|
For more troubling facts about Gore’s politics look here.
|
|
|
Thanks for this Silverback (and Anthony for posting it).
I’ve heard about the Occidental connection before, but you laid it out really well. There’s defiantly a certain level of dissonance here, as Gore’s slideshows, documentaries ect. are doing great things in terms of raising the awareness of global warming. However, his record destroys his credibility as a progressive candidate.
Just a quick question: was the asterisk following: “Gore refused to meet him*” indicative of the same foot-noting style as you used in True Lies? If so, can you post the footnote, I love those little things (short attention span).
Post Modified: 05/25/06 08:22:20
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nice recycling of your GNN v.1 thread on this same subject.
I guess global warming must be a hoax then. :P
|
|
|
|
Will he run? Can he win? Slate: “Gore, Retry, Fail: Why the “New” Al Gore can’t get elected”:http://www.slate.com/id/2142362/nav/tap1/
|
|
|
|
Who gives a fuck if he’s going to run for office or not?
|
|
|
Gore is just another stealth Republican; a neo-conservative wolf in sheeps clothes as was Clinton. The difference between them being Gore is second generation power, Clinton was a self-made man.
He married his connection.
Global warming isn’t the greatest threat facing mankind today.
Class warfare and warfare over resources in general will kill many more of us than global warming ever will.
The legal groundwork and the hardware acquisituion for “Bush’s” NSA and DIA intrusions into the private lives of Americans were accomplished during the Clinton Administration with Gore’s complicity and assistance.
It’s worth remembering that Al Gore also invented the internet.
Nader indeed.
Peace,
Post Modified: 05/25/06 09:29:05
|
|
|
Nice recycling of your GNN v.1 thread on this same subject.
not mine… and i know you’re joking but it’s worth saying here that of course we care about global warming. it’s more the point of dislodging Gore’s opportunist politiking from the legacy of those who have been working for authentic environmental change without taking money from oil companies.
|
|
|
i love this:
Gore was such a strong supporter of the gun lobby – ultimately voting against the critical 1985 legislation for a mandatory 14-day waiting period for handgun purchases – that National Rifle Association leader Wayne LaPierre once said, “We could have made Al Gore NRA Man of the Year – every single vote.”
how am i supposed to accept this fact, coming from an NRA guy, meant to hurt Gore by linking him to the NRA? Wouldn’t ya think that if they had this democratic leader in their back pocket, they would be mum about it, rather than trying to hurt their man on the inside?
c’mon, how about linking to the articles you are pulling from…
this one:
Finally, when it came time to vote on conservative Supreme Court nominees, Gore publicly praised but voted against the scandal-ridden Clarence Thomas. He voted in Antonin Scalia.
seems a bit off too, and possibly misleading. give us the quote of the praise of thomas if you are going to say he praised him, so we can see the extent of his ‘praise’.
this article has no footnotes or links to the material being cited, which drops it down to an opinion piece of the author and vidal.
I’m not saying Al is a good guy, I’m just saying without reeference, this article adds very little information beyond opinion, to any arguement on Gore’s nature…
|
|
|
|
it’s more the point of dislodging Gore’s opportunist politiking
But is that really what’s going on here? How can we know such a thing? My understanding, based on what I’ve read about the history of this film, is that Gore was approached by the filmmakers to appear because he’s a public figure who is knowledgeable on the subject.
Would people flock to see a movie about global warming with an unheard of speaker in it? Who can say? Gore at least puts a public face on the issue.
I’d argue that it’s far more worthwhile for the message to be delivered, regardless of the messenger. If Gore can put the asses in the seats, then that is better for the global warming issue.
|
|
|
Some Inconvenient Truths About Al Gore
I was initially delighted at the thought.
In his exclusive excerpt from his forthcoming book Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing (Disinfo, Jan. 2007), GNN’s Stephen Marshall talks with Gore Vidal about some inconvenient truths about his relative:
Like a giant pillar gently descending upon and penetrating a puckered city center, the all-wise and powerful cousin Vidal lays bare the ever so inconvenient dingleberries of truth. Oh, not to stickle, but shouldn’t it be strong>this exclusive excerpt?
Well, although we are cousins, and I was a friend of his father’s, I’ve always thought he was absolutely pointless as a politician. He’s just another conservative southerner.
That’s a scathing pearl neckless of truth right there, that is.
For Vidal, stories like this just prove the moral bankruptcy of American politicians who serve no master other than their own ambition. And their corporate backers.
But he (GV) would’ve been different had he won in ’60 or ’82, right? Totally grassroots with no corporate backers, right?
But, for Vidal, the act that most proves Gore’s contempt for representative politics was his total acquiescence in the face of the contested 2000 presidential election result in Florida.
Most proves? What a salty meringue this now seems to be to me.
Vidal concludes firmly and then, looking up at the clouds that have moved over the sun, rises.
Take off the iconoclast-colored glasses and step away from this man’s old balls. Damn.
|
|
|
1) Gore Vidal although a decent historian at times, has no proven relation to Al Gore..you are looking stupid GNN for posting that right at the beginning..way to start off factually wrong..try researching it if you doubt me..
2) Golf clap for once again attacking your best chance at a real issue. Is he another politician with his own agenda? Maybe so, but at least he’s highlighting something other than “fighting for freedom” or “democracy.” Are you all really so jaded that you refuse to get anything done because you are willing to stab each other in the back at any given chance?
