd quash these rumors ASAP.

[seventhson]

37. Not so. If he is going to run he should stay quiet

I think the BFEE would try to wellstone him - that is my big fear, I lived through the murders of JFK and RFK at the hands of the BFEE bastards (includsing the Dulleses and Roicvkefellers and all the Hitler financiers).

I KNOW what it is like to lose the clear winner.

Those who loved Wellstone know too.

This attacking of Gore is revolting.

Let him bide his time and come in to save us in 2004 when it is clear we have no other best case scenarios/

GORE IS THE BEST CANDIDATE and he looks GREAT!!!! (on Drudge).

Handsome, well-rested, smart, crafty, and better prepared for the test than ever and more than Bush will ever be.


GORE IN FOUR!!!!!!!! Come Back Al! America NEEDS You!!!

[Must_B_Free]

25. Nice try, but you failed

they would pillory Gore if he entered the race twice as bad as last time

Oh yeah, and they're going to be really really nice to anyone else, as long as its not Gore huh?

Why do people repeat the same flimsy non-argument all the time?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

48. Press: "He can't even decide if he's running or not"

let's try that for starters? And where did I say they would be "really really nice " to the other candidates?
Thanks for the flimsy rebuttal. :hi:

[Must_B_Free]

62. Please!

"let's try that for starters? And where did I say they would be "really really nice " to the other candidates?
Thanks for the flimsy rebuttal. "

That is the logical implication of saying that Gore shouldn't run because the media would be hard on him. You implication was that he was at a disadvantage because of his past, compared to the other candidates. Perhaps you were saying that there is more dirt on him out there.

Now, if you want to agree to the obvious - that the media will be hard on anyone running against W, then the issue is moot. Bottom line - media bashing is going to be the same no matter which Dem runs.

There is no inherent disadvantage to Gore running. His name recognition, past performance, and the dismal performance of the liar that lied him out of the contest last time, will make him an even easier shoe-in this time.

Please explain your point if I have mischaracterized it. I fail to see any logic in your statements.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

4. consider the source. nt.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Drudge is not the original source

It is from The Hill. See the orignal post in this thread for the article.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

22. Let's hear from Gore himself. nt

[Roon]

59. Don't you just love how Sludge used the bearded Gore? n/t

.

[cjbuchanan]

6. Why 69%?

I do not understand this either. A lot of people I know think the same thing. It seems they think either 1) the American public is stupid and does not see what is going on or 2) he didn't win last time and he got the job, what chance do we have against $200 million?

I hate both arguments.

If we are going to win this thing, we need to show some confidence. Let's start educating our friends who might not be as "tuned in" as we are. Let's point out to them that the $200 million Bush & Co. are getting is from the same folks who made a bundle off the Bush tax scheme and military/oil/rebuilding contracts. David Letterman said it best when he said, "The economy is in the dump, there seems to be no weapons of mass destruction, we can't find Osama or Saddam and Democrats wonder how they can beat this guy?"

We can, and must, win.

[seventhson]

8. PROBABLY BLACK BOX VOTING

DID DIEBOLD HANDLE THIS POLL?


In addition, most dems don't see a strong enough candidate.

Only really Gore and Hillary have the right stuff to win in 2004 in the eyes of most Americans. The rest are unknowns, basically, like it or not.

Gore OWES it to America to rectify 2000 and vindicate those of us at DU and elsewhere who feel cheated and abused by the Bushes and their cabal of corporate fascists.

I SAY WE MUST ALL RALLY BEHIND THE MAN WHO WAS LAWFULLY ELECTED BUT UNLAWFULLY DENIED HIS PLACE IN THE WHITE HOUSE IN 2000!

It is unpatriotic, IMHO, not to support the man who was actually lawfully elected and from whom (and from all of us) DEMOCRACY was STOLEN by a slimey bunch of murderous thieves.

[cjbuchanan]

9. They might not see it now but...

That is because none of the current candidates has had the publicity they will get come January 2004. Once we have the contest and the convention, all will know whoever gets the nod.

If Gore wants to run, that is fine by me, but I am going to judge him, and all other candidates, on the issues, not on what happen in 2000.

[diplomats]

10. I thought that was odd, too

because that's the same Zogby poll that had Bush down to 53 percent. And the number of Dems who think Bush will win was 56 percent in March. So that figure has gone up. But the war could be a reason for that. Just so we all don't get overly depressed, I'm certain the percentage who thought Poppy would win reelection at this point in his presidency was even higher. I know that's the case in a recent Pew poll.

[seventhson]

7. Goddamit, Gore is the only motherf*cker that can win!!!!

Wher\n will you people stop slamming him and get BEHIND him?

It is pathetic that peoiple fail to support the man who woin the last election fair and square despite ALL the rethuglican deceit and criminality.

2000 was a coup d'etat.

Corrupt judges and criminal conspiracies handed the office illegally to Bush.

GORE WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PRESIDENT!!!

We would be nowhere near the total bloodbath and mess we are in now.

I don't know about many of you, but I have a wife and beautiful chiuldren who are SUFFERING due to the criminals who stole this from Gore.

I also work in the inner city with homeless people and mothers with aids and sexually abused and physically abused children and adults - veterans (both Nam and Gulf War)


IN ORDER FOR AMERICA TO SURVIVE AS A FREE COUNTRY WE MUST HAVE GORE BACK.

I PLEDGE TO DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET HIM BACK IN THE RACE AND TO DEFEAT these pieces of shit who are robbing us blind and acting like a bunch of ruthless jackals.

GORE!GORE!GORE!GORE!GORE!GORE!GORE!GORE!GORE!GORE!GORE!GORE!GORE!

[Demobrat]

12. I love Gore. He is my president.

If he was running there would be no question. But he's not.

