A small but well organized campaign staffed by volunteers is working hard to draft Al Gore in the New Hampshire Democratic primaries by write-in vote. Al Gore has not decided to run, but the Draft Gore campaign is designed to get enough write-in votes in the NH primary to convince Mr. Gore that there is massive grassroots support for him to run for president.
Let's go over the reasons for drafting Al Gore to run for president. First off, he actually won the 2000 election and had the presidency taken from him by five members of the Supreme Court, several of whom had been appointed by Pappy Bush. Righting this wrong will go a long way toward healing our nation.
Second, no one running on the Democratic side has anywhere near the level of experience in running this country that Al Gore has. If you want someone who is progressive in the White House, someone who cares about our Constitution and who knows what they are doing, you want Al Gore.
Third, if you are concerned about our environment and how it is being degraded on a daily basis, no other Democratic candidate even comes close to a total commitment to the environment as Al Gore.
Fourth, if you are concerned that your civil rights and freedoms have been eliminated one after the other, and this worries you, then you want someone like Al Gore in the White House who will work tirelessly to reverse the Bush administration's domestic agenda.
Fifth, if you think that far too many US tax dollars have been squandered in unnecessary wars overseas, and that that money would be much better spent in the United States on things like education and infrastructure, then you want a progressive like Al Gore in the White House.
Finally, if you think that the United States has shunned diplomacy and foreign relations over the last seven years, and you believe that this makes the United States less safe and less influential, then you want someone with a solid record in diplomacy as president. That would be Al Gore.
If you live in New Hampshire and you think that Al Gore should run for president, you can donate your time to help the draft Gore movement leading up to the New Hampshire primaries on January 8th. If you don't live in New Hampshire you can still help by donating to the cause.
Al Gore's name will not be on the ballots in the upcoming NH primaries, but you can still vote for him by write-in vote. If everyone who is interested chips in time or money, and Al Gore gets more write-in votes than candidates like Biden and Dodd, it could just be enough of an impetus to bring Al Gore into the race.
One final thing. If you think that science should be promoted, rather than censored, then you want someone in the White House who lives in the tradition of the citizen/scientist, like Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson. Al Gore will never censor scientific data like George Bush does, and instead, Al Gore will boost spending on biomedical research to cure human diseases, while working to save our environment, and our planet.
Dr. John Moffett is an active research neuroscientist in the Washington, DC area, who has published articles on the nervous and immune systems. Dr. Moffett is also the author and webmaster of the political opinion website www.Factinista.org, and is a Managing Editor at OpEdNews.com.
That is why Al Gore will have to be a write-in choice in many primaries.
The main issue is, can we get enough attention for him to run by doing well in the write-in primary in NH. If Gore beats other Dems who are actually on the ballot, it will make big news.
John
by
John R Moffett (78 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 587 comments)
on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 10:54:43 AM
Before jumping on the Al Gore bandwagon, someone needs to reconcile this man's membership in the Council on Foreign Relations. You know, one of the three secretive organizations along with the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderbergers which meets quietly every year to set the world agenda.
by
Bill Cain (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 242 comments)
on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 11:37:37 AM
Kidding about what? That Al Gore is a member of the Coucil on Foreign Relations? Look it up for yourself. Then start educating yourself about what these three organizations are really all about.
Ask yourself where you first heard about the official cause of global warming. If it's like me, you heard about it through the mainstream - that body of ever-questionable disinformation which propelled most everyone reading this to subscribe to sites like this one in the first place.
Then begin reading about the body of evidence that suggests that global warming is caused by sun activity, and that it's happening on Mars, as well as on Earth. Start here:
It's funny how well the memes the energy companies put out persist through person after person. That's what this nonsense is. People who challenge the validity of the threat of global warming will, in the near future, be mocked like the people who claimed the earth was flat.
by
Rob Kall (721 articles, 3749 quicklinks, 304 diaries, 1485 comments)
on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 3:53:57 PM
"It's funny how well the memes the energy companies put out persist through person after person. That's what this nonsense is. People who challenge the validity of the threat of global warming will, in the near future, be mocked like the people who claimed the earth was flat."
