Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Al Gore: Modern Politics' Movie Star

By Anneli Rufus, AlterNet. Posted May 26, 2007.


Like the children's classic "A Fish Out of Water," Al Gore has outgrown his fishbowl. He has developed a following of millions simply by reminding people that they can use knowledge as a source of influence.
05262007story
05262007story

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Who's Paying for the Recession Most of All? Young Workers
Lizzy Ratner

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Women's Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"Women Are Being Killed All Over the World": One Reporter's Fight Against So-Called "Honor Killings"
Robert S. Eshelman

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
10 Suicides a Month at Ft. Hood -- War Stress Is Taking Soldiers to the Brink
Dahr Jamail

More stories by Anneli Rufus

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

For the organizers of Al Gore's one and only gig in Northern California promoting his new book, it was a little like that children's classic, "A Fish Out of Water," in which a boy overfeeds his goldfish and it grows and grows, outswelling its bowl, then a vase, then a bathtub.

Authors tour the country constantly, hawking their books. You see the fliers in bookshop windows. At night, in a space cleared for the purpose, you see that spectacle: three or four rows of folding chairs arranged to face the podium where a hopeful figure poses, looking so alone, scanning the empty seats while pretending not to. Bookstore owners have told me that attendance at author events has dwindled lately. Some stores around the San Francisco Bay Area, long hailed as America's second-biggest reading hub, have stopped hosting readings altogether.

Even so, planners at Book Passage -- an independent store in tiny Marin County -- expected a decent turnout for Gore. Ambitiously, they decided to charge for tickets to Wednesday night's event and co-sponsor it with Dominican University, a small, nearby Catholic school, and stage it in its 850-seat auditorium. A few weeks in advance, the forthcoming lecture was announced rather quietly on Book Passage's website and on a Dominican site. Within two days, the auditorium was sold out. The waiting list was hundreds long. Stunned, the planners chose yet another venue, the sprawling 2,000-seat Marin Civic Center. Tickets went back on sale. Two days later, the Civic Center was sold out too -- at forty bucks a pop, for what was scheduled to be a 20-minute talk. Again, the waiting list extended over the horizon.

Movie-star proportions, clearly. But Al Gore is modern politics' movie star, not in the metaphorical sense.

Like parts of Los Angeles, Marin County is one of those places whose residents would rather die than admit that they're awestruck by celebrity. It's the sort of semirural, estate-dotted sward to which rockstars and rebels-who-got-rich retire, and according to Forbes, it includes one of the five most expensive zip codes in the country.

And it turned out in droves for Gore.

The title of his new book, "The Assault on Reason" (Penguin Press, 2007, $25.95) is really just another way of phrasing the title of his previous book, "An Inconvenient Truth" (Rodale Books, 2006, $21.95), which accompanies the film of the same name which, of course, vaulted Gore to literal movie-stardom. Though "The Assault on Reason" is meant to allude to lies told by lying governmental liars about everything from uranium enrichment to wiretaps to emergency preparedness and "An Inconvenient Truth" concerns climate change. Both titles rail against violence done to some clear, intrinsic, real-world factuality, which -- as Gore said on Wednesday evening, patting his black-suited chest, "resonates in the human heart."

He would speak feelingly that night about "ripples" marring the media that "make the surface distorted" so that "the clarity of vision is ruined." One clear thing, he would tell the crowd, is "the 99 percent certainty that we're facing the greatest threat" imaginable in climate change. "Yet our leaders are dilly-dallying" about it. "How dare they?" he demanded, to thunderous applause.

But that was later.

I took public transit from San Francisco to the Marin Civic Center not by choice but by necessity, as I neither drive nor own a car (which I guess, since I could, since I actually have a license, is a choice). For others it would have been a choice, even a novelty. Braving the clamor and buying a ticket to see the world's most outspoken climate-awareness advocate, you might muse about the best way to reach and depart the lecture hall. You just might. In that same fist-to-forehead way you might rethink hosting an AA meeting at a bar, or hanging paper Halloween skulls at a funeral, which this kind of was. If you believe Gore -- who that night would describe evidence of impending ecological doom as being "so clear, it's so massive, it's so obvious" -- then the prospect of joining those rush-hour throngs behind the wheel might be -- well, even more embarrassing than looking starstruck.

For the record, from San Francisco's Transbay Terminal, the 80 Golden Gate Transit bus crosses the city, then the Golden Gate Bridge into Marin, where at the downtown San Rafael transit center, bus No. 45 climbs suburban streets and a wide, wooded scimitar of hill-road, stopping at the Civic Center.

