Wednesday, July 16, 2014

How about "Ready for Gore"?

I'd put my hopes about Al Gore running in 2016 to the back of my mind for a while since my post in June, then yesterday afternoon, catching sight of my sidebar, I typed 'Al Gore 2016' into the Google search box and found I'd missed something, on 3 July:



I haven't watched Morning Joe since 2008, so would've missed it anyway, but it's surprising I hadn't picked something up from reading around. Maybe some websites just don't want to know about Al Gore.

I read yesterday that there's a movement afoot to get Elizabeth Warren to run, "Ready for Warren". Much as I admire her, I doubt she's ready, or strong enough, to take on the Presidency yet. She'd become a tool for the oligarchs in no time flat. Al Gore knows his way around, knows exactly how they fight dirty. I believe he could be the only one with even an outside chance of saving the day environmentally, and in other ways too.



We're stuck, for now, with the two party system, Al Gore is the best chance there is of making it work at least a little better than it's working at present.

29 comments:

mike said...

I imagine there are many discussions within the Democratic elite as they evaluate the potentiality of the favored candidates. Probably a bit touchy, considering that both Al and Hillary are descendants from the same regime and both have had previous upsets.

He could win as an independent not indebted to either mainstream party, but that would require a lot of effort to align himself properly financially and ideologically...the electorate often views the independent candidate as Socialist or wildcard. I don't know the rules, but perhaps he could run as non-affiliated and a true independent. Independent candidates in the past have been called vote thieves. The Dems would have a fit, if Al ran independent...the Repubs would welcome it.

♥ Sonny ♥ said...



Much as I adore Al, I'm of two minds where his run is concerned. He's been away awhile and during that time a lot has occurred in his private life which I know he holds very dear. He also knows they would dig till they hit china to get every single dirty little detail on him, his family, his tv network and on and on.
He'd force a split decision among the Dems and might give the repubs just the slim margin they'd need to win.
This country is making massive strides toward improvement and we cant risk a repub coming in to screw all that up.. shuddering at the thought- ewwwwww.

Twilight said...

mike ~ I think the only way would be for Al to run as Democrat, so as not to do the splitting vote thing and let in the Republicans - and also he'd then be on all ballots (important!)

If Dems begin to see dangers due to adverse Clinton stuff spreading on and on, getting more and more damaging, she might decline to run, they might decide to turn to him as an alternative to Sanders or Warren, or others, thinking he'd be more likely to be of help to them.
I reckon he's wise enough and shrewd enough to know how to play it, if that were to happen.

I can hope and will keep hoping until we're certain he'll not run.

Twilight said...

Sonny ~ It's early days yet - anything can happen. I do think he'd have to run as a Democrat though, and I suspect he remains loyal to that (very, very flawed) party anyway, in spite of everything.

I can't agree on the "massive strides" you propose though Sonny - baby steps in certain areas, maybe, such as gay marriage, legalising pot.....some parts of the ACA. In other ways we've been heading away from progress. Regarding climate change even the small steps are practically non-existent. That's why we need Al Gore.

LB said...

In 2009, former Vice President Al Gore enthusiastically endorsed the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") which has since been called, "The Biggest Insurance Scam in History":

http://commonsense2.com/2013/12/health-care/obamacare-the-biggest-insurance-scam-in-history/comment-page-1/

To a whole lot of folks, it was as obvious then as now. Basic healthcare should be a human right, not something only those with adequate resources have access to.

While Al Gore may be a pleasant person with some good ideas, I don't believe he possesses the necessary insight, uncorrupted vision and moral fortitude it will take to lead us all out from under this dark cloud of oppression and illusion we're living under.

Twilight said...

LB ~ He may have endorsed ACA when it was obvious there was going to be no alternative to it but carrying on with the existing unjust system, but he DID support single payer - this video confirms - (sound isn't good, but good enough)

http://youtu.be/H0KcT7n2kAM


As Mark Halperin has said (in Twitter and on TV)

"He's got as much national campaign experience as anyone alive, a potent $ network, ties to Silicon Valley and Hollywood, and could self-fund a bit. He understands the media, he's unbound, unplugged and has won the popular vote in the past, came out for same sex marriage before Clinton did and has deep ties to the environment"

I have to disagree with you completely on this issue, LB.
To my mind Al Gore is the only one who has everything that's needed at this point....except, perhaps the inclination to run, but with some encouragement, and seeing the urgent need, he might do so (I hope!)

