Two Takes on Al Gore

klaatu

Fusionist
hmm.. two different ops on the Future of Al Gore and his current standing as an American Political Force ...


Gore once again ahead of curve
Originally published March 28, 2007

Al Gore came a long way to talk about global warming with his former congressional colleagues, but the distance was more psychic than physical. He had to cover a lot of personal ground in order to arrive in Washington last week as a certifiable celebrity and Oscar-winning star of the documentary An Inconvenient Truth.


As I watched Mr. Gore testify before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, that fateful winter six years ago - when Mr. Gore had to concede the presidential race and then certify George W. Bush's election from the floor of the Senate - seemed like six decades ago.

Mr. Gore's bete noire is the committee's ranking Republican, James M. Inhofe. In his interrogation of Mr. Gore, the Oklahoma senator, who has called man-made global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," looked like a dullard trying to explain a poorly executed science project.

Mr. Inhofe's low politics aside, should we trust Mr. Gore's judgment about climate change?

Forget for a moment that Mr. Gore has been studying this issue closely for more than two decades. The reason to heed Mr. Gore's warnings is his record of recognizing problems and devising solutions before others do.

In the 2000 campaign, Mr. Gore was ridiculed incessantly for purportedly claiming he invented the Internet. What he took credit for was leading Congress toward the Internet as young representative.

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet," he said.

A conceited boast? Not according to another congressman, who served alongside Mr. Gore in the late 1970s and early 1980s when his Tennessee counterpart was obsessing about some futuristic "I-way."

"In all fairness, it's something Gore had worked on a long time," said former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich two months before the 2000 election. "Gore is not the father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet."

OK, so Mr. Gore played a key role in a technological advance that transformed mass communication and commerce - no biggie. Besides, the nation faces far more serious issues, such as the Iraq war.

Here's what the former vice president said in a speech to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco a few weeks before Congress voted in October 2002 to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq:

"I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century."

He added: "Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another. We should remain focused on the war against terrorism."

Recall that Mr. Gore's warnings came at a time when it was still quite fashionable to bash him as the front half of an embittered "Sore-Loserman" ticket.

It took guts to oppose the invasion then, especially as the president's approval rating was triple Mr. Gore's (65 percent to 19 percent).

Plenty of Democrats, including New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, are piling on President Bush now that his war approval is half what it was four years ago. Mr. Gore showed the courage to speak out when it mattered, even though progressive voices like his were shouted down by those "serious" neoconservatives.

So here we go again, with the usual suspects scoffing at Mr. Gore's claims about global warming. Wrong again, they sneer.

But the reason Mr. Gore has so often been dismissed in the past is that he was able to see what more cautious, myopic politicians could not.

Some fans have even taken to calling the former vice president the "Goracle."

That's a bit much, but how dare Mr. Inhofe dismiss him as a "Chicken Little"? A mumbling coward too afraid to acknowledge a huge problem staring the nation in the face is something far worse: a big chicken.

Mr. Inhofe's right about one thing: Hoaxes can be perpetrated on American voters. How else to explain a reactionary apologist for the petroleum industry winning three terms in the Senate?

Thomas F. Schaller is an associate professor of political science at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and author of "Whistling Past Dixie." His e-mail is schaller67@hotmail.com. His column appears Wednesdays in The Sun.

http://tinyurl.com/2jsrm2
 
Michael Goodwin: The fantasy of Gore running again is just the latest delusion from a party with plenty
By Michael Goodwin
New York Daily News
Article Last Updated: 03/27/2007 06:21:33 PM MDT

