 |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Why Gore Won’t RunPosted on May 22, 2007By E.J. Dionne WASHINGTON—Boy, it would be fun if Al Gore changed his mind and ran for president—fun for the voters, anyway. Imagine a candidate whose pre-election book is devoted in large part to an attack on the media for waging war on reason. Politicians, it is often said, never win by attacking the media. That’s simply not true. Conservatives have been attacking the media for decades, to good effect from their point of view. Their intimidation sometimes worked—go back to the coverage of the 2000 Florida recount if you want to see media bias. When intimidation fails, they declare inconvenient facts to be merely “liberal” opinions. It’s delightful to see the critique coming from the other side. Gore’s book released Tuesday, “The Assault on Reason,” is about “the strangeness of our public discourse” as mediated through television. He thinks the Internet may revive the art of reasoned argument that has been lost in our obsessions with “Britney and KFed, and Lindsay and Paris and Nicole.” It’s entertaining to talk to Gore these days because he’s so clearly enjoying himself. (That’s probably why he won’t run for president.) During a 40-minute telephone interview Monday, he did not speak as if there were focus-grouped sentences dancing around in his head. Nor did he worry about saying things that some consultant would fret about for weeks afterward. For example, when Gore is asked if any of the Democrats running for president were changing the system he holds in such low esteem, he pulls no punches. “They’re good people trapped in a bad system,” he says, “and I think it’s the system that needs to be changed and I don’t see them changing it.” The campaign dialogue so far, he says, has not been “very enriching or illuminating” in “either party.” But, no, that doesn’t mean he’s going to run, though he never completely shuts the door. It’s part of the fun he’s having. He ascribes the failure to have a full-throated debate on Iraq back in 2002—when he spoke out against the looming war, to much nasty jeering from the right—to the administration’s decision to politicize the issue before the midterm elections, but also to “meekness” and “timidity” in both “the legislative branch of government” and in “the press corps.” “A lot of people were afraid of being accused of being unpatriotic,” he says. “One of the symptoms of this problem—the diminishing role for reason, fact and logic—is that what rushes in to fill the vacuum are extreme partisanship, ideology, fundamentalism and extreme nationalism.” If the Bush administration came to mind as you read those words, Gore wouldn’t object. Historians who need a catalogue of what went wrong after, oh, Dec. 12, 2000, the day of a certain U.S. Supreme Court decision, will find it all in his book. Gore, so gracious after that unfortunate court ruling, lets it rip against Bush on Iraq, civil liberties, global warming and much else. Gore speaks of “something deeply troubling about President Bush’s relationship to reason, his disdain for facts, and his lack of curiosity. ...” That sentiment will speak to the multitudes disgusted with the Bush presidency—and draw vituperation from the same people who accused Gore of trying to “steal” the 2000 election simply because he wanted Florida’s votes recounted. Seven years later, the mood is very different, partly because of the rise of a new Internet political community that Gore wants to protect from the designs of big companies. Say what you will, the blogs and other online gathering places do promote a culture of engagement rather than passivity. The raucous back-and-forth they encourage looks, at least sometimes, like real, live democratic politics. But the larger change is that the very process Gore describes—of propaganda taken as fact, of slogans taken as arguments, of repetition substituting for logic and, yes, of lies and half-truths taken as truth—is now well-recognized. What worked against Gore during the recount and what worked for the administration in the run-up to the Iraq war doesn’t work anymore. That is an advance for democracy, and for reason. Gore, to his credit, won’t talk about Florida, but I will. Whatever flaws he has, Gore suffered through an extreme injustice with great dignity. His revenge is to have been right about a lot of things, including the power of the Internet, global warming and Iraq. E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is postchat(at symbol)aol.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group TAGS:
|
|
Honduras’ Top Court Refuses to Reinstate Zelaya
Email
Print
Share
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Propeller
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
Technorati
TwitThis
YahooMyWeb
YahooBuzz
Jump to Comments
By cupera1, May 26, 2007 at 8:44 pm #
Halsey
What in your wildest imagination would you believe that Gore would do anything different with OBL that Clinton. Slick let OBL go three times and Gore would continue to do the same
Report thisBy ardee, May 26, 2007 at 12:31 pm #
#72673 by Allan Wheeler on 5/25 at 8:16 am
(Unregistered commenter)
I havent read Gores book yet but can someone tell me if he puts part of the blame for his defeat (not enough of an edge to be the indisputable winner) on his lousy choice of a running mate? A running mate who indeed is guilty of extreme partisanship, ideology, fundamentalism and extreme nationalism? All of these things in the name of a FOREIGN country and certainly not in the name of the US. When are the Democrats going to wake up and get rid of AIPAC money and the Ram Emanuels destroying the party from within?
