Vote for Gore, or die.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

In one Sopranos episode, Carmella seeks out the advice of a psychiatrist because of her internal conflicts in enjoying a Mafia-funded lifestyle. The psychiatrist informs her that he will not accept her money and that she is morally tainted by association.

"You are on a morally fatal path," he tells her, or words to that effect. He concludes by advising her to take her children and flee without any money or tainted assets. "You can't say that you haven't been told," he concludes.

We, also, are on a fatal path. This is what the scientists are telling us. We have years, not decades to act, or we will soon find that it is too late. When the arctic icecap completely melts, when the Greenland and Antarctic ice shelves inject global proportions of freshwater into the oceans, it will be way too late. Those phenomena are rapidly moving to a point of no return. The nations of the world must come together and go on a war-footing to combat climate change or civilization will collapse and billions will die.

If you do not agree with this, I urge you to study the public pronouncements of Dr. James Hansen and others who are finally casting aside the naturally conservative inhibitions of physical scientists, to tell us the urgent and inconvenient truth. Study how the models are being constantly revised with more dire predictions and acceleratingly negative data of actual, dynamic conditions.

There are those who will say the title is hyperbole. I respond that they are not well informed with the current state of climatological science. Climate change has caused more death and destruction already than Islamic terrorism in the United States. We now have more refugees than at any time since the civil war, and it is due to climate change. Yet our declared candidates (other than Kucinich) continue to fiddle while America burns. They are simply not acceptable as leaders and their record of lies, inexperience and lack of commitment makes them unsuitable for trust in our hour of greatest need.

Humanity faces its greatest threat in history. Without Al Gore providing the necessary world leadership, laws and treaties to engage in full scale war against climate change, we stand little chance of survival. Vote for Al Gore, or die. You can't say you haven't been told.

[Basileus Basileon]

1. John Edwards will strangle you in your sleep.

Hillary Clinton will gas your entire family.
Barack Obama will hog-tie you, stick a shotgun in your mouth, and pull the trigger.
Chris Dodd will tie you to the grill of a semi and crash it into a cement wall.
Joe Biden will tear your throat out with his teeth.
Bill Richardson will thrust his hand into your chest, tear out your still-beating heart, and messily devour it in front of you.

[emilyg]

2. LOL.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

4. Four of the six you mention,

do indeed have blood on their hands. They put politics above the good of the nation and voted for a war of choice. Now they lie about their reasons for doing so.

If they can't be trusted with the issue of war and peace in Iraq, how can they be trusted with an even greater crisis?

[Basileus Basileon]

5. In all seriousness,

I largely do agree with you there. I find the lack of opposition the entire field showed during the runup to the Iraq war to be extremely disheartening. Obama opposed it, sure, but has shown absolutely no leadership on the issue since he first tasted Washington. I really liked Richardson, but he's got his foot surgically implanted in his mouth. Gore is the only candidate I would be truly happy to vote for.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

6. Exactly.

The declared candidates don't measure up to the crisis.

I can't imagine why any informed person would back anyone but Gore. Seriously.

[Bucky]

62. "I can't imagine why any informed person would back anyone but Gore. Seriously."

Having a Torquemada moment? Instructing humanity about the exclusivity of the One True Faith, suggesting that all choices but yours are corrupt, is the sign of a zealot or a lunatic.

The preceding generalization is absolute truth my friend, and if you deny it, you go to hell.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

82. Actually,

I try to rely on good information and reason. If you would like to debate (torture-free ;) the arguments in the OP with me, you can decide for yourself if your first impression is accurate.

Of course the OP title was provocative, it was meant to be. But there is also logic and scientific data behind it, not dogmatism, IMO. I'm interested to know if you are willing to engage me with an open mind.

Desperate times in history call for provocation, a la Thomas Paine. Interested in exploring this?

Or has your absolutist thinking trumped mine?

[GrpCaptMandrake]

40. The entire field? WTF?

Guess you missed the whole "Dennis Kucinich has been right about the war, right about elections, right about trade, right about healthcare" factoid.

There's not a single issue separating Dennis Kucinich from Al Gore, with one exception: Dennis is actually running. That, of course, is the most significant difference of all.


Get On The H.O.R.N.
America's Only Truly Independent Liberal Radio
www.headonradionetwork.com
and
iTunes Radio (Talk/Spoken Word)

[Basileus Basileon]

43. I don't really think Kucinich is actually running in the same sense.

He may be out there on the debates, but he has a virtually nonexistent campaign framework, he consistently draws very little popular support, and he's got no real chance of even winning the Dem nomination. DK isn't in it to win it.

DK is in it to get his message out. In that regard, I completely, 100% support him. He needs to be out there, pressuring the Democratic candidates and making them confront the real issues facing Americans. I think that's his role in these elections--as the angel on our shoulders.

