Al Gore: The Write-In Front-Runner
A funny thing happened when the Deaniacs were asked to decide who they might want to back for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.
The supporters of the 2004 presidential campaign of former Vermont Governor Howard Dean and their allies, who form the base of the Democracy for America organization nationally, have been participating in recent days in a poll to see whether a liberal “consensus candidate” can be identified.
It’s an online vote, certainly not a scientific survey. (To vote — http://democracyforamerica.com/pulsepoll)
But the voting so far has been revealing. The announced candidates for the Democratic nod are all pictured on the DFA website — www.democracyforamerica.com — and several of them have taken advantage of the opportunity offered them by the group to dispatch emails explaining their candidacies to DFA lists.
So who is winning as the contest heads toward its November 5 conclusion — a date that conveniently falls two months before Iowa Democrats will be attending what could well be definitional caucuses?
It’s not Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama; not even John Edwards, who has made a serious play for DFA support. It is not even Dennis Kucinich, the anti-war progressive who is arguably the candidate most in tune with DFA positions in global and domestic issues.
The front-runner is a write-in candidate: former Vice President Al Gore.
Here’s how the numbers looked as of Monday afternoon:
Al Gore (write in) 26499… 26.68%
Dennis Kucinich 23951… 24.11%
Barack Obama 18253… 18.38%
John Edwards 15065… 15.17%
Bill Richardson 5726… 5.76%
Hillary Clinton 4421… 4.45%
Other 2056… 2.07%
Christopher Dodd 1551… 1.56%
Joe Biden 997… 1%
Mike Gravel 814… 0.82%
Gore has maintained a lead for more than a week.
It is not likely that the recent Nobel Peace Prize winner will be lured into the race by an online poll. But his unexpected showing tells us two things:
1. Gore has genuine support among progressives. DFA poll participants had to go to extra trouble to write his name in and got no prompting from the group on the possibility of going for the former vice president and 2004 Dean backer. This suggests that, for so long as Gore teases about a race, former “Draft Gore” activists and their grassroots allies — who have stepped up their activism in Iowa, New Hampshire and other early caucus and primary states — will find support for their entreaties.
2. The Gore possibility is a serious problem for announced candidates who seek to position themselves as alternatives to presumed Democratic front-runner Clinton. DFA rules require that a candidate get more than 66 percent of the vote to earn an endorsement from the group, which maintains a reasonably solid infrastructure nationally and which serves as a useful bully pulpit among liberal Democrats. It is unlikely that Kucinich, Obama or Edwards could get to the 66 percent level even without the loss of 27 percent of the vote someone who isn’t even running. But with the write-ins going to Gore, there is little likelihood that any announced candidate will get near the numbers that are needed for an endorsement.
As such, Al Gore is actually helping Hillary Clinton. For so long as he remains a prospect, he blocks opportunities for other candidates to make their moves.
John Nichols’ new book is The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders’ Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson hails it as a “nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the ‘heroic medicine’ that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to ‘reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.’”
Copyright © 2007 The Nation
Gore will be the nominee.
I’ve heard that Nov. 2 is the filing deadline for New Hampshire. We may see an announcement in the next couple of days.
Delete Mr. “I-Ain’t-Running” and look who is the “Front-Runner”!
The last sentence is quite interesting. How many of those who “wrote in” Gore would turn to a REAL Progressive candidate in Kucinich?
The 66% “back door out of ANY endorsement” is TRULY bullshit! What? They wouldn’t endorse Dennis K. (A TRUE PROGRESSIVE) compared to ANY of the others on this list) if he had a WIDE lead no matter the percentage?!
This whole election thing is a fucking farce, even from the P.D.A.
The MSM is working hard for Hillary. It’s hard to separate journalism from PR work when you get down to it. Wealthy backers toss money at candidates, they toss money at the MSM, and the MSM is all too happy to take it — and more like it.
When it comes to money and the MSM, it’s a Hillary/Obama ticket. America will get a face-lift, the outward appearance of new trimmings on the same old cake. But probably the same old policy.
If we could strip the MSM out of the picture, it’s probably a Nader/Kucinich ticket.
The job description/responsibilities of a president are way different than that of an environmentalist.
One uses a military for instance…..
And the funding(read loyalties)lie in different beds.
Funny, I thought Al Gore already did run for president. Oh yeah, It was that Nader fella that lost the election for him - Damn that guy!
Look, I’m glad that Gore has spoken out on Global Warming and the documentary has been an important vehicle to move discussion forward - what will result from that discussion is still too early to tell. But, progressive - Hardly - Be careful what you wish for… Gore served second fiddle in a presidency that did little for progressives, he talked the talk of an environmentalist, but accomplishments during the Clinton years were less than inspiring and I don’t recall a whole lot of conversation in the White House at that time about global warming - (it’s not as though he recently invented it).
Gore, unless he’s since changed his spots was also complicit in NAFTA, setting the table for “homeland security” and no enemy of militarism, not to mention he took a virtual slam dunk in 2000 and managed to run such an inept campaign he lost to a trained chimp. (Oh, wait it was Nader that lost the election for him - I nearly forgot again - damn my memory!).
No, Al Gore is in a good place right now and should stay there. He is doing important work and the auctions aren’t that important any more. If he wants a new challenge let him overturn corporate “personhood”. I don’t recall him being overly committed to election reforms as long as it suited his campaign.
GORE/KUCINICH
Interesting the tactical brushing off of the fact that KUCINICH obliterated Obama and decimated Hillary, and is steadily creeping up on Gore’s percentage as well.
Why is nobody talking about THIS?
VOTE KUCINICH
Gore is not running.
Last time he ran he wouldn’t even fight a stolen election he won.
We need to support Kucinich — the obvious front runner in that poll and when the Dims ingnore us and choose who they want, we need to support an alternative.
Not all states even allow write-ins for president. If there is no alternative candidate and the Dims is negligibly better than the repug — a mass casting of blank ballots might be a more appropriate protest.
“If voting changed anything, they would make it illegal”
-Emma Goldman
Lessee…..
If Hillary became president, we would then have had either a Bush or a Clinton in the white house since the Reagan administration.
If Gore became president, we would then have had either a Bush or a Clinton in the white house since the Reagan administration.
Thirty years of incestuous administration. Business as usual….
I think Gore benefits in polls because a lot of people see that progressives are Not coalescing around Kucinich (or anyone else) and they really, really want to stop Hillary Clinton. Gore holds out that hope.