——————
I have heard nothing from Gore regarding his choice of running mate, nor, and much more to the point, his choice of campaign managers. They did an absolutely abysmal job. That, and Gore’s failure to carry his own state, cost him the election. Florida was only the icing on the cake. Everything I have heard from Gore tells me he has moved on from politics, and good for him. Our political climate is poisoned and infects all who engage.
Sidebar…I was at the Gore speech in San Francisco (Commonwealth Club) prior to the ‘04 nominations and he was magnetic and direct, receiving multiple standing ovations in fact. Thus his sudden departure from that race remains a puzzle to this day. I suspect that decision has more to do with your last question, the current status of the Democratic Party.
One needs only look at the statements of Rhamm Emmanuel and Charles Schumer immediately following the successful ‘06 campaign, where they diminished the role of Howard Dean and his 50 state strategy, despite its being a major reason for their dominance in the House races. Whereever democratic candidates stood up to Bush and his insane war for profit victories were almost unanimous. The major losses for democratic candidates came to those who, for the most part’ followed the advice of the conservative (and execrable) DLC.
The actions or lack thereof of this crop of Democrats, along with cowardly and almost traitorous leadership, illustrates best how we do not have a two party system, but a Duopoly answerable to the big money that rules this nation. The Dems have broken every damn campaign promise, ignored the wishes of the electorate who, by about 70%, vehemently wish us out of Iraq, and bow to the large donors who finance the bloated campaigns and thus control our legislature.
Unless and until enough folks realise that the way out of this swamp lies with third party politics, voting for those pledged to shun the corporate funding that poisons our politics, unless and until these newly elected third party candidates bring about real campaign finance reform thus restoring honesty and truth to the process I would not look to a real democracy here in the USA.
Report thisBy ardee, May 26, 2007 at 12:08 pm #
#72649 by cupera1 on 5/25 at 6:57 am
(4 comments total)
ardee
since gore set up his religion and started selling indulgences you still are clueless. gore is the senator from Occidental Petroleum. He is the classic do as I say not as I do. I want a better life for my family but since gore has his he is making is impossible for anyone to join his elite level
————————
My only puzzlement is which stooge you are, Larry, Curly or Moe. I have read all four of your abysmal efforts here and cannot, for the life of me, understand why you post. If your intent is to prove you havent a clue about politics or historical fact you have exceeded your goal and can move along now.
For the enlightenment of any who are not this unbelievably ignorant poster, Gore buys his energy from green sources, he pays a bunch more for it in fact. His philosophy and goals are anathema to the oil industry and thus the moronic assumption that he is a senator (which he hasnt been for a rather longish time now) for Occidental reeks. One may agree with Gore or disagree with him, I do a little of both, but to descend to this childish ranting about that which cupera1 obviously know nothing is so embarrassing….
I intend to ignore any further efforts from this child, there is no there there…..
Report thisBy Allan Wheeler, May 26, 2007 at 11:51 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
After re-reading my last comment, 72673, the possibility hit me that Gore did NOT choose the NEO-CON weasel as his running mate but had same pushed on him by the DNC and its AIPAC money. Can this be true? And also was Howard Dean, who was our best candidate in ‘04 BECAUSE he was yelling truth to sleaze, sidelined due to a lack of entusiasm for AIPAC and what it represents? These questions are not important for analyzing the past but the answers are essential for the ‘08 election and the future of our country. Will we have another un-electable candidate foisted on us by the DNC as in ‘04?
Report thisBy Halsey, May 26, 2007 at 10:54 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
ardee on 5/24 at 9:39 am
(24 comments total)
#72264 by cupera1 on 5/24 at 6:01 am
(2 comments total)
I am VERY happy that Gore was not president when 911 happend. He would have been on his knees in the oval office surrendering the nation to OBL
Good one!...better he should be in kindergarten..glassy eyed…or perhaps in a secure location.. Gore probably would have immediately attacked bin Laden’s caves in AFGHANISTAN..(not iraq)..and stayed until the friggin job was done..i.e., captured or killed Osama..