Let me put it another way because Gore isn’t my pal or anything and I’m not cheerleading for the man himself but can people change their opinion? Can people actually become more aware of an issue and find their voice? Do we not all change our opinions on some issue at some time???
3) No substance to the article…opinion by Vidal anyway, a 1/2 loon (1/2 sane too though)...why don’t you just call it a blog because it’s not really an article…
Do you all ever wonder why across the world you are getting your “progressive” ideals chunked back in your face and election after election you lose? Oh I’m sorry Chavez and the rest of the psedu-revolutionaries are your idea of progressive, my bad…WAKE UP…stop infighting to the point of being the EVER-LOSERS...really it is pathetic…Join together and try, for once, to build a platform that all people can rally around, not just coffee-shop revolutionaries…
Post Modified: 05/25/06 10:19:16
|
|
|
|
If Gore can put the asses in the seats, then that is better for the global warming issue.
couldn’t agree more. but what if that has the dual effect of obscuring his own record on environmental destruction? he could very well rise to the top of the heap again on this very issue and we’d have no sense of his true nature and close relationships with Big Oil.
anthony sent me this when he was writing the Editor’s Note. definitely worth the read. in fact, someone should post it in headlines as a flashback!
Post Modified: 05/25/06 10:04:14
|
|
|
|
what if that has the dual effect of obscuring his own record on environmental destruction?
Are we closing the door on the idea that maybe he’s had a change of heart?
Despite Tipper Gore’s PMRC past, Zappa’s widow donated generously to Al’s campaign because for all his flaws, he’s not the evildoer that Bush is.
|
|
|
|
It’s more the point of dislodging Gore’s opportunist politiking
But is that really what’s going on here? How can we know such a thing? My understanding, based on what I’ve read about the history of this film, is that Gore was approached by the filmmakers to appear because he’s a public figure who is knowledgeable on the subject.
it is that that worries me about this article Shogo…
Gore does a piece on global warming, the article links him to anti abortion, anti gay, pro gun lobby, etc….
all without footnote or link…
In philosophy of debate, it is what constitutes a personal slander. the debate is not about the global warming work of Gore’s (even though that is how the piece is noted by the author, and is the only link of any kind in the article), it’s about his unfootnoted ‘right wing’ politics.
i don’t like gore as a vice president of an administration that move the left to the right, and i am wary of his political positioning, I do agree with Stephen, but the arguement has to be presented more directly.
Wanna make a reference to gore bein pro NRA, and dishonest with regards to votes vs. public statements, than you better link it with authority, otherwise it actually hurts your entire arguement…
|
|
|
|
Are you all really so jaded that you refuse to get anything done because you are willing to stab each other in the back at any given chance?
hardly. as for getting things done, i’d like to think GNN is a relatively pro-active effort. as for Gore, having met and consulted with him on the design and programming for Current, we were left with the feeling of having been with someone who was not truly committed to challenging the status quo. at all. more, are you not aware of his actions in the wake of the 2000 election where he shut down the objections of the black caucus? i guess it all depends on your view of the two-party system. is it really a functional dualism that represents the great divide in America or is it a containment policy for the elites – of which Al Gore is a primary representative and beneficiary?
|
|
|
|
Wanna make a reference to gore bein pro NRA, and dishonest with regards to votes vs. public statements, than you better link it with authority, otherwise it actually hurts your entire arguement
the lack of footnotes is my responsibility – this is a rush excerpt of the book and those are usually done closer to the deadline. i’ll try to pull some out now.
|
|
|
|
he’s not the evildoer that Bush is.
of course not, but let’s not get caught up in the good cop/bad cop routine that has stifled true political®evolution in this country.
|
|
|
|
It has nothing to do with a two-party system (as we all snicker at that). My issue is on the big picture of things or at least the picture that a mass audience will see, can WE (insert tree-hugger label) afford at this moment to fight over the political record of a man no longer affecting politics in the US when the issue he makes is the point?
What’s more important, looking noble or doing something productive that can reach allot more people that Nader (whom I love) can? So piss on Gore and together with FoxNews and the rest of the right you can bury the issue once again…
Post Modified: 05/25/06 10:19:59
|
|
|
“it’s more the point of dislodging Gore’s opportunist politiking from the legacy of those who have been working for authentic environmental change without taking money from oil companies.”
I dare you to find one other politician that has fought for global warming being in the public front.
PS – I don’t understand why we are supposed to care what Gore Vidal has to say. The only thing he’s good at is historical novels. His politicial writing is left-wing hyperbole that is a dime a dozen these days.
Do you all ever wonder why across the world you are getting your “progressive” ideals chunked back in your face and election after election you lose? Oh I’m sorry Chavez and the rest of the psedu-revolutionaries are your idea of progressive, my bad…WAKE UP…stop infighting to the point of being the EVER-LOSERS…really it is pathetic…Join together and try, for once, to build a platform that all people can rally around, not just coffee-shop revolutionaries…
Kudos to JA for saying the most intelligent thing so far on this thread.
I think it’s pretty disgusting and pathetic how everyone except people like Ralph Nader or Cynthia Mckinney gets trashed for not being “progressive” enough by the left establishment (and this includes this website, counterpunch, etc)
Vidal, like Nader and McKinney, can do no wrong. He’s always right.
BTW – What has Vidal ever accomplished politicially? He ran for office and failed. He wrote some novels.