[seventhson]

13. not yet

but things have changed mightily since December 2002

There are MANY MANY good reasons fopr Gore to get back in.

For one: he knows how to use the internet for fundraising (even if Dean has had to teach everyne a lesson)so the DLC CAN become unnecessary.

Bush sucks and we all know it. All America knows it.

Nobody wants four more years of this shit - not even the republicans.

Frankly -- when someone says that he will not run (will not come back in)it is infuriating.

I think he would accerpt a draft and if the rank and file here and across the nation were to ask him to come back in he would.

Every time someone hesitates to suypport this it HURTS ALL of us.

Please do and say whatever it takes to get him back in.

He is , imho, the only one savvy enough to maneuver us OUT of the mess the BFEE has created with their wreck of the ship of state.

[dfong63]

19. baloney

There are MANY MANY good reasons fopr Gore to get back in.

For one: he knows how to use the internet for fundraising (even if Dean has had to teach everyne a lesson)so the DLC CAN become unnecessary.

this is not a reason for Gore to get in. if Dean can teach Gore to do it, then Dean can teach anyone.

Bush sucks and we all know it. All America knows it.

Nobody wants four more years of this shit - not even the republicans.

if this is true, then any dem candidate should be able to win - not just Gore as his sycophants believe.

Frankly -- when someone says that he will not run (will not come back in)it is infuriating.

personally, i find it infuriating when someone declares he won't run, then decides to get back in. such behavior proves that he is prone to making premature decisions, or he's not a man of his word, or both.

I think he would accerpt a draft and if the rank and file here and across the nation were to ask him to come back in he would.

so you want a president who makes a decision, but can't be counted on to stick to it. then i guess Al Gore is your man, all right. at least, until someone pressures him in the other direction.

Every time someone hesitates to suypport this it HURTS ALL of us.

wrong - every time Al Gore fails to quash these stupid rumors, it hurts the real candidates.

He is , imho, the only one savvy enough to maneuver us OUT of the mess the BFEE has created with their wreck of the ship of state.

he wasn't smart enough to keep his trap shut instead of "conceding" the race, when the bogus FL results came in. he wasn't smart enough to get all the FL votes counted. he wasn't smart enough to win, even though he won the election.

this time i want a candidate whose strength is knowing how to fight, not a candidate whose strength is being a gentlemanly loser.

[seventhson]

40. Well thank you for your Rovian analysis

Sounds like it came straight from their playbook.

The biggest fears of ther Rethugs is that Gore will get back in.

Why does this bother YOU?

Or do you want Bush to win?

I thiunk the Rovian plan is to slam Gore at every opportunity using DLC and fake planted "libdems" - especially at places like this.

But Hell - I think Nader and Kerry are both spooks. Their pedigrees at Princeton (a schoolchum of Rumsfeld) and Yale (a skull blood bro of All the Bushes - incvluding the financiers of Hitler) make them sauspect.

As does ANYONE who bashes Gore. Anytime.

Hey FAIR criticism is fair criticism.

But asd far as I am concerned he is the only TRUE leader right now. Bush et al are false leaders.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

50. Gore lead the Florida recount battle MISERABLY

Frankly, more retrospect leads me to conclude that he lead a lukewarm fight. It was his election to lose, and LOSE he did.

[robbedvoter]

57. Uh, the one Kerry told us to get over?

I doubt greatly that Gore will reconsider, but for a Kerry supporter to even bring the coup is...chutzpa?

[Samantha]

94. This is simply a blatantly false statement

Gore used the two vehicles which gave him the best chance of challenging the results of the election in Florida: "A Recount Primer", the political Bible for challenging the results of an election and the Constitution of the State of Florida. While all of the election experts said Gore had only a long shot at overturning the results, in the aftermath we know he would have done exactly that had the recount not been stopped by the Supreme Court.

The final order of the Supreme Court of the State of Florida ordered all overvotes and undervotes to be counted. While most experts thought Gore's chances of victory would come with the counting of the undervotes, an analysis of the overvotes showed more lost votes for Gore than undervotes. Had the recount been allowed to proceed, he would have won. It is not a coincidence that those overvotes which were not counted surfaced in Republican counties, as opposed to the few heavily populated Democratic counties where the recount began. Gore is not sitting in the White House today because five Supreme Court judges through their issuance of that illegal opinion threw the election to George Bush.

We have enough Republicans misconstruing the facts -- why do we do that here at DU as well?

[loyalsister]

77. You must be kidding

"The biggest fears of ther Rethugs is that Gore will get back in."

I really doubt that. I enthusiastically supported Gore in 2000, and was hoping he'd run in '04. I would however, lose respect for him if he decided to now. The presidency is a pretty big deal. It's the kind of job the person better really want badly. If he won a primary, I would support him, but not in the primary. He hasn't shown me that he has any sort of burning desire to be my president in 2004.

[Maple]

18. Gore has had two shots at being president

and not made it. He comes close, but just doesn't have the oompfh politically to get over the top.

If you want to win...and this next time it's crucial for the country that you do...pick someone else.

It's not fair, and he's a good guy and all...but pick someone else.

[SammyWinstonJack]

46. He came close in 2000?

News to me. Half a million votes+ is close? I choose Gore and I hope he gets back in and beats * by an even greater margin than he did in 2000.

[goforit]

71. Hello??? Maple???.......Abe Lincoln lost 100 times before he was

president!!!

You can lose as many times as ya want and still come out a winner!!

Poppy Bush lost 100 times over and now look at the A** .....

He's the richest man in the world!!!

Anything can happen!

The light bulb just has to turn on!!!

[noiretextatique]

20. if he joins the race, i'd vote for him

i still think he is the one who can beat bush.