If he ever looked like he might have half a shot out there, I'd switch allegiance to him in a heartbeat. As it stands, I might end up voting for him in the primary, simply to register my disappointment with our Big Three. But I don't think he really belongs in a discussion of who ought win the primary, excepting in a "wouldn't-it-be-nice-if" statement.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

50. Did you happen to see the Chicago AFL-CIO debate?

The one where an entire Soldier Field crowd gave thunderous ovations to Dennis, and tepid "golf-claps" to the others?

Are you aware of the ABC on-line poll that showed Dennis so far out ahead of the rest of the pack that ABC took it down and started over from zero, only to see Dennis run out ahead again?

I've met Dennis. I've talked to him at length on several occasions. I can tell you from personal experience that he's not in this race as some sort of stalking horse. If he was, he wouldn't be doing half the things he is doing.

The fact is, he is the only candidate to have introduced universal single-payer health insurance legislation, while the rest of the pack looks for a way to keep the insurance lobby happy. He has, as we speak, a viable plan to end the Iraq Occupation NOW, as opposed to years from now, maybe.

We piss and moan and bitch and whine about not having any real candidates to support, but we blithely dismiss the one candidate who has the moral courage we yearn for and the intellect to bring to fruition the change we seek.

You say Dennis has "a virtually non-existent campaign framework." OK. The problem is, you can say the same thing about Mr. Gore, whom I admire and would gladly support in a general election. The only difference with your statement about Dennis and his campaign framework and Gore's is that for Gore, you have to remove the word "virtually." A non-candidate has a non-existent campaign framework.

Mr. Gore at present reminds me of a line from a Springsteen song, as so many of us are "waiting in vain for a Savior to rise."



Get On The H.O.R.N.!
America's Only Independent Liberal Radio Voice
www.headonradionetwork.com
and
iTunes Radio (Talk/Spoken Word)

[The Wielding Truth]

51. Yes! Kucinich is the only worthy candidate. Why is he ignored?

:applause:

[Milo_Bloom]

55. I love his message, but he's got a weird factor following him.

I am going to start by saying I don't have links, I didn't save them, even in 2003; However, I remember in the constant struggle between Dean and Kucinich supporters, people pulled out tons of speeches Kucinich had given that painted him in a VERY WEIRD light. Yes, he says a lot of things that need to be said, but he also said some stuff that sounded as crazy to me as some of the stuff that comes out of Republiican's mouths. Much of it was self-protectionist stuff that would make people think he is trying to control their lives by dictating what behavior is allowed.

If nominated, every thing he ever said would be on display and no matter how good the rest of his message may be, he will get crushed by a sea of "weird statements" and never have a real shot at the White House.

[The Wielding Truth]

57. Honestly, you need to see if those weird statements were real?

Good chance his stand was ahead of it's time and he was expressing the same views that are now clear to us.

He has been constantly against the abuse and monopoly by big business, which seems to be the biggest American problem.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kenfrequed]

56. What would Kucinich do?

After all he has been polled as being equal to Biden, Dodd, and Richardson in some polls.

[Basileus Basileon]

65. Well, I figured DK would probably be on the OP's okay list, but

The obvious answer is "Dennis Kucinich will impale you on his wife."

[tuvor]

3. No pressure, Al.

[lligrd]

7. People Don't Take Global Warming Seriously Enough

even on DU.

[Captain_Nemo]

9. I do. And I want Gore to lead the world on global warming with a strong person in the WH.

The person in the WH has to be able to lead the world in this fight and fight off the republicans who wil be trying to crucify her/him.

Who is best to do this?

Senator Clinton.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

11. Her style is about compromise,

and political expediency. She doesn't demonstrate real leadership when we need it most.

Her foreign policy record is craven and abysmal. How can you trust someone who will trade American lives for political advantage?

[Captain_Nemo]

59. This is her record on global warming legislation:

http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/08/09/clinton_factsheet/

. Senate (2001 to the present), Hillary Clinton has earned a 90 percent lifetime voting score from the League of Conservation Voters. She tends to run with the Democratic pack on climate and energy policy, putting particular emphasis on "energy independence."

[Admiral Loinpresser]

61. You make my point.

She "tends to run in the pack." She has a very good VOTING record on climate change. So does the rest of the presidential wannabe crew, for the most part. They have to vote well and give good lip service, because they are all scared shitless of Gore.

I'm talking about transcending politics-as-usual because our Earth is indeed in the balance. We don't have time for liars and political expediency. We need a real leader. She FAILED her leadership test.

Please answer this question: why should I trust HRC on a major issue after her vote for the IWR?