The end.
|
|
|
|
on abortion: In 1977, Gore voted for the Hyde Amendment and in the 1980’s was given the 84% rating by the National Right to Life Committee. yet in a February 20, 2002 article in the New York Times, Gore said “I have always, always, always supported Roe v. Wade.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So piss on Gore and together with FoxNews and the rest of the right you can bury the issue once again
bury the issue? maybe you haven’t spent that much time on GNN, but we have published ad nauseum on the issue of peak oil and global warming. as for this ridiculous challenge:
I dare you to find one other politician that has fought for global warming being in the public front.
have you never heard of Gaylord Nelson?
i think it’s sadder that people of this new generation are so willing to accept the heroes being propped up by the mainstream media and corporate America.
as for Gore Vidal, this excerpt was from a part of the book which features an interview with him on the 2 party system. the bulk of this article is focused on aspects of (Al) Gore’s carreer that are easily researched in the public record, so attempting to marginalize the argument by attributing them to Vidal is disingenuous, or just plain lazy. What abotu Elk Hills? What about Oxy? The critics on this page seem rabidly unwilling to deal with the real issues presented here and more on defending Gore…
|
|
|
|
I think it’s pretty disgusting and pathetic how everyone except people like Ralph Nader or Cynthia Mckinney gets trashed for not being “progressive” enough by the left establishment (and this includes this website, counterpunch, etc)
i agree, but there is alot of rot on the left, no doubt. In the last year, I have encountered graft and theft, and all sorts of scandal while running around with the ‘left’, so this is why I say, if you want to reveal something, do it with footnotes and hot links to material that creates your position. If not, we are left with slanders that dissolve the resolve of the left.
DON’T LINK GORE’S APPEARANCE TO A FILM ON GLOBAL WARMING, TO THE NRA, ANIT-ABORTION, ANTI CIVIL-RIGHTS, ANTI-GAY, WITHOUT LINKS OR FOOTNOTES*
*unless you want to hurt this movie and it’s message rather than inform, which is what it is left doing…
|
|
|
|
the bulk of this article is focused on aspects of (Al) Gore’s carreer that are easily researched in the public record, so attempting to marginalize the argument by attributing them to Vidal is disingenuous, or just plain lazy
that’s your job, not the readers…
|
|
|
|
“on abortion: In 1977, Gore voted for the Hyde Amendment and in the 1980’s was given the 84% rating by the National Right to Life Committee. yet in a February 20, 2002 article in the New York Times, Gore said “I have always, always, always supported Roe v. Wade.”
Well, I’m glad he changed his position.
I hope you are too.
“have you never heard of Gaylord Nelson?
i think it’s sadder that people of this new generation are so willing to accept the heroes being propped up by the mainstream media and corporate America.”
Of course I have. Nelson’s ideas woudn’t be half as widespread as they are today without media coverage.
How does Gore’s book and now his recent film, his support of Kyoto show him to be nothing more than a hero propped up by the media and corporate America?
And don’t insult my intelligence, Silver.
Just because we disagree about Gore doesn’t mean I’m some pawn of the coporations.
|
|
|
If Gore can put the asses in the seats, then that is better for the global warming issue.
Word.
A move to the left in this country will be achieved in stages, not in a revolution. Welcome to a fickle, wealthy democracy. Gore is a step in the right direction. Also, much of Vidal’s ‘evidence’ is 10+ years old. If anybody has changed in the last 6 or 7 years, it’s Al Gore. 2000 rocked his world. I believe he is a useful tool for progressives in his latest iteration. But not as a political candidate.
|
|
|
‘Hi, I’m Al Gore, and I used to be the next Gaylord Nelson.’
|
|
|
|
Gore isn’t just promoting a film – there’s talk of him making another go of it in 08, so taking a hard look at his personal and political contradictions isn’t just valid, it’s extremely important. To keep quiet and not bring up the fact that a guy going around talking about the dangers of global warming is a major stockholder of a controversial oil company, is self-censorship of the highest order. It’s interesting that some of the posters keep saying there is no substance to the facts, or that this article amounts to “slander,” without actually disputing the facts themselves – for it to be “slander” it has to be untrue. Vidal is just the messenger here, you can shoot him, or Stephen, but it doesn’t change the facts.. Personally, I liked the guy when we met him and think his recent critiques of the Bush administration have been some of the strongest. If someone can come up with a more rosy spin on the Gore-Oxy connection, I’d be happy (and relieved) to see it. Until then, let’s deal with the facts…
|
|
|
|
And, don’t even get me started about Monsanto. Check out that In These Times article. I hadn’t heard that before, and we haven’t confirmed the allegations there, but if true that’s really disturbing.
|
|
|
|
2000 rocked his world.
i’m sorry, but how did 2000 “rock” his world? he had a chance to buck the establishment political system in this country in the House when the representatives of this nation’s black voters protested their disenfranchisement during that election. he banged his gavel and cut down their voices…
|
|
|
sure Al is a chode, but this article is little more than an attempt to discredit him at this time. why else put out something like this at this time? would we be reading this if al didn’t make that movie? hell no. i don’t think anyone thinks al is jezus or anything like that. we all know he’s spineless, like all his party. but he is right about global warming, more or less, even though he doesn’t provide adequate solutions. only we can create and provide those solutions for ourselves, on the local, community level.
|
|
|
|
okay so maybe if he decides to run again, this sort of article is a good thing, because, as the editor’s note notes, his new film has made him look pretty good to liberal democrap tards, so it’s good to reveal the truth of his politics before everyone jumps on the “al, be our president and save our asses from our own creations” bandwagon. kinda like how everyone jumped on kerry’s tip just because he was running against bush. it’s not just bush, it’s systematic.