[freethought23]

27. Wesley Clark could beat Bush

I don't like him much, but he would be a popular choice in the general election. He could use Ike's "I will go to Korea" (Iraq) theme, and it could work. He has managed to conceal his enormous ego in his TV appearances, and comes across as mild and self-effacing.

Is there any more news about whether he will run as a Democrat?

[SammyWinstonJack]

44. Won't catch me slamming Gore

He was always my first choice! If he decides to run against *, (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!) I will back him all the way to victory again! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[goforit]

15. DLC nervous?...LOL!!!....I love Gore, but DEAN and KUCINICH are

doing outstanding!!!.....

A year off and the train will be at full steam ahead!!!

It is up to the press to support our candidates!!!

We need a completely clean house and

ALL the DLC candidates are pathetically DIRTY!!!

[tomp]

16. with all the predictions of voting irregularities.....

....it would be interesting to see how the press would handle any discrepancies. and how far dare the junta go in its theft when all eyes will be peeled for such irregularities if gore is in the race? something to consider, i think.

[joshcryer]

17. Funny thing is... if this really is a trial balloon...

...it could actually compell Gore to run because of all the publicity it's beginning to get... Guess Drudge didn't think of than when he posted this.

[Code_Name_D]

23. Gore: the ultimate primary spoiler.

This disturbs me significantly. All though Gore dose, and shall always have the right to run if he wants to. I would only "mechanically" support the decision, but I see Gore running as a serious problem for America in the long term.

My greatest fear is that a moderate democrat would win the White House. Such a democrat would allow Bush and his cronies to bow out gracefully, and without fear of further investigation or prosecution, letting much of the core of the GOP to return back into the shadows to begin working on the next cue. The Republicans in congress may just lose the majority, but with a moderate in charge; they would still retain effective control over congressional agenda.

Gepheartd, Kerry, and Leabermen are all just these sort of candidates. Heck, they might even just retain these Fascists in their presidential cabinets. And unfortunately, I have to place Gore in with the same camp. But unlike the other three, Gore actually has a shot at winning both the primary, and the general election. And this little trial balloon tells me that the media is ready to back off Gore for the primary, and may even spin him in a positive light, at least when taking on Dean or DK.

Don't forget, the cooperation's likes to hedge their bets. Putting Gore back on the Democratic ticket would be the ultimate hedge. The corporations know Gore, and even like Gore. Gore is still DLC material, and is quite loyalty to the corporations. And there is nothing like a few fun-raising 50,000 dollar a plate dinners to enforce that loyalty.

Gore may just win the White House, but the rest of us would still lose in the long term. The GOP would stand with their criminal behavior unchallenged, and the corporate control would be unbroken. The rest of us still has to keep our eyes on the prize, and winning the White House isn't the final goal, taking back America, is.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

29. "This disturbs me significantly...."

See how the GOP would love to disrupt our primary?

[seventhson]

32. This from a Kerry Skull and Bones frat bro of Bush supporter

Kerry is the preferred BFEE candidate if Bush goes down and is the backup VP candidate behind Gore so they can take Gore out and keep control with Kerry.

I would go with Gore-Dean. Gore-Biden, Gore-Feingold (my fave)

I don't care what anybody says, frankly. The slam Gore people help Bush.

If Gore (and/or maybe Hillary whom I don't really trust) are the only two Dems who will beat Bush then we must back them.

Getting the White House AWAY from Bush is the key even if he is not asd left as we want (but I actually believe he is probably to the left of many of the Dems - even Dean (buy not Kucininch) and actually has the balls and nohow to undo the HARM we have suffered.

My family is in dire straits and we need relief due to these criminals.

Only GORE in my opinion, will actually be able to make it happen and get the economy and foreign relations back on track.

My biggest fear is that they (the BFEE) him - and who will be sdtanding to take his place.

I like Russ Feingold as VP

[Code_Name_D]

76. Do we take back the White House or America?

The two ends are not necessarily one and the same. If you read my post, I did say I felt Gore had a chance at beating Bush. But I do have a few caveats here.

First, Gore will not be any where near as effective as we might think. Largely because Gore subscribes to the DLC's model of appealing to the center. Such strategy was what lead him to pick Leabermen as his running mate. It also lead him away from "negative campaigning" by trying to point out Bush's flaws like his likely drug use, or the sudden relations of his driving record. He was also completely ineffective in using the media in delivering his "message" which in and of itself, was tailored to appeal to the greatest common denominator, still falling short of actually claming to accomplish any thing.

If Gore should try a repeat of the last strategy, than he is doomed to fail, because the political landscape has changed so drastically. There are no more centrist any more. You are either with Bush, or against him, a line in the sand drawn my Bush himself. I have yet to see any thing from Gore that would lead me to thing that he isn't still trying to play both sides of the fence.

But of course, Gore is not likely to try and play the same game twice around. I suspect he is smarter than that. But so long as he continues to subscribe to the DLC's centrist philosophy, than truly how far afield can he go from the last battle plan?

Second. The vary political landscape itself has changes drastically, and has changed ever since 2000. Liberals and progressives have learned that you just can not count on the so called "liberal biased media." In response, they have built what I call the "ready media" (including things like Bartcop and the DU). If a dem is to have a chance, they must abandoned the corporate media, and turn instead to on the ground volunteers (to reach the poor on the street) and the ready media (to reach the on the ground volunteers). One has to challenge the corporate anti-spin against one-self, by using the ready media to set the record strait.

Dean has already shown that this can work. A) to raise money B) to reach your supporters, and C) challenge the attacks of his opponents, both overt and covert. These are options that Gore didn't have in 2000, because they didn't exist back then.