Report thisBy Allan Wheeler, May 25, 2007 at 12:16 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I haven’t read Gore’s book yet but can someone tell me if he puts part of the blame for his defeat (not enough of an edge to be the indisputable winner) on his lousy choice of a running mate? A running mate who indeed is guilty of “extreme partisanship, ideology, fundamentalism and extreme nationalism”? All of these things in the name of a FOREIGN country and certainly not in the name of the US. When are the Democrats going to wake up and get rid of AIPAC money and the Ram Emanuels destroying the party from within?
Report thisBy cupera1, May 25, 2007 at 10:57 am #
ardee
since gore set up his religion and started selling indulgences you still are clueless. gore is the senator from Occidental Petroleum. He is the classic do as I say not as I do. I want a better life for my family but since gore has his he is making is impossible for anyone to join his “elite level”
Report thisBy ardee, May 25, 2007 at 8:47 am #
My goodness, your self esteem issues are certainly showing, cuperal, sadly for you.
Instead of posting childish nonsense could you possibly post at least one certifiable fact? Just one, or better yet, return to freerepublic.com and leave those with an actual concern for our democratic processes free to speak to the real issues.
Is it Gore’s wealth that makes you jealous? Then you should really be angry at Cheney who has enriched himself very handsomely on his Halliburton stock options. Bill Frist should make you hold your breath until you turn blue as he headed the Senate committee that ruled on his own HMO and sold miilions of dollars in stock , from a supposed blind trust too, just before the stock tanked….the list goes on but your attention span must be long exceeded.
Report thisBy cupera1, May 24, 2007 at 9:40 pm #
Moron
Get a clue, borrow money from your parents and buy one. Al Bore is only out for #1 look at the houses and life style that al has and he wants YOU to live in a cave.
Report thisBy Myron, May 24, 2007 at 2:25 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Corpera1, if stupidity was money, you would indeed be rich beyond your fondest dreams.
Report thisBy ardee, May 24, 2007 at 1:39 pm #
#72264 by cupera1 on 5/24 at 6:01 am
(2 comments total)
I am VERY happy that Gore was not president when 911 happend. He would have been on his knees in the oval office surrendering the nation to OBL.
————————& #8212;———————R 12;———————— —-
So what does this add to an intelligent debate of issues and events? How does one determine how a person would have acted in a certain situation? One cannot unless one is simply a sh*t disturber with an agenda and a limited intellect.
Now it is far easier to note how a person ACTUALLY act4ed in a given situation, for example how Bush sat with that deer in the headlights look when aprised of the events of 9/11. Or how , just when the nation needed leadership most, he disappeared on Air Force One for hours and hours. Or we could also discuss an actual event like hurricane Katrina and how Bush cleared brush on his ranch, went to a fund raiser in California and ignored those dying and trapped on roof tops. Or we could discuss the actuality of over 8 billion in missing Iraqi reconstruction funds, how Baghdad still, after four years, has no reliable electricity or clean water, all under Bushs’ watch.
So cupera1, you seem to have mistaken this site for a Junior High School debate, it is not. Nor do your sophomoric and pointless one liners achieve anything but a lack of respect for you and oyur politics.
Report thisBy Homer Hewitt, May 24, 2007 at 11:14 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
AL GORE TO RUN?
Although many believe that a ticket such as Gore/Obama would be unbeatable, Gore’s entry into the race is far from certain. Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Dick Polman thinks not and lays out his reasoning in his blog (http://www.dickpolman.blogspot.com).
His main point is that Oscar winner Gore is having too much fun playing himself in the media and all over the world. Mr. Gore is now on a book tour for his new book, “Assault on Reason”. Polman believes that the honest and scathing criticisms in the book are not those of a typical, cautious candidate. Finally, why relive the negatives and disappointments of the past when the present is so enjoyable?
So I guess that we’ll just have to await his next publication, “The Al Gore Diet and Exercise Book”.
Homer http://www.altara.blogspot.com
Report thisBy cupera1, May 24, 2007 at 10:01 am #
I am VERY happy that Gore was not president when 911 happend. He would have been on his knees in the oval office surrendering the nation to OBL.