Just so you'll know. Like, for next time? Because there was no one else on that big silvery No. 45 when it reached the Civic Center but me.

I rolled my eyes at eager lecture-goers rushing toward the hall clad in leather jackets and carrying leather bags. One woman even had a snakeskin clutch. You've gotta pick your battles in this world.

The ovations began the moment Gore strode onstage. Soft lighting in the auditorium caught the tweeds, the silks, the suede, the pearls and gold and jade and lovely shoes and creamy complexions and frosted hair. Tanned pinkish-brown, the author had just arrived from Beverly Hills, where he'd kicked off his book tour at the Wilshire Theatre the night before. His palms pressed together and half-bows, as he thanked the crowd, might have been namastes -- that traditional Indian gesture of reverence.

"I can feel that," he said. "There are days when I need that."

Wags in the crowd held up placards saying PLEASE RUN. (For president, that is.)

"Millions of people, and I'm one of them, have the uneasy feeling that something's gone wrong in the United States," the ex-vice president said, spurring applause. "Why was our beloved country so shockingly vulnerable to such crass manipulation?" Guy knows how to work a stage. Deploring the Dark Ages' illiteracy that we can no longer use as an excuse for incurious ignorance, he invoked Mahatma Gandhi and African proverbs and Kurt Vonnegut and Thomas Paine, whose 1776 pamphlet Common Sense Gore dubbed the "Harry Potter of the 18th century." He quoted George Washington forbidding his troops to torture Hessian captives. He said that the world changed forever when literacy spread and "people found that they could use knowledge as a source of influence" -- and that the first printed book was the Gutenberg Bible, though some might argue and say it was a copy of the Diamond Sutra published in China in 868.

The exponential spread of knowledge led populations out of superstition and into discussions about human rights, he said, which in turn led to America: "We take it for granted that our country operates, at least in theory, on the basis of the rule of reason" and "on our capacity to reason together." But that was before TV and the Bush administration. "Why is it," Gore roared, "that facts, truth, knowledge and reason play such a minor role in the functioning of our democracy?"

He has his suspicions. The flow of information, and the manner in which it is displayed, are controlled by oligarchs who, as Gore writes in "The Assault on Reason," possess "less interest than any previous administration in sharing the truth" with us. The problem, he asserts, and the reason we are veering ever closer toward history's steepest cliff, is the leadership's insatiable "impulse to power." Thumping his heart again, Gore told the crowd that this lust, albeit lethal, is neither madness nor even evil but a mere "sign of humanity."

Now the funny thing about philosophical edicts, or should we say the funny thing about philosophical edicts now, is that figures at opposite ends of the political spectrum can say the exact same thing at virtually the same time. They can say it in the exact same way and even mean it in the exact same way. Al Gore might have no more vocal antagonist on earth these days than conservative talk show host Michael Savage, who regularly denounces climate change as a false crisis caused not by humans but by natural shifts that have always happened every few millennia. Yet Savage also rails regularly against George W. Bush. Calling Bush the worst president in history, paraphrasing a quote from British historian Lord Acton, Savage loves to shout into the mic: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." He and Gore could shake hands and exchange hearty smiles over this point. Coincidentally, Savage lives in Marin County, a few miles from where the lecture was held. The pair could raise glasses together and call it a day.

And that's what's so weird about these electrified times. Gore can intone with "99 percent certainty that we're facing the greatest threat" ... and that the threat in question is climate change. Yet Savage and his ilk would complete that sentence with something else entirely: terrorism, most likely, or immigration. Gore can ask, "Why was our beloved country so shockingly vulnerable to such crass manipulation?" Savage and his ilk would start that sentence with the same nine words, then end it with: "a terrorist attack?"

It's like a game of Mad Libs. To each side, each version is glaringly true, with that soul-wracking resonance that makes Gore gaze intently into an audience and thump his heart. Some parts of both versions even totally overlap. But Gore's imprecations that we begin "the hard work of rebuilding a conversation of democracy," drawing on a cosmic "truthforce" that will help us "see together what the best choices are," are -- to borrow a word that he used over and over that evening -- troubling. Because history has so splintered and subdivided us that the truth and reason he hails in principle can in practice be as individual as -- well, your eyes and mine. Postmodernism has labored away for impassioned decades convincing Americans that nothing is objective, that nothing is ultimately, absolutely true.

Which makes me want to laugh and cry when Gore assails "our failure to see clearly." I want to see what he sees. Or some of it. Or do I? Truth decay, as it is called, dissolves our trust in each other. In anything.

