Draft Gore 2008? (NRR)
waxjunky
1,849 Posts
So I'm seeing rumblings and gossip about Al Gore possibly connected to the Green Party ticket for 2008. Again, there is no official connection as of yet, but it seems to be gaining momentum. I would love to see a third party emerge in the U.S. I feel like it's the only way to enact real change.I think a legitimate candidate, like Gore, (someone with actual high-level political experience) could be just the catalyst. Or would Gore just undermine the Democratic vote and get another Republican in office? Will we ever break free of the two-party system?
Comments
Yes.
And Gore must have fairly bitter feelings
towards the Green Party, I would think. They
could be seen as a big reason he was given the
title of "professor" instead of "President."
In general, I agree that eventually we need a third party (or more) to gain recognition and popularity, and that would help the polarized political situation we're in now. But seriously, if there ever was a time when this could really really wait, it is the next election.
Yeah, I'd go with more than three, but you gotta start somewhere. And Al Gore for Green Party nominee in '08 equals President Mitt Romney. And ask any Massachusite - you don't want that absentee talking head for the next leader of the free world.
I don't think Romney's gonna get the GOP nomination. He's far too unliked by the hardcore Pubbies who make up the GOP caucus.
he messed it up the last time I voted for him, not gonna give hime a second chance to throw it.
You totally underestimate this guy's ego.
That's certainly possible. If these rumours do prove to be true then it would be a strategic error of surreal proportions. Although bizarre things do sometimes happen. Does anyone else remember Kerry's pathetic overtures to try to recruit McCain as his V.P. last go around?
True on paper.
The Greens best national showing was in 2000. Ralph Nader V Al Gore. The end result was Greens hate Gore, Gore hates Greens. Not a likely scenario, but what do I know?
Did anyone see Fahrenheit 911? I know a lot of people around here think that it was a big attack on the president from the Democrats. The movie's first 15 minutes or so are an all out attack on Al Gore. More than the Supreme Court it was Gore who gave the election to Bush. Maybe he will run. The GOP could nominate Laura or Jeb or Neal and he could give the election to Bush again.
As too the need for more parties. Yes. I have supported many 3rd party candidates in my day. The reason we do not have more parties is not that no one high profile have run. From WJ Bryant - Strom Thurmond - Barry Commoner - Ralph Nader there have been plenty of high profile 3rd party candidates.
The reason no 3rd party candidates are successful is because we have a 2 party, majority rule system. If we had a more democratic system, like the rest of the world, there would be lots of parties. Evangelicals could have party as well as anarchists. They would all have representation and be able to form ruling or opposition collations. That is what the rest of the world calls democracy.
Probably the same as how Perot gave the election to Clinton.
Gore had his shot. Time to let Obama or someone else run.
I think more parties would be a good kick in the ass for both parties, they would stop taking their base for granted, and they would be forced to strategize beyond just turnout. Unfortunately, this election is way too important a time to try and fine tune our democracy. Now is a time to loudly reject the last 6 years and reverse the deterioration of our standing in the world.
Also, Gore's got a lot of baggage. Rockadelic and others froth at the mere mention.
False dichotomy. Politics is not a true/false question.
Yes, third party candidates can split the vote of one of the two majority parties, and it's always the Democrats. Why? Because they've been the default Progressive Party for years, for want of a truly Progressive party. Yet, every time a reasonable third party candidate arises, that candidate pulls a few solid percentage points. It may not seem like much, but that only represents those who were willing to make a statement with their vote knowing full-well that the candidate would not win and that they may be helping the Republicans, yet felt that the statement was worth making anyway.
What we really need is campaign finance reform. Then you'll see new parties turning up every day.
I'd direct those people, and their defenders, to take a look at Iraq, Afganistan, the Supreme Court, the justice dept, New Orleans and on and on, and ask themselves, was that insignificant blip of a political statement worth it. Talk about cutting off the nose, your gonna hurt the guys you mostly agree with, because they don't go quite as far as you'd like in a tight national election?
Theres a time and place for idealism, but with Rove and co. out there, unfortunately, this aint it.
We knew Gore would take Massachusetts.
But 2004? I voted Gore. In the hope that Gore would once again win the popular vote. That way, if he again lost the election, there would be a pattern of electoral misrepresentation that might have helped generate enough public uproar to bring about the end of the electoral college.
THAT'S realpolitik.
Too easy.
I hear you about being in a non swing state, just saying, overall, supporting these candidates is NAGL as far as real world consequences.
Bush did not win because of Nader.
Bush did not win because of Nader.
Bush did not win because of Nader.
Bush did not win because of Nader.
Bush did not win because of Nader.
Bush did not win because of Nader.
Bush did not win because of Nader.
Bush did not win because of Nader.
Bush did not win because of Nader.
Bush did not win because of Nader.
Bush did not win because of Nader.
Bush did not win because of Nader.
Bush did not win because of Nader.
Bush did not win because of Nader.
Bush did not win because of Nader.
Oh, hell no. I'm waiting to make a decision, but I'm feeling Obama right now. He has a reasonable demeanor, and he looks like he might have the support.
It's all about pragmatic decision-making. Get the most you can with what you got. I think the lawyers on this board can agree with that.
I'm not big on pragmatic voting. Makes me feel dirty. But I'm not a lawyer.
I'm not a lawyer either. It's easy to talk ideals, but if you walk away at the end of the day with nothing, all it is is talk. Politically, I've been revolutionary and radical in my time. Now, I just want do the best I can with my vote. And if that means voting for "the lesser evil," so be it. I prefer to think of it as using my vote for the greater good.
Not that there is anything wrong with being a lawyer.
Uh, um, no... of course not. Good folk, those lawyers. Salt of the earth.
of all things in Michael Moore's film, shining the light on Gore's cowardly, shameful behavior after the 2000 election was the hardest to stomach. It made me want to punch him in the face. What a piece of shit...I have never heard anyone explain to me what reason he may have had for practically silencing the black congresional caucus as they spoke in turn for the people who had been disenfranchised in Florida. One of the most sickening and underreported events in current history. What a disaster ...what a low low point for civil rights, the democratic party, our nation and global politics.