Twilight said...

All ~ I've just "Tweeted" Mark Halperin as follows:

There's a Ready for Warren movement now - how about Ready for Gore ? We need him!
"Ready for Gore We Need Him More!"


I don't expect much by way of response, but I thought I'd put it out there anyway. Nothing ventured etc.

LB said...

Twilight ~ Thanks for the video link.

All the more reason to distrust Al Gore's message, since when he had the opportunity to stand up for single-payer, he instead chose the political path of least resistance.

If truth and justice matter, then some things aren't negotiable.

LB said...

Twilight ~ I understand and accept that we disagree.:) In sharing my thoughts I didn't expect to change your mind.

Twilight said...

LB ~ Since single payer was never on the table in any practical way, it would have been pretty pointless, and heartless of Gore to refuse to endorse the only improvement that was being made available. Single payer is the ideal solution, of course - it was never going to happen though was it? Honestly?

Anyway, yes, we must say "Pax" on this. :-)

LB said...

Twilight ~ There was probably a time in this country when people argued that the abolition of slavery was an impossibility too.

Its defenders were also quick to point out slavery's so-called "benefits", which didn't make the institution itself any less unjust or inhumane.

I doubt if Al Gore or anyone he deeply cares for suffers from a lack of affordable healthcare.

LB said...

Adding how we do agree on one point, Twilight, which is that it was never going to happen. And it's not likely to happen in the future either, not if we continue to support candidates and political solutions that represent *the lesser of two evils*.

Twilight said...

LB ~ I've argued against the "lesser of 2 evils" thing myself in the past, LB - it's still evil - I know this. You are preaching to the converted on that score. Yet it is an impossibility to ever get a third party into power... except via the long, slow route - city, state, national, but even then unlikely because the oligarchs/corporations own everything, all media, most politicians, they'd cut a likely candidate down if he/she became a real threat.

We're screwed. The system has been corrupted.

But so as not to be 100% defeatist - the 2 party system is all we have to play with, and there's not much, if any, leeway there either.

I've now come to the conclusion that we either support the best Dem available for the job, one who knows the most about what's the biggest and most imminent danger to our planet (climate change), as well as being an experienced politician and statesman, and a respected background.

It's not fair to suppose that he has no compassion or understanding of the problems ordinary people face, by the way - really not fair. He obviously doesn't face the same challenges himself, but that's irrelevant.

I realise that I'll be in the minority on this - the minue Al gore is mentioned in any thread, anywhere, there's a barage of negative comment. He is a threat - I believe! Have you read about the way GCHQ in the UK infiltrates threads and websites to manipulate opinions?

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/07/15

You can be sure it goes on here too, possibly even more of it.

Anyway - don't get me started on that.

Let us leave it here, we've both had our say.

mike (again) said...

The Dems presented a single-payer system called "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009".

"Votes in the U.S. House of Representatives on this bill and on the United States National Health Care Act, an alternative that would establish a national, universal single-payer health insurance, were previously expected in September 2009 and again in October 2009, before the actual November 2009 vote took place."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Affordable_Health_Choices_Act_of_2009

The Repubs would have no part of this, so it was re-proposed as "Affordable Health Care Act for All":
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Affordable_Health_Choices_Act_of_2009

The Re-working eventually became what we have today, "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", or "Obamacare".

Obama supported single-payer insurance as a means to reduce healthcare costs, but there was a HUGE outcry the we were going socialist (gasp)...never mind that Bush in 2008 bailed-out the financial sector with government $ in a program called "TARP", which WAS a socialist ploy. The "Obamacare" of today is a bastard child of the original proposal.

I have no idea what Al Gore would propose for healthcare reform in 2016, but he was ahead of the curve in his presidential campaign of 2000. He proposed expansion of Medicare for children and adults aged 55-65...prescription drug policies...tax credits for existing commercial health insurance. Any healthcare discussion at that time was not favored after Bill & Hillary Clinton both sought healthcare reform during the Clinton years.

Twilight said...

mike ~ Interesting. I think Gore would be on the beneficial side of healthcare - and on most other things too... from the point of view of those on the left and center left anyway.