Afterwards, attendees streamed through the doors, most of them bearing autographed books, some waving yellow signs printed with "Run, Al Run." Because of the font, and because only the first letter of each word was upper-case, the signs could be misread at first glance as "Run AI Run" -- AI being "American Idol" fans' standard acronym for that show, and Wednesday night's episode being the season finale. At that moment, or somewhere between right then and the transit center, 29.5 million Americans would see whether they had elected twentysomething argyle-sweatered beatboxer Blake of the pert bottom and do-me eyes or 17-year-old devout-Christian plus-size pageant queen Jordin. Because to 29.5 million Americans, that was truth.

It was time to catch the last bus back.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: al gore, the assault on reason

Anneli Rufus is the author of several books, including "Party of One: The Loners' Manifesto."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Why Gore will run.
Posted by: HughScott on May 26, 2007 1:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Last night on my favorite TV show, “Real Time with Bill Maher,” Michael Moore, who appeared by satellite to plug his latest documentary, “Sicko,” tacitly endorsed Al Gore for president in 2008.

When asked why by Maher, MM explained (and I’m paraphrasing him now), “To right a wrong that happened six years ago.”

The “wrong,” of course, is the stolen 2000 election that led to where America is today -- teetering on the brink of ruination because George W. Bush cheated his way into the White House.

How the theft occurred, I believe, merits publicity because next year a new group of voters, those presently 17 through 19, will cast general election ballots for the first time. Plus the rest of us deserve a fresher course. Otherwise, as the axiom goes, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. And there can be no doubt that Republicans will be up to their old tricks in 2008 -- trying to steal elections.

Looking back at 2000, besides president of the United States, then Texas Governor Bush was running for the more important position of commander-in-chief. For the welfare of our armed forces, we the people needed to judge his fitness to serve as America's top military leader. Full disclosure of George W.’s National Guard history was and is an inalienable right paid for by U.S. soldiers, sailors and aviators who lost their lives in all past conflicts.

In the 1998 book, The Stuff of Heroes, its author, Major General William A. Cohen, USAF RES Ret., listed eight Universal Laws of Leadership. Number one was to "maintain absolute integrity."

Former Air Force Chief of Staff General Ronald R. Fogelman said in the Forward to Cohen's book that "integrity in professional relationships remained the singularly most important attribute of any leader."

Time and again, in virtually every publication written about military leadership, integrity is one of the most crucial factors to consider. Yet when reporters confronted candidate Bush about his missing Guard time, he ducked their questions and changed the subject.

Dub-ya knew his evasiveness was wrong. He was a mature adult with a history degree from Yale. But quite clearly in his selfish twisted mind, he had no choice. The 2000 election was too close to call. Disclosing his AWOL military service would most certainly have caused some of the 25 million war veterans and active duty personnel to switch their support to Al Gore, who served in Vietnam and won the Bronze Star.

Despite Shrub's ability to hide his past transgressions, he still lost the popular election by 538,000 votes and only became our 43rd president after winning Florida's Electoral College with a paper-thin margin of 537 ballots. A mere 300-vote swing would have made former Army Sgt. Gore the winner.

Of the thousands of enlisted servicemen who supported Bush in the Sunshine State, how many do you suppose would have voted as Democrats after learning he had shirked his sworn military duty during the Vietnam War?

Three hundred, perhaps?

How about a slam-dunk 3,000 -- the reason Bush cheated in 2000 and did so four years later. Winning obviously meant everything to him; being an honest candidate with integrity did not.

For details about Dub-ya’s AWOL Guard service, including a falsified Bush biography I found on the Internet and reported to the Boston Globe, visit my nonprofit Investigative website, King-George.biz, the only one with hardcopy proof of White House corruption (the bogus Bush bio).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Bigger Thief Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: The Bigger Thief Posted by: Lauren
» RE: The Bigger Thief Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: The Bigger Thief Posted by: Lauren
» RE: The Bigger Thief Posted by: bulbman
» RE: The Bigger Thief Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Sadly, same old Dino . . . Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Sadly, same old Dino . . . Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Why Gore will run. Posted by: gracefounddog
Al Gore is right
Posted by: algodees on May 26, 2007 1:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
when he talks about the Assault on Reason. When truth is whatever an individual wants it to be we end up in situations such as the Iraq war. When enough of the American people seem scared enough or unwilling enough to face the truth then special interest groups such as those now occupying the White House can manipulate enough of us to get them close enough to power to steal it as has happened in the last two elections. When too many of us can't be bothered to pay attention to the real issues in our country we end up in this mess. The intellectual laziness of most of us is astounding. When reality t.v. is what turns us on and not the serious issues confronting our nation we end up in this mess. All the information about George Bush and his mob was out there before 2000 but not enough of us could be bothered to read it. Ultimately, it is not the failure of the current White House and the radical right in this county that got us into this mess but rather the disengagement of too many of us with the political side of life. More of us have to get angry at all our politicians and demand they do what they were voted into office to do. That is to develop our country and our politics to provide as just and good a society for as many of our fellow citizens as is possible. And that is impossible to do if reason is abandoned in the ongoing pursuit of power at any cost.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is more substance with Gore.
Posted by: williameon on May 26, 2007 5:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please run Mr. Gore
We need a sane voice in the debate.
I am sick and tired of the same old
BU__! SH__!
Coming out of everybody’s mouth.
At the same time.
Are there any original thinkers out there?

