Are we seeing the start of a new movement? Al Gore hinted at something bigger than the Presidency

[Bjorn Against]

Something big happened today. A simple statement by a political leader could have been the opening shot in a new peaceful revolution. Today Al Gore called for civil disobedience against polluters. This a man who won a Presidential election and is very likely to win another one should he decide to run calling for people to make human chains around bulldozers to prevent them from destroying our planet.

Think about this from a historical perspective. How many politicians who have been in as high of a position as Al Gore have encouraged civil disobedience? Is it possible Al Gore's statement could be the start of a new movement unlike anything we have seen in decades?

Last month we saw Live Earth which brought together hundreds of millions of people, and now the man who brought those hundreds of millions together has made a statement that could potentially influence a few of those hundreds of millions.

This is not the same Al Gore we saw in 2000. This is man who was a very cautious politician in his last campaign, many would say way too cautious. He was not a person who spoke out loudly, in fact he was so soft spoken that many had a hard time telling him apart from Bush. You may rightfully disagree with their assessment, but the fact that so many believed it does suggest that Gore could have been much more vigorous in going after Bush and showing his differences. That is a sign of being extremely cautious.

Now that extreme caution Al Gore used to show is gone, this is a man who has had enough and I think he may be getting ready to start a badly needed revolution. Live Earth was the first event to organize people for whatever he is planning, and his statement that we heard today was a quiet battle cry that now has the potential to get much louder.

I suspect Al Gore will probably run for re-election to the Presidency, but I expect it will be a very different campaign than the last one we witnessed. Al Gore has been very bold lately, a few weeks back he called for a 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and now he is suggesting civil disobedience. These are not positions you would expect a Presidential candidate to take, as I am sure those positions will cost him votes should he run. But Gore is showing that if he does run he is going to be running a campaign that is more concerned about informing the voters of the blunt truth than it is about telling them what they want to hear.

I used think of Gore as a pretty dull politician, but I have a feeling that we are seeing something big here and I have feeling that should he run again it will certainly not be a dull experience. I think Al Gore may be aiming for something bigger than merely the Presidency, this man just may be aiming to be the next Gandhi.

[marmar]

1. Al Gore gets it.....

He realizes how desperate the climate situation is; and how apathetic the masses are. My co-workers will pat themselves on the back for taking their paper bag back to the grocery store, then drive off in a big-ass SUV and go through five plastic water bottles each day.

[frogcycle]

2. hmmm, you think

he'll be carrying a pitchfork and blazing torch when he announces?

Or is he more the Oliver Cromwell type?

Whatever it takes to unseat a brutal monarchy...

[Bjorn Against]

4. I don't know about the pitchfork or torch...

But I think you will see him trying to empower people unlike anything we have seen from a Presidential campaign in the past if this keeps up. He seems to know the stakes and he is going to do everything he can do to get people involved at a level beyond simply voting.

[frogcycle]

6. well of course I was being metaphorical

but one definitely could read into it that he means to mobilize the masses. If he could actually get a decent portion of We the People stirred up, he could have more clout than just about anyone. Think how the tables would turn if he controlled such a voter bloc that all the campaign contributions in the world no longer meant jack shit, because the ads and polls and attacks they fund would be futile against his army?

Talk about being a kingmaker!

Who needs to be pres when you can anoint your chosen? And the congress and senate?

with all the crap the pugs have done to steal the government, we STILL have only 505 or so voter turnout. Suppose someone could tap into that big time, as well as the more intelligent of the current voters?

And he would be free to say whatever the hell he wanted, whenever he wanted. And he could clobber the media by calling for boycotts of advertisers.

fanciful, perhaps, but some sort of revolution is needed to stop the cabal. They won't be stopped in a fair fight, for sure.

[Prophet 451]

12. NOT CROMWELL!!!

Unseating a brutal monarchy is a worthy goal but replacing them with a religiously fanatical dictator is not a worthwhile improvement.

[pnwmom]

3. I'm afraid this is a sign he's not planning to run.

Maybe this is what he means when he says he could be more useful outside the political system.

[Bjorn Against]

5. I don't know, you may be right.

Then again however if he wasn't at least considering a run I think he would have tried to stop the speculation by now, obviously he wouldn't want to hold up the other candidates fund raising efforts. He is definitely planning something big I think we will just have to wait to see what it is.