No conversation about the presidential campaign is complete these days until someone pops the burning question: Is Al Gore going to run?
My answer is always the same: He wants to, but shouldn't. It would be a loser for him and it might cost the Democratic Party the White House.
That Gore has the itch is obvious. He refuses to rule out a run and his return to Capitol Hill last week to talk about global warming looked like a campaign stop. His film "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Oscar and his nomination for a Nobel Prize has supporters dreaming. Winning that prize would be a stick in George Bush's eye and would create a groundswell for his candidacy. He would vault to the head of the pack and win the nomination.
Dream on. In real life, Gore is more likely to be a spoiler than a winner, the Ralph Nader of 2008. The boomlet for Gore is not a sign of his strength; it is a reflection of the party's inability to make a commitment to anyone or anything.
Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are first and second in national party polls for good reason: Clinton has the track record, money, field operation and star power and Obama has the energy, charisma and freshness. It escapes me how Gore would be more attractive than either or both in a general election.
One poll had Gore at 14 percent, in third place, ahead of John Edwards. That seems pretty good for a guy not


running, until you remember that 14 percent is about where Newt Gingrich is among Republicans, and nobody thinks he's going to be president.
The Gore Fantasy is an example of the Democratic ritual of eating their own, of indulging in bickering and second-guessing until defeat has been secured. The habit was on full display in Friday's House vote on ending the war in Iraq. Despite promises to bring the troops home and blistering attacks on the GOP "culture of corruption," Speaker Nancy Pelosi's team openly bought votes by promising tens of millions of dollars in wasteful subsidies for dairy farmers, spinach producers and peanut businesses. Hard-line liberals were fighting ultrahard-line liberals.
After all that, the bill, which continues war funding even as it requires withdrawal by September 2008, got the barest possible majority, 218 votes. It will not pass the Senate and, even if it does, Bush would veto it. That means Dems eventually will have to vote for a "clean" funding bill or be guilty of defunding our troops in battle. If Friday's vote was victory, it's hard to imagine what defeat would look like.
Gore, of course, knows all about close votes, having won the popular vote in 2000. But those who remember that fact alone are forgetting the rest of the story. He was a lousy candidate who should have won in a cakewalk. He was so bad he lost his home state of Tennessee.
Old doubts about his authenticity would surface, including that he paid for advice on dressing like an alpha male. Even his personal commitment to the environment is suspect, with his carbon-spewing lifestyle already the butt of late-night jokes. And despite his conviction that we face a global crisis, Gore hardly mentioned the subject six years ago because his handlers told him not to.
That's part of the Al Gore story, too, and it should wake up the dreamers about his chances of saving the party in 2008. Better he should stick to saving the planet. ---
Michael Goodwin is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the New York Daily News. His e-mail is goodwin@nydailynews.com.


http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_5532633
 
I find the Newts take interesting ..

A conceited boast? Not according to another congressman, who served alongside Mr. Gore in the late 1970s and early 1980s when his Tennessee counterpart was obsessing about some futuristic "I-way."

"In all fairness, it's something Gore had worked on a long time," said former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich two months before the 2000 election. "Gore is not the father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet."
 
Michael Goodwin: The fantasy of Gore running again is just the latest delusion from a party with plenty
By Michael Goodwin
New York Daily News
Article Last Updated: 03/27/2007 06:21:33 PM MDT

No conversation about the presidential campaign is complete these days until someone pops the burning question: Is Al Gore going to run?
My answer is always the same: He wants to, but shouldn't. It would be a loser for him and it might cost the Democratic Party the White House.
That Gore has the itch is obvious. He refuses to rule out a run and his return to Capitol Hill last week to talk about global warming looked like a campaign stop. His film "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Oscar and his nomination for a Nobel Prize has supporters dreaming. Winning that prize would be a stick in George Bush's eye and would create a groundswell for his candidacy. He would vault to the head of the pack and win the nomination.
Dream on. In real life, Gore is more likely to be a spoiler than a winner, the Ralph Nader of 2008. The boomlet for Gore is not a sign of his strength; it is a reflection of the party's inability to make a commitment to anyone or anything.
Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are first and second in national party polls for good reason: Clinton has the track record, money, field operation and star power and Obama has the energy, charisma and freshness. It escapes me how Gore would be more attractive than either or both in a general election.
One poll had Gore at 14 percent, in third place, ahead of John Edwards. That seems pretty good for a guy not