[Captain_Nemo]

67. You have a good point on the IWR. I think she voted wrongly. Yet, of the pack of candidates

I like her the best. I like her feminism, her committment to children's rights and she has the leadership qualities and skills that can beat back the republican sharks.
I like Obama (although he has stumbled a bit for my taste - and his kowtowing to male dominated religious types worries me) but I don't think he can survive. The republicanas are an ttack machine. And I want the strongest candidate.

If Gore runs I vote for him.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

71. Twenty or thirty years ago,

I would have been much more inclined to agree, because of some of her attractive qualities you note.

But now our planet is in the balance and margin of error in acting quickly and radically is slim or none. The rest of these liberal attributes seem mainly irrelevant at this critical (final?) hour in our history.

[Captain_Nemo]

79. I will take the liberty of correcting you on this: Feminism incorporated ecology in the 1970s:

Ecofeminism or the idea of respecting the earth was a prominent point in feminist lit at the time. It continues today.
Had we listened to this feminism and acted upon it instead of , oh lets say electing Ronald Reagan we would be farther ahead.
It is a fcet of our society - the ignoring and destruction of the feminine/the earth that has destroyed our earth.

Feminism wasn't somehting of the past. It continues. It is all about re-structuring our society. That is radical feminsim.

Also the lack of a gender power balance in our government has contributed to this ecological disaster.

Here is where I differ with Obama. He goes on about "hope" and this and that. It has no substance. Particularly when he courts religious right people who ar ehell bent on putting women's rights back 30 years adn trashing the planet (and calling it "god's will.)

I trust Hillary a lot more than I trust Brack.

When it comes to Gore...yes, I woudl vote for him over Hillary because of teh climate. (And, i told her campaign this.)

But, he's not running.

We have to guide this ship now.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

83. I think we are mainly on common ground.

I completely agree with the first three paragraphs of your response and did not mean to imply that the relationship of ecology and feminism is irrelevant to our current planetary crisis. It's very significant, IMO.

But where we clearly disagree is on the trustworthiness of HRC. I cannot rationally explain her vote on the IWR, nor on the Patriot Act (I am almost sure she voted for it, sorry if I'm mistaken), nor on Kyle Lieberman. But most of all the IWR. It speaks to her character at a deep level. In my view it smacks of political expediency.

Do you disagree? If so, on what basis?

[Captain_Nemo]

90. I can try to rationally explain her vote this way:

Since 1980 our country has been split becasue of religion (Reagan) and when Clinton came to seek the presidency it was clear to him (I am saying this based on having lived through Reagan, Clinton and Bushes) that they could not win after Bush if he and Hillary "came out" as the radical liberals that they were. Remember Hillary came under tremendous fire when she moved into the WH because her name was under "R" for Rodham in the WH rolodex. She had to "officially" change her name to Clinton and drop the Rodham for political reasons. It was disgusting. (Not that she had to bow to pressure. But because that is how shallow the religious right were).

So, if she was going to ride her "liberal causes" through the presidency she was naive. And, that became clear to her during the health care fiasco that ended with her pretty could proposal completely trashed.

He ended up being a pretty good president becasue he compromised with a republican congress. (I know Obama supporters - not sayying you are one-hate the Clinton's for these compromises. But: What is Obama doing right now with the homophobic preacher and his homophobic flock? compromising. What has he done iwth his male-dominated religious talk that kowtows to the female hating segment of our population? compromise.

This is how I see her war vote.

Bush/Rove/Cheney are cagey and they lie. I remember a lot of congresspeople talking about how they were told other information about WMD's but that it was classified. (This info can be found online.)

Now, what democrat (excusing the fabulous Barbara Lee) was going to risk voting against the war and suffer the wrath of FOX news and the rest of the MSM? If they did, it would be hellfire and the end of a career.

And the sure put rep. Lee through it.Although she is still with us in congress. I love her!

Now the Dems regret the vote, yes. The Dems needed to bind together like the repubs but that's not how the dems work. They do have problems.

I see the IWR as an example of just how fractured and fragile we are as a democracy.

If Nader hadn't run we'd have Gore. It is a sad fact. But that is over. Now I need to see who has the highest skill level to deal and save our country. and its her.

I hope I have explained something of what you wanted. Its late and I have to go.
More later perhaps if you are interested. Global Warming scares the shit out of me and I will fight to fix the problem. We CAN'T have a Republican in the WH in 2008.
Peace,

[Captain_Nemo]

8. Trying to get someone to run who doesn't want to run is a waste.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

10. Electing someone

who won't act with commitment to the crisis is the true waste. And a tragedy.

Believe me, I hope I'm wrong. I hope if someone other than Gore is elected, that person would do the right thing. But the public record (and the lack thereof) of the top three declared candidates makes me much more than skeptical. Science tells us bold action is necessary. These aren't the ones to do that.