Report thisBy ardee, May 24, 2007 at 8:52 am #
#72169 by Freedomfinder on 5/23 at 8:16 pm
(7 comments total)
If this is true: Why does Gore hate our troops and America
Huh? Sarcasm is rather tough to detect on line so if this was meant as such I certainly apologize for missing it. Why do so many Americans seem to equate dissent with being unpatriotic? The reverse is definitely more to the intent of the Founders.
Being against a war based on lies and hidden agendas is never equated to lack of support for our armed forces. Excepting by those who have no logical or factual legs to stand on. Who, I wonder, is more supportive of our soldiers, those who want them out of a war we should never have fought, in a nation that was actually a buffer against radical Islam or those who sent them there to make piles of money, and sent them without enough manpower, sent them poorly equipped and without essential body armor and armored vehicles?
Report thisBy Freedomfinder, May 24, 2007 at 12:16 am #
If this is true: “Why does Gore hate our troops and America?”
Report thisBy ardee, May 23, 2007 at 9:03 pm #
#72000 by rowman on 5/23 at 9:54 am
(3 comments total)
Gore is a Socialist. Why would anyone want this man to be President of our country? Are you blinded by his rock star status??????
Let him go run for president of a socialist county. I dont want this man leading me or my family or my country.
............
This, in a nutshell, is exactly why we have the sham of a democratic republic. Francis Bacon noted that “If a man begin in certainty he will end in doubt.” Rowman is certainly a target of Bacon’s ire for that callous silliness he spouted. It is rather doubtful that he even understand what it means to actually BE a Socialist. Gore is wealthy beyond belief, a man so entrenched in the capitalist system as to make that right wing jargon of Rowman almost an embarrassment to reason.
After Gore abandoned the fight in 2000, fully aware of the numerous voting irregularities, lies and illegalities that cost him the election (along with not even carrying his own state for gosh sakes) I saw no further reason to want him to run again, just as Kerry’s abject surrender in ‘04 eliminates him from any serious considerations.
We cannot prevent the righties from posting here, and I wouldnt want to anyway. But what we can and must do is point out every single flaw, lie, misstatement and , sorry, abject stupidity they utter.
Report thisBy Rusty, May 23, 2007 at 6:48 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Per: “Gore is a Socialist. Why would anyone want this man to be President of our country?”
This just slays me. Do you know anything about corn subsidies? wheat subsidies? They’re massive and for a totally GOP constituency. As is the dredging of the Mississippi to ship that corn and wheat to New Orleans for export. All federally subsidized on a grand scale. Socialism pure and simple. GOP socialism. Bob Dole of Kansas was probably the biggest agrarian socialist in history.
And then there’s subsidized logging on National Forests, subsidized grazing on public lands….. It goes on an on.
Report thisBy L. Gordon, May 23, 2007 at 6:07 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Please Al, your wanted and very much needed. No one else is in your unique position (and I sure you and everyone else knows what is meant here).
Report thisBy rowman, May 23, 2007 at 1:54 pm #
Gore is a Socialist. Why would anyone want this man to be President of our country? Are you blinded by his rock star status??????
Let him go run for president of a socialist county. I dont want this man leading me or my family or my country.
Report thisBy Linda Sutton, May 23, 2007 at 1:52 pm #
I totally disagree that propaganda taken as fact, slogans as arguments, repetition substituting for logic, and lies and half-truths taken as truth is “well recognized” now….unfortunately.
Propaganda works. That’s how the last elections have been manipulated. Citizens don’t take the time to read or understand much in depth anymore. When they do, the newspapers they read are corporate controlled outlets that provide little, if any, historical context. The televised news media is a joke. Actually, the comedy news now often provides more actual coverage than any of the so-called regular news shows.
With no historical understanding, all of the deception goes unchallenged and becomes a part of the collective consciousness. Once it’s repeated over and over and over, soon it doesn’t matter that it wasn’t true in the first place.
One only needs look at the recent municipal elections in Los Angeles for a timely example. A newly elected school board member ran continuous deceptive ads against incumbent board member Jon Lauritzen. Not having the funds to match the millions put in by the mayor’s committees, he was buried in lies. This is what our democracy has become.