But they exist now. Gore could turn on his computer tomorrow, and speak to any one interested in hearing what he has to say all the way around the world, and do so at NO COST. But he hasn't done so. So why hasn't he done so? Well, we will forgive him the fact that he is not active in politics at the moment (he still says he will NOT run.) But that aside, is he even aware of the ready media? I call it the ready media because it's ready and waiting for the Dems to show up. Thus far, only a hand full have taken it up, and are being slow to embrace its possibilities. The DLC itself has actively rejected the ready media, and the "activists" that it is comprised of.

Third: Gore isn't what we need now. Let's face it, Gore is a centrist, and continues to be one. And centrists are just not popular these days. The Democratic base is saying this loudly and clearly (Which is possibly why Gore will not run.) They don't just wasn't Bush out of the White House, they want to see justice done for the treason Bush has committed against America itself. They want to see a full and thorough accounting of all the wrong doing that is now taking place in the white house. Every thing from Black Box voting (the continuing rot from Florida 2000) to Yellowcake. They want to see the system reformed from A to Z with a laundry list that was started back in the 70's. The centrists have only added woe to that list, not addressed it. The people spoke on 2002, they will no longer hold their nose to vote.

But of course, I can hear the rant already. "But code name, you have to vote for the democrat, no mater who he is! Or do you want Bush to win again?" Well, I most certainly have to do no such thing.

There are two competing goals here, the short term, IE: the White House, and the long term which is America itself. The later is born from a much more complicated understanding of our problems, while the former seems to have tunnel vision. The problem is that WE DO NOT HAVE FREE AND FARE ELECTIONS! We haven't had once sense the 70 when the GOP and DLC came on the political stage. Oh sure, they will let you vote, but only after the corporations had their first pick on what your options are. That is why you are stuck with "tweatal dum and tweatal dee." But from the corporeal stand point, they support Golden boy #1, and Golden boy #2. And it's the corporate agenda that controls the platforms and agendas of BOTH the GOP and the DLC. Gore is just another Golden Boy.

Oh sure, you may be elated in the short term. Much wine and merrymaking will flow on his inauguration. But just like Clinton, you will discover that Gore will never take the "final step" for reforms, leaving the job half done, and the rest of America exactly where it started. But mean while, the cooperation's have every wish list fulfilled, with just a touch of finger waving to behave themselves. Bush will walk away a national hero, and pocket billions from his owns Iraq policy and tax cuts. His cabinet will begin entertain dreams of running for the white house themselves, and the GOP will be all too happy to give them the chance.

That isn't winning in the long run, but just biting down again on the fish hook handed to us by the real power behind America. The corporations. From that perspective, the battle lines are no longer neatly drawn between Dems and Repugs. I now must draw the line between thews who are too friendly with the corporations, and those who are not. Dean and DK are the first candidates I have ever seen to even remotely fall into the later category. But this also means that I can no more vote for Gepheartd or Leabermen, any more than I could vote for Bush & Cheeny. For all the measures that count, there is no difference between them, they are all servants to the same corporate masters.

[Lostnote03]

98. Code.....

.....I agree with your supposition to the extent that it was applicable prior to 2000......Things have certainly changed for both the country and I believe Gores view of his big money backers....He knows that he was abandoned by many that should have helped him in both the 2000 challenge as well as supporting him earlier in the primary season.....in any case these issues combined with the populace draft movement should certainly move him away from the DLCs vision of centrist politics.....ultimatly all that he has been through will certainly make him stronger as an individual....whether or not there is a sizable shift in Congress I believe that Gore will throw his sizable influence behind a revaluation of the necessary investigations to heal our country.....Then again he is from Tennessee????lol....as a Kentuckian I am always suspect of anyone from Tennessee......

[RummyTheDummy]

24. I hope he runs.....

Try as I might, I can't get excited about ANY of the nine announced canidates. Plus Gore's fundraising ability would make the top three's efforts look like chump change. That's not a reason to run in itself, but you gotta pay the bills.

[NotesFromAnIntrovert]

75. I'm where you're at 'RummyTheDummy'.

I've yet to work up an iota of interest and/or excitement for the 9 we have running right now, although I'm sure I'll vote for whichever candidate gets the nomination.

Personally, Gore's always been my first choice - nothing changes that. But, I'm doubtful that he'll reconsider, regardless of the pressure from others.

[Skip Intro]

26. Sweet! (Gore/Clark?) n/t

[mithnanthy]

61. SWEET!

Gore/Clark 2004....I can dream can't I?

[MasonJar]

28. Gore is tops

I think that Gore would have an excellent chance of winning the whole shooting match. The press are not going to be able to treat him like they did before because I for one will not let them. Bush has told so many lies and done such damage to the environment (one of Gore's strongest ideals), the economy, world opinion, etc. that the Bush lies will be front and center every time someone comes down on Gore.

I like other candidates too; I want whoever can beat shrub. I cannot take 4 more years of this and neither can the country.

[Selwynn]

30. I hate to say it...

But I strongly fear that Bush will be re-elected with ease. I don't believe we have the right kind of candidate to contend with him, and I believe money talks, and he's rasing a boatload of it The American people, bless their hearts, are stupid and frequently make decisions based on what blind fantasy they WANT to believe rather than what they know to be true.

They want to belive Bush is a "man of the people" with a "compassionate conservatism" and they want to believe that he's the right man for the "war on terror" and quite frankly -- bush makes people feel better about being stupid dumb fucks. Sorry, but I seriously believe this is true. I think many Americans would rather vote for an idiot than an intellectually sophisticated man becuase most Americans are in fact idiots and they don't like to be reminded of that fact by someone who might asctually possess some significant intellectual and leadership capacity, as well as a well developed sense of critical reasoning and a versedness in world affairs. They would rather vote for the "good ol boy" or the guy who is "just one of us" or "plain spoken" -- in other words, someone who makes people feel better about being stupid dumb fucks.