[Captain_Nemo]

58. I would vote for him if he were running. But he is not. And I won't waste itme trying to get him

to run. There is too much to do.

[JTFrog]

14. Tell that to the people who

drafted Ike.

[Californian Dreamer]

60. Someone who doesn't want to run

Would actually say they didn't want to run. They would not let this happen, they would let this fervor build. The state it clearly, plainly and early.

However, someone who did want to run, but not be subject to the barbs and poison of the media right away, or be subject to any of the other baggage of an announced candidate, just might not say anything. He might let the attempts to nominate him go on. He might just keep making speeches, getting awards, getting his own message across in his own way without being subject to the equal time restrictions of a political campaign. He might just let the early front runners tear each other apart, and let the better but less popularized candidates get as many words in edgewise as they can. He might just have found the perfect way to go around the media, the way to run a perfect stealth campaign.

And he might just be Al Gore.

[Cronus Protagonist]

12. I'm done with wars

We don't need a war against climate change, we need a worldwide commitment to responsible stewardship of the planet and as you say, Albert Gore is THE ONE.

[JTFrog]

13. What would you do if Al died tomorrow?

Throw your hands in the air and go find a nice burial site?

I want Al Gore for President in 2008 so much I can taste it. But I'm under no illusions. We the people had better be ready to bear the brunt of the work necessary to save our planet.

I suggest a backup plan, rather than just go off and die.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

15. I would fight on.

Where there is life, there is hope.

Without Gore, however, our chances are severely diminished, because the current slate of declared candidates mainly represent failures of leadership.

Obama would probably be the only rational choice, becaause he hasn't shown a profound lack of leadership or judgement as the rest have. But that is not a risk I would like to take. Would Obama call for international climate talks to be accelerated from 2012 to 2010 (as Gore has), thus putting more pressure on himself, just as he is learning the ropes? That is the kind of "Hail Mary" play we would have to bet on without the proven commitment and leadership of Gore.

I agree completely with what you are saying about the people. I think you have succintly encapsulated the message of An Inconvenient Truth in that regard, i.e. that the ultimate solution is in the hands of the people. It's not that Gore's election will solve anything, but rather, it will be the first necessary step in changing course. Without the American people, Gore can do nothing.

A backup plan (i.e. Gore not in the White House) is morally indicated, for sure, but not a happy prospect. As an analogy, probably the best plan for saving the Roman Republic was for Pompey Magnus to defeat Julius Caesar in Greece at their last battle. When that failed, the back up plan which eventually emerged was the assassination of dictator Caesar, but that failed (as a tactic to preserve the republic) as well and was less likely to succeed, IMO, that a military defeat of Caesar in the field.

[JTFrog]

18. I agree with you

in that our chances would be severely diminished. I also agree that electing Gore would absolutely be the best catalyst to the system and our best hope of actually changing our course.

I probably read a little more defeatism in your OP than was intended and I recognized a lot of my own fears in there. I'm glad to hear you say you'd fight on. I've wondered about my own strength to fight on. But I know I have to. Not for myself, but for my children and all the children of the world and their future.

[flyarm]

39. would love it if you posted something here:

http://current.com/items/Mr-Gore--Just-Imagine/86188601

fly

[Admiral Loinpresser]

80. Tried several times.

I'm still having trouble posting on Current. Sorry, but I'll keep trying.

[cali]

17. Hero worship is a sickness. Thinking Al Gore is the hope of

humanity to survive is a sickness.

Al Gore is not Christ. He is not a savior. And as President he'd be hemmed in by the same constraints as any other president.

I find the hero worship in your post frighteningly delusional.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

19. I think you are misconstruing.

Sure he is a hero, in my opinion. So are Benjamin Franklin, Washington, Lincoln, both Roosevelts.

And a host of others: Crazy Horse, Ghandi, King. That native woman who was also nominated for the Nobel Prize. Scores of people. Many of my heroes are people in the draft Gore movement who have acted energetically and courageously while most of the American people are still in denial about this short window of opportunity.

But we are right now dealing with an unparallelled crisis and Gore is the only viable figure who can lead America and the world. His election is not a solution, it is a first major step at changing the course of the Titanic. Without the mobilization of the people, he cannot do what needs to be done.

America is way behind on climate change, thanks to the Bush family and the mainstream media. The world is yearning for American leadership. The kind that Gore exhibited when he personally saved the Kyoto talks in 1997. That's right. Without his personal courage and leadership, there would be no Kyoto Accord, straight up. The people are necessary, absolutely. But bold leadership is also necessary in a time of crisis.

[cali]

20. I don't think so.

Vote Gore or die is a false paradigm. And frankly, an American president can do only so much about climate change. If you think that Al Gore can change what's happening in China, think again.

And as I said, I don't do hero worship. I think it's a plague on the human race.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

21. Why is it a false paradigm?

Argument by bald assertion won't cut it.