[pnwmom]

7. I'd rather I wasn't right . . . time will tell. n/t

[melody]

13. He will run and he will win n/t

[tomreedtoon]

8. That's it for the Gore Presidency. It's done.

No one who urges civil disobedience could ever be elected. The chief law enforcement officer for the nation can't encourage breaking of laws.

What's more, whatever those of you who were old hippies may think, civil disobedience is one of the most ineffective and ignorable ways to institute change. The biggest such case in this country - the 1968 protests at the Democratic Convention - produced the opposite result, defeating the Democrat and insuring the election of Nixon.

The more effective strategies for change were implemented by people who used laws for the benefit of people. In other words, judges and politicians. There may be people who will help bring America back to democracy, prosperity and a place of honor in the world. But if Gore insists on going to the barricades, he won't be among them.

[GeorgeGist]

15. Except when there are enough causes ...

to make civil disobedience effective. Global Warming by itself will not be enough ... but I believe we are getting close to reaching a critical mass that should ignite a Global Warning. Considering the adversary, it could also ignite a holocaust. It's no doubt a dicey situation but 'WE' chose to be the leader of the world, and the only superpower.

Be careful out there.

[Tesha]

16. Yeah, those guys in the taverns in Boston and Philadelphia, what do they know?

Yeah, those guys in the taverns in Boston and Philadelphia, what
do they know? Nobody ever follows revolutionaries, not when there's
a nice stable government already established and providing all those
well-dressed soldiers for the national defence, while only charging
moderate tax rates.

You'd have to be a fool tro throw off the monarchy and try to
go it alone like those idiots are suggesting. First thing you
know, French would be invading from the north and south and
Red Indians from the west.

Yeah, I think we should all go back down to our local loyalist
pub, have another pint of bitters, and play a few rounds of
skittle, that's what I think.

Tesha

[bigmonkey]

22. I come from that hothead area.

Thanks for making the reference. The people can alter the government, a case in point.

[Odin2005]

20. There is a difference between PEACEFUL civil disobedience and violent...

...civil disobedience (AKA revolt). I'm all for the former, the latter should only be used as a last resort. The backlash to the 60s violence was a result of people rejecting the peaceful style of civil disobedience promoted by Martin Luther King Jr. for the way of violence.

[frogcycle]

26. Pardon me, but bullshit

The Chicago cops started the violence; southern cops with firehoses, dogs, and billy clubs, Lester Maddox with ax handles started the violence. National Guardsmen at Kent State started the violence. The PEOPLE did not "reject reject the peaceful style of civil disobedience promoted by Martin Luther King Jr. for the way of violence." Oh, sure, things got a little testy when James Earl Ray SHOT MLK, but that was not people rejecting his ways. It was reaction. Very rarely, Weather Underground excepted, some Black Panther activities excepted, did "the people" choose "the way of violence." It was those so-called leaders clinging to the status quo who chose violence. And THEY are whom we are to rely on to lead change? HA!

[tomreedtoon]

30. Did you read your history books, or just carry them?

First off, 1776 was not 1968. Jerry Rubin wasn't George Washington.

Second, after the protests, Nixon won the election. The New Left protests in Chicago 1968 essentially destroyed the Democratic Party. It was unable to field effective candidates after that. Carter was derided as not living in the real world (his Christianity wasn't right-wing Christianity) and Bill Clinton was assassinated by members of his own party. It culminated in the current crop of Democrats who are too afraid to confront Bush and the Republicans, no matter how criminal their governing has become.

Complaining that "the cops started it" doesn't matter. It's the results of those protests that we're currently suffering under.

And I repeat; a person who wishes to be elected President must be the chief enforcement officer of the law. If Gore recommends that people chain themselves to tractors or whatever kind of disobedience he talked about, he is encouraging people to break the law. Not change the law, but break it. This is not only an easy way for Republicans to attack him, should he be dumb enough to try to run now, but any good Constitutional lawyer will tell you it invalidates him as a potential President.

[frogcycle]

31. lived it - no books needed

Did you read my post?

I sure as hell was not "rejecting the peaceful style of civil disobedience" when I got teargassed at the march on the Pentagon

I was addressing the fact that you criticized "people rejecting the peaceful style of civil disobedience"

I did not discount the results of the violence. You are arguing the wrong point.

I will stop now before I comment on your snotty comment and tell you to stick it where the sun don't shine.

[frogcycle]

25. I think that Rosa Parks would disagree

the riots at '68 convention were not 'civil disobedience' - they were riots.

A whole lot of people chained themselves to the WH fence, etc. in protest against VN that did not turn into riots.