The poll is still open. Please consider putting Kucinich in front.
http://democracyforamerica.com/pulsepoll
Gore/Kucinich or Gore/Nader. One or the other would make a great Attorney General, Sec’y of State, EPA Director or Director of Dept. of Peace.
Gore is playing his cards well this time. The sooner he jumps in, the sooner the beast will attack him. By waiting until the last minute, his chances improve.
I agree with those who have said that Gore is not a real progressive. check this out from a recent Nation http://www.thenation.com/docprem.mhtml?i=20071105&s=cockburn
Vote Kucinich, spread the word about Kucinich, don’t let the MSM fool us.
GO DENNIS GO DENNIS GO DENNIS GO DENNIS GO DENNIS GO DENNIS GO DENNIS GO DENNIS GO DENNIS GO DENNIS GO DENNIS GO DENNIS
http://www.dennis4president.com
It is highly unlikely that anyone with positions consistent with those of progressives, or even consistent with the majority opinion of US citizens, could ever get elected US president, unless it is in the midst of, or in the wake of, some great transformational crisis. The corporate media labels anyone “out of the mainstream” and “unelectable” who does not submit to the interests of the Business Roundtable, the Chamber of Commerce, AIPAC, and other similar business and pro-Likud groups. Candidates like Kucinich who are the closest on the issues to the American people are immediately dismissed by the corporate media and would be attacked relentlessly and viciously if they ever gained any traction.
My only interest in the political process is to try to lower the probability of electing a president who will institute a police state or start WWIII. And the odds against those are not looking too good these days.
I join with those who question why it is with Kuchinich so close to Gore and ahead of the “alleged top tier” that the headline reads as it does. What is it about Dennis that so many so called progressives cannot get behind with all their hearts and souls? Please spare me the arguments that he should be running as an independent. We bitch and moan about how the Dems abuse us, refuse to listen and then a Dem candidate represents our stand on several top issues, and we whine that he can’t win, he’s too short, he’s too weird…blah blah blah! Give me a friggin break!!!!! I think people who say those things will never be satisfied. The first time I heard DK on a local public radio talk show over four years ago, I thought, ” Oh my God! There is someone out there who represents my views.” And I got excited. Why do all of you who say he can’t win bash the MSM for all their annointing and collusion with the powers that be, and then by the same token, accept their pronouncements that DK cannot possibly win. I have managed to follow a few of the debates and lord know, he stands head and shoulders above the rest when he is given his pitifully few chances to speak. He playing in a rigged game and still manges to score everytime he gets the ball. And he wins many after-debate polls which the MSM never sees fit to report it they can help it. WAKE UP! DK represents a real threat to business as usual and we need to say to those who would marginalize him, ” We don’t care what you say!” Of course this will rerquire that all of us get off our asses and start doing some serious grass roots campaigning for Dennis. Watch the movie, Can Mr Smith Get to Washington Anymore? and then tell me it’s impossible to get a DK elected. People are starving for exactly his kind of courage and leadership. Stop being such damned defeatists!!! Or would you just rather bitch about how things are???
I don’t understand how people are still talking about voting.Did voting work in the last two elections? Kinda makes a peoson wonder when it really has.
The president of the united states job responisibility is to corporations not people.
Are there really people out there that have hope that if only one good person got “elected” then that ONE person will save the world or something? Jeeze. Our society is based on continual growth. Capitalism can only succeed on continuous growth. We are eating our life support system under the guise of “growth” or “progress”. It’s killing the planet. And you wanna vote fer someone? Fooksake!
Take the blinders off…this ain’t the 50’s anymore.
Hope is the action killer.
Starofthe sea: AMEN!
Like everyone else, the clear front runner is Dennis Kucinich. Gore has obviously had it with being dragged through the coals by the mainstream media and the Repugnican hate machine. I don’t get why a whole lot more isn’t being made of Kucinich’s victories.If Progressive media doesn’t start supporting Kucinich and stop longing for Anyone But Kucinich, we’re gonna wind up with frigging Dick-in-Mitt Romney. Gore ain’t running.Dennis Kucinich is. Vote For Him!!!!
starofthesea,
Did you follow the campaigns of 2000 and 2004? Did you notice that the corporate media uncritically repeated Republican talking points about Gore, based on total fiction (e.g. that he claimed to have “invented the Internet”), thousands upon thousands of times, and completely ignored important and relevant stories about Bush’s lies (David Corn wrote a book about “The Lies of George Bush” that documents hundreds of obvious lies he told during the campaign which the corporate media preferred not to mention)? And in 2004, the corporate media repeated the specious claims of the Swiftboaters thousands of times, and pounced on Dan Rather for trying to bring to light damning evidence regarding Bush’s Guard shenanigans? Though Gore and Kerry were anywhere from 80-90 percent on the oligarchy’s team, the corporate media and the rest of the oligarchy found it necessary to defeat them for the 100 percent compliant Bush.
Now what do you think the corporate media and the rest of the oligarchy would do about a serious bid by Kucinich? I would say he would be lucky to escape with his life. At the least, the right wing noise machine would make innumerable spurious claims, out of whole cloth, and the corporate media would run with those that gained any traction, without a fact-check in sight (Kucinich would be lucky to get a mea culpa for sloppy work from anyone in corporate media after he lost the election).
The people are not ready to riot in the streets, and, until then, there is no way the oligarchy will allow a people’s president to gain power. It is all about responding to pressure, and the corporate oligarchy can bring it, and the common people cannot, or at least not yet.
Kivals, Dennis Kucinich IS making a serious run for the presidency. You say all you’re interested in is lowering the possibility of a police state or WWIII,WWIV, etc. Then Kucinich is your man. It’s just a matter of YOU getting serious about his run for the presidency. Frankly I can’t wait until we get over the king stuff, and just have a congress period. The presidency is just a left over primitive reflex, like God.
With appologies to Hannah-Barbarra and Magilla Gorilla I present:
Al Gorilla the Non-Candidate for Sale!
We’ve got Al Gorilla for sale
Al Gorilla, the non-candidate for sale.
Won’t you buy him,
Take him home and try him,
Al Gorilla for sale.
Don’t you want an Al Gorilla you can call your own,
Al Gorilla who’ll be with ya when you’re all alone?
Spoken: How much is that Al Gorilla in the window?
Take our advice,
At any price,
Al Gorilla as a non-candidate is mighty nice.