How much an American president can do is pivotal to our survival. Gore made the difference at Kyoto. No Gore, no Kyoto treaty. Are you aware of this? Please answer this question.

The world effort on global warming really started, IMO, in 1992 at Rio de Janeiro. Those talks were sabotaged by George H. W. Bush and progress since 2001, of course, has been sabotaged by Dubya. So who is in the White House makes a night-and-day difference in treaty progress.

I honestly don't know how Gore will address the Chinese. I did hear him say they have expressed a willingness to step up for the treaty which will supercede Kyoto. It is a question of getting them to adjust the long-term economic policy they adopted in the late 1970s for their own survival. I think there is definitely hope assuming we have a president who is willing to use every carrot and stick available. Gore is the only American with any success with the Chinese in this regard.

Frankly, I think you are obsessed on the topic of hero worship. I'm not. I was introduced to Gore in 2005 at a Democratic fundraiser. I didn't fawn on him, in fact I kidded around with him. Projection is better used for showing movies than interpreting motives.

[cali]

22. No. I don't see Gore as wholly responsible for Kyoto

Please provide the evidence that "no Gore, no Kyoto treaty" is an accurate statement. And how effective has Kyoto been?
China is a huge problem and I don't for one minute believe that Gore or anyone can solve it. They are currently building one coal fired plant per week, and have plans to continue doing so years into the future.

Frankly, I'm more in line with Lovelock. I think we've probably passed the tipping point. No, no, no; that doesn't mean I think we should all give up. Far from it. We should fight as if we can save the world from catastrophic climate change. And I don't believe that Gore is the only person who can deal with the Chinese. In any case, I'd just as soon see Gore appointed to some new position- Climate Czar or something to that effect, with real power, where he could focus solely on the issue. Presidents cannot deal only with one issue.. And if he were president, he'd have a lot more on his plate than climate change.

And I just want to point out that writing Vote Gore or die, is about as big a bald assertion as you could possibly find.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

23. Here's the proof on Kyoto:

World talks aimed at reaching a protocol on global warming seemed on the verge of collapse one week after they began in Kyoto, Japan. Europeans wanted the United States to agree to steeper cuts in pollution emissions. The American delegates and other wealthy nations wanted developing countries to make a stronger committment to pollution controls. Gore was caught in the middle of it all. He knew that without his intervention, the Kyoto talks were likely to fail. But there was enormous pressure on him not to go. He was told that the agreement might do major damage to the economy, endangering everything that had been gained, socially and politically, over the Clinton boom years. Furthermore, whatever he did would not be enough to please the environmentalists, and the business community was strongly opposed to the talks and hoped they would collapse. His trusted consultant, Bob Squier, armed with polling data, came to him and said he was absolutely convinced that it was political suicide. "You can't go," he told Gore. "If you go, I can't help you. No one can help you. This is going to kill you."

If Squier was caution whispering persuasively in his ear, Gore was not listening this time. Before he left, he met with a dozen senior administration staffers in his West Wing Office. Only one person in the room thought he should go. That was Al Gore. During the meeting, he went around the room, asking aides one by one for their opinion. Some said that the decision was very difficult and that they would not offer a position. Others were adamant that he should not go. Thank you very much, Gore said. I'm going to think about this. There was no way he was not going to Japan. He worked on his speech on the flight over, then conferred with President Clinton from his hotel room, working out the final wording before heading over to the conference room-- cavernous, windowless and beige-- where hundreds of delegates were waiting. The room fell silent as he walked in. He said that the Americans were willing to show "an increased negotiating flexibility"-- words that refueled the talks. After meeting privately with officials from South America, Japan, China, India, Brazil and Europe to broker a consensus, the treaty was kept alive. As he left, he flashed a thumbs-up sign to his aide, Katie McGinty. Go get'em, he said. Call me if you need me. On the plane back, Gore walked through the cabin pumped by adrenaline, as his staff slept in utter exhaustion.

The Prince of Tennessee, by David Maraniss, pp. 287-88.

Need to go to bed. Have a good night. I enjoy the debate and will try to pick it up tomorrow, if you're still interested.

[cali]

24. Thanks. I'll read it while you sleep.

I too enjoyed the debate. Sweet dreams.

[cascadiance]

38. This isn't about deifying Gore... It is about looking at the "best" of our options.

Al Gore is the one person that most people could:

a) provide intelligent leadership and focus on the right solutions for issues like global warming, the iraq war, and our nation's economy, etc.
b) not be inherently tied to the corporatocracy that is currently destroying our country in so many respects.
c) a candidate that could break through the corporatocracy's control over the flow of information (the media) and actually win an election.