Twilight said...

mike ~ Off topic - just received another comment about my Black Magic Woman - wanting to buy it from me, or someone else on the thread who has one. The commenter's sister had one which got broken and she wishes to replace it. :-)

LB said...

At least you know *I'm* not a plant designed to manipulate opinions about Al Gore.:)

I could've said more, but I stuck to the issue of healthcare because I think it's such an important one. I also think it's significant how Gore, like candidate Obama, claimed (claims?) to support single-payer yet didn't walk the talk when he had the chance.

I've also read where his (socially responsible/green?) investment firm, Generational Investment Management, invested heavily in the health insurance industry, which means he stands to make a profit off of the ACA's implementation.

If that's wrong, please fill me in. To be fair, the only sources I could find were questionable, which doesn't mean it's not true.

“Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.” —

Martin Luther King Jr. in a speech to the Medical Committee for Human Rights, 1966

mike (again) said...

Twilight - It's interesting that the BMW posts never go to sleep, with the periodic comments. I think you have established a BMW fan club of sorts.

LB - Who do you propose for 2016? Republican voters typically outnumber non-Republican voters, so not voting is essentially a vote for the Republican candidate. I hope you vote by actually voting.

Re walking the talk...Obama DID stand-up for single-payer...just as he has for gun control, immigration, and other issues. The prez doesn't have authority in Congress, except to veto. We have seen the damage a partisan Congress can inflict by not accomplishing anything. You have strong Libran placements and I would think that the art of negotiation and compromise would be one of your natural traits...politics is an imperfect world of concessions toward solutions.

Twilight said...

LB ~ I don't blame Gore for investing in ACA. It's not all bad in any case.

ACA has done some good for some people - those with pre-existing conditions, and it prevents insurance companies from throwing off people who are becoming too expensive, and it allows young people under 26 to remain on parents' insurance, for example.

It was a teeny tiny step in the right direction - not much but better than nothing.

Had ACA gone down there'd have been nothing at all in the way of improvement for many years.

The pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies made sure single payer, and even the public option, didn't even get a look in.

The game is rigged, LB, you must see that?

Twilight said...

mike ~ RE BMW - it always amazes me how some posts never go to sleep. The Linda Lovelace one is another, and the Irma Grese one keeps popping up too.

I've said that while I'd not be averse to selling my BM Woman, I wouldn't feel happy about trying to have it transported. It'd probably end up smashed.
Maybe the commenter will find someone else on the thread who lives near to her so it can be collected.
Even then it'd be risky.

LB said...

Twilight ~ I agree. The "game" of politics is rigged. Like everything else, politics will only change if and when we the people change, though I don't know if it will happen in my lifetime.

The problem isn't that people *don't* vote. It's that we continue to believe in and vote for the same players playing by the same corrupt rules in the same corrupt game.

We vote for whomever we think will serve *us*, instead of who will serve us *all*. Not that such a person would ever be attracted to (or electable) given the current paradigm.

Twilight said...

LB ~ I think the situation we're in now has taken many decades to become as bad as it is. It might never be capable of being righted without some catastrophic event, World War, environmental collapse, a bloody revolt....something along those lines.

We the People would not be able to turn things around permanently or totally now that the "game" has been so thoroughly rigged in every direction. All we can hope for are some minor improvements, with focus on specific goals.

There might have been a chance in the past for a full turn around to happen, if enough people had had enough foresight....I'd guess (an uneducated guess) that that would have needed to be some long time ago, even before JFK. The rot had already set in by then.

LB said...

My husband and I live in one of the most liberal areas of the country, yet even here, our laws can't prevent the spread of indifference and greed. Had the Wheel of Fortune not turned and left us both without our previous jobs and income, we might never have known or fully understood.

Nor do our laws offer those of us without resources the kind of protection we most need when it comes to employment, housing or healthcare. Motivated people and businesses -those with adequate resources- can always find ways around the law, most of which don't go nearly far enough anyway. It's not as if there are meaningful consequences for breaking many of our laws, codes and ordinances. Much as we'd like to believe otherwise, you can't legislate kindness or compassion.

And while many (not all) of those *small improvements* you mention look good on paper, most don't hold up under closer scrutiny, though they do help to maintain the illusion.