Report this###
By Verne Arnold, May 23, 2007 at 12:02 pm #
Re: #71964 by Lefty on 5/23 at 7:34 am
Hmm…My gut instinct is to disagree. Have they really? Or just capitalized on the candidate, (mesianic idiot)? Is this the same thing? Revolutions are not evolutions…evolutions take time (25 years or more)...revolutions change things quickly (as in now). I acknowledge what you say, but again, my gut resists your statement. There is no doubt about the fact of what you have said, but, but, an unlikely awakening of the people can trash this in an instant. I don’t believe the majority of Americans go along with Pat Robertson, but I do believe the majority of Americans are afraid or apathetic and have allowed this to happen.
Report thisBy Verne Arnold, May 23, 2007 at 10:21 am #
Yet again Re: #71689 by RAE on 5/22 at 7:14 am
There are two positions from which you have an opportunity to change a system from within and from without.
I can’t begin to tell you how many of my friends “justified their sellout to this statement: To wit; “I’ll change the system from within”. It was all crap…they took the money and ran…forgetting their “promise”. This was almost 40 years ago! Don’t believe for one minute that complete statement of crap!
Change will only come from without. RAE is absolutely correct…the system will swallow you whole!
Revolution only comes from without!!!
Report thisBy Verne Arnold, May 23, 2007 at 9:21 am #
Again Re: #71689 by RAE on 5/22 at 7:14 am
“There are two positions from which you have an opportunity to change a system from within and from without.”
The revolution won’t come from a politician; it will come only from the people!
Report thisBy Verne Arnold, May 23, 2007 at 9:17 am #
Re: #71689 by RAE on 5/22 at 7:14 am
If elected, I think Mr. Gore would be required to be head of the system that exists and would have little or no opportunity to make the kind of wholesale alterations in the distribution of power and authority that are required. The system co-ops and corrupts almost all who become part of it.”
YES!!! Thank you!
Report thisBy Jacks, May 23, 2007 at 6:10 am #
What Dionne calls dignity, I call cowardice. Where the hell was all this passion for democracy back in 2000? Even in 2002, he displayed a zeal that was absent during the campaign. He simply cowered back then, which showed he truly didn’t believe in anything enough to fight for let alone the people who’d be screwed by a Bush administration hellbent on destroying civil rights, the environment, social security, etc. Gore knew Bush was an ultra-conservative in 2000, as his stated policy points included overturning Roe, Kyoto, and affirmative action (not to mention his religious fundamentalism).
Gore came off as if he didn’t give a damn during his concession. I hated him for that. Still do.
Report thisBy Johnbo, May 22, 2007 at 11:47 pm #
I admire E. J. Dionnes opinions but in his analysis of Al Gores new book, “The Assault on Reason,” I cant buy his conclusion that the changes that Gore calls for in our political discourse are already happening. Dionne states that the very process Gore describes of propaganda taken as fact, of slogans taken as arguments, of repetition substituting for logic and, yes, of lies and half-truths taken as truth is now well-recognized. Really?
I think Dionne is right that many are waking up but the experts at framing and presenting political issues and manipulating the media are still hard at work. Disinformation, half-truth, innuendo, and hyperbole are the coin of their realm and the spinmiesters can start more fires than the media can possibly put out. Witness the campaign to inject doubt into the science of global warming or sell the Iraq war.
And the distortions are being aided and abetted by trends such as the corporate consolidation of the media and smaller budgets and fewer reporters for news and investigative journalism. Just when we need good reporting most, were getting the dumbing-down and tarting-up of our information networks or the creation of faux news outlets such as Fox designed to deliver propaganda.
Al Gore will get the last laugh if his campaign to change these trends succeed. After all, it was this very same media that made Gore a laughingstock by distorting his rightful claim of helping build the internet and it will be poetic justice if his current strategy of using the internet to disintermediate, or eliminate the network middleman, and have political discourse directly with the people, succeeds.
Long live the blogosphere.
Report thisBy DennisD, May 22, 2007 at 11:07 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Let me guess why he won’t run - too busy cashing in all those carbon credits. What a great country.
Report thisBy THOMAS BILLIS, May 22, 2007 at 5:55 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
What a shame it would be if a guy who was right about everything of major import over the last six years would not run for President.