Post Modified: 05/25/06 11:21:10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From In These Times April 17, 2000:
Dump him – just look at his record
By Jeffrey St. Clair
So, Al Gore’s the man. This is hardly breaking news. The competition from Bill Bradley, who ran the most somnambulant campaign since John Glenn’s sleepwalk in 1988, wasn’t exactly bracing. Even so, Gore didn’t escape unscathed. The plodding Bradley drew blood from an unexpected flank: Gore’s reputation as an honest broker. Bradley exposed Gore as a political transvestite, a lifelong conservative Democrat who only adopts the mantle of liberalism when it’s convenient (such as in Democratic primaries). He reeled off a litany of Gore flip-flops on abortion, gun control, tobacco, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, affirmative action, welfare reform and civil rights. This was, Bradley tried to remind people, the man who in his sleazy 1988 campaign race-baited Jesse Jackson and first raised the specter of Willie Horton against Michael Dukakis.
Many observers were caught off-guard when Bradley also ridiculed Gore’s reputation as an environmentalist. The corporate press, lethargic as ever, snickered. “Attacking Gore on the environment is like questioning Mother Teresa’s faith,” said Jonathan Alter, Newsweek’s chief talking head. But just as Christopher Hitchens showed that the Virgin of Calcutta was no saint, so too did Bradley have the goods on Gore – if any one would have bothered to look.
In the 1992 campaign, Gore used the environment as a sledgehammer against Bush and Quayle. One issue raised over and over was a hazardous waste incinerator slated for East Liverpool, Ohio, which Gore vowed to block. But within months of taking office, the EPA, run by former Gore staffer Carol Browner, reversed course and issued a permit for the deadly plant. This stunning betrayal was a sign of things to come. It was swiftly followed by capitulations on the Everglades, ancient forests, fuel efficiency standards, pesticides in foods, wetland protection, oil development in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, subsidies for nuclear power, organic food standards and ozone-depleting chemicals. And on and on.
Connoisseurs of Gore’s career aren’t shocked by any of this. His voting record on environmental matters during his tenure in the House and Senate was mediocre by any standard and downright miserly when compared to his fellow Democrats. Gore, ever ready with an excuse, puts the blame on his home state of Tennessee, which he suggests was somewhat backward in environmental matters. But the people who know Gore best say he was rarely if ever there for them on pressing matters on the homefront, ranging from strip-mining to radioactive contamination at Oak Ridge to the pollution of the Pigeon River by Champion International. “More often than not, Al Gore sided with the polluters against the people,” says Maddy Cochrane, a longtime environmental organizer in Chattanooga. “Gore follows the money.”
When confronted with the zigzagging pattern of his positions on these matters, Gore becomes petulant, putting on a wounded expression. Moments after he learned that Friends of the Earth had endorsed Bradley, Gore was on the phone to the CEOs of the other big green groups, claiming that he had been personally hurt by the decision. The ploy worked. Within days, executives from the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council issued statements vouching for Gore’s green bona fides and chiding Friends of the Earth for its political heterodoxy.
The move by the big groups to provide cover for Gore dismays America’s premier green, David Brower. “Environmentalists and progressives cannot endorse rhetoric and that’s the greenest thing we have seen from the vice president,” says Brower, chairman of Earth Island Institute. Gore hopes to pin the responsibility for the lame record of the last eight years on Clinton. But it won’t sell. Clinton was indifferent to environmental issues and gave Gore free rein on green matters. The Gore team ran the show from the beginning.
Aside from Browner, Katie McGinty, another Gore Senate aide, headed the powerful Council on Environmental Quality until last year. Former Gore staffers were also at the Department of Energy, the Commerce Department and the Office of Management and Budget. Gore intimate Tim Wirth, the former senator from Colorado, served as assistant secretary of state for the environment, where he spearheaded the outrageous move to loosen protections for dolphins from industrial tuna-fishing fleets. Then there’s George Frampton, who became assistant secretary of interior, resigned in 1997, served for a year as Gore’s lawyer during the campaign finance scandal, then went back to work in the administration in McGinty’s old position at the CEQ.
The vice president himself has been caught red-handed on several occasions going to bat for corporations against the interests of environmentalists. A little-reported example is Gore’s fervent efforts on behalf of Monsanto, the St. Louis-based chemical giant. The vice president made a series of forceful calls to heads of state, including the leaders of Ireland and France, stressing his opposition to move by the European Union to ban import of genetically engineered seeds and food products.
The lesson of Al Gore’s political career is that he is a craven opportunist, not an ideologue. He gravitates toward the side that offers him the greatest advantage. Now that Bradley has been vanquished and the key progressive constituencies already sewn up, watch Gore start his natural migration back to the right, stiff-arming blacks, working people and greens all the way. By the time he gets to Los Angeles in August, he’ll be reading from the DLC pro-business playbook once again.
The environmentalists could throw a monkey-wrench in Gore’s plans by massing their support behind Ralph Nader’s run on the Green Party ticket, making it clear that they did so mainly because Gore was AWOL on the environment when it counted most. Nader won’t win, but he could garner just enough votes to make Gore lose key states such as California, New York and Washington. Inflicting this kind of political pain is the only sure way to get Gore’s attention.
As Brower says: “It’s time to start standing up for what we stand on.”
Jeffrey St. Clair is a contributing editor of In These Times.