Old Politicians,
Judges,
&
High Priests
The Three Stooges of Power!
Never die,
Never retire.
They just
Whine away,
Forever.

The Illusion is over.
Old Proper-Gander Tools like;
The Faux Network
And
The CIA rag,
The Times
Are dying.
Who are they listening to?
more
Corpirate.
Stink Tank
Bass-Turd
Hypnotic
Illusion?

Billionaire’s-R-Us
Own everything.
Isn’t that enough.
I would rather be on the Riviera
They pay to be Famous?
Buy political post!
Trying their best
To
Squeeze
The last Nickel
Out of
The Poor
Working Class.
How sick is that?

The Fascist rule
Wielding
Stolen
Money and Power!
Fat Cats swollen with LOOT
Prostitize the System.
It’s old and dated.
Broken and corrupt.
Change will come.
We will change it
One by One
The more they beat us down
The more powerful
We become.

Change the system.
Kick the
Oil Conglomerates out of power.
Old Tech will die
The sooner the better.

Laws were made for
The betterment of Man
Now we must make them for,
The
Betterment
and
Humanization
of
The
Machine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obi-Wan
Posted by: kepstein7777 on May 26, 2007 5:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sometimes presidents and vice presidents are more powerful when they're not presidents and vice presidents. And perhaps more importantly, heckling from the sidelines is more fun.

Carter and Gore should keep doing what they're doing and not let some of their followers try to pull them into things that don't make sense. In Gore's case, running for president would seem to be giving in to a washed-up option involving too much compromise. In his case, working outside the system seems to be working as much as could be expected in today's climate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obi-Wan Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Obi-Wan Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: Obi-Wan Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Obi-Wan Posted by: Basenjis
Dear Mr. Gore (My Message To You)
Posted by: ZPaul on May 26, 2007 5:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Mr. Gore:
If you happen to be reading this, please consider running. You would win. You know damn well we don´t want Hillary - don´t you? And who else can win? I actually had some hopes for Edwards, but now that those hopes are fading, I am looking -- desperately, if you will -- to you.
I don´t even care if you don´t lose weight. Although, come to think of it, it would be a good idea for you to shed a few pounds. But the heaviest weight we need to get rid of in this country is the Bush administration and the Republican party. I have almost lost hope in the Democrats, too. I´m serious. What are you going to do about it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excellent Aticle
Posted by: Conservasaurus on May 26, 2007 5:54 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With respect to global Warming, there is compelling discussion on both sides..nature taking it's course and man "dumping" where he eats.

Looking around, I'd have to say at best, it's a combination of the two but being a nature lover at heart, I'd like to error on the side of the environment and say "man" is killing himself.
Our foot print expands at alarming rates at the expense of the place we live!