Report thisIt is a strange thing in America that being right is not enough.You must pander to which ever group you see as effective in getting elected.
You might not want to have a beer with Al Gore but he is certainly the best man to run this country and we as American citizens are willing to let the best man sit it out instead of with one voice beseeching him to run.
The question is have we as Americans graduated to be able to accept a honest dialogue on the issues of our day or are we prisoners to our own 30 second sound bite mentality.Are we on a reverse evolutionary spiral from the Lincoln-Douglas debates to slogans?
By 911truthdotorg, May 22, 2007 at 4:32 pm #
beelzabush666 -
The truth of what really happened on 9/11 will come out sooner than you think.
I wait for the day that the monster-in-chief and the rest of his crime family are rotting in a prison, preferably, Abu Ghraib. A little “rendition” would work wonders for their ilk.
Google videos: 9/11 Press for Truth, Loose Change 2nd Edition
BTW, the movie “Loose Change Final Cut” is scheduled for release in theaters the weekend before 9/11/07.
Report thisBy Jeff Tuttle, May 22, 2007 at 3:09 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I run that scenario over & over in my mind and lament the reality. Bush & his cabal of ideologues have stolen not only the 2000 election but the America that I grew up in and loved. I believe it will take a generation or two to overcome the ignorant actions of this administration.
Report thisBy Eric Barth, May 22, 2007 at 2:39 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Yes, it would be very interesting if Al Gore got into the race. If he didn’t get the nomination, at least he would have a chance to short circuit the Clinton and Obama campaigns. I haven’t read Gore’s new book, but I would hope by now that he would own up to the Democratic Party’s complicity in how the country wound up where we are now. (Not a great sentence!) Triangulation, being in bed with corporate interests and leaving the middle class (rhetoric notwithstanding)to wither on the vine; these are not great accomplishmnets of the Clinton-Gore years.
Report thisBy Ed, May 22, 2007 at 1:20 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
A Gore/Obama Democratic presidential ticket could be a real winner and a Gore/Obama administration would set a brighter course for the future of country.
I really have to wonder about the voters’ mental process though. Why did any middle class voter (especially a voter who is a middle class parent) vote for Bush in 2004? It defies logic.
Report thisBy Fools on the Hill, May 22, 2007 at 1:03 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Gore is making noise and getting paid for it. He isn’t revealing anything that isn’t already well known. He is not changing anything. I can’t imagine why he or any sane person would want to inherit Bush’s mess.
Unless he announces he is running, I assume he isn’t. And outside the system, he is not taken seriously. Really just a disgruntled has been, justifiably so.
Report thisBy Still Hopeful, May 22, 2007 at 12:58 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
This would be the easiest win in history…all he has to do is put his name in the hat…Mr. Gore…please tip your hat and be the best USA representative we’ve ever had. Lead us back to a new US government that is by the people for the people…not the oil companies!
Report thisBy Anna Catherine, May 22, 2007 at 12:33 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
We can only hope. But I can understand his reluctance to run. Losing is bad enough, but that’s not what happened. He’s still not over it. Neither am I. Looking forward to the book.
Report thisBy rage, May 22, 2007 at 12:28 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Al Gore shouldn’t have to run. He’s already won. He simply was not allowed to serve. We need try in a world court the BFEE (to include the current Supreme Court), and change all that. We already know the Dumya reign was never legitimate, and rather illegal. Let’s revolt and say so, and let Al have his turn at the wheel.
Report thisBy anonymous, May 22, 2007 at 12:17 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I’d like to see Al run a “not in it to win it” campaign. Skip the fund raising, go on TV a lot, get a lot of attention, raise money on a web site for expenses, show up for the debates. Hell, peddle some books while he’s at it!
Let me hear from somebody who gives a damn about something besides power!
Report thisBy Margaret Currey, May 22, 2007 at 12:01 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Excess money has made running for office more about the person than the country, Gore can better change the system from without.
Of course Gore deserves to be president, but what has to change is the election system, to try to find the right place to vote is an challenge to begin with, the electorial college has got to go, when a person like Bush only goes to the larger states leaves out the rest of the country.
Washington D.C. is not even in the center of the United States, seems like the rest of the country is in limbo land when it comes to canadiates.
Gore would win, but then he would have to change and politics is dirty, Bush and Company made it more dirtier than it should have been.