We can make him go green
By Lois Marie Gibbs
The answer to Gore’s broken promises and dismal voting record is not to say, “let’s vote for Ralph Nader who won’t win anyhow.” That’s a cop-out. What can we possibly gain from this thinking? Our options are not limited to voting for a candidate who has let us down, or to disengage from the process and only participate by casting a “protest” vote. We have a third choice: Approach the elections with a focused, hard-hitting strategy to push the issues we care about.
The history of how social-change organizations operate in the political arena gives us a clue as to why Gore and many others before him broke their promises and changed their positions. Over the years, many environmental organizations have kept quiet during elections because “we didn’t want to hurt our candidate.” Groups have ignored or even supported bad platforms because they wanted to make sure they had access if the candidate was elected. And some environmental leaders have pleaded with local people not to protest or disrupt the “good” candidate’s rallies and campaign headquarters. We just roll over because some people think the risk of Democrats losing to Republicans is too high for us to stand our ground.
For example, in October 1996, one month before the presidential election, more than 100 groups from around the country wanted to place a full page ad in USA Today asking President Clinton to evacuate 358 families living on top of a severely contaminated site in Florida. But most of the large mainstream environmental organizations refused to sign on, arguing that such an ad could seriously wound the Clinton re-election campaign in Florida. Directors of these organizations personally called me, warning that “we need to be careful about criticizing Clinton and we don’t want to give ammunition to the other side.” But the ad ran, the community was given resources to evacuate, and Clinton didn’t lose.
The social justice movement is caught in an all too predictable cycle – “play nice” during campaigns and then make excuses for the broken promises and bad behavior of the officials we supported. We scratch our heads, wondering why officials we supported continue to sell us out on the many issues we care about. If we want to take that route again this election year and into the next administration, then we should do as Jeffrey St. Clair suggests and enter a “protest” vote for Ralph Nader, or just vote for Gore and pray for the best.
But there is third way. I suggest that we play hardball throughout the campaign and into the new administration. We need to let Gore know that if he wants to be elected, then he needs to earn our votes, not just assume that we’ll continue the failed game of supporting candidates who later sell us out. Nader doesn’t have to serve as a receptacle in which to dump protest votes at the end of the campaign. He can play a critical role by raising the bar of what is discussed in the campaign and by forcing the other candidates to talk about the issues that matter to us. He could make the incinerator in East Liverpool a campaign issue. If Gore felt enough public pressure from Nader and groups across the country, he’d see to it that the incinerator was shut down before November. In doing so, he could start to earn our votes.
Nader could turn into the John McCain of the general election – with our help. He could raise the issues of campaign finance reform, gun control, genetic engineering and the effect of environmental chemicals on children’s health. Nader’s candidacy provides the opportunity – that we would be foolish to ignore – to force Gore and Bush to address the issues we care about during the campaign. After all, what do we win when we settle for someone who betrays us, or disengage and miss the opportunity for public discussion of issues during the campaign? St. Clair is right about Gore’s record, however his answer to the problem will only give us four more years of the same. We need a new approach. We need to stop being afraid to demand what we want from candidates. Let’s counter big money and business as usual with smart, ground-level organizing that demands accountability on our issues for every candidate for every office.
Lois Marie Gibbs is the executive director of the Center for Health, Environment and Justice.
Post Modified: 05/25/06 11:20:49
|
|
|
Gore isn’t just promoting a film – there’s talk of him making another go of it in 08, so taking a hard look at his personal and political contradictions isn’t just valid, it’s extremely important
are we still pretending that any candidate can make it all the way to the presidential level without racking up a few contradictions and dirty deeds along the way?
i mean seriously, i defy you to find a single presidential candidate in the last 50 years that didn’t contradict themselves or change their opinions about some issue or the other in their political career.
note that this isn’t really a defense of Gore so much as it is an indictment of the American “political process” as a whole.
|
|
|
What an important issue!
:-I
|
|
|
|
Toad – good points. We’re not telling you how to vote. Just sharing some info you might not know.
|
|
|
|
OK I keep reading this and the post, where is the Al Gore is so good posts??? Seriously, I don’t get the mentality sometimes…It seems to me that the article itself is about Gore and not the issue…All we care about is the ISSUE of GLOBAL WARMING...
Ahmen Shift…
You want to talk about credibility? I have multiple speaches by Gore Vidal from the 80’s and all he can talk about is the glorious Soviet Union and its strong economy because he was just in Moscow at that time…Go check out Chomskytorrents.org and search for Gore Vidal: Inventing a Nation..Although I totally agree with some of his points, he utters so many complete falsehoods about the USSR (pro side) that we now would find comical..
|
|
|
|
no, i understand that anthony.
i guess i find the infighting on the left over stuff like this to be increasingly frustrating and pointless.
theoretically we all know which candidate would best serve our interests, but we abstain or fight each other because OMG 20 YEARS AGO HE VOTED ONE WAY AND TODAY HE VOTED DIFFERENTLY
the right learned a long time ago to set aside petty stuff like this to support their side’s agenda as a whole, but we on the left are either too principled or too goddamn stupid to do the same thing.
|
|
|
|
You can call it infighting, or you can call it exposing someone’s true political character. 2000 ain’t ancient history, and as far as anyone knows he still owns the Oxy stock, and Oxy is still up to no good – see the related item.
|
|
|
|
’m sorry, but how did 2000 “rock” his world? he had a chance to buck the establishment political system in this country in the House when the representatives of this nation’s black voters protested their disenfranchisement during that election. he banged his gavel and cut down their voices…
I totally agree with that and that is what finished him as a politician for me. but that doesn’t destroy the credability of this film. I haven’t seen it, but you have already made me believe it is disengenuos and invalid.