I'd vote for Gore as President .......of the environment - he already had a hand in messing up 8 years in the whitehouse.. not sure I'd want a repeat of the same.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: xcellent Aticle Posted by: Lauren
» RE: xcellent Aticle Posted by: wonkywriter
» RE: xcellent wonkyness Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: xcellent wonkyness Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: xcellent Aticle Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: hexcellent Aticle (hic Article) Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: hexcellent Aticle (hic Article) Posted by: Conservasaurus
Gore Rocks
Posted by: Gravitas on May 26, 2007 6:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have always like Gore, even way back when Dukacakas (sp) was the nominee. I remember watching the debates in the primary, ticking off the candidate I agreed with most, and Gore won. But I hope he doesn't run. We have made such a mess of things the next few candidates face overwhelming odds. And people haven't learned their lessons. When they face the hard realities of global warming, peak oil and economic ruin they will look for scapegoats instead of comprehending their own responsibility in the situation. We all could have at least tried to do something sooner. I think Hopi prophecy is inevitable. We will have to go through another mass destruction with only a few people left to survive and carry one. Those who are spiritualy advanced enough to handle the sophisticated technology and abilities we have now, but most only know how to exploit for their own gain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Gore Rocks Posted by: wonkywriter
» RE: Gore Rocks Posted by: Gravitas
» RE: Gore Rocks: Gravitas Posted by: Basenjis
Amnother Democrat-
Posted by: WitchyNy on May 26, 2007 6:23 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So if he gets in power-he can sell us out like the other Democrats just did? I am not buying it anyone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Amnother Democrat- Posted by: Radicalizer
Help me out here
Posted by: p4th on May 26, 2007 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a real fan of Al Gore but I have no good answer to give my right wing friends when they ask: if he is really so committed to environment then why didn't he really do anything/bring much attention to the issue when he was vice president? He says in his movie that the environment has always been the issue that he feels the most strongly about but his past actions just don't seem match his current words. Did he just pick this issue as a hot button issue to cynically build his popularity?

Can anyone help me to rebut this line of reasoning?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Help me out here Posted by: COC
» RE: Help me out here Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: Help me out here, not! Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: Help me out here, not! Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: Help me out here Posted by: DBachmozart
» RE: Help me out here Posted by: COC
» RE: Help me out here Posted by: wonkywriter
» OIL $$ Posted by: matty848
A man of integrity....
Posted by: kgs1947 on May 26, 2007 7:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is Al Gore. If he would run, there would be a landslide for him of voters who have had enough of lies, manipulation, deceit, rigidity, and assinine behaviors in the White House and Congress. Al Gore needs to be our next President. George Bush and Cheney need to be impeached.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gore vs Bush - that shows the difference, doesn't it?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 26, 2007 8:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On the climate issue, the GW Bush Administration is once again attempting to throw a wrench into the works:

Activists: U.S. to Reject Warming Deal, By DAVID STRINGER Associated Press Writer

Currently, the US is aiming for a 20% increase in CO2 emissions, while the rest of the world is calling for a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions - meaning that the US is not only behaving like a war criminal, but also like a climate criminal.

I don't think Al Gore would have allowed this situation to arise if he had taken office in 2000, as the Consitution demands (despite what the 5-4 US Supreme Court had to say - the worst decision in the history of the Court). He would have agreed to an international treaty designed to begin the process of reducing CO2 emissions.

Bush and Cheney are so deeply in bed with the fossil fuel industry that they will never do anything that reduces their market share and profit margins, period. They went into Iraq for oil; they certainly aren't going to agree to any international treaty that reduces oil consumption.

Still, don't expect any politician of any stripe to save you - as soon as these politicians get into office, they are bombarded by K street lobbyists - and they often end up forgetting the promises they made during the campaign. The only antidote for this is for ordinary people to turn off the American Idol and the 24 and to start paying attention to what the corporatocracy is up to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Overly broad brush Posted by: lessbread
» RE:Puritanical Censorship Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
Some truly alternative views:
Posted by: rwa on May 26, 2007 8:39 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How Global Warming And Al Gore May Rescue the Nuclear Power Industry .... Al Gore, who wrote of the potential green virtues of nuclear power in his book ...
www.counterpunch.org/nukes.html
--------------

Jeffrey St. Clair: Al Gore, the Origins of a HypocriteIn 1984, Al Gore took Baker's Senate seat and over the next eight years voted for the nuclear lobby 55 percent of the time. As vice president and author of ...
www.counterpunch.org/stclair03032007.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Some truly alternative views: Posted by: wonkywriter
» Dogma Posted by: rwa
» RE: Dogma Posted by: particle
» The nuclear scale Posted by: themotie
» RE: rwa must be related to conservasaurus- Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» Spot on Posted by: themotie
Who do the billionaires support?
Posted by: picket on May 26, 2007 9:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is GREAT POWER in the voting booth....elections have been stolen by all sorts of crimes and dirty tricks or just better "moves" like in the 2004 election putting issues on the ballot that drew out Republican voters in droves.

The fewer groups that candidates need to pander to the better for them. Kerry won the young voters last time by huge numbers without even speaking to them[IMO]. Did he even care? Kerry/Edwards gave up without a fight just like Gore/Lieberman did.

There are 371 billionaires in the USA, 322 more than 20 years ago. Who do they want as a candidate? I don't think that party affiliation makes that much difference to them, they will support environmental issues even if support is used as deception. It is all about PROFIT and beneficial government policy.