running, until you remember that 14 percent is about where Newt Gingrich is among Republicans, and nobody thinks he's going to be president.
The Gore Fantasy is an example of the Democratic ritual of eating their own, of indulging in bickering and second-guessing until defeat has been secured. The habit was on full display in Friday's House vote on ending the war in Iraq. Despite promises to bring the troops home and blistering attacks on the GOP "culture of corruption," Speaker Nancy Pelosi's team openly bought votes by promising tens of millions of dollars in wasteful subsidies for dairy farmers, spinach producers and peanut businesses. Hard-line liberals were fighting ultrahard-line liberals.
After all that, the bill, which continues war funding even as it requires withdrawal by September 2008, got the barest possible majority, 218 votes. It will not pass the Senate and, even if it does, Bush would veto it. That means Dems eventually will have to vote for a "clean" funding bill or be guilty of defunding our troops in battle. If Friday's vote was victory, it's hard to imagine what defeat would look like.
Gore, of course, knows all about close votes, having won the popular vote in 2000. But those who remember that fact alone are forgetting the rest of the story. He was a lousy candidate who should have won in a cakewalk. He was so bad he lost his home state of Tennessee.
Old doubts about his authenticity would surface, including that he paid for advice on dressing like an alpha male. Even his personal commitment to the environment is suspect, with his carbon-spewing lifestyle already the butt of late-night jokes. And despite his conviction that we face a global crisis, Gore hardly mentioned the subject six years ago because his handlers told him not to.
That's part of the Al Gore story, too, and it should wake up the dreamers about his chances of saving the party in 2008. Better he should stick to saving the planet. ---
Michael Goodwin is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the New York Daily News. His e-mail is goodwin@nydailynews.com.


http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_5532633

Umm, yeah, I love all the well-meant "advice to the dems". I've heard a lot of that lately.

Meanwhile, polls are showing Hillary might not crack 50%, or even be capable of doing so, and I still have some very serious doubts that white men will, when it comes time to pull that lever, pull it for a black man. I know there is a lot of disagreement with me amongst fellow libs on that point. But in my heart of hearts, I just don't see my way around that.

Gore is more electable than either one of them. And if he doesn't enter, there is Edwards. Edwards is where he should be on the war, in contrast to Hillary, and I'll tell you something, he's at a place that I really like with health care and taxes, and details. Details! Is there anyone here who knows Obama's detailed health care plan? His tax plan? Any economic plan whatsoever?

Any details?
 
Darla.. where does Edwards stand on Energy Policy? Im sure he has mentioned it and has a stance one way or another ..but is it detailed? Seriously.. Id like to know....
 
and I still have some very serious doubts that white men will, when it comes time to pull that lever, pull it for a black man.


Fuck you racist bitch! Don't project your racism onto others
 
and I still have some very serious doubts that white men will, when it comes time to pull that lever, pull it for a black man.


Fuck you racist bitch! Don't project your racism onto others

Ah...sorry I touched a nerve, pig.

Damo, maybe you should think about instituting an age policy here. Being followed around by 12 year old boys jerking off on their keyboards is getting tiresome.
 
Ah...sorry I touched a nerve, pig.

Damo, maybe you should think about instituting an age policy here. Being followed around by 12 year old boys jerking off on their keyboards is getting tiresome.

Actually, you outed yourself as a closet racist.

And you seem rather childish yourself, sweety.

Now, perhaps you can stop projecting your moral failings onto others. It makes you look stupid... alhough that's not too hard for you, now is it?
 
Darla, you were clearly stating your personal beliefs and there is nothing wrong with that. However, it was a racist comment. You are sterotyping "white men". Personally I find it offensive.

It would be like me saying something like "I don't think black men would ever vote for a successful black Republican because they have been brainwashed into believing that would make him and Uncle Tom"

Note: In no way do I believe that. Sure there are some that may feel that way, but to generalize as you did or as that statement does is racist to the core. Whether it is opinion or not.
 
klaatu....

1) The internet was invented when Gore was a kid. What he did was help pass legislation to allow the tech industry to build out the capacity. A big help to the industry, no question. But he likes to exagerate.