Still, we're luckier than most and remain grateful for all that we have.:)

Twilight said...

LB ~ I understand and sympathise.
I've had severe challenges myself, but was fortunate to live in a country with single payer and had a secure job.
Had I been in the USA at that time, and others, I dread to think how things might have turned out.

I've possibly told you of this before -if not (from 2007 post)

http://twilightstarsong.blogspot.com/2007/04/transits-of-uranus-and-other-adventures.html

LB said...

Twilight ~ I read both parts of your previous post and to say you've faced "several challenges" is putting it mildly. More like several disasters. I'm sorry.

What struck me most as I read though, was how matter-of-fact you sound in your reporting, with no trace of your having felt dehumanized by any of your experiences. I hope that's true. Or maybe you did and just didn't share. I hope you felt supported; it can make a huge difference in our ability to cope in a healthy way.

I'm glad you made it through to the other side, glad you and your husband found one another.:)

Life can be hard sometimes. I may not always like it, but I accept it. What makes it harder to bear (for me at least), is my awareness of the ways in which we dehumanize and isolate one another, all those unnecessary challenges we create because we either don't see or don't care.

Twilight said...

LB ~ Thank you - it happened long ago now, 1996 seems like another lifetime.

After the initial shock, and because I felt secure, in spite of everything - I knew my salary would continue, the hospital and doctors would be there if needed, and at no cost, so even in the face of losing everything except my loved one and our car and my credit card, although we were shocked for a while, once we found our psychological feet it became something of an adventure to re-house, and re-clothe ourselves from hand-me-downs, thrift stores, second hand stores and a few new bits and pieces as finances allowed.

Feeling dehumanised, no - as far as I recall we didn't feel that. Some anger did enter into it though, due to obvious negligence on the part of the adjacent property owners, the loss of precious letters, records, and so many beloved photographs, watches we'd treasured, and a lovely suit I'd bought only a few week's before, plus lots of favourite clothing items - those things rankled for a long time. We concluded that these, though precious, were only "things", we were safe, and so were our neighbours, that was all that mattered.

mike (again) said...

Every era has its own flavor of injustice, tainted politics, and denigration of citizens. Can you imagine living in 1910? 1810? My maternal grandfather & grandmother did everything for themselves...they never expected or wanted assistance of any kind. My grandfather left home at the age of 13. They only needed money for property taxes. We live in a far more complicated world now, but in many ways it is so much better than the one my grandparents lived through...the mafia, child exploitation, minimal education, primitive medicine and procedures, no social safety nets, radical racism, subjugation of immigrants, etc. Simpler world back then, but wrong decisions or being in the wrong place could have horrid consequences.

"Negative campaigning goes back to the earliest days of our republic to the political campigns of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Back then, rather then television or web ads, it was in newspapers. We're used to objective news organizations now, but back then newspapers were very party-oriented, and they would print vicious things about candidates like Thomas Jefferson or John Adams. And it wasn't just about their policies. They would go after their personal lives -- their drinking habits, their wives, their children. They would allege all kinds of affairs and dastardly deeds in a way that we would never accept today."
http://www.book.consumerhelpweb.com/

And here's a list of scandals-corruption that goes all the way back:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States

Twilight said...

mike ~ I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, mike. That there has never been a chance for We (or You)the People to bring about change in what ails the nation now? Has it always ailed in this way, always been the same, ever since the British were given the old heave-ho and you became your own People? Y'all have boiled into it, like the frog in the pot of cold water heating on the stove?

LB said...

Twilight ~ I imagine that Aries Moon of yours probably came in handy in making a fresh start. You're right about things being less important than people. Wish more people felt that way.

Whenever we start feeling sorry for ourselves (or *trapped and without options*), my husband and I remember how grateful we are for one another.

mike ~ It's hard to imagine any of us living without assistance. Each of us brings our own unique skills and talents to the world. That doesn't mean I think any of us should have to *earn* our worth as human beings. If we were compensated based solely on what we contribute, I don't think most politicians would fare very well.:)

Recently, there was a food-drive for farm workers in our area. Think about what that means, which is that the hard-working people who grow us our food often go without enough to eat. They also frequently go without affordable access to healthcare, adequate workplace protections and descent places to live.

Things have only changed for some of us.