The case for ideological unity and AL GORE

[angka]

A great danger confronts the Democratic party as is confronts its greatest challenge since the civil rights movement—the removal of the illegitimate Bush administration. We’ve got a new analogy we can apply: the circus of the recall election in California. The appalling situation there teaches volumes about what can happen when we don’t take care of our own. It teaches that the right can create an environment that turns vital issues into a parlor game of massive scale. In the process, they simultaneously advance their own agenda while (in the case of California) papering over their own primary culpability in the problems which are generating discontent—and the alleged 'mandate for change.'

Meanwhile, back at the ranch…

A gaggle of contenders is busy factionalizing opposition to their mutual enemy. To the extent that such jockeying at each other’s expense is normal and permissible early in an election season, it’s understandable. But it is taking place amid a growing realization that a major particular crime of Bush’s (for a change) is coming out—and a bunch of these candidates signed onto this crime. The emerging crisis over Bush lying the country into an unprovoked war is a crisis for these candidates as well, and they are feeling the unpleasant after effects of selling out. Progressives with their bullshit squelch way up are not buying their careful restatements on the Iraq war today.

And everyone is freaking out about Howard Dean committing the indiscretion of pointing out that some of these guys will ‘say anything to become president.’ The truth is the Dean is one of the only candidates who is truly ‘clean’ on Iraq, not to mention the historic and treacherous Patriot Act that so many senators (all but one, wasn’t it?) got behind. So that would be Senators Kerry, Graham, Lieberman. Gephardt did his bit in the house, and no amount of posturing ex post facto will erase that from history.

But the Democratic establishment doesn’t want Dean. They’re gonna stomp him silly before January; this has been more or less made clear by the hands-off treatment Dean is getting now. Their motives are inscrutable to me, unless I factor in institutions like the DLC as Republicans. Then it makes a rather ominous kind of sense.

And for all the rhetoric between the emerging ‘camps’, a recent poll concluded that two thirds of Americans have no idea who these candidates are. And as the infighting between them gets uglier, and the hopes of very good men like Dean who would make marvelous Presidents get ground down on the wheel of political cynicism, I start to entertain silly notions like:

What would happen if the true facts of the 2000 electoral fraud which gave Bush the Presidency became household knowledge?

What if the press got to work explaining to the American people the extent to which they have been lied to since 9/11 (and especially on Iraq)? Or GOP complicity in the looting and destruction of the New Economy? Or even the truth about the goddamn unemployment rate?

What if Al Gore decided to end this division and resultant weakness in what should be a united struggle against clear tyrannies? What if he decided that righting what went so horribly wrong in 2000 is worth the stress?

The very idea of it fills me with rage and hope, and I want it to be more than an idle, unworkable notion…

[kodi]

1. i think that an open convention leads to al gore

of all the possible candidates he is probably the most palatable to the numerous factions in the party.

if that happens, watch out for the junior senator from the great state of new york as vp.

pay back's a bitch.

[Shanty Oilish]

2. Call me establishment

"But the Democratic establishment doesn’t want Dean...Their motives are inscrutable to me..."

Here's my motive. Dean wins the nomination and the Bush campaign commercials begin. With Dean saying "politicians will say anything..." Freepers will sing "Where Have All The Dem Votes Gone?" with the rapturous refrain, "When will they ever learn?" Dean won't get the pro-life voters, he won't appeal to anyone who has gut misgivings about rich Yale men with no foreign policy experience in this post-9/11 world, and he'll turn off voters who can't stomach gay rights. That's a lot of people.
I'm Type ABB, so I'll vote for him, but I'm not looking forward to it.
Unity will come, no matter the nominee. But Gore would win. He did before. Despite Dean's positives, I see him as a McGovern-Dukakis hybrid. Good men, but each gave the opposition a little sword.

[loyalsister]

4. Guns vs. Abortion

A couple of legislators here in Missouri told me that the gun issue tops abortion amongst Democratic leaning rural voters. These opinions come from reading the mail from and talking to their rural voters.

[loyalsister]

3. Ideological unity

A phrase that strikes me a repulsive. My intepretation of it may not be at all what you meant, however. I think the ideological unity of the right as the lock step marching. Where noone is allowed to disagree on any issue.
On the other hand, I believe that we need a unity of principle with the goal of getting rid of the gurrent admin and THEIR ideological unity.
As far as the Democratic establishment weilding their power, if that were the case they would be trying to influence states on this issue more. I am very active and have seen none of it. I live in Missouri and if they truly wanted to sabatoge Dean, I would think they would be helping push Gephardt. Guess what. There is barely evidence that Gep is running for pres. in mid-missouri.
I personally would be disgusted with Gore if he got back in the race. I think he made his decision and should stand by it. He and Clinton both have considerable political capital that they can use from the sidelines to bolster whichever candidate is chosen. We have a great asset if they work for us from there.
I wanted Gore to run, but I am very tired of rehashing 2000. I don't want the upcoming election to be about that. There are a million other things to be concerned about right now. I want to look to the future confident that we have someone willing to do what needs to be done to take care of it. I want optimism, not a martyrdom campaign over 2000. Whoever the nominee is. I just want them to be able to get elected and get what needs to be done accomplished to address our most pressing needs.
I think Dean is the guy because I have heard from Independents and Republicans that he has convinced them. If he can convince some of those voters, he can convince some Northeastern Senators and Rep.s to go along with what he has in mind for healthcare. Getting it done is the thing.

[angka]

5. no that would be ideological purity.

otherwise known as fascism. like michael savage advocating the arrest of anti-war organizers in february under the sedition act. and that's the exact opposite of what i'm about.

'rehashing 2000.' 'martyrdom campaign over 2000.' you know what i think? i think there are alot of dems out there who know they let gore twist in the wind in the face of unprecedented election fraud. they've seen the result of our capitulation on this issue. and the democratic leadership's reaction is to bury all reference to it, to downplay its significance, in the hopes that we will not catch on to their weakminded passivity (or worse). because if we do, we just might throw them from the temple with the other money-changers.

i will never concede the shameful fraud of the 2000 elections, and in the end history will be on my side. we should have never had to endure these years of bush tyranny. and i'm tired of otherwise good liberals telling me that it's just time to 'move on.' what we have here, if you can see the forest through the trees, is the destruction of the Republican Party—if the truth about their criminal abuses of power ever sees the light of day. what would therefore be wrong with restoring the rightful heir to the throne?