2) Speaking of exageration.... Why is it that Gores numbers are so far off even the IPCC figures? Global warming is certainly occuring, but there is too much shouting of "consensus! consensus!" and anyone who disagrees that man is the primary cause must be a "denier".

3) On Iraq... Bush fubaring the war in Iraq does not make the original decision incorrect. It just means that the execution and planning were horrid. Given the corruption at the UN and 12 years of failures, sooner or later something had to be done. It should have been later. On that portion of Gores talking points, he was correct. But the author clearly failed to point out that both Clinton and Gore both said that Saddam was a threat and that he was out to develop WMDs. It was only when a Republican (the one who beat him) decided to go and do something about it that Gore changed his tune.

Gore has done some good despite his inability to leave out the exagerations.

But he is not the Dems best candidate. The best will once again sit on the sideline as the Dems like the Reps will most likely put up a candidate that is more to the extreme than the center. Once again, we will all be choosing between the lesser of two evils come 2008.
 
Darla, you were clearly stating your personal beliefs and there is nothing wrong with that. However, it was a racist comment. You are sterotyping "white men". Personally I find it offensive.

It would be like me saying something like "I don't think black men would ever vote for a successful black Republican because they have been brainwashed into believing that would make him and Uncle Tom"

Note: In no way do I believe that. Sure there are some that may feel that way, but to generalize as you did or as that statement does is racist to the core. Whether it is opinion or not.

Breaking News: Racism still exists!

This is exactly what conservatives always do. It is so tiresome. If you mention that, hey, I've noticed that the majority of the tax breaks go to the rich, "CLASS WARFARE! YOU'RE WAGING CLASS WARFARE".

If I notice that racism and sexism, still exist in a portion of the white male population, I'm a racist...though, interestingly, none have tried that with the sexist part of my claim.

So, the sin becomes not in waging class warfare by making the rich richer the poor poorer, and not in being racist and being a sexist, but the sin comes to be in noticing.

And it's a good charade you guys have had going, but, it's never fooled me, nor never once shamed me from stating the obvious...and it never will.
 
"I still have some very serious doubts that white men will, when it comes time to pull that lever, pull it for a black man. "

Darla, I understand racism still exists. The above did not distinguish "a portion of the white male population"... it said "white men" period. Come to think of it, it is not only a racist statement but also sexist.

The obvious is that you are brainwashed to believe that. Keep your racist views, that is your choice. But you are the ultimate hypocrit if you ever complain about someone else being racist or sexist.
 
"I still have some very serious doubts that white men will, when it comes time to pull that lever, pull it for a black man. "

Darla, I understand racism still exists. The above did not distinguish "a portion of the white male population"... it said "white men" period. Come to think of it, it is not only a racist statement but also sexist.

The obvious is that you are brainwashed to believe that. Keep your racist views, that is your choice. But you are the ultimate hypocrit if you ever complain about someone else being racist or sexist.
Oh, good grief. It's obvious that she was talking about a statistical phenomenon. Get a grip! How PC do you demand that we be?

And I agree. It's still not clear that enough white men will pull the lever for a black man. Or, to be, perhaps, more accurate, I fear that enough of us won't as to negate a whole heckuva lot of charisma.
 
Oh, good grief. It's obvious that she was talking about a statistical phenomenon. Get a grip! How PC do you demand that we be?

And I agree. It's still not clear that enough white men will pull the lever for a black man. Or, to be, perhaps, more accurate, I fear that enough of us won't as to negate a whole heckuva lot of charisma.

Thank you! :)

I thought it was so obvious, but then, it wasn't.
 
To realize that racism exists is not rascism.
If that is not the case then all christains are satanists.
But to extend it to all of a group is stereotyping, and if it is based on "race", such as "White" then what do you have?

Stereotyping based on race and sex is both racism and sexism regardless of whether you are "recognizing" that racism exists when you make the remark.

Making a General statement often leads to such stereotypes and to such discussions on a board like this. By adding one word, or by leaving it out, it changes the meaning significantly.

Ornot's comment on "enough" definitively changes the statement's meaning, it is no longer a generalization of all of a group based on race and gender.
 
Back
Top