My government has taken the position that Kyoto is ‘impossible’ and is now signing on to some bullshit watered down nothing being touted by Howard in Oz.
To allow the former vice president to speak on global warming is a pretty good start to countering the abuse to reason my government is now floating as sound environmental policy.
ps- those links are not to the reference of gore being a NRA stooge (the quoted material in the article), or the praising of Clarence Thomas…
|
|
|
|
Or you could call it one of the stupidest articles I’ve ever seen posted on this website. We all knwo McCain is gonna win. Just ask Jimmy Burns.
|
|
|
|
No, you can call it political infighting…I call it losing over and over again…Seriously, what has been accomplished since 2000 since it’s so fresh in our minds..wars, rejecting of Kyoto, all of this and what does the “left” have to show for it? A Junta in Venezuela..good job..keep calling it infighting..I’ll play the fiddle, while you all fiddle with your puds…
Post Modified: 05/25/06 11:43:03
|
|
|
|
Sens. The point is that he lied to the times. Not that he changed his mind. Guys I am happy we are debating this. Its important that we are engaged in a discussion about how establishment politicians are threatening to usurp and determine the discussion on environmental issues. I am hardly for Nader as a vital third party candidate. But the point of my book is to really look at these so called liberals who will lead the bush backlash ok? Its a debate worth having and we should all be wary of those who seek to lead us.
|
|
|
|
110% agreed silverback..if you want to be president, then you shouldn’t be president…the president should have to be pulled in kicking and screaming…
Also limit all legislators to a two-term limit and cap private donors to campaigns…we cannot deny this will curtail some power of lobbying and corporate interests..or is that just idealistic?
|
|
|
|
But the point of my book is to really look at these so called liberals who will lead the bush backlash ok? Its a debate worth having and we should all be wary of those who seek to lead us.
agreed, which is why i say, back up statements that will take your concern out of the rhelm of investigation and into the rhelm of personal attack if they remain unsubstantiated
|
|
|
|
But the point of my book is to really look at these so called liberals who will lead the bush backlash ok? Its a debate worth having and we should all be wary of those who seek to lead us.
agreed, which is why i say, back up statements that will take your concern out of the rhelm of investigation and into the rhelm of personal attack if they remain unsubstantiated
|
|
|
|
pumo…
or is that just idealistic?
not at all, now we are talking! but back to your point about backing up with evidence. i really believe that each of these points was backed up with a quote or a stat. you are focused on the NRA and anti-abortion stuff. why have you not mentioned the Oxy or Elk Hills stuff that is clearly documented. the Clarence Thomas and NRA stuff is such old news that i neglected to give anthony the links. point taken.
|
|
|
|
You guys should team up with some oil companies and Steve Forbes. Together you’re sure to bring Al Gore to his knees! You’ll be unstoppable!
|
|
|
I listen to Gore, No More.
If he couldn’t beat GWB, what makes anyone think he can whup Jeb?
Besides, I vote Libertarian.
To fuck with the bought and paid for’s …
|
|
|
|
i’m not trying to bring down gore, i don’t like him because i believe he handed the country over to bush through his role in ‘dispute resolution’.
i do want to hear him speak on the environment as i said. the reason i hooked on to those two statements is because of their slanderous nature. I think you should pull them. and i don’t think this article has any reason to link to this film. the movie doesn’t sound like it is about gore, but the article is…
|
|
|
|
the film is being presented as a Gore vehicle. it serves the greater purpose of obscuring his record on the environment. if it was a film about a supreme court justice nominee who was passionately advocating against the death penalty when he had been actively for it throughout his career at the state and federal level, would you have an issue with it? the problem here is that the political establishment – which sees the public as nothing more than a bunch of riled up WWF fans – has succeeded in making you accept their alternatives. oh, it’s Gore vs. Bush! but it’s not. and, frankly, it’s not even Nader as a third party choice. what we need to seriously think about is how to engineer true change in this country. and one way to do that is to articulate and document the problems. i think that Gore’s lying and misrepresentation about his record is worth looking at. especially considering his political capital.
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that harping on his past political behavior when he himself has unequivocally stated he has no intentions of running for office again is more than a little pointless. Good on him for participating in raising awareness of global warming.
Also, as far as the Occidental stock goes, I don’t know whether he still owns it or not, but to believe that oil companies will simply go away due to global warming is foolish in the extreme. If alternative fuels become a reality, petroleum companies are uniquely positioned to manufacture and distribute them with their already existing network of refineries and tankers.
To presume that mega-wealthy energy corporations are simply going to vanish is naive in the extreme. Global warming is such a large issue that addressing it with assistance from Conhugeco is not very likely. The smart move is to get these companies to see how it can be profitable for them to help reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.
Better to be inclusive than divisive, IMO.
|
|
|
|
If he couldn’t beat GWB, what makes anyone think he can whup Jeb?
he, uh….he did beat GWB.
he just kinda gave up before everyone realized it.
|
|
|
|
Agreed.
He’s too weak for that level of politics.
Can I say whimpy and not get beat to shit on a Gore lover thread?