People chained themselves to trees to save the spotted owl - really they were trying to save the trees, but the spotted owl was the means so to do.

Labor unions have struck, then violated laws to picket, block roads, etc.

Ghandi was pretty effective.

MLK was pretty effective.

And you will NEVER get serious change LED by judges and politicians. NEVER, EVER, EVER. There are not enough mavericks in such positions, and never will be.

Even the dramatic judicial changes like Brown v. BOE, or social change like the New Deal, were responses to public sentiment. John Brown's Raid was civil disobedience, albeit Quixotic, which influenced policy. The Underground Railroad was civil disobedience which influenced policy. Northern politicians and judges were continuing to cut deals like the Missouri Compromise, and send runaway slaves back, until the popular movement forced the politicians to begin taking a tentative stand.

[Mrs. Overall]

9. Civil Disobedience in order to save our planet is now called "Eco-Terrorism"

and the penalties are very serious.

[shadowknows69]

17. As are the penalties for not saving our planet

[RestoreGore]

19. Boycotting is eco-terrorism?

Exercising my vote at a stockholder's meeting is eco-terrorism? Being more conscious of my choices as a consumer is eco-terrorism? Just let them try to tell me that.

[Odin2005]

21. read my post on the distinction between peaceful and violent civil disobedience.

Violence is only justified as a last resort.

[Mrs. Overall]

24. Yes, you are right. I am just reacting to some fairly recent cases here

in the Pacific Northwest (sorry, I don't have links right now), in which environmentalists were given stiff penalties under "Homeland Security" laws for acts that did not harm people but prevented developers from doing their "developing" ($$).

It really pisses me off because it seems like a person can spend years in jail for chaining him/her self to a tree or disabling a bulldozer and subsequently be labeled an "eco terrorist," but a person can blow up an abortion clinic and he is labeled a criminal, a zealot or a folk hero.

[frogcycle]

27. nothing new there

they used dogs and firehoses in the 50's/60's

I suppose all those "nigras" should have shuffled back to their shanties and waited for "massa" to just GIVE them voting rights, access to education, access to public facilities...

[Hawkowl]

10. He is going to run

Just listen to way he speaks about running now versus his outright denials in 2004. He will run and mop the floor with everyone.

[kster]

11. Draw your own conclusions, but

Watch Al Gore work, Go Al Gore!!!

[Raksha]

14. I just hope he doesn't end up like Gandhi.

I think Al Gore may be aiming for something bigger than merely the Presidency, this man just may be aiming to be the next Gandhi.

There is no bigger threat to the powers-that-be than someone who threatens to induce a culture-wide raising of consciousness (Jesus, Gandhi, MLK). Those are the real revolutionaries, and they have a nasty habit of not dying in bed.

[RestoreGore]

18. This isn't about him running or not running

This is about us getting up off our asses and doing something to save ourselves now! I don't care if he runs or not he is a great man inspiring hope and courage in people to awaken them to see that the fear that has paralyzed them is now effecting our very survival. That to me is a man who goes WAY above being a president of this country or any country. I know one thing. ANY place he calls for us to stand and fight with him I will be there if at all physically possible regardless if he runs for anything or not. That is not the primary focus. The primary focus to me is getting people to see their part in the solution to this crisis before it is too late. And time is running out.

[frogcycle]

28. May I add

That all attempts to "read the tea leaves" based on his every utterance are nonsense. I love his cryptic remark "I am running a different kind of campaign." I giggle every time i hear it. Because he is not three steps ahead of everyone; it's more like ten or twenty.

He could gain so much influence as a charismatic leader that he COULD run, and be applauded by tens of millions for that position while criticized by hundreds.

Or he could gain so much influence as a charismatic leader that he needn't run; he would control such a voting bloc that he could "install a puppet" like the pugs have done repeatedly.

Or he could gain so much influence as a charismatic leader that he could influence whomever is elected, regardless of party, by controlling boycotts of products.

Nobody is going to guess what he might choose to do. It is pointless to try. Just watch, marvel, applaud.

And if he opts to run, fight like hell for him.

[porphyrian]

23. It's about time someone does something good. - n/t

[snappyturtle]

29. Unfortunately we didn't take to the streets after the 2000 election...

we've been paying the price for that failure ever since. I truly think Al Gore is the only person with the needed name recognition who is capable of ending the present nightmare and of bringing hope to the world. It's past time this nation was told the blunt truth.