Al Gorilla, a non-candidate for sale.
zuzumamu,
Sure, if elected, Kucinich would provide the lowest probability of WWIII or a police state. However, that is one gigantic “if.” If all the progressives jump on board the Kucinich bandwagon, maybe he will go from two percent to three percent. And, as I stated, if he ever makes 20 percent, the sky would fall on him.
But I agree with you about the presidency. The US government as designed was a good first shot in 1787, but looks terribly inefficient and flawed in 2007.
Testing. Testing. Check. One two.
Is this thing on?
How’s the volume?
Can you hear this?
Is there anybody out there?
If voting changed anything, they would make it illegal.
Or is that something nobody wants to hear?
I’ll bet ya a Brazillion dollars that the next post will be all about who the best choice for the job is…..
Kivals,I think if all the progressives got behind Kucinich, the Independents would too, and maybe the dawdling brain dead 15% of republicans that actually vote, would finally hear of him and what he’s talking about and we’d have an actual possibility of Change. One of the great lies of the Republican run media, is that 50% of the voters are Dems, or nowadays DIMS as Jaded Prole amusingly called them, and 50% are Pugs..it just ain’t so. Republicans don’t vote. That’s why they need to cheat to win. They’ve been taught not to vote. What we need to overcome is the DIMS! The slavish Clinton supporters, who now think MOMMY is going to make everything alright. If progressives get the vote out, and support Kucinich, hell, maybe we’ll win the World Series. I say we give it one more try. After that,screw it…back to de islands.
Quit with the hypotheticals and the nit-picking… change is only in the hands of the people.
Make some signs that say “WANT FREE HEALTHCARE? VOTE KUCINICH”. Simple marketing. Kucinich offers what the people want, time to advertise it, since American people seem to only respond to as much!
punkassbeeotch,
Clearly, voting does change things. It did, for the better, in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, and Nicaragua and to a lessre extent in Brazil and Chile.
Admittedly, the English-speaking world and a few other countries like Germany have developed a pretty effective media system to keep truly popular candidates from getting elected, but it doesn’t always have to remain that way.
Once again, the poll is still open. Vote Kucinich.
http://democracyforamerica.com/pulsepoll
Not only must the United States find energy efficiency and pollution control for itself, it must lead the world by showing how quality of life is vastly improved by moving to a green society. If this is not done, no matter what we might do, the imitation of our lifestyle by others will swamp the planet. We must do and lead others to do.
In order to carry all this out, there must be a commitment on a scale rivaled only by the national effort in WWII. In fact, it must surpass that by an order of magnitude. Further, this must come at a time when we have maxed out our credit with China and other nations.
On a practical basis, only the election of Al Gore with a mandate that is truly impressive will enable the United States to convince creditors, friends and foes that we have turned about face from the profligate life we have continued after WWII in using up our resources and throwing the tailings in the yard and in the wind. Any other candidate and the political wrangling that is sure to follow the election of a lesser light will put our creditors in a wait and see mode that threatens to swamp us before we can carry out such an undertaking.
This time we must hold up an authentic icon to the world in order to expect a rally around our effort and undertaking. Our margin of error and patience for our undertaking has been squandered and yet we must spend our way out of the maelstrom we have created.
It is not what the candidate will do, it is what we can demonstrate to the world that we as a people can and will do.
punkassbeeotch. What an appropriate handle you have. You offer nothing but punkass provocations. Is it enjoyable being you?
I respect thoughtful commentary on this subject, even when I don’t agree with it. Reference some of COMarc’s comments on previous threads for an example of what that might look like. Of course, that would mean you’d have to grow up, think, and stop living up to your moniker.
I’m suspicious of Kucinich. In 2004 he acted more as a lure to try and keep the left in the DP (which he seems to be doing this time too), and then he ends up endorsing Kerry? A shiny penny says Kucinich endorses the Democratic nominee, no matter how repugnant they are. I wonder if he isn’t some sort of Democratic false flag op to keep the Left divided.
And Al Gore?! Please. To me. this shows how awful things are in this country when a hack like Gore has any credibiilty on the Left.
Isn’t there something we can do to get Al Gore to run?? I’d feel sooo much better.
I wonder if he isn’t some sort of Democratic false flag op to keep the Left divided…
Sorry, but I just don’t understand the logic of this theory. how would the Kucinich candidacy divide the left. Divide it between what and what?
Just an aside…I’d get really tired of hearing people say Gore wouldn’t fight when the election was stolen in 2000. The highest court in the land made a ruling. What was he supposed to do exactly-lead an armed insurrection? The Republicans used ever manner of intimidation possible, and with the help of Fox News ( enabled by the MSM), managed to have their boy installed by the SCOTUS. As it turns out, Dems have better manners than Republicans, and Gore being the gentleman he is respected the decision of the highest court.
Deran…”a hack like Al Gore” ? Excuse me? Just whose side are you on?
And by the way….while lefties might like Kucinich, he will never win in the general election. Democrats better be smart about this and put someone out there who is.
I just emailed my states kucinich representative for information on volunteering. seriously, f it. I am also suspicious of kucinich and every other politician with ANY chance of winning any election. And rightfully so. History has certainly taught us to be suspicious of any and all leaders. The fact is that we have little to choose from and the future looks very bleak with the current, supposed front-runners as serious possibilites to be in the white house come 2008 elections. So, my reasoning is why not give it a shot? Kucinich is the only viable democratic candidate with a chance, be it very little considering what we’re up against, to actually make a positive difference in the country/world.
punkassbeeotch, I had that emma goldman quote taped on my refrigerator for a year. While I’m admittedly pessimistic at times (and how couldn’t you be?), it didn’t get me very far. might as well try, eh? otherwise why waste the time reading/posting about any of this garbage. You’d be better off tuning it out and enjoying your life while you have it. The people like me and you that enjoy/believe in quotes like that are usually the ones yearning for changes, so let’s take some action. At worst, it will make me feel happy about myself, at best, I’ll actually get something concrete done.
“Starofthe sea: AMEN!”
DITTO! I could have written your words, star! THANK YOU!
BUT–Will it get through the pig-headedness that has taken over the alleged Progressives’ negativism?! (Note *deran* above as example)
Dennis IS electable if we work for it, fellow D.K.’ers. We have to forget the naysaying and “armchair theorists” on this site and stay focused.
