|
Edited on Sun Dec-10-06 01:57 PM by Peace Patriot
can tell us anything. Really, there has been nothing like this in our history. SEVENTY-PERCENT of the American people opposed to an unjust, heinous, failed war that the President refuses to end. This is reminiscent more of Tsarist Russia than anything else. Egregious non-transparency, unfairness and illegitimacy in the last three general elections. Corporate entities who favor one political faction--the extreme right--"counting" all the votes with TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, in extremely insecure, unreliable and insider hackable voting systems. (Fast-forward to Stalinist Russia and its phony elections.) The theft of billions and billions and billions of dollars from the US treasury, by war profiteers who blatantly MANUFACTURED a war, wrote the lying script for the war in the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, ignored FIFTY-SIX PERCENT opposition to the war among the American people at that time, and are still illegally occupying another country and vacuuming in more billions from the pockets of US taxpayers, and no one can stop them, and no one in power seems to really want to. (You have to go back to the most depraved and corrupt of the Roman emperors for a precedent on the massive, unaccountable theft--it is mind-boggling.) An idiot in the White House who claims the powers of an emperor--to torture, to detain, to spy on everyone, to defy the laws of the land, to rip up the Constitution before our very eyes. Even the old monarch, Bush I, cannot contain him. Global corporate predators of immense size and power writing our laws, creating our trade policies, purchasing our politicians, outsourcing all our jobs, price gouging, outright stealing billions of our tax dollars, and appropriating the US military to conduct their corporate resource wars. (No precedent--our US-based global corporate predators are our unique creation, in magnitude, if not in idea. Living forever, sucking up all wealth and resources, accountable to no one.)
In this context, what I call "Time Magazine"'s candidates*--Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama--portend a rather sickening ritual of a "business as usual" presidential campaign. Obama, oh so careful in his wording of his statements on Iraq, and not really criticizing that policy until it was politically safe to do so. Clinton, gungho all the way, for the illegal, unjust, heinous war. Not likely she'll eschew torture, once in office. It might come in handy to the Corporate Rulers that she is the tool of.
We need a revolution, not a nauseating, boring, stifling "business as usual" presidential campaign. And no one that I know of, and no one in the vast, peaceful, global democracy movement wants it to be bloody. How to accomplish it?
It has nothing to do with someone being a Senator or a Governor. It just doesn't. That is quite irrelevant, in these highly unusual conditions--in which we have, in effect, suffered a fascist junta for six years.
Hillary Clinton is deaf to most Americans. How can such an unresponsive, insensitive leader be the champion of the people that is needed? It makes no difference that she is a Senator. And Obama is too inexperienced, too green and too politic. Too slick. The color of his skin and his life story may have appeal. But do those things really qualify him to lead our broken country out of this nightmare? I don't think so.
We need an unusual candidate, and an unusual campaign. And there are only three leaders I'm aware of who have the solidity, maturity and greatness to understand the situation we are in, and the visionary capacity--the magic--to inspire the American people and to help us recover from the Bush Junta, to mobilize our potentially great creativity and resourcefulness as a people. Gore, Feingold and Dean. And none of them is apparently willing to do it--although we must take with a grain of salt all refusals to run, at this point.
Of these, Gore has been the most outspoken, Feingold is a close second, and Dean has had other things to deal with (organization, pulling people together--trying to implement the will of the people, rather than specifically articulating it). I think Gore is the one to lead the unusual campaign that is needed. He has vast experience of government, in both the executive and legislation branches, but has been outside of government--observing, analyzing, sharply and brilliantly criticizing--for six years. He has been able to create a truly positive and great focus for national policy--saving the planet, and ending corporate resource wars, by converting to non-polluting alternative energy. This is what distance from government has enabled him to see. We have no organizing principle. We are ignoring the big picture, trapped as we are in the fascist corporate hysteria at the end of oil.