He will not have any legacy except a government in secret, a government of fear, and a person who did not know how to do his job, he certainly did not when he was governor of Texas, the underlings did all the work.
Now the only person doing the tinking is Mad Dog Chaney.
Report thisBy Joe R., May 22, 2007 at 11:50 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I hope Al Gore does run because if Hillary or Obama get the nomination a Republican will be President.
Report thisBy Tipper wants a divorce!, May 22, 2007 at 11:31 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
This article saddens me, like many here on TD. There is a kernal of truth in that public discourse - from 9/11 to evolution - has spiraled away from logic and reason and into wishful thinking. Unfortunately, the idea of man-made global warming is a big lie. A lie that benefits Mr. Gore.
Gore is all for reason and truth? I wish it were so. We all need a hero.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller21.html
Report thisBy newspaper of record??, May 22, 2007 at 11:28 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The NYTimes has permanently removed the Mike Nizza article, “Rosie O’Donnell’s 9/11 Question” from its archives. It’s as if the article was never written!
http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?frow=0&n= 10&srcht=s&query=Rosie+O’Donne ll’s+9/11+Question&srchst=nyt&hdlquery; =&bylquery;=&daterange=full&mon1=01&day1=01& ;year1=1981&mon2=05&day2=22&year2=2007&submit;. x=42&submit;.y=10
The blog is stil active, though, with virtually only truthers writing in:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/rosie-odon nells-911-question/#comment-49062
There is no other way to find this blog, since the article is “invisible” from a technical standpoint.
WTF?
——
Here is blog #442:
442.
May 21st,
2007
9:36 pm
Dear Editor,
The NY Times managed to break its 6 year silence on the global debate over 911, in the form of a mocking reference to Rosie on a blog called The Lede, which landed the front page online for a few hours last week: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/rosie-odonn ells-911-question/
It was pulled the same day, within hours (the editor responsible for sneaking it in is no doubt being ‘water boarded’ as I write). Based on the string of bloviated disinformation in the first group of comments, the blog post was intentionally put forth to mock Rosie and her on-air questions about the mysterious collapse of WTC building #7.
What the Times wasn’t apparently expecting was the huge number of posts flooding the commentary, despite the fact that they had pulled the headline, pulled the article from their archives (try searching for it), clearly trying to reverse course.
Bear in mind it was the NY Times that spearheaded the media’s cooperation with the bogus run-up to Iraq war ii. No amount of belated Bush-bashing in the Times’ blogs (now that Bush-bashing is finally popular) will ever ameliorate their conspicuous abdication of responsibility during what is now generally recognized was an epic, bogus lie that exceeded the Gulf of Tonkin hoax by orders of deceptive magnitude, resulting in the unimaginable death and destruction of the present Iraq war.
Rosie does not claim to be a scientist, but the Times chose to show only Rosie (as opposed to a responsible coverage with experts on both sides) in a clearly slanted attempt to debunk and ridicule Rosie and the 911 Truthers. But when the tide of intense comments flowed in, the Times clearly attempted to back off their back-fired attempt to once again exploit their diminishing authority to abuse the news.
To Rosie, I say You Rock! Thank you for keeping freedom of information and freedom of speech alive in the media, despite jeopardizing your own career in the process. Because of your bravery, at least this one dramatic slice within the huge conspiracy by the neocons and their “New World Order” can continue to hold it’s rightful place in critical public debate about the events leading up to the largest most treasonous crime in the history of the United States.
Hang in there Rosie!
— Posted by JS
Report thisBy responsible journalist, May 22, 2007 at 11:27 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
See “Why is the establishment media so out of touch on 9/11?” by Joseph Murtagh by clicking on this link:
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id422.html
Why is the establishment media so out of touch on 9/11?
(Excerpt)
May 22, 2007—Last Sunday, C-Span 2 aired a session from the 2007 LA Times Festival of Books, called the “Age of Spin Panel,” whose purpose was to explore media deception during the Bush years – a big topic. The panel consisted of Newsweek journalist Michael Isikoff, political consultant Frank Luntz, Salon.com columnist Joe Conason, and Mother Jones magazine reporter David Goodman, all of whom, with the possible exception of Goodman, are well-known figures within the Washington media establishment. A number of topics were discussed – the Iraq war, the outing of Valerie Plame – but I found the panel chiefly interesting for what was said about 9/11.