Monetary policies trump civil rights or social justice issues. It is about PROFIT, like who is selling wheat gluten cheapest.....China....don't worry there's not that much diethylene glycol[antifreeze] in the MR Cool toothpaste. People don't swallow that much...unless it is marketed bubblegum flavored for kids !! Doesn't the FDA always makes you feel better? The FDA will protect us, not. Upper, middle or lower they are just "not into you". The spoils belong to the Upper 2 or 3% of the population contrary to the belief of people who THINK they have it made.

Getting out the vote is very important. What candidates do not take AIPAC or other Corporate $$$$$$$ Who does BIG PHARMA, Big Insurance or Military Industrial Complex lobbyists support? What candidate will be in your loved ones best interests? Decide and get like minded voters motivated and registered to vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gore is Frodo
Posted by: gracefounddog on May 26, 2007 9:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That Intoxicating Power that comes with political success is very difficult to not be overcome by, no matter how sincere a politician's intentions are going in.

I was very hopeful for Obama, being that he doesn't look too fondly on Big Money's influence in politics, and he has proven this by being funded by the people instead. But unfortunately I have my doubts about him now, because already I am seeing signs that he might cave into That Intoxicating Power. I don't blame him for this, any more than I blame Hilary for already being overcome by IT. It takes a very special kind of person to be able to hold That Intoxicating Power without allowing it to possess them. It takes someone who doesn't really want IT; someone who is truly content without IT; and someone who sees it more as a necessary burden that must be carried FOR THE GOOD OF ALL.

I am not 100% positive that Mr. Gore doesn't want to possess That Intoxicating Power. He may have all this planned. Political power may indeed be his very own 'precious' that he will stop at nothing to partake in. But I don't think so. My deepest heart tells me that Mr. Gore really DOESN'T want anything to do with politics and the power it comes with - and that HIS 'precious' is this Earth, and all living things that abide here.

Just as Frodo was the only one who COULD carry the Ring of Power (in order to destroy its Power over the people who worship it) I believe that Mr. Gore may have an *obligation* - indeed a moral obligation - to carry this burden for us. Because at this critical time in humanity, when our children's future is threatened to be CONSUMED by power mongering sociapaths who are *possessed* by That Intoxicating Power, Mr. Gore may very well be the only one who CAN carry this burden for us.

We The People need to remove corporate privilege, and the Power it gives to those who play the Game, from American politics. We must elect a president who will not be overcome by That Intoxicating Power and who will act in OUR best interest - instead of theirs.

We are headed right into a worldwide fascist take-over. Our American government must be siezed back from Corporate Power and returned to the PEOPLE. I hope that Mr. Gore can feel the gratitude of those who trust him to carry this burden. We are counting on him to follow his heart and do what is BEST for all of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Gore is Frodo Posted by: alternetrose
» RE: Gore is Frodo Posted by: Lincoln fan
Does no one change???
Posted by: henderson on May 26, 2007 9:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are you doing and thinking the exact same things you were a year ago? Five years ago? I'm not, and neither are most of the people I know.

Perhaps Al Gore is becoming more and more "enlightened" as he gets older and (presumably) wiser. I know that I'd sure hate to be judged now on what I wrote and believed and thought about 2, or 5 or 10 years ago. Age does have it's benefits!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Radical change
Posted by: snowhound on May 26, 2007 9:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like Al Gore but I'm not sure he has the stones to make the changes this country needs right now. The only man I see that would could really right this ship is Ron Paul. He votes according to our Constitution and that's exactly what this country needs at a time when a New World Order is just around the corner.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: adical change Posted by: wonkywriter
» RE: adical change Posted by: lessbread
» RE: adical change Posted by: irenicus
» RE: adical change Posted by: snowhound
» RE: adical change Posted by: snowhound
Another inconvenient truth & assault on reason
Posted by: MartianBachelor on May 26, 2007 9:54 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
> Because there was no one else on that big silvery
> No. 45 when it reached the Civic Center but me.

Sheesh, even going to a pro hockey game a year ago for the first time, the light rail was packed to overflowing with fans (you can tell because of the jerseys or team colors they wear).

Things are seriously off-kilter when generic hockey fans are more environmentally conscious in their behavior than environmental groupies. I'm surprised the monkey-wrenchers weren't there letting the air out of all the cars in the parking lot at the Civic Center for a big laugh...