I think the combination of all of those things means Bush has the advantage, not the disadvantage, going into the elections.

Sel

[cjbuchanan]

53. You are a real people person ;)

I just want to ask, what have you done to help educate people on the issues of the day? I ask because most of my friends who share your opinion have not done much to reach out to people.

Major media does not cover a lot of the things we want them to cover. Since most Americans get their news from major media, can we fault them for not knowing? What I have found is that most people do not know where to find other information nor do they have the time. So I have taken it on myself to print out a few articles every couple days and give them to various friends. Some don't read them, but others do. The people that do become more involved and less dependant on major media. I have seen this work and I encourage you to do it yourself.

Our whole American society is based on apathy and the only way to fix it is not to be apathetic.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

56. apathy and willful denial. nt

[Selwynn]

80. I'm really late in responding, but....

I'm responding anyway...

"I just want to ask, what have you done to help educate people on the issues of the day? I ask because most of my friends who share your opinion have not done much to reach out to people."

Well, I know this is going to sound phony, but believe it or not, I would say one of my top priorities is trying to help educate people on the issues of the day. First of all, I take it on myself to do the research, and then shower my own social circle with information countering the misconceptions and outright falsehoods of the popular media. That usually spawns argument, at which point I take a lot of time to really discuss these things with people and try to help them see the bigger picture. I also write and submit articles when I can to various publications (small ones, I'm not trying to make myself sound important or anything) as a kind of voice for "getting the message out." When I was still doing my undergrad work I used to campain for issues and awareness. And yeah, I've even been on my state capital steps rallying against an unjust bill that thankfully was not passed on two occaisions.

So the point is this: I do try to help encourage thoughtful informed debate by assiting in the exposure of others to actual facts. But the key is, people have to WANT to hear the truth before you can get anywhere, and that's usually where the whole thing breaks down. :)

PS -- I'm much nicer in person <wink>
Sel

[joshcryer]

72. Agreed.

Bush will not be reelected.

[acropolis]

31. Gore favored invading Iraq

throughout the 90's. I'm surprised that so many people can manage to be anti-war and yet like Gore. It's quite a gerrymander it is.

But at least he pretended to be liberal, which is more than anyone in this batch can claim. Cept maybe Kucinich.

[seventhson]

33. BS

Throughout the '90's?

He supported the liberation of Kuwait from Saddam as a Senator -- but to say he supported invasion like this is total b.s.

Another Rethuglican talking point.

Why do you people fall for that shit?

[RummyTheDummy]

34. Don't even bother replying.

He's just another Freep disruptor. Pay him no mind.

[acropolis]

36. ?

All I'm saying is that I never saw Gore as a liberal,

and if we're going to have wet dreams over who we would want to run, we can do better.

If you htink he really was liberal, then argue that, but saying that I'm just trying to 'disrupt' things simply isn't true.

[seventhson]

42. Gore is a Progressive

Liberal, Constitutionally minded, and proud of Democracy.

Unlike Bush who wishes and tries to make this a dictatorship.

Gore's splendid "Earth in the Balance" is progressive (left of liberal) Environmentalism.

I disagree with Gore on few things. And I am probably to the left of Kucinich (and an ardent pacifist).

Gore is a Mensch.

He CAN win and will if we quit being a bunch of half-hearts, nitwits and naysayers.

[acropolis]

54. That's another thing

I don't see how having someone ghostwrite a pro-environment book for you overrides your voting record.

Up until he needed to look like a lefty (to get on the '92 ticket) Gore had a hugely mediocre environmental voting record.

link==>

http://www.socialistaction.org/news/199911/gore.html

now I'm sure someone is going to tell me that "socialist action" is secretly a repuke mouthpiece, but I'm not buying it.

the fact that he is against the war now is more token Gore; leaping onto the politically expedient bandwagon.

Obviously I voted for him in 2000, and I would love to vote for him again if he got on the ticket. But he is simply not a liberal.

[haymaker]

58. I got cab fare,

for when you decide to get the fuck out of here and take your blastfax, snoooooooze opinions with you.

[LiberalLibra]

79. With comments like you made you're doing a good job disrupting..........

....without trying.

[seventhson]

41. Thanks Rummy

But nothing gets my bile flowing like those who attack my President (Albert Gore Jr., that is)!!!

[acropolis]

35. Repukes go the opposite

all I ever hear is that "if Gore would have been president, all we would have done is send a stern letter to bin Laden"

which is the real lie. Gore was always an interventionist; Bush was the isolationist in the election. How people can not remember three years ago is beyond me.

And I did not say "an invasion like this," were he a senator still in 2002 I would guess he would have supported it, but would have tried to make sure it was done right.

[seventhson]

38. He publicly opposed this invasion

That is the record. Guessing is fine, I guess, but offers no proof of anything.

If all you keep hearing is that Gore would have only sent a letter then I wonder where you are hearing ALL that?

I did not call you a disruptor, though - I merely said these are rethug talking points that you are repeating to the benefit of Bush.

I'm asking nicely that you stop.

Gore will win if he runs!

[Liberal_Andy]

43. "Gore favored invading Iraq"?

Can you provide any evidence of that?

Links please?

[acropolis]

49. Sort of...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/23/politics/main523030.shtml This includes some of it.

In 1991, Gore voted in favor of invading intervening, and said that he felt betrayed by Bush's withdrawal. In 1998 he supposedly supported a real invasion again.

And he is right. It is a repuke argument.

But when the repukes say that such and such a person is/was on their side, I tend to lose some respect for that person (as opposed to changing my views of the issue).

