socalover
(359 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 11:42 PM
Original message |
| Al Gore should start a new anti Iraq war political party for 2008... |
|
Then, maybe the Democratic party will wake up....
But still, I would be rallying for an Al Gore victory with his newly formed 3rd party...
|
expatriot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 11:46 PM
Response to Original message |
| 1. what the fucking hell man... |
|
no offense, but that's just inane.
secondly you are kind of violating DU rules:
Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.
|
socalover
(359 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
| 4. How am I violating DU rules? |
|
Edited on Mon Sep-26-05 12:06 AM by socalover
Maybe I am unaware, but is this site funded by the Democratic party? I doubt very much.
The bottom line is the Democratic party has not been vocal enough against the war in Iraq, in fact, most congresspersons have sanctioned it via their Iraq war political and monetary congressional votes....
The same way the party and the media vilified Howard Dean in 2004, it seems they and the media are setting up for a Hillary 2008 run, so why the phucque should we play with their ball?
|
expatriot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-26-05 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
| 6. no, it's not funded by the Democratic Party and this particular rule |
|
I am quoting is not strictly enforced (it is enfored as needed from what I can tell)... but it is on the rules page nonetheless.
"Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."
"Members are expected... to support Democratic candidates for political office." If Al Gore ran in 2008 on a 3rd Party ticket he would obviously be running against a Democratic candidate. Your hypothetical support for a non-Demo candidate in 2008 is by default your non-support for Democratic candidates for political office.
|
Clarkie1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 11:47 PM
Response to Original message |
| 2. O.K...now THIS is the stupidist thing I have seen posted on DU, ever! n/t |
socalover
(359 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
socalover
(359 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-26-05 12:03 AM
Response to Original message |
| 5. Why are you all so afraid of an Al Gore 3rd party???? |
|
If the Democrats refuse to walk the walk, let Al Gore do it!
|
expatriot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-26-05 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
| 7. it has nothing to do with Al Gore.... it has to do with the whole idea of |
|
3rd parties in presidential elections. Constitutional and political realities at present time.
|
Tesha
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-26-05 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
| 18. Ask a Whig if there's anything to fear in third parties! (NT) |
Crazy Guggenheim
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-26-05 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
| 8. It's too single issue. |
fujiyama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-26-05 04:08 AM
Response to Original message |
| 9. Yeah I'm sure Al Gore of all people |
|
will start a third party to fuck over Democrats, even though he's been a member of the party his entire political life...and even after getting fucked by Ralph Nader himself.
Sorry, Al Gore is smart and understands that splintering the left further will simply lead to more defeat.
Al Gore is NOT Ralph Nader.
|
Guaranteed
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-26-05 04:13 AM
Response to Original message |
| 10. I just can't see Gore doing that. |
|
I could have seen Dean doing that, if he hadn't gotten the chairmanship. But, I think Gore's not unsatisfied with his PERSONAL treatment from the party, so far.
So far.
Probably won't be in the future. We're out of that woods, for the most part, anyway. The DLC whores are basically done.
We'll see, though.
|
Guava Jelly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-26-05 04:18 AM
Response to Original message |
| 11. divide and conquer never works |
|
just weakens you and strengthens your enemies
|
ladylibertee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-26-05 05:18 AM
Response to Original message |
| 12. What third party? Is that true or your like fantasizing? |
bklyncowgirl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-26-05 06:14 AM
Response to Original message |
| 13. Not going to happen. Gore's a loyal Democrat. |
|
Gore in fact talked Dean down from the ledge when he briefly considered going third party after the primaries.
I don't know if he or any of the other progressives in the party have a breaking point but it has not been reached yet.
|
Jai4WKC08
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-26-05 06:56 AM
Response to Original message |
| 14. What exactly IS Gore's position on the war? |
|
I know he was against going in, but what does he want to do now?
Clark has a "change the course" strategy and is working with the House "Out of Iraq" Caucus on the best way to pressure the administration into doing something. Feingold has proposed a deadline for withdrawal. Clinton, Biden and Bayh have been critical of the way Bush has fought the war, but haven't really said anything about what they'd do different, and certainly haven't renounced their votes for going in.
Has Gore said anything about what we do now?
|
Adelante
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-26-05 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #14 |
|
Gore doesn't have to have a plan of his own, but I would like to hear what is in his mind on this issue.
|
Totally Committed
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-26-05 07:19 AM
Response to Original message |
| 15. A Third Party cannot win with the Electoral College in place... |
|
Edited on Mon Sep-26-05 07:20 AM by Totally Committed
It is a statistical impossibilty. It was set up that way, because this is supposed to be a two-Party system.
What a Third-Party run from the Left does, is split the left vote (Ralph Nader). Same goes for a run from the Right (Ross Perot). Both those men (arguably, some say) helped defeat the Party they were most closely associated with.
You want a Third Party run? Work to get the Electoral College abolished.
TC
|
Adelante
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-26-05 08:50 AM
Response to Original message |
| 16. What makes you think Al Gore would do that? |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Feb 27th 2026, 01:44 AM
Response to Original message |