Take the bus. Duh.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Al Gore For President
Posted by: Ms.Katmai on May 26, 2007 12:43 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a citizen, I still believe in America. After reading this post and comments, I became curious: is there is a webby that is working to get Al Gore in the Whitehouse as President?
Yes, there is!
http://www.draftgore.com
I urge you to go to this website and sign the petition!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...last chance to save America...
Posted by: ibemee on May 26, 2007 2:37 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe it's true that the Dems are as much FOR this war as the Repubs... oops, let me rephrase: the Dem and the Repub VOTERS are againsy the war, but the too many Politicians of BOTH Partys are FOR the war... the Dems like aipac-Pelosi and zionist-Hillary want the PNAC/AEI/Fascist-Corporation agenda for world domination and unending wars and all the profits that Corporations make from wars and from OIL. The "democratic" Congress has STALLED the war instead of stopping it, because they are bought-and-paid-for by all the same Corporate lobbys that own the Repubs.... and what the "dems" are stalling for is Iraq's OIL CONTRACTS... giving Oil Corporations very very longterm contracts on Iraq's oil, and leaving next to nothing for the Iraqi's themselves.

ALL THAT CAN SAVE US NOW IS A THIRD PARTY!!

There are enough Republicans, like Chuck Hagel who has publically stated that the GOP has been highjacked by the "neo-cons" to bring enough republican voters to join democrat voters in a THIRD PARTY! (the neo's are the fanatic PNAC's aka AEI's)
Rhis isn't about dems vs repubs. IT IS ALL ABOUT FASCIST-FANATIC-CHENEY/BUSH & COMPANY VS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!

Go to any 'conservative' forum and you will see that everyone there is saying the exact same things about the 'liberals' and vise-versa. The conversations are the same, only the labels are changed about! ...and that is by design, not by accident. They KNOW that if they don't keep us separated and hating each other, we would unite and they would be dead ducks!

In 2008 ALL of us Voters - regardless of our choice of label - should vote for all canidates who are NOT either dems OR repubs. IMAGINE 4 years of REAL people in our government! Instead of the same greedy corporate-snake with the two heads!!?? We truly only HAVE 'one' party - NOT 'two'! Because they are both vetted and both financed from the same fountain of corporate money!! and every canidate of both partys - to be "electable" have to kneel to them and exchange their souls before the corporate-owned media puts them 'in the running') Whomsoever fails to please the corporate GODS is automatically unelectable, and ignored by the press (like Kucinich and like Paul, for instance)

A NO-Party Party would be best, but
if Gore would run as a Green Party President, I BET WE COULD DO IT!!!!

BOTH partys would then be FORCED to go back to the drawing board and either fix the broken machine that runs them - or die off. (the latter would be preferable)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Al Gore Doesn't Accept the 9/11 Cover Up, So Why Do You?
Posted by: johndoraemi on May 26, 2007 3:00 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Al Gore Doesn't Accept the 9/11 Cover Up, So Why Do You?

Crimes of the State Blog
 
Recent remarks by elected president Albert Gore reveal a serious distrust of the official 9/11 story. I wouldn't go so far as to call Gore a "truther," as he is a politician after all, but I will say that Gore is still looking for the truth.
See these comments:

"Most Americans have tended to give the Bush-Cheney administration the benefit of the doubt when it comes to its failure to take action in advance of 9/11 to guard against an attack. Hindsight casts a harsh light on mistakes that should have been visible at the time they were made. But now, years later, with the benefit of investigations that have been made public, it is no longer clear that the administration deserves this act of political grace from the American people."[1]

What is he saying?
This is couched in diplomatic language, but the intention is clear. He is not buying the Bushies' excuses for September 11th 2001. He's attributing this lack of trust to the "American people," which polls on 9/11 support. But he is also going out on a political limb and making a value judgment as to whether the Bush regime "deserve" any trust on September 11th issues.
Very few politicians have dared challenge the regime on September 11th. Gore is the exception here, which is notable. These are carefully chosen words that appear in his book The Assault on Reason as well as on the Guardian website and "progressive" US websites.
A lot of very committed peope have been shouting about the regime's "failure to take action in advance of 9/11 to guard against an attack" (as well as during the actual attacks) for a very long time, and yet are routinely attacked for doing so -- sometimes on the very same websites that re-published Gore's article. Well how's that for a bit of hypocrisy?
Back in 2004, Gore touched upon some 9/11 issues in a speech:

"Bush described this rigorous and formal analysis as just guessing. If that's all the respect he has for reports given to him by the CIA, then perhaps it explains why he completely ignored the warning he received on August 6 th, 2001, that bin Laden was determined to attack our country. From all appearances, he never gave a second thought on that report until he finished reading My Pet Goat on September 11 th." [2]