Too late.
|
|
|
|
He’s been a non-starter in Presidential elections since the ’80s. He basically rode Clinton’s coattails to the ’00 nomination. I don’t think we’ll see him make futher attempts, though I do predict a “Draft Gore” movement on the heels of this film.
|
|
|
|
This is such a non-issue. You assume Gore’s intentions in making this film are to somehow obscure his past record on the environment. You assume you knwo why he decided not to fight more for the 2000 selection. You assume he is running for office again even though he has repeatedly denied it. Let’s just say he was, do you really think he has a chance in hell at getting nominated just because he made some movie? I can see this kind of shit coming from Anphony, but from you S, it’s just dissappointing.
|
|
|
|
Here’s Slate on the draft Gore possibilities (their top story today):
Gore, Retry, Fail
Why the “New” Al Gore can’t get elected.
By John Dickerson
Posted Wednesday, May 24, 2006, at 7:06 PM ET
Who knew Al Gore could be such fun? He’s the toast of Cannes and was hilarious on Saturday Night Live. He’s also Topic A in political conversation. A lot of Democrats start to sound a bit giddy when the subject of a Gore presidential run in 2008 comes up. Even with recent troubles in the GOP, many of them have been preoccupied with the weakness of their leaders and the party’s uncertain future. When discussion turns to Gore, everyone gets excited.
At the center of the Gore boomlet is the New Al Gore. He’s full of the vision and ass-kicking clarity for which Democratic activists are thirsting. Markos Moulitsas, the founder of Daily Kos, has praised the change, calling him “passionate, eloquent, and utterly suffused with energy.” Arianna Huffington got the bug in Cannes: “When people are exposed to the new Gore—authentic, funny, self-deprecating—you can almost feel their relief and surprise as they suddenly come to face to face with what a real leader could be.”
This has got to be stirring for a guy who was essentially laughed out of town after losing the 2000 election. But Gore has yet to respond to the groundswell, according to those I’ve talked to who know Gore well. He’s happy doing what he’s doing and doesn’t want to get drawn back into politics. “What Al Gore is doing now is living the life he always wanted to lead,” says his former campaign manager, Donna Brazile. “He’s a leading intellectual. He’s talking about global warming. He’s a venturecrat. He’s leading the life I think a person like Al Gore would want to lead.”
Continue Article
There are lots of other reasons that Gore probably shouldn’t run, often articulated by inside-the-beltway types. A lot of Democrats still have sour feelings about a nominee who blew a winnable election. Gore never liked the day-to-day work of politics (as opposed to governing) and was a lousy campaigner. He struggled to beat a weak Bill Bradley in the 2000 Democratic primaries and lost to George Bush (sort of) with the wind of peace and prosperity at his back. In polls, voters still react to him as negatively as they do to Hillary Clinton, or even more so. He may provide a nice contrast to George Bush now, but Bush won’t be on the ballot, and in 2008 the Republican nominee is likely to be running against Bush, too.
Gore hasn’t shut the door on a candidacy. “I’m not planning to run,” he has said. “There are other ways to serve.” He’s not planning to run but that doesn’t leave out the possibility that he could be convinced to run. This makes sense. If you’re going to be a draft candidate, you need to look reluctant. You need to let the cheers grow into a roar before you open your hotel window to speak to the crowd.
I will admit that I like the idea of Gore running for president. I’m a sucker for authenticity and prefer a candidate who speaks his mind (even my editor has made fun of me for this failing). But it seems to me that the hype about the New Gore poses a problem for him should he eventually decide to run: He can’t sustain the authenticity that is fueling his bandwagon.
It’s not that Gore is inherently dull. (And judiciousness could be a plus after the Bush years.) The problem is that the activists and bloggers most approving of Gore’s “authenticity” also seem the least likely to allow any deviation from their definition of it. Campaigns require tactical compromises and prioritizing, even to achieve noble goals, and those acts are often seen as inauthentic and weak. Even Howard Dean, who is often praised for his genuineness, tailored his views on fiscal policy and entitlement reform to appeal to liberals in his party, a disconnect with his more conservative past. Gore’s assessment of the last presidential elections suggest he still believes campaigns must be won by moving to the middle, a notion some in his party abhor. He knows about political shading. It’s why he can craft that coy language about running in 2008. But if he does too much of this, he will disappoint his new allies.
Talk about the New Gore also builds upon a structural flaw of his last candidacy: Does he know his own mind? If what we’re seeing now is the real Al Gore, why was he so easily swayed last time by advisers and pollsters bearing bad advice? If authenticity is just a political gambit, it’s hardly authentic. The Old Gore vs. New Gore angle is likely to become a theme of the coverage if Gore runs. The press will remind us again and again about the 2000 campaign’s earth-tone suits and the Great Dane kiss of Tipper at the convention and all the other inauthentic things he did to tailor his behavior to show people what he thought they wanted to see. The press will watch closely for signs of a relapse.
Hillary Clinton may solve this problem, at least to some extent. Gore may have no opportunity to return to his old ways, because if he runs, the opening for him will be to her left. That would act as a guardrail. If his populist heart ever faltered, political expediency would kick in, keeping him in the “New Gore” posture as he offered himself as a reformed character to those in the party who have a passionate dislike of Clintonian triangulation.
But crusading liberal is hardly who Al Gore really is. He long supported welfare reform, free-trade, and gave a speech promoting faith-based institutions in 2000 that was as supportive of them as George Bush was. How will he handle those old positions? Will he blow them off completely and risk looking like a hypocrite? Or will he revert to the trimming of the Old Al Gore? How will he respond to questions about a speech he gave in Saudi Arabia in which he very authentically criticized treatment of Arabs in the United States? When you’re a candidate, the truth you spoke as a private citizen can become awfully inconvenient.
John Dickerson is Slate’s chief political correspondent. He can be reached at slatepolitics@gmail.com.