[Baconfoot]

51. "I would never start this war." --Al Gore April 4, 2003 (re: IRAQ)

http:www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0304/S00204.htm

[Samantha]

91. Gore drew a perfectly understandable distinction between the first Gulf

War and his opposition to attacking Iraq shortly before Bush* dropped the bombs. In an interview shortly before the war, Gore said he was one of the few Democrats who voted to support the first Gulf War because Iraq had invaded the borders of a sovereign nation, Kuwait. If the United States bombed Iraq preemptively, Gore said, shortly before Bush* did exactly that, the United States would be doing exactly what it attacked Iraq for in the 90s. We would be invading the borders of a sovereign nation. He was right about that.

Gore further went on to say our priority should be the war in Afghanistan, because it was the terrorists who were shooting at us, not Iraq. A war on Iraq would deplete the resources needed to conduct the war on terror, Gore said. He was right about that as well.

There was no question we could win militarily, Gore said, it was what would happen afterwards that would be the question. Once again, Gore was right.

That's why Gore is the best candidate the Democrats could run. He's more often right than not about critical issues.

There are a lot of erroneous comments on this thread about Gore, but I couldn't let this one slide.

[Neutrino]

39. I don't know. Gore's rationality and reasonableness, along

with his measured speech patterns--the things that have brought
the "Bore" tag, just might be what the voter wants to see after
the staccato illiteracy of Bush--and in a debate he would kill
Shrub. America has been through the mill with killing and lying
and dreams of Global Domination, our young soldiers dying at
the rate of 1 and now 2 and three a day. And the Economy!

America just might want Gore because he is a known entity,
and he has a track record of thoughtful decision-making. So,
although I like Dean, this country is in deep trouble and
if Gore can kick it, then he should try.

[CarlWoodward]

45. We can't run another "bush-lite"

I like and respect Gore. I voted for him in '00 (or, at least I think I did, I voted in Palm Beach County, Fla., so my ballot may have gone to Buchanan ...) Had he not been robbed by the Supremes, I think we'd be in a much better position than we're in right now.

The irony is that his 2000 campaign was widely criticized for its progressive, anti-corporate, pro-"little guy" message that also stressed realistic, throught foreign policy. All of the "experts" thought his strategy was stupid (even though he ultimately won a majority of the votes).

But today those progressive ideas are the same bells that Dean is ringing, with great success. People are flocking to his campaign because he's a real alternative to Bush, while some of the other candidates are more "Bush-lite" than anything else. But Gore has gotten very little credit for championing these same ideas three years ago.

It shows just how much the world has changed, particularly among the Democratic base. Unfortunately, the media long ago decided they disliked Gore, and I fear that he would be slammed hard if he chose to jump in at this point.

[Baconfoot]

52. TheMediaCanUNdecideItDislikesGoreIfIt Wants50MillionGoreVoters2watchItN/T

n/t

[Lostnote03]

47. Gore/Kerry!!!!!!!!!!!!

....This is the team that I wanted in 2000 and the team that I know can beat the GOP in 2004....If anyone believes that the events of 2000 and all that have followed has not changed Gores political allignment I haven't a clue as how to explain it to them....I guess we'll have to wait and see how this plays out....

[robbedvoter]

60. But then Kerry would be reminded of the stolen election

His brain would explode! The two have nothing in common: Kerry - still supports the war, Gore: said it was against international law...I know Gore is not returning - but he was my candidate for all possible reasons. Hoping for Clark.

[Guaranteed]

65. How about Gore/Dean?

Gore could use a little bit of Dean's passion backing him up.

[Gman]

64. As Dems, we've gotten to where we expect to lose

Over the last 30 years, there's only been a Dem in the WH twice. Carter lost reelection, Clinton reelected.

[Octafish]

68. KERRY is who they fear.

Rove's mantra: Anybody but KERRY. Consider:

We're hearing about Al Gore coming back...from Drudge.
We're hearing about Hillary coming into the fray...from Drudge.
We've heard about repealing the Amendment limiting William Jefferson to two terms...from Drudge.
The pukes want Shrubler to face anybody but Kerry. Not from Drudge.
The focus groups have Rove flooding his Depends. For penance, may Drudge have to change them for the Duration.

[seventhson]

69. Ever heard of reverse psychology? That's bullshyte Octa

You think Drudge WANTS Gore in there because Kerry will be harder to beat?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH (WHEW) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


THAT IS RIDICULOUS


I hereby declare that I unfortunately am of the opinion that ANYBODY who supports Bush's Skull brother Kerry over Gore LOVES the Bushes.

Kerry is BFEE IMO.

Gore is NOT.

Kerry supported Bush in Iraq, in the destruction of our freedoms, and in the spookiest nastiest culture of political lies ever seen in history (with the possible exception of Hitler except that he is not really an exception - he is the rule - since Skull and Bonesers were identified as running Nazi businesses DURING our war with the Nazis).

I think Kerry is a spook for the BFEE (as is Nader) and I BELIEVE practically anybody who supports these guys is either knowingly or ignorantly supporting the BFEE.

My opinion. You are free to have your own.

GORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Octafish]

74. I don't find it funny. Kerry is the best candidate.

You are deluded if you think Kerry is BFEE, in your opinion.

Kerry has fought the BFEE his entire adult life. GOOGLE Kerry + BCCI or Iran-contra drug or Ollie North. You'll see the truth — like Ollie siccing the FBI's crack anti-terror squad on Sen. Kerry for asking about the DEA agents' charges about John Hull, La Penca and the Honduran operations — but you won't recognize it, IMO.



Here John Kerry is going to jail for protesting against the war in Vietnam. The same war he fought in, earning three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star for heroism in combat. You don't get that stuff unless you earn it. Nixon even put him on his Enemies List. That's why he's the guy the BFEE fears.

[seventhson]

81. Ever seen the Manchurian Candidate?

The BFEE and others in the nether world of spooks and spies and murky ivy league/fascist wall street dirty tricks plans WAAAAAYYYYY ahead.