The bozos who keep the mantra of 2004 alive make me ill. We are looking at a Progressive gift candidate and yet many STILL look for a “Saviour” to come forth out of the blue (Who is, by the way, PERFECT!) to save the country and the world. Puh-leeze! Dennis is here! Dennis has the courage to fight for us! Dennis does not bow to the corporate elite! Dennis is one of US, Gawddammit!!!
I will say this (even though I don’t believe it): Should he NOT win the primary (Because of the failure of “We The People” to get him there!) and turn his support to the Corpo-Clinton-Clone, then I will NEVER follow him again; nor will I ever follow politics again. PERIOD! But for RIGHT NOW–ALL OF MY ENERGY GOES TO PUSHING FOR HIS NOMINATION AGAINST THE ODDS! Join me???!!!
ENOUGH! Al Gore is not running, vote for Kucinich!
If Gore is the Democratic candidate, I’ll probably vote for Nader again, even if I have to write him in. Then everyone can attack Nader for coercing mindless robots like me into voting for him. Of course, why can’t we also attack Gore (or Clinton, or Obama, etc.) for coercing the mindless voters who supported him? Message: Don’t attack a candidate for running; if you want to attack someone, attack people for voting in a manner with which you disagree.
BREAKING NEWS!!! All Kucinich lovers and those on the fence MUST read the following: I LOVE this guy’s GUTS!!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071030/ap_on_el_pr/kucinich_bush;_ylt=AtZ0RwinixdF2a4kK2D5c_KGWo14
punkass is the only one truly in tune. PJD is clearly naive and an eternal optimist.
but that aside the facts are these, the white house has been bought and paid for. the more research that I do the more I uncover that there hasn’t been an honest election in this country since FDR. Did you know that even our beloved liberal icon JFK stole the election out from Nixon who was trying to steal the election. His poppa Joe had the mob make sure Chicago went for Kennedy and in doing so the election followed.
you see that was a real stake in the heart to the BUSH CRIME FAMILY who Nixon happened to be an employee of, thats why George Bush orchestrated the Kennedy assasignation, nothing could get in the way of their plans for the new “facism” (remember Ike warning of the military industrial complex) its been the Bush Crime Family all along since the early 1900’s. every key political assasignation from Che Guevara to Kennedy to the attempt on Reagan has been linked to the Bush Crime Family, read Nixons autobiography for crying out loud its right there, as well as in the books by Haldeman and Erlichman and Dean. Nixon said the Warren Commision was the biggest hoax ever played on the American people. Just like 911 is a hoax. Bush and Cheney did it for crying out loud. Al Qaida is a Bush Crime Family invention. So is Osama Bin Laden. If terrorists really wanted us dead we’d be dead. Didnt anyone notice how easy it was for the IRA. Enough Arabs live here and have ties back home.
Why hasnt anyone spoken about that. You would think the simple mentioning of Bush Crime Family facts in the news would have prevented GWB from even being able to run.
Oh well I digress, I am just so sick and tired of everyone pretending and diluting themselves into thinking that everything is above board and that what is happening is reality. everytime you have a serious and honest discussion about the candidates and how to create an exit stategy for “the war” and this that and the other about hillary or obama or dennis, you’re playing into the bullshit and lending it credence.
Bev Harris uncovered that the last 2 elections were hacked. I accept that as undisputable fact. as i accept global warming as fact. when 100 of the greatest scientific minds concur that we are fucked and past the point of no return and that we will see Pennsylvania beach front property in our lifetime people yes in our fucking lifetime i believe it. when Michael Moore makes a movie that provides indisputable evidence that Iraq and Afghanistan are Corporate occupations i believe it.
am i too cynical. you mean you arent there yet. okay nevermind forget i said anything go on with your naive little conversations about the “election” . heres a ticket for you Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia Mckinney. Real honest to goodness progressive liberals. in a perfect real world it might happen, but not here not now.
oh well if you’re not there yet come see me after the election I believe Paul already mentioned the winners Hillary and Obama. Its appearances man and nothing else. All the worlds a stage, its all been scripted, but then I’ll bet you all think that we have “free will” too…and yes drift, i am happy being me…..
Dear Drift-
You said:
“punkassbeeotch. What an appropriate handle you have. You offer nothing but punkass provocations. Is it enjoyable being you?
I respect thoughtful commentary on this subject, even when I don’t agree with it. Reference some of COMarc’s comments on previous threads for an example of what that might look like. Of course, that would mean you’d have to grow up, think, and stop living up to your moniker.”
Nice.
Judge a book by it’s cover….
I get that all the time y’know. From “progressives”.
If yis must know, it’s because I am an avid collector of old school punk rock vinyl. that’s just a handle I picked up along the way. You know, “a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet”.
I have not called anyone names. I have not judged anyone personally.I have not attacked anyone personally or falsely assumed that they did or did not know certain things (like what “thoughtful commentary might look like”. If you consider yourself a progressive, telling people they have notheing to offer and suggesting that they grow up isn’t really all that…..progressive is it? Apparently there was just enough of something in my post to warrant your very well thought out consideration. Thank you for that.
My point is this:
If voting doesn’t work, which is my belief, then we need to be able to see it. Then we need to be able to talk about it (minus the judging,insulting, name-calling). Then we need to be able to brainstorm, and come up with ideas that might work.
One need be able to admit there’s a problem before one can recover from it. I posted. Deaf ears. No acknowledgement whatever that maybe, there is validity in what I am addressing. But what if ther really is? We’re obviusly not willing (or able) to even look at that as a possibility. Seems kinda closed minded. Stuck maybe. How to get unstuck?
I am cynical perhaps. I am skeptical definitely. But what’s to lose in talking about the idea that it all a sham? And, the world burns while we wait and hold our breaths for some kinda new messianic politician to unfuck the situation every 4 years? Yeah. I’m a skeptic.
Dear defiance-
Thank you. I don’t believe it is pessimism that points me towards not voting. I beieve that once I let go of hope ( something that is dogmatically believed to be an asset, a good thing) then I can move on, quit wasting my time on whatever it was I was hoping would happen, and take action in a new direction. I think also that hope does me no good (other than pehaps a good feeling) when it comes to action. It’s a form of powerlessness that becomes impotence. Once a person abdicates their power, all that is left is hope. I do not believe voting to be an effective means of exercising ones power, or action. I can hope someone good becomes a leader. But, I am not holding my breath. Perhaps locally, on local propositions etc.some things get done temporarily until corporations throw a bunch of money at it. I do not believe making signs is an effective action. I can hope someone reads them and maybe has an oportinity for personal growth. But how much time do we really have? That is why I don’t do those things (anymore).