Photograph of Al Gore on Slate’s home page by Hector Mata/Agence France-Presse.
|
|
|
|
You assume you knwo why he decided not to fight more for the 2000 selection.
He told Stephen and I personally that he “did it for the country.”
|
|
|
|
yes, your condescension is duly noted. but as with much that you have written in this thread, it’s reactionary and kind of weakly put. no i do not assume that his intention was to scrub the record. it’s the outcome… the effect. that’s how we measure political actions. in the same way, i do not assume to know why he categorically shut down the black caucus in 2001, but we all know the outcome – a victory for those who sought to stifle the debate on (black) voter disenfranchisement. neither do i assume to know that he is running again. i never said that. i mentioned his political capital. he is now the head of a new network, he is the focus of a film on global warming. everyone – except you perhaps – knows that modern political power has nothing to do with the electoral paradigm. it’s about media power and in this regard he is surging forward. the point of this article is to question that surge, to look at his grandstanding, waffling political legacy. that’s it. your anger and frustrations speaks more to an irrational need to defend him than a desire to put aside your biases and just look at the issue. should he be the one defining the nu millennial movement to reform the corporate environmental destruction? i say no.
Post Modified: 05/25/06 13:19:30
|
|
|
|
Way to to disregard my point. Sorry I’ll try to be more clear next time. I was talking to Silverback.
|
|
|
|
just a quick note. i am in the middle of a shoot but wanted to keep involved with this debate so that people did not think i was hiding from it. most of these posts have been made from my phone… but i have to jump now. will try to get back on later. i feel i have made most of my points and am thankful for those who spent precious time articulating theirs. as always i learn a lot from this community and am richer for it’s good vetting of the ideas i will have in my book.
stephen
|
|
|
|
he is the focus of a film on globalization.
I think you mean global warming, right?
should he be the one defining the nu millennial movement to reform the corporate environmental destruction? i say no.
That’s fine, but to assume that any one of us have the ability to choose such a person is presumptious. Martin Luther King was probably not someone who would have been chosen for his role if you’re looking at people who knew about his hypocrisies.
Bono is widely seen as this great selfless guy for the way he brings attention to the plight of poor Africans, yet is himself one of the largest property owners in Dublin.
The bigger question to me is to decide if it’s worth giving up on the film’s potential to motivate people by picking at Gore’s questionable past. Are you really wanting to work so hard to diminish his political capital that you’d give up the raised awareness this film will result in?
|
|
|
|
most of these posts have been made from my phone
Now that’s dedication.
|
|
|
|
“He told Stephen and I personally that he ‘did it for the country.’“
Did you feel privelaged to be lied to?
Post Modified: 05/25/06 13:27:46
|
|
|
|
Let’s get one thing straight, I’m not defending Al Gore. I could give two shits about him as a politician or a person. I’m defending this site from pointless articles that waste peoples time talking about something that stems from pure speculation. The fact that I’m defending this from the sites overlords is fucking sick. I ask you, is this really all that important of an issue? Slow news day?
“but as with much that you have written in this thread, it’s reactionary and kind of weakly put.”
Oh and this article isn’t reactionary at all is it?
“should he be the one defining the nu millennial movement to reform the corporate environmental destruction?”
The only way that would happen is if we let him. I don’t plan on letting Al Gore define anything for me.
|
|
|
|
More on Gore and Monsanto:
Genetically Altering The World’s Food, February 25, 1999
[snip]
From its own perspective, the U.S. government evidently believes Monsanto’s goal is worth supporting. According to Bill Lambrecht of the ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, when Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern arrived in the U.S. in 1998 for a St. Patrick’s Day visit, he was met by Sandy Berger, the director of the U.S. National Security Council. The topic of conversation at lunch was not peace in war-torn Ireland, but Ireland’s pivotal vote in a pending European Community decision on Monsanto’s genetically modified corn.[3] Lambrecht reports that when Monsanto flew a group of Irish journalists to the U.S. to help them prepare for the debate over genetically modified foods, their trip included a stop in the Oval Office at the White House — an inner sanctum that few visitors to Washington ever see.
When the French were reluctant to allow Monsanto’s seeds to sprout on French soil, Secretary of State Madeline Albright and U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshevsky intervened on Monsanto’s behalf. When the French still refused to yield, President Clinton personally took up the matter with French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin and gave him “an earful,” Lambrecht writes. When that didn’t work, Vice- President Gore followed up with a phone call to the French Prime Minister. Ultimately, the French gave in to the steady, high-level pressure.
“Wherever Monsanto seeks to sow, the U.S. government clears the ground,” writes Lambrecht, who calls the U.S. government Monsanto’s “most powerful ally.”
“From the White House and the National Security Council on down,” Lambrecht writes, “the apparatus of the U.S. Government worked this year [1998] on behalf of biotechnology. For Monsanto, at this moment, it is like having an Olympic basketball team with several Michael Jordans.”[3]
|
|
|
|
“The bigger question to me is to decide if it’s worth giving up on the film’s potential to motivate people by picking at Gore’s questionable past. Are you really wanting to work so hard to diminish his political capital that you’d give up the raised awareness this film will result in?”
Shogo stop saying shit I agree with.
“i feel i have made most of my points and am thankful for those who spent precious time articulating theirs”
Word. I meant no disrespect to you at all, I just disagree with you. If you guys are going to focus on posting articles that spur discussion, you should really focus on upgrading the forums to be more user friendly.
|
Forum : Environment
Related Article