There aren't many folks out there that can fit that bill. Al Gore's one of them. If there were others, I'd gladly jump on board with one of them. Thought earlier that Russ Feingold might be that person, though on item c, Gore does better. I've moved on from Russ Feingold running and am now looking at Gore.

This isn't about trying to put some "religious" figure in charge of our government that we don't question, etc. It is about finding that right gem in a pile of rocks that can lead us out of a time of crisis. And that time of crisis we are facing now is a lot more daunting than its ever been in our lifetimes, and perhaps the lifetimes of all of us through American history.

I'm sure even if Al gets elected, that he'll make his mistakes too. He's human. But of all of the humans we have before us now, he's the one that I think gives us the best shot at coming through the mess we are in now. Many of us here feel the same way. To give up on him is basically saying in a way "we die" as many of us don't see another alternative amongst those running or potentially running who can get us out of this mess.

[FuJun]

27. Thank You...This Needs to be Said N/T

[Kazak]

28. Oh please...

Al Gore is easily the most experienced and most electable of the group, AND he's already begun leading on arguably the most important issue we face as a civilization. That's why the people want Gore. You make it sound as though he's some randomly selected hero figure.

[cali]

33. Did you read the flippin' thread title?

This has reached the level of comedy- at best.

[RestoreGore]

25. Good Lord, this sounds like something Dick Cheney said in the last "election!"

"Vote Republican or die in a terrorist attack." Some of you are a real embarrassment to Al Gore with your political rhetoric and bs. Wasn't fearmongering also the main theme of Mr. Gore's book The Assault On Reason in him explaining how FEAR overcomes REASON and actually leads to disaster? In the real world, and BTW, even Mr. Gore knows this, people won't die just because he doesn't become president of this military industrial complex because of global warming, because he is already doing great work on it (which many so called "supporters" don't seem to care about,) but they will die if YOU and others don't start doing something yourselves to address it besides acting like Republicans who just fearmonger. My God, I love the man and respect all he is now doing, but the hero worship here by the same people everyday especially with this phrase has now truly jumped the shark.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

26. I think you forgot the sarcasm tag. n/t

[Deja Q]

48. YANA

You are not alone.

[SmokingJacket]

29. Tell that to Gore.

I guess he's killing everyone by not running.

[simpleone]

30. K&R n/t

[ThatsMyBarack]

31. If I posted something like this....

...I'd get my ass kicked. Everything sounds dumber coming from me. :(

[robcon]

41. The Op sounds dumb enough w/o you.

n/t

[Admiral Loinpresser]

73. Can you back that up?

Can you make substantive rebuttals of the arguments in the OP? Or are you simply fleeing to sarcasm, the first refuge of a fool?

[Stephanie]

32. Petition for Gore in NY >

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2163784

[Dora]

34. Prepare for the worst. Hope for the best. Live in the now. nt

[tandot]

36. So, if I vote for Gore, I won't die? Sign me up.

:eyes:

[Admiral Loinpresser]

69. My point is that

civilization is more likely to survive with Gore in the White House than without him. Do you have an argument to counter my assertion?

[tandot]

85. If we elect a Democratic President and have a majority in the House & Senate,

we will survive and strive. A President by himself/herself can't do enough to make change happen. We need enough Democrats in the House and Senate to change policy, and a President who won't veto our legislation.

We won't die if Gore isn't President. However, America and the world will be in very bad shape if another Republican wins.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

88. Have you seen An Inconvenient Truth?

I'm just trying to see what level of information you have for your confident assertions. Any other study of the issue of climate change?

Do you think climate change is the number one issue?

[tandot]

89. Yes, I have. And I am certainly worried about climate change.

As much as I appreciate Al Gore and everything he has done and is doing, he is not God. It takes more than just him to make things change. It takes politicians who take it seriously and requires us to keep pressure on them. And it takes us to do a little bit more than watching a movie or posting on DU. As much as I can, I try to keep my carbon footprint on this planet as low as possible and give others tips on how to do the same. And, of course, I am voting Democratic to ensure that the country is moving in the right direction.

Sorry if I am not frantic or despondent enough for you.

Maybe take one of these:

[Admiral Loinpresser]

91. Neither "frantic" nor "despondent"

is the appropriate response, so I guess I have failed to communicate with you. What is needed is an urgent response.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2739926.ece

Gore at the end of AIT says people living in a few decades will have one of two perspectives, either shock or joy at what we will have done in the next few years to respond to this planetary crisis.

As I read the debates here on DU about the currently declared candidates, I detect a lack of focus on our most vital issue: radical action for the survival of civilization. The Democratic "leadership" is lagging the people, as has so often been the case in the last six years. My point is that we need a president who doesn't need to be pressured to lead. Rather we need to elect a president who will of his own accord respond with urgent leadership. The currently declared candidates are lacking in that regard. I have yet to hear one of them adequately stress what is happening on the arctic icecap or on Greenland. Or how world-wide fires, drought and reduced water supplies promise vast expansions of desert and the collapse of agriculture.