Well at any rate. Thanks to both of you. I almost really thought my posts weren’t getting posted.
Thank you,
-Glen
ps. I did vote once….for Nader. Then I took one of these on-line tests to see which candidate best spoke my beliefs and it came up Kucinich. I like the guy tons. I admire him tons. But I’m sorry, I think we need a system overhaul.
People vote for Al Gore the environmentalist because they realize at least he would see that what was necessary …would get done.
They vote for Al Gore the environmentalist. Not as a politician.
I guess the essential problem I have with the issues laid out before us on both left and right is that they are, at their core, not class interests.
We need out of Iraq, certainly. And we need to curb the human-caused aspect of global warming.
But where is the political voice championing real class interests for the remnant middle- and working-class? How about single-payer, paid maternal and paternal leave on par with Scandinavia, a 32-hour work week, 6 weeks of vacation, etc. Where is the voice of class to create more private and civic space for Americans — so they have more time with their families, hobbies, community engagement, etc.?
Call this the backup quarterback syndrome.
One of the givens of American football is that the fans of a team that is struggling will always call for the backup QB to play. The coaches of course know that during practice the starting QB is really better than the backup. But the fans will still boo the starter and constantly call for the backup to be in the game. Of course, most of the time when the backup does get into the game, it becomes quickly obvious that he’s not as good as the starter and that’s why he was the backup.
Gore is a blank slate right now. Most Americans project what they want to see on him, mainly because he doesn’t have to say anything. Put him into the race, and we’ll see the same DLC-founder, center-right, pro-corporate government, pro-military and very militaristic Al Gore that we’ve always seen.
Al Gore has more intelligence in one brain cell than all corrupt stupid neo-nazi repugs have in the whole brotherhood.
GORE: He lost once after winning the most votes and he never even complained about it. I’m convinced he can do it again!
Don’t judge the repugs by chimpy,they are evil but they’re not dumb and they’re a lot more politically savvy then the Dims. As for Gore, he isn’t that great a choice based on his record. Hillary will not win unless it’s a stolen election — her and her smug spouse are no friends of working people and not that popular.
punkassbeeotch is right about the selection process, it is a rigged game, a puppet show remnant of a dead republic. The reason to support Kucinich is because he speaks the truth in important venues and makes people think.
The reason to run an independent is to build the movement and that doesn’t end when the selection is over.
Well, punkass (sorry, but I can’t help but smile when I write that) You’re correct, I can’t know what other people think/know. I can only go by what they post. What you had posted was intended to provoke, and as such, I called you on it. You responded in a much more thoughtful manner, which I appreciate. Hey, I’ve done it, too, like when I wrote ‘”Who the fuck cares what BarbaRA sTREISAND said?” on a previous post and caught shit for it.
So, to you’re thesis that voting doesn’t matter. I disagree with you in the extreme. And though Emma Goldman might’ve said it, and I admire her, I’d be very, very interested to know what the exact context of that statement was. I don’t know myself, but if you or anyone else does, I’ll be checking in later to see if it’s posted. My guess is it is NOT a statement of futile cynicism, as quite frankly, you’re previous posts smack of.
Expanding the fanchise of voting in a democracy has been a long, slow process throughout the centuries, and has always been about decentralizing the center of power and diffusing it throughout the electorate. It is the polar opposite of totalitatianism, which focuses all power in a single leader. It proceeds from the premise that absolute power corrupt absolutely, which has been proven throughout human history again and again. If your vote doesn’t count for much, it’s because it’s NOT SUPPOSED TO. The more the franchise of the vote is expanded, the less each citizen’s power is. Therefore, it becomes more difficult for any single leader to consolidate power, at least without recourse to the citizenery… through the vote. It is the bedrock of any representative democracy. Without the vote, everything collapses, and we turn either to some form of totalitarianism, like fascism, or brute anarchy characterised by failed states like we see in places like Somalia, where warlords rove the streets terrorizing the populace. Can you imagine that happening here? With all the pinhead rednecks with thier “NASCAR,” “FEAR THIS!” and “9-11 TERRORIST HUNTING PERMITS” stickers roaming around with their assualt weapons? I sure as hell can.
Are there forces at work to subvert the will of the people through the vote? Most certainly. Monied interests, corporations, ideological media, oligarchical families, etc, etc. The only thing holding back this dark horror show IS the vote.
And at least for this primary season, there’s a candidate I’ll be happy to cast my one, little ballot for, and his name is DENNIS KUCINICH.
http://www.dennis4president.org
And oh, btw,
X, Joy Division, The ‘Mats, Clash, Jam, Gang of 4, Pistols, Buttholes, Sonic Youth, Social D, Talking Heads, Ramones, Siouxsie, Pixies…. yeah, I was there, too, bro. it’s just that being punk, and being a punkass were always 2 different things to me, but no offense intended.
If the only thing Al Gore accomplished if he were to be elected was to start a War on Global Warming at least he would be doing Something Positive which is more than we can say for the current administration. Tackling and dealing with environmental problems will affect everyone of us and our children in the years to come. Everything in the Bush
agenda has affected us and will affect our children, but certainly not for the better. Ask our grandchildren when there are water shortages and the air is unbreathable and they can’t even begin to pay for the wars we are raging now, ask them what we should have been doing to at least have tried to slow down the effects of our disintegrating environment….
Al Gore is not a blank slate, he has a record. He received a Lifetime Rating of 64% from the League of Conservation Voters, that’s a “D” grade. (For comparison, Kerry received a 98%) Some environmentalist Gore is. There isn’t anything else in his record that would even tempt me to vote for him. You still love the guy? Please, tell me why? There’s more.
Al Gore:
1) Supported and pushed hard for environmentally and socially destructive NAFTA. One reason his grade (see above) was so poor.
2) Was, and I presume still is, an avid nuclear energy proponent.
3) Supported sanctions against Iraq that killed 500,000 children.
4) Was a co-founder of the DLC (the entity that pulled the Democrats to the right so that they now are to the right of Richard Nixon!).
5) Supported regime change in Iraq. Said the “Vietnam Syndrome” was hurting our efforts to be assertive.
6) Avid supporter of Israel’s right to occupy Palestine.
7) Supported giving the Telecommunication giants more power (see Telecommunications Act 1996).
9) Was a founding member of the DLC, a pro-corporate arm of the Democratic Party that was eventually successful in pulling the Dems to the right.