Sorry, Rob, but this has nothing to do with memes from the energy companies. Nonsense? A week after 9-11 did you think it was an inside job? Now that it's safe to talk in those terms, we're all OK with it. Funny how truth passes through those three phases I keep reading about in articles on your site.
If you had bothered to understand what I was saying, you would have noticed that I wasn't challenging whether global warming was occuring - only the official reasons for it.
Did you bother to read the articles from the links I included? Probably not - too much nonsense.
It's tough getting off a bandwagon after it's picked up steam, but the real folly is allowing ourselves to be deceived again and again without bothering to examine evidence that we feel, a priori, is too ridiculous to bother with.
Annointing Gore, a political operative like the rest of them, as our savior from global warming based on what he has been made out to be by the mainstream, is as big a mistake as criticizing all the 9-11 Truth researchers who had to endure the slings and arrows in the year or so following that event.
by
Bill Cain (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 242 comments)
on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 4:17:02 PM
read the four articles you cited. I've been paying attention and educating myself on this for a long time. I've been watching how James Imhofe has been trumpeting the anti and minimilization of global warming. Well, now, Barbara Boxer runs the senate committee on the environment and the trivialization of global warming, through attempts to normalize it and explain it away as a normal part of the earth's planetary cycle. I don't buy it.
That said, I'm not sure that there is much that can be done. It looks like the process is accelerating.
by
Rob Kall (721 articles, 3749 quicklinks, 304 diaries, 1485 comments)
on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 10:05:00 PM
Maybe instead of paying all your attention to political hacks, you should start educating yourself with sources that have no political ax to grind. You might be amazed at what is being kept from you.
by
Bill Cain (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 242 comments)
on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 8:16:39 PM
Al Gore is doing more good as an environmental activist
than he'd do as President.
As President he'd be spread thin across a range of issues that would leave him less time for the environment and climate change. If Gore himself is to be taken seriously on his message then there isn't time for mucking around.
I don't think the US is going to be forgiven internationally frankly for the Bush administration unless it repudiates the Bush administration via impeachment. No PR tour by an incoming President telling the world that the US has returned to the rule of law and is "open for businesses again" will mean jack if the US still has the precedents in place that the Bush adminstration has created.
Foreign distrust (which is rational don't forget) may not always be presented clearly by foreign diplomats in the media in ways that the US population picks up but it is real.
Personally, I like Al Gore. But I wound not trust a President Al Gore to uphold international law as President (this is based on a statement he is reported to have made . by Richard Perle "off course its illegal - thats why its a covert operation") whilst the American people themselves are so comfortable with breaking international law.
International law and confidence that the Americans can be trusted when they make treaties is vital not only to the environment but to restoring a rational basis for international peace and security.
John your whole country is on trial at the moment and impeachment is the litmus test of your national character. Unlike the national character of lesser countries the national character of ostensibly democratic America can be objectively determined by measuring Americans walk on international law against their talk.
Currently American foreign policy encourages an international arms race and excourages the creation of terrorism as a form of political action in an environment where the rule of law is conspicuously not respected.
Al Gore's shoulders aren't broad enough and there is no single hero that can be good enough to save (restore frankly) America honor on his own.
American is what all Americans in the aggregate do. And the world knows it. America (unlike most other countries) is too prominent to be able to hide and to be able to avoid anti-American sentiment when anti-American sentiment is justified by what Americans allow their leaders to do.
Without impeachment it is an intellectual necessity for foreigners to factor in future 'defaults' by American's on matter of law and of honor. And the world can't solve big problems that require international cooperation - like climate change - when American's aren't trusted to keep their word.
No single good person, not Al Gore, not anyone, can stand up against the systemic bias towards short sighted national interest and corporatism if the American people are not themselves playing their part in keeping the American system working as a system of laws and as a system where solemn oaths made are kept.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 771 comments)
on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 3:29:01 PM
Correction...it was Richard Clarke not Richard Perle
in Clarke's book Against All Enemies : Inside America's War on Terror.
Clarke writes "The first time I had proposed a snatch, [of Osama Bin Laden], the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore" Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."