It's not about Gore being God, it's about Gore's sense of urgency and his proposals which outstrip anything coming from other Dem candidates, e.g. an immediate carbon freeze, establishment of an "ElectraNet" to do away with the need for new power plants and the acceleration of the world treaty process from 2012 to 2010.

I agree that we need to pressure elected officials if you mean pressuring all Senators to ratify the next treaty and de facto compliance with Kyoto and getting Congress to adopt Gore's proposals. He has given specific ways to engage the Chinese and Indians for their enhanced role in the next treaty. The current crop of candidates has shown me nothing except lip service and politics as usual.

In my view, we can't trust the current crop of candidates. Many of them have lied and been complicit in an immoral war. None has shown boldness at a time when such is necessary for survival. With Democratic leadership in decline, our party needs a real leader.

Gore can't do it alone, of course. He needs the backing of the people. But he is singularly positioned to get that backing because he (along with increasing intense natural disasters) is responsible for this new consciousness growing in America. That is a formula for bold action.

I am heartened by the growing number of DUers who are sounding this theme, i.e. the transcendence of the climate change issue. Indeed that same phenomenon is occurring throughout the general population. They were not the target of my OP. Rather the target audience is those who feel it is simply one more important issue, or an issue for which a cushion of time is permissable before drastic action is required. Science and Gore are telling us otherwise.

[bagrman]

37. Want to save the world. (your ass) Here's the first steps YOU must take.

Stop driving.
Stop buying useless crap.
Stop flying.
Stop eating foods that are shipped from all over the world.
Stop watching so much TV.
Stop leaving the lights on.
Stop setting your thermostat so high.
And heres the biggie..... Stop having babies!!!!!!

Believe it or not human induced climate change is from too many people.

Learn to do with less.

Latr

[Admiral Loinpresser]

70. That stuff is all good

and strategically indicated, but not sufficient. We need a world wide carbon freeze, wouldn't you agree?

Without a treaty upping the obligations of China and India that simply will not be possible. Doesn't that make sense to you?

[bagrman]

92. Lead by example. Why should they if we don't.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

95. Get a hearing aid. n/t

[Homer Wells]

42. I think it would be personally DISASTROUS

for Al to run for and WIN the Presidential race for 2008.

There is such a messianic call for him by people who have given up on all the other candidates, that were the reality of his presidency to occur, with the normal day-to-day political give-and-take required of the job, and with the extremely slow process it would require to extricate this Country from the massive Republican-built quagmire we find ourselves in today, he would be reviled by many who formerly idolized him.

Overblown expectations seems to be the rule right now, and that can only lead to great disappointments later. That being said, I would still support a Gore candidacy, should he decide to jump in at any time.

:shrug:

[lame54]

44. how about - vote Gore or fall into fascism

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Nnph3zkHNw

[robcon]

45. Ridiculous. Stupid

Are you saying all the Democratic candidates are fascists? And the Democratic Congress?

[lame54]

87. i'm saying that he would be the only one willing to fight and

get this country back on track

except for kucinich all the candidates are spewing the same old status quo political bullshit which tells me they are simply going to play the washington game as we continue to slip away

as for congress - they are simply refusing to do what they where elected to do - stop the war and stop bush - they can do it - they just won't

[weeve]

46. Great Eye Catching Title !

Simplistic, sure ... but it got this important discusssion started. There's absolutely NO denying that Gore would be the most powerful leader on this, THE most important subject of our time. And with his coattails ( quite the opposite of Hillary's should she - god forbid - become the nominee ), the Dem congressional majorities would stengthen, and Al would have such unprecedented power to get important legislation passed. He must realize this. This is his life's work, and now he's got this Golden Opportunity to lead the world as it's most powerful leader, and actually see results. And why exactly would he PASS THIS UP ?!?! How could he live with himself knowing that this once-in-a-lifetime moment was his for the taking, and he opted out ? I feel certain that he won't pass this chance up, and will likely announce very, very soon (Sunday, Monday ? ... or perhaps the 7th anniversary of his Nov. 7th 2000 win ? ). I may not know the exact timing, but the results I have utter faith in. Al Gore will be our next President !!

[cali]

54. So will you turn on him when he doesn't get into the race?

Because odds are, he won't.

[Deja Q]

47. Hyperbole is relative

http://www.computertakeback.com/corporate_accountability/index_new.cfm

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6173345.html

Dozens of others depending on how long you care to look.

His own record shows less bravery people make him out to be.

This is NOT disagreeing that Al has made good points. But if the problem is so urgent, how come Apple, a company of which he has some real clout in, is consistently behind other vendors in greening up their act? That is not leadership.