10) Was responsible for weakening the “Endangered Species Act.”
See:
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair03032007.htm
But…he’s…not…running. End of story.
Punkass, I, too owe you an apology, for thinking what some people here said. You are clearly thoughtful and while provocative, have much to offer. I, for one, fear you may be right for a different, ( but maybe the same) reason. Elections, especially recently, have been clearly and ruthlessly, and flagrantly stolen. Even when we held our noses to vote for Kerry, because we feared rightly what has happened in the wake on a second Bush term, the Rove machine overturned the will of the people and they did it with nary a peep from the MSM. This despite overwhelming evidence that something was very rotten in the state of Denmark. Kerry sold out, since the nite before he conceded, he admitted that he knew, and told one of the election protection lawyers, that New Mexico’s results were rigged. But did he fight for our right to vote? To have every vote counted and fairly? No. Maybe he didn’t want to inherit the mess W created, or maybe he was a trojan horse, Who knows? So what this all means is that we have allot of work to do… electoral integrity protection, totally public election financing, and on and on. Maybe we just have to tackle them one at a time, but we just can’t give up entirely. I wish I could offer more creative ideas, but that is all I can come up with. Dennis is no savior. He’s simply more honest and decent and more courageous than anyone else running. That is a start, and our support of him says allot about us. We have to risk backing someone who may lose so we can at least feel we are trying to make the world a better place.
starofthesea,
couldn’t have said it better…
and celebrity, same goes for you
liberal with an attitude,
whew, right on.
remember what happened to paul wellstone and his family.
accident, my ass.
drift,
“So, to you’re thesis that voting doesn’t matter. I disagree with you in the extreme. And though Emma Goldman might’ve said it, and I admire her, I’d be very, very interested to know what the exact context of that statement was.”
The context is that Emma Goldman was an anarchist. Consider this quote:
“”All voting,” says Thoreau, “is a sort of gaming, like checkers, or backgammon, a playing with right and wrong; its obligation never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right thing is doing nothing for it. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority.” A close examination of the machinery of politics and its achievements will bear out the logic of Thoreau.
What does the history of parliamentarism show? Nothing but failure and defeat, not even a single reform to ameliorate the economic and social stress of the people. Laws have been passed and enactments made for the improvement and protection of labor. Thus it was proven only last year that Illinois, with the most rigid laws for mine protection, had the greatest mine disasters. In States where child labor laws prevail, child exploitation is at its highest, and though with us the workers enjoy full political opportunities, capitalism has reached the most brazen zenith.
Even were the workers able to have their own representatives, for which our good Socialist politicians are clamoring, what chances are there for their honesty and good faith? One has but to bear in mind the process of politics to realize that its path of good intentions is full of pitfalls: wire-pulling, intriguing, flattering, lying, cheating; in fact, chicanery of every description, whereby the political aspirant can achieve success. Added to that is a complete demoralization of character and conviction, until nothing is left that would make one hope for anything from such a human derelict. Time and time again the people were foolish enough to trust, believe, and support with their last farthing aspiring politicians, only to find themselves betrayed and cheated.”
http://www.panarchy.org/goldman/anarchism.1910.html
Personally, I’m completely in accord with punkassbeyotch. As I have said elsewhere, when I vote, I do so with great reluctance, for two reasons:
1. Voting for representatives is not a democratic process, it’s a means of giving your power away, a la social contracts that are both binding and coerced;
2. Voting for candidates in a corrupt system can and frequently does give fuel to that system, even when the person being voted for is decent.
I don’t think there’s any such thing as the best person to have nuclear strike capability, or to decide if millions of people die or don’t die, or if the environment is decimated or not - and without a massive movement to back up a person that would dare to dismantle such an apparatus, that person is pretty much good as dead, from the looks of things, and with that backing, there is a) no need for said figurehead to represent what is already being represented, and b) there is a very strong possibility of the person doing the representing to turn their back on said movement.
You mentioned Chavez - who as someone who has the backing of the people of Venezuela en masse, and who is not a misguided demagogue, but someone who clearly appreciates that his power is entirely with the people, which is exactly where it should be. As such, I wholeheartedly support his presidency - but I do so with open eyes. If Lenin could turn his back on the peasants, Chavez can turn his back on the poorest people in his country as well. This is one of the most tragic lessons of both the Russian Revolution and the Spanish Civil War.
Edwards was sounding pretty good on the “debate” tonight until he was the only one against legalizing marijuana. I naturally scratched him off my short list.
Obama and Hillary pretty much sucked on everything else.
The little chance Kucinich got to talk, he was ridiculed for having seen a UFO. The pundits are saying he is out of the contest for that. They’re laughing their ass off about it.
The way I see it so far, Giuliani is ahead and its going to be Gore or Armageddon.
Not one of the candidates had the courtesy to say: “I protest the exclusion of Senator Gravel from this debate”.
Chris Mathews at MSNBC sez their poll decided that Obama won and Hillary is a close second. Who woulda thunk it?
Perhaps John Nichols needs to read Alexander Cockburn’s/St. Clair’s excellent book an Al Gore: “Al Gore:A User’s Manual”.
This man is not fit to be our president in any way, shape or form.
I understand his house uses much, much, much more energy than the average American house(this is scary considering how much the average American already uses compared to the rest of the world). I guess all those write-in voters either endorse(or are somehow unaware) of the level of hypocrisy of the Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Voting in the national elections, for me, is too abstract, too distant. It’s sort of like watching a game at the stadium. I can get all riled up over the Red Sox’s game and I can yell at the pitcher or the batter and think at some level I may actually be participating and influencing the game, but I know I’m not. What happens is “out there” in some abstract realm, with the events unfolding well beyond my control.
I look at our national obsession over the candidate race and am amazed at what a phenomenal distraction it all is. It’s everywhere and it’s constant and it’s essentially meaningless. We’ve been talking presidential candidates for over a year and we still have another year to go. News story after news story about who, this week, may be leading in the polls, while serious issues are go ignored.
We are a nation obsessed with stardom. We are fixated on the “winner”. The winner of the Oscars, the Emmy, American Idol, The Pennant race. The runners up or the third place winners are immediately forgotten, ignored, or even branded “looser”. While the winner takes all. In the presidential race the winner now moves to act with his/her very narrow agenda, ignoring the opposition, even though that opposition could represent 48% of those that voted. “Too bad, you lost, go home and let us winners do what we will”. That is not my kind of democracy and I’m very reluctant to participate.