Gore knows what the focus of national policy should be--how to focus it on positive goals. Not stealing everybody else's oil, to keep this pollution-ridden and fascist-ridden economy propped up. But CHANGING the basis of the economy--to alternative energy, which I think we could do in five years, if we put our minds to it. (Yup, FIVE years!) (We are a very creative and industrious people, with just a little bit of leadership.) Gore has also been passionate in his condemnation of the Bush regime's violations of the Constitution, unlawfulness, unjust war, and lack of decency and ethical principles. (Really, his speeches on these subjects will make you cry!) He has achieved great clarity on these fundamental things--and, although he has said nothing about NAFTA et al (bad corporate globalization, fostered by the Clinton-Gore White House), that I know of, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on it, and presume that he has re-thought this as well. In any case, I think his leadership is so badly needed--and so potentially healing and energizing of our country--that I'm willing to fight that one out AFTER order has been restored in this country, and we have a legitimate government once again.
Gore WAS elected president. He SHOULD HAVE BEEN president these last six years. Everybody knows it. And I think he is the one candidate who will simply overwhelm the Bushite-controlled voting machines, if we still have them by then, and will sweep the primaries and win the general election by a landslide, no matter who the war profiteers and corporate rulers put up against him.
Will he run? I don't think he's been working as hard as he has on national policy, and delivering it in major speeches for over two years now, to quietly go back to being a professor or a filmmaker/TV producer. I think he wants it. I think he IS running for president--but he is also in a very tricky position, as a former VP and Presidential candidate, especially one associated with Bill Clinton, whose wife is running for president. I think his declaration might drive her and others out of the race, for one thing--and I get the feeling he doesn't want to do that. He wants open debate, which only a field of various candidates can produce. The tricky part is that, in our current primary system, he HAS to enter the primaries--unless he is betting on stalemate in the primaries, or great division in the party, and a "draft Gore" movement (whereby other candidates would release their votes to him at the Convention). I think Hillary in particular will be a very divisive candidate. She has just been too pro-war. She will not have grass roots support--and there may well be a revolt against her. (I don't know if it will be as bad as 1968, but it could be.) (And if I was a rightwing electronic voting corporation, with "trade secret" software "counting" all the votes, and wanted to fracture the Democratic Party in '08, I would favor Hillary with election theft in the primaries).**
**(You see what I mean by a very unusual political atmosphere? We can't really count on anything. All our institutions are seriously corrupted. We can have no confidence in them. We don't know what's going to happen--from more stolen elections to Bush-Cheney declaring martial law and invading Iran.)
Well, that's my analysis so far. As to the issue in the OP, Gore has been both (long experience in the Senate, and also as VP in the executive--running a government). But I don't think that's nearly as important as the fact that he won the 2000 election, and has been thinking and speaking like a president-in-exile ever since, with great brilliance and focus. As to the mechanics of getting him nominated, I imagine he's given it some thought, so I won't give it much more. If I'm right, he already has a plan.
And I think Feingold would be an excellent running mate. (I've pretty much given up on a full "Restoration Ticket"--Gore/Kerry--because Kerry has stumbled once too often as the other president-in-exile, and lacks Gore's strong leadership qualities and presence. I am still ENCHANTED with the idea of RESTORING ORDER in the country, and putting the two men in the White House who WERE elected. But Kerry has failed us, unfortunately, on an important presidential skill: how to bludgeon or beguile hostile corporate news monopolies.)
----------
*(Re: "Time Magazine"'s candidates. I will never forget Time Magazine putting Bill Clinton on its COVER at the BEGINNING of the primaries in 1992, before he was known by anyone, nationally. I had this sickening feeling: Oh, yeah, the East Coast-Government-Rich People-Establishment has chosen our candidate, and that's it--why bother with the primaries? Bill proceeded to lie through his teeth about labor and environmental protections in "free trade" agreements. The impacts of those lies and failures have now come back to haunt us, big time. "Free trade" is ruining our lives--or the lives of MOST Americans (excluding corporate CEOs and the super-rich)--and those of millions of others around the globe as well. So that's what I mean by "Time Magazine"'s candidates. They also did the same for Arnold Schwarzenegger--put him on their cover at the BEGINNING of a short, six-week campaign, in an extremely odd Recall election, with 125 candidates on the ballot, in the first Diebold election in California. Time Magazine had spoken--and it had further given this famous actor millions and millions of dollars worth of free publicity, as did Larry King. It was sickenng. Our corporate rulers are now both corrupting our elections beyond belief, AND stealing them outright. The double-whammy is very hard to fight. But of course that's what they intend--that we should never have a free choice of our leaders ever again.)
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