You may flame away now.

[cali]

49. no flames from me

and as someone else said, if he became president the very same people hailing him as the new messiah would be snarling and denouncing in no time.

Hero worship is a sickness.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

63. Surely you are kidding?

One company (of possibly dozens) of which Gore is a board member is not green enough yet, so Gore isn't as brave as advertised? Mind boggling for its stupidity. It reminds me of the constant stupid RW attacks on Gore's green "hypocrisy."

Last week, Gore stood by the president of France as he declared France's intention to go totally green. How many orders of magnitude (in economic status) is the importance of France to Apple?? THIS IS A SERIOUS QUESTION AND I WOULD LIKE YOUR BEST GUESS.

As to his bravery, no candidate can hold a candle to him except Kucinich. Two major examples:

1) Gore spoke out forcefully against the IWR at a time when he was the putative nominee (9/23/02). Read the speech and you should be amazed at his honesty and prescience; and

2) Gore risked his presidential ambitions to save the failing Kyoto talks. No Gore, no Kyoto, straight up. He succeeded in one of the most courageous moments in American political history.

I WANT YOUR RESPONSE TO THESE TWO EXAMPLES, PLEASE DON'T JUST CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

[EstimatedProphet]

52. Gore, you inhuman bastard! You're killing us all!

By not running, you are putting a gun to all of our heads! I'll never see the kids grow up! I want to live out my days with my wife in peace, AND YOU ARE TAKING ALL THAT AWAY BY NOT RUNNING! How could you be so heartless? WHAT KIND OF A MONSTER ARE YOU?

[Javaman]

53. These are the types of posts I expect to see come november 13th.

lol

[Admiral Loinpresser]

66. An interesting, if misleading

(with the inevitable sarcasm while America burns) re-frame.

The intended audience was not Gore, but the people. I believe we have a moral duty to back Gore. You re-framed it as a criticism of Gore. I have not and will not criticize Gore unless I feel there is reason. I disagree with his decision to go so long without getting into the race, but that is the extent of it.

I can't imagine attacking him unless he has a major personality change and becomes like the current declared candidates.

[EstimatedProphet]

93. It wasn't a criticism of Gore, it was a criticism of the OP

[walldude]

64. I have a tendency to distrust authority and when someone demands

that I vote for their candidate or DIE then I have a tendency to think they are um... well.. exaggerating. I'll vote for the person I think will do the best job and since Gore isn't even running...

[Admiral Loinpresser]

68. Would you care to, um,

articulate any or all exagerations? Let's start with the science. Do you believe that civilization is approaching a tipping point, past which it will collapse?

[walldude]

72. No I don't. And I don't believe if someone besides Gore is elected

that we are all going to die. That clear enough for you? Maybe if I spent more time on DU I would think the way you do, but I believe that support among humans for the collapse of civilization is pretty low. Maybe if I were a gung ho American with the childish notion that the world revolves around us and that whatever we do I might believe you. Problem is I spend too much time in too many places talking to too many people to buy this crock.
If you think that telling people that if Gore is not elected we will all die isn't an exaggeration then more power to you.

On edit: And about the science, yes I believe in all the science, I believe in Global Warming, I believe in the danger. Thing is, I travel for a living, I see how most of the other countries are combating Global Warming. They conserve, they drive less and when they do drive they drive smaller more efficient cars, they recycle, they plan, they work at it. Just because many Americans don't give a shit doesn't mean the rest of the planet is standing around waiting for the world to end.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

74. Ever heard of James Hansen?

Ever seen Gore's movie? Ever read anything about climate change?

What do you believe is the climatological state of our planet? And on what basis?

[walldude]

75. Read the edit to my post.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

77. Since you seemed to answer both yes AND no in your response,

("yes" in the edit portion and "no" in the subject line) I will repeat the question:

Do you believe that civilization is approaching a tipping point, past which it will collapse?

[walldude]

84. If you are talking just about Global Warming

then yes we approaching a point where some of the effects will be irreversible, however I don't think we are going to let it get to that point and I don't think Al Gore is the only person on the planet who can stop it. And I don't think civilization will collapse.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

86. Have you seen An Inconvenient Truth?

What's your best guess for when that tripping point will occur? What's your basis for thinking we won't let it get to that point?

[Retired AF Dem]

94. It will be inconvenient

for all of us working stiffs. The rich and politically connected won't be inconvenienced when it comes to fixing the problem.

[Retired AF Dem]

76. Vote or not

I'm going to die. Fact of life.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

78. Any kids?

Grandkids? Do you see the thrust of my question?

[Uncle Joe]

81. My logical conclusion is that Al Gore is humanity's best hope for survival as President

of the United States if someone wants to call that hero worship, I don't give a flying fecal speck.