Now I know some intelligent Americans will think that Gore was just applying realpolitik by encouraging the breaking of international law when it involved grabbing Osama Bin Laden via 'extraordinary rendition'. I know they would think that the last thing you want in a President is some sort of holier than though unrealism that leaves enemies of the American people at large. But what is missed in that line of thinking is that the rule of law is the only way humans have of together managing larger existential risks - like the risks of climate change. If American Presidents start routinely breaking laws and the breaking of laws becomes expected then corporations will start asking American Presidents to break laws not just to catch terrorists but to save a few American jobs.
International law is the only way we have of getting international cooperation on the big stuff that requires international cooperation. Like climate change and like prohibiting the aggressive invasion of entire countries on pretexts for instance.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 771 comments)
on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 4:26:07 PM
Gore won the 2000 election and walked away from it without a fight. How can anyone respect that? He wouldn't even come through for the Congressional Blac Causcus when they need the support of just ONE Senator to be able to contest the election results. Kucinich has more courage, more integrity and more clarity of vision than a dozen Gore's.
Jeez, just drop the "Draft Gore" nonsense, will you? He let us down once, he'll do it again.
by
JonmarkP (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 56 comments)
on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 3:32:28 PM
Get the story straight. Kerry didn't fight in 2004.
Gore continued the effort for 3 weeks while the votes were being recounted in FL. Then Bush took it to the Supreme Court, and Gore lost 5 to 4 due to the Republican Justice’s one time, unprecedented decision to have a Federal Court overrule a State Court in a vote recount issue.
Period.
PS, I love Dennis Kucinich, and would vote for him in a second. I think Gore has a better chance to win the general election.
by
John R Moffett (78 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 587 comments)
on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 4:29:58 PM
Gore is the man many of us "wish" were President - the last 8 years have been a nightmare. But, he says he's not running. If he changed his tune, I'd look at the issues. I can't get behind drafting a man that says he does not want to do it and writing in seems like a waste of time.
I think he's the leader on Global Warming and was glad to see he won the Nobel. Proved himself over the bum in office.
Gore also came out in support of Single Payer Universal Health Care. The best long term solution if we want a people focused solution. Love to have both of those mega issues addressed and he seems like he has the knowledge and will.
People are waking up to the cradle to cradle model of sustainability. Unfortunately, there is less "profit" in that model. Better for people. Worse for profits. Until we move from a profit focus to a people and planet focus - we all lose. We're moving there... but what will win? Profits or people?
None of the front running political candidates can take us there and most of the American public still walks in the media trance... sucks it up.
2012... 2016... new auto Cafe standards set for 2020...
Human race? Oil, Health Care, Water, Climate Change... ends 2020?
What's the rush? [sarcasm] It's only the PLANET and HUMAN RACE!!
by
August Adams (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 372 comments)
on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 12:25:41 AM
This is a real question not a mockery. Al Gore's record clearly shows him a proponent of global trade. Both NAFTA and our entry into the WTO occurred during his tenure as vice president. I have researched the fact that he supported both programs.
These two agreements allowed countries such as China and Korea to grow immeasurably by producing goods without trade barrier for Americas insatiable appetite for anything cheap. Profits before people if you would. This was also accomplished on the backs of some 3 million Americans who have lost important jobs in industry.
The U.S. effectively moved their production to countries that do not practice environmental controls. Our Western forests are now being invaded by Asian pollution and natural resources are being consumed at an alarming rate.
Was not Mr. Gore a key enabler in this process? A proponent of excessive global consumption and the accompanying pollution? If you see this differently please explain.
by
Mike Folkerth (97 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 464 comments)
on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 12:13:57 PM
This is exactly what I meant when I said that Al Gore is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. His record is that of a globalist, not someone who really gives a damn about you or me.
by
Bill Cain (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 242 comments)
on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 8:10:08 PM
REMEMBER 2000 ELECTION HE DID NOT EVEN CHALNGE THE ELECTION, BECAUSE THE CFR TOLD HIM THEY WANTED BUSH AS PRESIDENT HE IS CONTROLLED BY THE GLOBALIST, JUST TELL HIM TO SAY HOME WHERE ITS WARM.
by
RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 459 comments)
on Saturday, December 22, 2007 at 5:25:22 AM
