Title: Article on "Quit crying inyour teacups" statement
GoreLeadership - July 15, 2004 02:00 PM (GMT)
earthmother - July 15, 2004 03:56 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| And that's why Draft Gore is here: because we will not forget, we will not forgive, and we will not move on until the truth about who really won in 2000 is at least addressed, if not rectified. And no candidate other than Al Gore can do that. People are not afraid of a rematch. They would welcome it. They did not get over it. |
The trouble is, Draft Gore is NOT here. This article dates back to July 10, 2003--a full year ago--before the Dean endorsement, before Kerry's presumptive nomination. Monica (Friedlander) pulled up shop after Gore endorsed Dean. The Draft Gore 2004 website froze. She wouldn't participate in any further draft efforts. She wrote an emotional letter explaining her reasons for stopping the draft. She and others who'd worked so hard in the movement (Mac Hathaway at Draft Gore NE comes to mind) stopped their efforts completely. They believed that the draft movement had finally come to an end, that Gore would not accept a draft, that he would not run, and that there was no point in continuing to work toward that end.
To my knowledge, the only group still working on a draft effort is Patriots for Gore. My purpose here is not to comment on their efforts. But I do wonder why a PFGer has posted this outdated article now. I guess it's a protest against Kerry. The problem is, he will be the nominee, like it or not, and while I think it was very wrong of him to make that teacups remark, he is the person who will be on the ballot in November. There is no way to change that, since he has the majority of committed delegates in his camp, and they must, by law, vote for him on the first ballot.
What are we to do?
Patriot For Gore - August 12, 2004 06:31 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (earthmother @ Jul 15 2004, 09:56 AM) |
| QUOTE | | And that's why Draft Gore is here: because we will not forget, we will not forgive, and we will not move on until the truth about who really won in 2000 is at least addressed, if not rectified. And no candidate other than Al Gore can do that. People are not afraid of a rematch. They would welcome it. They did not get over it. |
The trouble is, Draft Gore is NOT here. This article dates back to July 10, 2003--a full year ago--before the Dean endorsement, before Kerry's presumptive nomination. Monica (Friedlander) pulled up shop after Gore endorsed Dean. The Draft Gore 2004 website froze. She wouldn't participate in any further draft efforts. She wrote an emotional letter explaining her reasons for stopping the draft. She and others who'd worked so hard in the movement (Mac Hathaway at Draft Gore NE comes to mind) stopped their efforts completely. They believed that the draft movement had finally come to an end, that Gore would not accept a draft, that he would not run, and that there was no point in continuing to work toward that end.
To my knowledge, the only group still working on a draft effort is Patriots for Gore. My purpose here is not to comment on their efforts. But I do wonder why a PFGer has posted this outdated article now. I guess it's a protest against Kerry. The problem is, he will be the nominee, like it or not, and while I think it was very wrong of him to make that teacups remark, he is the person who will be on the ballot in November. There is no way to change that, since he has the majority of committed delegates in his camp, and they must, by law, vote for him on the first ballot.
What are we to do?
|
Perhaps it wasn't posted by the poster as a member of Patriots For Gore, but as an American who laments how Democrats in the party leadership have totally dismissed the theft of 2000, using it only as a talking point for themselves when they think they can arouse people to now vote for Kerry using that anger, when it should have been used to fight for Al Gore! Whether we can or cannot have any influence on who the party leaders pick, it is still within our rights as Americans to protest such statements that suggest an air of arrogance and indifference towards millions of Americans who were disenfranchised, and who by all accounts with paperless touchscreen voting machines making their appearance, may be again this year. Will those who support Kerry tell Americans to stop crying in their teacups should it happen again? It never should have been said, period. :bad:
earthmother - August 12, 2004 07:26 PM (GMT)
I agree that we should lament and protest and object about everything we deem wrong with the Democratic leadership . . . after November. It's so critical to get Bush out that I would hate to do anything to sabotage Kerry's chances of getting in. I don't mean to suggest that we should stand idly by if something grossly wrong is said or done, but I think now that the nomination is carved in stone, we should do what we can to support this candidate, even if there are things about him that aren't to our liking. Then, after Nov. 2 (assuming Kerry's elected), we can let 'er rip!