What happened to consensus? What about taking in consideration the oppositions agenda also? Why does winning automatically give the victor the right to the spoils?
Now, with our imperial presidential process, our vote is a meaningless token, like in the days of old when the crowd cheered their king or queen from down in the courtyard and the monarch gave an obligatory wave to the masses, turned, and proceeded to attend to the more important “royal” business.
That said, I think that local participation can be much more effective and meaningful. A game at the local park can be a helluva lot of fun.
rebelnow,
What you’re saying is one of the reasons I posted the Emma Goldman quote above. This imperial approach to governance has always been part of the system - what has changed is that Empire has coalesced its power and become much more effective at its machinations. I do think that it’s critical that we remain interconnected both locally and globally - but in resistance to Empire, not in service to it.
Write him in….for what? If we need a member of the Clinton Administration, one has already been anointed.
Once again restive hits the nail on the head. PAB also sees through the maze.
The empire needs us to vote only to legitimize it’s hold on power. The real difference in society takes place on the local level - organizing, building community, and acting to better the lives of those in your immediate area - then spreading those actions out in a web of connected successes.
Think about how the fine filaments in a spider web can be bound to form the strongest most inpenatrable net known to man. That is how the fabric of society can come together and defeat the empire. A million tiny threads of progressive action to bring down a few fat and lazy emperors who will continue to believe they are in control until they are at last ensnared and consumed by their own greed, intolerance and arrogance.
Build the web and bring down the empire.
Note this slid into the end:
“As such, Al Gore is actually helping Hillary Clinton. For so long as he remains a prospect, he blocks opportunities for other candidates to make their moves…”
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Other than that Nichols can barely conceal his schoolboy crush on student council president Clinton.
Speaking of crushes–they kicked her ass last night in the debates but watch the media spin it as a Clinton triumph. I really do not relish the return of the adolescent Clintons and their high school antics.
So, where is it that I can write in Gore?
Wm.Rowland:
Well said.
Does anyone remember that Al Gore was a rabid supporter of the illegal bombing/war against Serbia?
Al is just another warmonger/ruling elite.
Why? Why? is Alexander Cockburn continually referenced here. Cockburn vehemently denies global warming. Anyone who denies anthropogenic global warming at this point in time is simply too corrupt or too ignorant to be of any use as a reference.
Of course Mr. Cockburn doesn’t like Al Gore. Al Gore is making it very difficult for Cockburn to continue to deny that we are facing environmental collapse. You might as well list all the bad things Dick and George have to say about Mr. Gore; they are equally objective.
On another note, why did Gore get more attention in this article than Kucinich? Because Gore is vastly more intelligent, energetic, capable and electable than Kucinich.
” vastly more intelligent, energetic, capable and electable than Kucinich.”
On that point I disagree–and he is funny too. He is however, ignored–even when the only instance of applause at last night’s debate came after Kucinich’s remarks on Impeachment. Not a word about it, however. All we will hear about is how Clinton confidently warded off the assault.
“Because Gore is vastly more intelligent, energetic, capable and electable than Kucinich”
I also hear that he’s breathtakingly virile, heroic in battle, and that an ounce of his blood will ward off vampires.
No more voting for girly men! Only choose trusted he-men of the universe!
lol
restive,
Thanks for the link. I just read through it, and it’s very thought provoking. Her premise about direct action’s importance I would not disagree with. As she wrote, it’s what got universal suffrage to begin with. This right was not given up by the oligarchs freely. So why not use it, imperfect as it may be? Here’s one of my favorite punks from the old days on the subject:
“I’m totally down with insurrection in the street. I’ve had a great time with that over the years. Insurrection in the voting booth is the other part of the equation.”
Jello Biafra
I think a candidate like DK is precisely the kind of person you’d want to try to get into office. He’d be the first to advocate dismantling nuclear weapons, and moving us towards environmental sustainability.
Again, I don’t think he’s Jesus fucking Christ come to save the world. He’s an experienced, principled candidate with a 30-year record of sticking to his progressive guns even when it has cost him elections. He’s making himself available to carry OUR banner and ideas forward, and he’s powerless if we don’t support him… as he should be, because he requires OUR support through the franchise of the vote to have any power at all.
And on a pragmatic note, since many posters here think a truly progressive society is a pipe dream in America, how much more so would a free communist anarchy such as Goldman describes in her essay? Don’t get me wrong, it SOUNDS like an awesome idea to me, I’m just uncertain it could ever really be achieved.
Let’s say we really had it. What would stop the redneck assault rifle toting rednecks from freely communing together in the common interest of shooting all them “homos and commie libs and blame-america-firsters?”
Yeah, I’ve been arrested by a cop before at a direct action at the test site in Nevada. But I’ve also been grateful to have my local PD around where I live in rural NH to keep the afore mentioned rednecks from storming into my house because they don’t like my “Impeach Bush” placard in my front yard. I’m afraid anarchy in the USA (with apologies to the Pistols) would look alot more like Somalia than Goldman’s noble visions.
Like punkass, i am tired of my assertations being attacked with ad-homeims.
Did voting greatly improve thing in all the aforementioned Latin American countries - notably Venezulea, or did it not?
So, in reality voting is only useless in the imperial USA and possibly some of its fellow english-speaking countries. As punkass noted realizing this is the first step to a solution. USAns need to get their heads out of their ass, learn something about how things are done elsewhere, and stop thinking that “they are the world” and accept that a lot of nations, do things a whole, whole lot of things better than the US.
The reason that US electroal politics are so useless are due to some pretty simple flagrantly undemocratic, deeply entrenched, laws and procedures. How many of you know that:
1. The US is the only “democracy” that doesn’t hold elections on Sunday or make election days a national holiday - choosing instead a day deliberately calculated to minimize turnout - Tuesday.
2. The US is the only “democracy” that employs preposterous, flagrantly undemocratic, deliberately onerous bureaucratic procedures to keep all but two entrenched parties off the ballot.
3. The US is the only non-parliamentary-type “democracy” that doesn’t require a winner to obtain an absolute majority through runoffs.
4. At the same time the US doesn’t use a parliamentary system that keeps minority governments in check by allows multi-party coalitions that can call for new elections with a simple vote at any time.
5. The US is unique in the stupendous power granted to it’s “executive branch” - a government all to itself with powerful unaccountable “departments” in place of ministries directly answerable to the parliament. And furthermore, this executive can only be removed on a complicated process requiring “high crimes and misdemenors” rather than simply incomptence or failing to act in the will of the people.