During the question and answer session, the discussion turned to the attacks, and to what extent the U.S. media failed to do its job in reporting about them. A woman stood up and said that she was from New York, that she had witnessed the collapse of the towers, that what she had seen she felt resembled a controlled demolition, and that she wanted to know what the panel thought about the media’s complicity in establishing an atmosphere of disinformation after the attacks. Instead of responding to her question, however, Mr. Luntz ignored her completely and requested that a man in the back row please lower a sign reading “9/11 Truth Now” so that those who “had traveled a long distance that day” could enjoy the panel. “That,” said Mr. Luntz, “is civility.”
Naturally somewhat annoyed, the woman then asked Mr. Luntz why he wasn’t answering her question, at which point Mr. Luntz aggressively interrogated her, “who do you think did it, who do you think did it?” which, as the woman then pointed out, was not the question she was asking. What was so odd about all of this was to see how quickly the established parameters of the debate broke down as soon as the 9/11 question was introduced, how these four highly intelligent professional journalists who a moment ago had been calmly and rationally answering the audience’s questions were changed very quickly into four guys who clearly felt like they were being personally attacked by members of the audience, which, as far as I could tell, wasn’t the case at all. In the end, the thing I took away from watching the whole scene was that, for whatever reason, when it comes to dealing with this 9/11 issue – i.e. how much did the administration know beforehand about the attacks, to what extent can our own government be accountable, just what happened inside the buildings that day, why building 7 collapsed when no plane hit it, all perfectly reasonable questions that the 9/11 Commission itself was at a loss to fully explain – public intellectuals and professional journalists like Michael Isikoff, Joe Conason, Frank Luntz, and David Goodman are liable to experience a certain hysterical excitability that causes them to dismiss the issue outright, without taking the time to have a more nuanced understanding of the facts.
Report this...want more? go here:
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id422.html
By Wallace Pancoast, May 22, 2007 at 11:21 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
It would be nice to see Gore take the Presidency of which he was robbed by a political and partisan court. However noting some of the obscene and ignorant remarks I have seen, he is probably wise in not participating in office seeking at one of the lowest points of our checkered history. I am not optimistic about the survival of a really democratic nation at this time. Are there enough open-minded people left to continue our democracy? I wonder!
Report thisBy RAE, May 22, 2007 at 11:14 am #
There are two positions from which you have an opportunity to change a system… from within and from without.
I think Mr. Gore is doing a masterful job at pointing out that the Emperor Has No Clothes - that the system needs some fundamental changes to remain credible and effective.
If elected, I think Mr. Gore would be required to be head of the system that exists and would have little or no opportunity to make the kind of wholesale alterations in the distribution of power and authority that are required. The system co-ops and corrupts almost all who become part of it.
At the moment, the USA has in an UNelected Mr. Gore an effective agent of change. Elect him and you’ll lose him.
Report thisBy sharon ash, May 22, 2007 at 11:13 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I would like to see a Gore/Kerry ticket as they are two extremely qualified individuals and they both share the same injustice of having had an election rigged against them. (Florida and Ohio) We could begin the road to change and recovery for our country by correcting the 2000 and 2004 election injustices. But how we can ever begin to correct the injustices of the Iraq War escapes me. There are some things that money cannot fix and Iraq is one of those things. This illegal and immoral war will be a blight on the soul of America forever, no matter how much time, money and effort we put into trying to fix the mess we made. But, I hope Al Gore will reconsider and seek the office of president.
Report thisBy beelzabush666, May 22, 2007 at 10:26 am #
Its ironic! Bush’s election fraud (twice) and his phony justification for invading Iraq will haunt him the rest of his life and become his legacy. if the facts around 911 ever come out, he will fell fortunate to escape prison.
Report thisBy QuyTran, May 22, 2007 at 10:21 am #
I hope that he would change his mind at the last minutes. Please go Mr. Gore !
Report thisBy Joseph, May 22, 2007 at 10:13 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I object to missing the opportunity to vote for Al Gore for president.
Report thisBy lodipete, May 22, 2007 at 9:43 am #
Here’s hoping Dionne is wrong and Al Gore DOES run.
Report this