They use both parties.

They assassinate when they believe it is necessary

They plant and sprinkle their candidates all over.

It is a historical fact that members of Skull and Bones OFTEN are recruited and become tools of this nether world and that they have been involved in everything from the financing of Hitler and the support of the Nazi party to the destabilization of democracies and political assassination here and abroad.

In the Manchurian candidate the puppet politician is put into place with the "help" of a medal of honor war hero from Korea whu is used by dark, murky nasties with global totalitarian political ties.

I have spent my entire adult life doing political research and have found the Yale skull and bones operation the most reprehensible criminal fascist enterprise in history.

I am not deluded at all. I am well educated on the subject. I am very close to it as well. I KNOW these people - many of them. I come from that background and was raised to become a part of it (unwittingly) and I rebelled against it. I saw what itr did to family and friends. It corrupted them and many of them did not even know it. Loyalty to the clan of Yale and Harvard and Princeton and SILENCE on the evils of maintaining the wealth ad power of the elites.

I do not believe that Kerry deserved his medals and he has admitted NOT throwing them away as he pretended in 1971.

Ollie North's dirty tricks (if any) are easily viewed as part of the plan to MAKE Kerry look bona fide. Kerry let Bush et al get away with MURDER in his feeble reports and investigations: he NEVER ONCE named Bush I or II as conspirators in any of the iran-cocaine-contra-gun running businesses. He LET THEM WALK, despite your claims to the contrary. He never laid a finger on the primary architects of the corruption.

Remember in the Manchurian candidate that the subterfuge and deceit was such that the primary anticommunist politician - the mcCarthy figure - was actually being controlled by fascist communists from Russian and China. His whole PURPOSE was to mislead the people into believing he was the opposite of what he was in order to capture the white house and global dominance for the dark forces.

This is what I believe KERRY's role is: he is an agent of the right put in place years ago with the medals and the whole BS antiwar shtick and pseudo-fakey investigations (which nailed as its biggest fish Clark Clifford - a top democratic operative). If Bush fucks things up so bad he can't win the BFEE has picked Kerry to replace him just as they picked Carter to replace the bumbler Ford and Clinton (who covered up the Iran Contra cocaine thing while governor of Arkansas for Bush et al) to replace "read my lips" bumbler Bush I.

The BFEE has Kerry (and possibly, IMHO, Hillary - another who knew and covered up the Arkansas illegalities) as their backups.

THAT is why they attack Gore at every turn.

THAT is why there are a million Kerry apologists on this board with high profile "progressive" credentials.

THAT is why, kids, every time Gore is mentioned a thousand DUers try to dance on his grave and keep him there.

That is what I believe.

Deluded?

By whom? Certainly not by the BFEE. The BFEE WANTS us to believe that Kerry is against them. He isn't. He is their contingency plan.

Anyone who understands global fascist politics understands that when you have this much money, power and control of the media you leave almost NOTHING to chance.


Gore is NOT their agent and thus he must be smashed by them at every turn.

Don't be a sucker, Octafish.

[Octafish]

84. So, Kerry got wounded three times ...

... and stood up to an enemy shooting RPGs and machine guns at him and his boat to look good for the BFEE? I don't think so. And I know more about conspiracies, fascist and otherwise, than most people — including people who had to research the history of solitaire and azalias in order to pattern Major Marko and the Chinese General in The Manchurian Candidate.

Regarding Kerry: You have a personal animus toward him, ostensibly based on his membership in Skull & Bones. So he joined an elite society, the top social fraternity for the "best" of the best at Yale. So what? Unlike Raymond and his hands, Kerry's entire adult life is a public record. In it he's always done what was best for his country and his countrymen.

George W Bush, on the other hand, has not. He's acted the part of the spoiled brat. To wit: Spoiled brats from the elite don't volunteer for combat. Spoiled brats from the elite don't rock the boat and shed light on CIA-drug running during Iran-Contra. Spoiled brats from the elite don't create a 18-year record of supporting Liberal causes.

Oops. Oh I forgot. That's the secret plan. Not.

Here's a photo for you. The man on the right was President of the United States. HE WAS KILLED BY A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. People like George (“Poppy” as Oswald’s handler de Mohrenschildt called him) Bush Senior were mentioned prominently in association with the crime. Bush Sr also played a role in its cover-up as head of the CIA and later President. THE GUY ON THE LEFT IS A TEEN-AGER NAMED JOHN KERRY. HE'S INTERESTED IN BUSTING THE BFEE. HE’S THE ONLY CANDIDATE WHO HAS A CHANCE OF DOING SO.

MY QUESTION TO YOU: WHY DON’T YOU WANT HIM TO?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

85. The man in the middle

was President (Kennedy) not sure about the guy on the right (in red). Maybe a Bouvier?

[Octafish]

90. Good catch! Sorry. Here's another photo...

I think I meant to write "middle."

Could the unidentified person be Kerry's late father?

Here's an interesting photo from around the same time, JFK and John Kerry watch the America's Cup races from the deck of the USS Joseph P. Kennedy Jr., a destroyer named after the President's big brother, who died while flying a modified B-24 Liberator bomber on a Top Secret mission during World War 2. This is one of those places where Kerry learned about "service to one's country" is all about.

[seventhson]

86. Liberal causes like the patriot (sic) act and the Homeland security (act..

and the Iraq war?


I think the medals deals were faked, yes I do.

They went outside the usual channels according to witnesses (I don't have the link now but I have posted it before)


You say:HE'S INTERESTED IN BUSTING THE BFEE. HE’S THE ONLY CANDIDATE WHO HAS A CHANCE OF DOING SO.

MY QUESTION TO YOU: WHY DON’T YOU WANT HIM TO?