All these things have got to go, but unfortunately some of them are “enshrined” in the US constitution, which, aside from the first ten amendments, is a deeply flawed, obsolete document. I see no hope for change except by some kind of revolutionary means.
OK PJD… didn’t you just say yesterday that the online poll that this article is about was still open and that we should vote for Kucinich?
And though I thought I had read through all the posts on this thread, I must have missed the ad hominem attack on you…
OK PJD… didn’t you just say yesterday that the online poll that this article is about was still open and that we should vote for Kucinich?
Yes, I did. One can participate in an existing system, while working for change, even revolutionary change, at the same time. Build a new society in the shell of the old as the Wobblies say.
“As she wrote, it’s what got universal suffrage to begin with. This right was not given up by the oligarchs freely. So why not use it, imperfect as it may be?”
Because that’s inherently irrational if what she says is true.
“And on a pragmatic note, since many posters here think a truly progressive society is a pipe dream in America, how much more so would a free communist anarchy such as Goldman describes in her essay? Don’t get me wrong, it SOUNDS like an awesome idea to me, I’m just uncertain it could ever really be achieved.”
I think you’re making one of the most common mistakes about what anarchists assert - namely, that the vision of an anarchist society is utopic. If anything, what is utopic is the idea that a forced social contract can be used to build a functional democratic society. The biggest hurdles that anarchists face are governments and corporations, not the people en masse.
“But I’ve also been grateful to have my local PD around where I live in rural NH to keep the afore mentioned rednecks from storming into my house because they don’t like my “Impeach Bush” placard in my front yard. I’m afraid anarchy in the USA (with apologies to the Pistols) would look alot more like Somalia than Goldman’s noble visions.”
The very same cops that you like to have around would kill you in a heartbeat under the right circumstances. As far as rednecks go - well, given that both the state and capitalism are the systems that were used to perpetuate the legacy of slavery, anti-communism and so forth, it follows to reason that the work entailed in making an anarchist society would be opposed to such thinking on principle. There’s nothing inherently anarchist about racism (I would hope that this is clear); and while the US does have a large number of people who would, in fact, break into your house because of your politics, they’re clearly not in the majority. Most operational statist-run societies simultaneously operate on anarchic (as in mutual aid) principles and totalitarian principles at the same time, otherwise they would not last for long.
The question is not whether or not anarchism works - it does, and the reason it does is because human beings build social networks, and the majority of those social networks are benign. The question is how to build the ties necessary to construct a new society in the shell of the old, as both PJD and the Wobblies say - and that can only be done by the people themselves, yourself and myself included. Five minutes spent on building the kind of world that we want to live in is far more valuable than voting for someone in the hopes that things may not get worse.
What I do think is challenging in terms of “selling anarchism” (if you will) in the US at the present time is the legacy of middle-class values, as well as scare tactics about anarchists that are spread by the MSM. Note that I didn’t say “middle class”, but “middle class values” - it’s the idea that captains of industry will all take care of us as long as we obey, pay our taxes, call the cops when there’s a problem (hint), that is key in keeping people from rising up. However, this is clearly starting to shift, as the lies inherent in such assertions reveal themselves, as anybody who has lost their pension because of shady corporate dealings can tell you.
Oh and by the way? Vote Ron Paul! (Just kidding. lol)
restive, you wrote:
“I think you’re making one of the most common mistakes about what anarchists assert - namely, that the vision of an anarchist society is utopic. If anything, what is utopic is the idea that a forced social contract can be used to build a functional democratic society. The biggest hurdles that anarchists face are governments and corporations, not the people en masse.”
Until we return to living in tribal networks, which I think would be the real solution, what you and Emma descibe just is not going to happen. In other words, as long as we remain in this period of history, characterized by the modern nation state, anarchy is by definition impossible. I think that what would be required would be a massive, world-wide system failure, and descent into a sort of horrific chaos that can only be descibed as biblical. There are alot of reasons to believe that may, in fact, be what’s happening. On the other side of that spasm of unimaginable suffering, if we’re still even around, we might be able to reorganize into free communal cooperatives, tribes, anarchy, whatever you want to call it.
In the meantime, representative democracy’s best hope (perhaps it is only a fool’s hope), I think, is a truly populist progressive resurgence, what you call a “forced social contract.” Again, if the citizenry is actively engaged, I don’t see what’s “forced” about it, if, of course, our government actually IS one of, by, and for the people who either extend, or revoke their consent to be governed through the franchise of an uncorrupted voting process. And there have been other suggestions on this thread about improving our constitution which I think would be valuable, like a parlimentary system that could hold an immediate vote of confidence on a leader based on his/her competence, as opposed to the one we have now that sets the bar at high crimes.
And one more thing. I fully understand and accept your comment on cops. But it’s also important to remember in many revolutions, once the police and military join in, game over. It’s their country, too, you know.
Thanks for your response.
“Until we return to living in tribal networks, which I think would be the real solution, what you and Emma descibe just is not going to happen. In other words, as long as we remain in this period of history, characterized by the modern nation state, anarchy is by definition impossible.”
Actually, that’s not true at all. Look at Spain in the 1930s - if it wasn’t for 1) Spain being isolated by the US and Western Europe, 2) Stalin funding the government, and 3) Fascism, the majority of the country that was being run on anarchist principles would have continued to be so. What we need is strong networks to withstand whatever would be leveled at us until we reach such a point that the passive anarchism of not voting turns into an active, vocal anarchism of resisting the system while building a new one.
“And one more thing. I fully understand and accept your comment on cops. But it’s also important to remember in many revolutions, once the police and military join in, game over. It’s their country, too, you know.”
As long as the police and the military are on the side of the people, instead of being some kind of paramilitary force against the people, then I agree.
Al Gore does NOT, I repeat does NOT have the lead any longer at the DFA Poll:
Dennis Kucinich 36394 29.73%
Al Gore (write in) 33190 27.11
It is time for We the People to have a President that will represent US, not the Corporate elite. Al Gore is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations along with Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, the Clintons, Obama, and Edwards (ETC). Al Gore is promoting the CFR’s solution to Global Warming: A Global Tax on Carbon Emissions. We the People would end up paying this tax, but sure as shootin the Corporate CFR members Mobile, Texaco, and Exxon Valdez would not have to pay this tax. Furthermore, Al Gore is NOT running for President.
Vote KUCINICH 2008!
http://www.dennis4president.com/home