Friday, September 28, 2007

A Statesman Whose Time Has Arrived

The time has come for Al Gore to run for president. Here is a compelling case taken from the Draft Gore web site.

Whether the issue is global warming, war and peace, reforming government, or leading a technological revolution, Al Gore has always been ahead of the curve. The climate crisis may be hot today, but Congressman Gore was pounding on this issue long before Washington had even heard of global warming.

At a time when politicians have lost the art of inspiring and leading, Al Gore speaks the truth and speaks it from the heart. His message is born out of conviction and is often decades ahead of its time. And he never gives in to politics as usual.

In 2002, he became the first prominent political figure to speak out against the war in Iraq. His predictions came to pass with painful precision. In the months and years that followed, Gore continued to brave the political winds by speaking out forcefully and compellingly on this and other issues of moral imperative: the assault on the Constitution, the abuses of executive power, the dire consequences of the Administration’s economic and environmental policies. He called for Rumsfeld’s resignation in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal and for the repeal of most of the Patriot Act.

Again and again, Gore has blasted open the national debate on the most important issues of our time. The opposition movement in America, desperate for a voice and a leader, has found one in Al Gore.

A proven winner

Only Gore has demonstrated he can take the heat and win the presidency of the United States. Even without considering the Florida fiasco, in 2000 he defeated George W. Bush by more than half a million votes, receiving the second largest number of votes ever cast in a presidential election.

As a moderate with a populist message and strong support among independents, Gore can unite the different factions within his party as well as draw support from voters of other partisan or non-partisan persuasions.

And recent polls indicate that Gore would be the favorite both for the nomination (see primary polls in New Hampshire, Michigan) and the general election.

A statesman with experience to be President

Gore’s credentials and experience are second to none. As vice president for eight years of peace and prosperity, he worked closer than any of his predecessors with the President, and many have called him the most successful vice president in history. Previously he served eight years in the House and was elected to a second term in the Senate. He has since worked with heads of state and other influential individuals and groups worldwide, and is respected by leaders around the globe.

Should he be elected, Al Gore would need no on-the-job training. He would hit the ground running from Day 1 with a vision and experience second to none.

And a cause that shall never die

Al Gore personifies a cause to millions of people who fiercely believe he was rightfully elected in 2000, and who will never get over the events that stopped the counting of the votes in Florida and put the election in the hands of a partisan Supreme Court. To this day people continue to address him as President Gore. As Martin Peretz wrote in a June 2006 op-ed in The New Republic, “there is an undercurrent of guilt around the country about the fact that the presidency was taken from him by a vote of 5 to 4."

Without a Gore candidacy, the country will be forever divided by a profound sense of justice denied. He may not have wished to become a cause, but millions of Americans cannot forget, and many more wonder each day, “What could have been?”


Heathen said...

I'd vote for Al... but I don't think I'll get the chance. Does anyone really think he'll get in the race?


I'd vote for Al if Dick Cheney were his opponent.

derF said...

If it is another limitation of choice, an other construction of consensus, that reduces all possibilities to a selection between Democrats and Republicans then Dick Cheney or another incarnation of the same policies is the opponent. However, a corporately invested Democrat can't be viewed as a legitimate alternative.

csm said...

Actually, almost any Democrat is a legitimate alternative to me since I don't see any of them shitting on the constitution the way W and crew have.

Frankly, several of the Republicans are even legitimate alternatives at this point. I just hate the front running three (Looney Bird Thompson, Giuliani the Gestapo, and Bush-toady McCain) because I can see any of them being almost as bad as W.

Of course, that is just my opinion... and Al Gore would be the best alternative to the whole sorry lot of them that are actually running.


Democratic bowels have nary a compunction to soil our sacred document. They have been doing it since FDR! The New Deal was inherently un-Constitutional and now that New Deal has become the Olde Deal with both sides gloating over the power they hold over this country's citizenry!

derF said...

I think the problem bawdy is concerned about goes back to the Wilson/House establishment of a privately owned Federal Reserve Bank.
The more I read from him the more he comes of as a Milton Freidman libertarian. I'm wondering if he'd be interested in reading Naomi Klein's 'The Shock Doctrine'. Just to get an other perspective.


Thanks for the compliment derF, and I am serious. When I was a young man I would have put myself in the other camp, but at some point I realized the fallacies of socialism. Milton Freidman, Barry Goldwater and Thomas Jefferson, I cannot think of greater Americans.

derF said...

I’m glad you found the observation complementary, bawdy. Funny how these things reveal themselves, isn’t it? I don’t remember you ever mentioning Friedman before but now that you have shown that he is one of your ‘heroes’ it helps explains some things about you. Still, I’m having difficulty understanding how you can praise someone who didn’t believe in democracy (Freidman) with Jefferson, who was so committed to democracy that he advocated generational revolution.

Here is an offering in case reading the book is too demanding. You may enjoy it. I’m sure you’ll enjoy parts of it.



I certainly would never say to anyone that I am a Freidman scholar(actually a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none would be more apt)and I would also admit I am probably not as smart as you, but I have never heard that Freidman was anti-democracy. Freidman's main thesis in all of his work was freedom in all it's facets. And with that I see no conflict between Freidman and Jefferson. And here I thought you would go after Goldwater!