I WOULD BE HAPPY if he did want to bust the BFEE. He is NOT the only candidate who has a chance of doing so and he is much more heavily ibnversted in the status quo being the ricjest senator than any other candidate.

I do have the belief that his social and political ties to the Bush cabal and to skull and bones (which is ultimately a political apparatus for the elites to hold power) makes him the LEAST likely candidate to want to bust the BFEE.

YOU trust him.


NOT ME!!!


I trust Gore who has NONE of the Kerry bullshit baggage

[IndianaGreen]

87. The "best of the best" is what got us in Vietnam in the first place

So he joined an elite society, the top social fraternity for the "best" of the best at Yale. So what?

And membership in Skull & Bones is for sale to the children of the monied elites, not based on academic credentials, as evident by the Bushes in the case of W and the Forbes in the case of Kerry.

Kerry will not extricate the US from Iraq!

[Samantha]

93. Welcome back, seventhson

I've missed seeing your posts on the Gore threads. Sorry to read your family has been hit hard by events. Hopefully things will get better when Gore wins in 2004.

I totally agree with you on Kerry. Kerry's obtaining the nomination would irreparably split the Democratic party, the Karl Rove endgame. Kerry's unfortunate remarks following the Electoral College vote in 2000 still ring in my ears: I was not asked to sign the petition of the Congressional Black Caucus, and I wouldn't have signed had I been asked. Kerry is all about Kerry. Planning his own run in 2004, he chose to turn his back on 51 million voters who had selected Gore to be president in favor of covering his own political options. If my vote was not worth his fighting for during the election 2000 controversy, he shouldn't be expecting me to cast it for him now. There are some things bigger than one's own political aspirations, and one of those is protecting the Constitution, which Kerry swore to do. This he elected not to do in favor of furthering his own best interests. I won't vote for Kerry even if he should win the Democratic party nomination.

All that aside, he's a man who can't evolve out of the 60s.

His favorable vote on the Iraq vote alone would have repelled me from him even had he not stuck his political foot in his mouth two years earlier. I just don't see how anyone can expect someone like John Kerry who has alienated millions of African-American voters with his political insensitivity to pull the base together and defeat Bush*. Not going to happen. Many Dems will sit at home on election day before they will vote for Kerry.

[seventhson]

95. Thanks Samantha

I know many DUers feel the way I do about Kerry AND Nader.

They are dividing the dems and failing the people.

Gore is the one who can and should take his rightful seat as President.

It IS about 2000. And 2001, 2,3 and mostly now it is about 2004!!!

Bush has been a fucking disater.

Gore will beat him and we all need to get behind him -- otherwise we are looking at four more years of Bush and BFEEVIL . Mark my words.


GORE!!!!

[Voltaire99]

78. Run, Al, run! So that I can vote for Nader again.

After all, what's changed? Gore spent his post-humiliation years teaching journalism exactly as he would have led the nation: by inviting the slimy Rupert Murdoch into his classroom, an act symbolic of his spinelessness. Want more? He supported the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions. He praised Bush. He bit his tongue and hid.

Then, when he showed signs of moving to the left last year (amid much talk of how he wished he'd been his own man in the campaign), the DLC clique beat him down. He was yesterday's news. He would find no fatcat donors for a campaign. And so on.

It's kind of late in the day for Gore to say he can dress himself--just as it's late, very late, for the spent Democratic Party to be naval gazing. Develop some principles, find some courage, and get a progressive in charge of your sinking ship, fast!

[Born Free]

82. Still don't get it?

The political mode of America is more like a pendulum rather than a circle, you can't get to the left by pushing to the right - you must return by way of the middle. Some are misled into believing that if they help the right wing destroy America, everyone will then become a liberal - it does not work that way. Helping the right wing destroy America and all it stands for does not help promote liberal ideas. The only way is through the middle, to regain control and gradually show the liberal ideas work. It doesn't happen over night.

[seventhson]

83. so you WANT Bush to win!

that's what supporting Nader would indicate to me.

[are_we_united_yet]

92. Say What?

[seventhson]

96. He SAID he WAnts bUSh TO WIn SO BAd THaT HE WILL SUpPOrT

ANYBOdy But gORe.

But he is a little mixed up.

[w4rma]

99. Al Gore is working behind the scenes on building a liberal media network

...
Gore has also been helpful to Chicago venture capitalists Sheldon and Anita Drobny, who announced in February that they planned to fund a liberal radio network to counterbalance such conservative commentators as Rush Limbaugh. Several sources said Gore has helped introduce the Drobnys to such Hollywood political forces as producer-director Rob Reiner. Comedian Al Franken, author of the book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot," is considering hosting a show on the Drobnys' network, and added that the couple has approached Gore to do regular essays. Anita Drobny declined to comment about any venture involving Gore, telling TIME: "I'm not at liberty to say anything about that. As far as Vice President Gore, you'll have to call him to ask him about his project and what they are doing." Gore and Hyatt did not respond to repeated requests for an interview.
...
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,459345,00.html

...
Gore has also been spending time with Chicago venture capitalists Anita and Sheldon Drobny, who have vowed to spend $10 million to start a liberal talk radio network to counter conservatives like Rush Limbaugh. Time.com says Gore introduced the Drobnys to actor-director Rob Reiner and other liberal Hollywood heavyweights.
...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/18/politics/main559275.shtml

[depakid]

101. For the umpeenth time

you're paying too much attenbtion to bogus polls. They mean absolutwly NOTHING, especialy now- and are more than likely designed ro influence opinion than to measures it. I've gone on about poll methodology ad infinitim and the studity in misreading them, but I'm just too tired to do it anymore.

If you enjoy being manipulated, by all means, labor over all the latest results- their worth about as much as the silly DU polls we do here online.