JamesAquila - August 12, 2004 08:12 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (earthmother @ Aug 12 2004, 03:26 PM) |
| I agree that we should lament and protest and object about everything we deem wrong with the Democratic leadership . . . after November. It's so critical to get Bush out that I would hate to do anything to sabotage Kerry's chances of getting in. I don't mean to suggest that we should stand idly by if something grossly wrong is said or done, but I think now that the nomination is carved in stone, we should do what we can to support this candidate, even if there are things about him that aren't to our liking. Then, after Nov. 2 (assuming Kerry's elected), we can let 'er rip! |
Well said EM :clap:
Patriot For Gore - August 12, 2004 08:23 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (earthmother @ Aug 12 2004, 01:26 PM) |
| I agree that we should lament and protest and object about everything we deem wrong with the Democratic leadership . . . after November. It's so critical to get Bush out that I would hate to do anything to sabotage Kerry's chances of getting in. I don't mean to suggest that we should stand idly by if something grossly wrong is said or done, but I think now that the nomination is carved in stone, we should do what we can to support this candidate, even if there are things about him that aren't to our liking. Then, after Nov. 2 (assuming Kerry's elected), we can let 'er rip! |
You mean, like the Democratic National Convention kept peace signs out of the Fleet Center, and disallowed anti-Iraq war people from speaking, and wouldn't allow "Bush bashing" as they called it? Well, you can certainly keep silent on all of that and the Democratic Party's Bush -lite war policy that has disenchanted many Democrats who know they will also have no choice but to vote for Kerry if that is what you think is right. I won't, however, if I deem it necessary to critique a policy of the Democratic Party, Republican-Fascist Party, or any party or candidate, as no one controls what I say or when I say it, as that is what freedom is all about. We see enough of that attitude in the goosestepping Republican Party, and it is one reason in my view why freedoms are being eroded... because people are afraid to speak out and speak truth. Freedom of thought and speech isn't only exclusive to years without Presidential elections. I honestly don't believe telling truth here is going to sabotage anything as it is, and to suggest that really doesn't sound realistic. If Kerry loses this it is HIS to lose, and my freedom or your freedom to honestly critique a policy isn't going to be to blame for it.
Jan
earthmother - August 12, 2004 08:50 PM (GMT)
I'm not talking about things we say on this board, Jan. I'm talking about the larger world--out there. No one here is trying to take away anyone's freedoms to do anything. There's nothing wrong with people talking and arguing about what they believe. I'm just suggesting, because it's so important to get Bush out in November, that we not do anything to turn people away from the Democrats before the election. The Republicans are doing all they can toward that effort, and I don't think we should help them.
Patriot For Gore - August 12, 2004 09:36 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (earthmother @ Aug 12 2004, 04:50 PM) |
| I'm not talking about things we say on this board, Jan. I'm talking about the larger world--out there. No one here is trying to take away anyone's freedoms to do anything. There's nothing wrong with people talking and arguing about what they believe. I'm just suggesting, because it's so important to get Bush out in November, that we not do anything to turn people away from the Democrats before the election. The Republicans are doing all they can toward that effort, and I don't think we should help them. |
Well, since all you know is what I state on forums and not "out there," I then don't understand your point. I think I and many Democrats have made it clear that while we do not agree with the right leaning Iraq War policy of the DNC/DLC, we will have no choice but to place our vote next to Kerry's name since he is the only candidate with the greatest chance to defeat Bush (if of course provided the election is not postponed or stolen). Our last press release also stated that much as we made that plea to Independent and undecided voters. As a matter of fact, my neighbor who is a staunch Ralph Nader supporter, has weakened to the point that he is considering voting Democratic this time, due to me. I am very well aware of how important it is to vote Bush out, and you know I am too. That however, doesn't change how I feel about Kerry's policies, and should he somehow pull a win out in November, he will be held to the same standards as anyone else as far as accountabilty and answering the questions that up to now he has avoided.
Jan