Why it has to be Gore/Kucinich in 2004

[Must_B_Free]

We can't run and win on the basis of "Bush Lite". That seems to be the consitiution of the choices we are being presented. We can either have a slick snakeoil salesman or a former PNACcer. Neither of these guys has defined himself as being an alternative to Bush.

Gore and Kucinich represent a clear stark difference in policy and thinking.

Gore has the name recognition that no other choice will have.

Both Gore and Kucinich represent progress instead of regress.

America has been attacked and brainwashed by corparate interests, but they went too far and the "facts" no longer add up in the minds of america. They are drawing on many archtypical forms for the molding of the soul of America (patrotism, fighting for 'freedom' etc), yet the actions taken are far out of step with the basic tenents of Judeo-Christian philosophy.

A "lite" version of Bush is not an alternative. The two progressives offer a real alternative and therefore, they should be the choice presented.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

1. I vote for any ticket with Kucinich on it

Kucinich on any ticket would not only get my vote but my money and time as well.

[Stuckinthebush]

2. One problem...

Gore's not running.

More likely, it would be Kucinich/Gore (although still highly unlikely). I think that we will need to concentrate on Dean,Clark,Kerry, and perhaps Gephardt. The VP choice for all of this is still up in the air.

[Must_B_Free]

4. As someone pointed out

with the deadlock between Dean abd Clark camps, Gore might be just the common ground for a unified candidate selection.

It's really really looking like we SHOULD draft Gore. It simply makes the most sense. He has the BEST SHOT.

[Stuckinthebush]

7. But Gore has said that he won't be in the race

There was a strong draft Gore movement a number of months ago, and Gore never took the bait. In another month, it will be too late for him to even think about it. In fact, it probably is too late now.

As much as I'd love to have Al back in the race, it is just not going to happen this time.

[goobergunch]

8. Yeah

The New Hampshire filing deadline is November 21. That's in shortly less than two weeks.

[economic justice]

12. Gore would hardly need New Hampshire

Al Gore could get in long after New Hampshire and still win the number of delegates needed to nominate. He wouldn't need the few delegates from NH.

[JohnKleeb]

3. I would like that much

I think it would be good. I am not sure how the two feel about each other but I like and respect both of them.

[JailBush]

5. Kucinich is probably my favorite candidate so far, but I despise Gore.

Gore ran a lousy campaign in 2000. Though I don't expect any candidate - Democratic or Republican - to say anything sensible about public education, Gore really got my attention when he publicly supported the late Seattle Schools Superintendent John Stanford, arguably the biggest abomination in the history of public education. Gore even wrote the foreword to Stanford's bizarre book, "Victory in Our Schools," which was apparently released as part of a campaign publicity stunt.

So I rank Al Gore with Lieberman and Gephardt. I'd like to see Kucinich paired with Dean or Clark.

[Cocoa]

6. Gore is not a progressive

He would be an excellent president, and should be president now, but he is not a prgressive.

He is the candidate that has the closest association with the most conservative candidate running, Joe Lieberman, other than Lieberman himself.

Face it, you like a DLC democrat. Nothing wrong with that. He's an excellent DLC democrat.

[JohnKleeb]

9. *shocked* I like a DLC dem lol

So yeah I like Al.

[goobergunch]

10. /me is in alternate dimension (n/t)

[sventvkg]

11. NO DEM But Gore, Dean or Clark will win...That is Bush lite.

Sorry to say it, but it's true...Lets get out of the dreamworld people.

[MODemocrat]

13. We did not ask Gore for his decision not to run

But since he took that route, I'm over him and have moved on. I've never worked so hard for anyone in my life as I did for Al Gore, but he let the Bush thugs force him out, and let the news media or just about anyone that wanted to, run over him. You cannot seriously believe that Howard Dean is a "lite" version of Bush, can you? He's about as anti-Bush as one can be. :boring: :eyes:

[Mairead]

14. "You can't seriously believe that Howard Dean is a "lite" version of Bush"

Well, yes. He's Cokespoon with a brain and without the addictions and don't-give-a-shit behavior.

Dean isn't planning on making any substantive changes. The guy is a straight tweaks-only, status-quo candidate -- which means Bush Lite. Find something among his policies that is going to change the direction in which wealth flows. There isn't one.

He's not going to cut the obscene war-industry budget, now approaching the size of all other war budgets in the world combined.

He's not going to take the hands of the wealthy elites out of our pockets on healthcare. Instead he's actually planning to give them $88G MORE per year while still leaving 10M people without healthcare.

He's not going to end the drug war, which means that while, if he follows through, he's going to switch some money out of the prison industry, he's just going to funnel into the same elite pockets via the healthcare industry.

He says full civil rights for LGB people are a state issue...which is both the status quo and false (equal-treatment clause of the Fourteenth Amendment).

He says he's going to balance the budget. But on whose backs? Obviously not the wealthy elites' backs, so guess whose backs that leaves!

Yes, he's Bush Lite.