This is -- if you can believe it -- also diplomatic language, because the other explanation of Bush's actions is too politically unthinkable for him to say out loud. Gore belongs to a political caste that doesn't accuse others of the caste of criminality, or of high treason. It's just not done.
For clarity sake, let's have no mistakes here. The August 6 PDB is NOT the only warning this regime received by a long shot. Bush himself was moved out of his high rise hotel, by his own Secret Service, in Genoa Italy in July 2001 because of a warning of an "Al Qaeda plot" to hijack commercial airliners and "crash them into the summit of industrialized nations." [3]The ignorance excuse ends right there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» CONTINUES Posted by: johndoraemi
Does he have the gumption?
Posted by: phindrup on May 26, 2007 5:42 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a problem with Al Gore running for president. I believe I read that he said his reason for not fighting for the presidency was that 'he did not want to cause people to lose faith in the system'.
This must be one of the greatest mistakes in history!
Should he run, and win the votes, you can bet that the Republicans will again attempt to wrest the office from him.
Would he fight this time? Take to the streets, take up arms, if that is what it takes, or would he again fold like a wet tissue?
Do you really want to take the chance?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Does he have the gumption? Posted by: Lincoln fan
TNX ANNELI RUFUS - FOR THE SANE TAKE
Posted by: Ullern on May 26, 2007 6:29 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.
A sane take on the show-biz spectacle in Al Gore's sane take on the insane attack on reason.

The clear-eyed description of the hypocritical (and, no, it's not true that hypo-critical is better than not critical at all...) and starstruck audience made me laugh. That's good, as the depressing topic needs some levity to really be able to take in: the fact that reasoning in the US democracy (or is it "democrazy"?) is f***ed, and that showing this to be so hasn't helped much. Yet, hopefully.

Seems the spectacle of Gore’s reading pretty much answered his question: “Why is it that facts, truth, knowledge and reason play such a minor role in the functioning of our democracy?". Verbalized, the answer amounts to: the US public is now more trained to take in the show rather than the formulated messages of a presentation. This used to be called “aberrant reading” – an either lazily deliberate or uninformed misunderstanding of the proceedings. Now it’s become the dominant mode of reading. A whole country gone camp.

Originally in political presentations – think Roman forum and other political assemblies – the non-verbal content was staged – podium, seating arrangements, dress code, speech codes – to emphasize and underline the central message, the focus, of the spectacle. If the show-effects dominate, the spectacle more resembles cabaret or vaudeville – with attempts at diverting rather than converting thought. In intellectually highly advanced forms of theater, the material content and staging might diverge from the apparent verbal message in order to create a contrast-span, or even undermine the verbal message, to form a new, wider or paradoxical message in the span between form and verbal content. It seems these two forms, low and high (with respect to where on the spine they’re centered – gut/heart or high-brow) have been fused and confused to eliminate the focus in between (the clear-eyed level).

Now, for a generation of “amusing ourselves to death” in the public attention (mostly tv) – or “public forum” as Gore calls it - show has increasingly dominated over message. A point is reached where the show IS the message (which still does not quite mean that “the medium is the message”, as the latter describes the scope of reality in the medium rather than in the content, but when “the show is the message” the message is seductively appealing to emotions more than intellect, to the point of erasing the difference). The public attention inherently starts claiming that “life’s a show and this is the show we show”. Any more specific focus than the whole is gone, swallowed into the whole. It’s an acid-trip perspective, where all discriminating ability is temporarily disabled.

When the trip fades, a lot may be learned and conclusions drawn on the ability and flexibility of individual perspective. But when “the show is the message” in the public attention, the trip doesn’t fade. Specific focus isn’t regained. The trip has become permanent – for now. We can hope it’ll pass. That’s what Gore tries to achieve. It takes a deliberate collective effort of focusing, with a dominant part of the individuals in the public doing the focusing.

Yet the danger remains, that Gore’s attempt at focusing attention gets swallowed back up in the show.

Rufus’ description of Gore with his messages being a movie star, and audiences coming to “see the show” highlights this danger well.

We can only hope Gore is aware of the paradox and sticks to the refocusing, with increasingly deeper consistency between his walk and talk.


Ole Ullern

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A "Philosopher-King" Would Be Much Better than Hillary or Obama
Posted by: sofla100 on May 26, 2007 7:29 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I consider the probability of Al Gore running for president to be pretty slim. He could win now I think quite handidly. With Al, I don't believe he is the billionaires politician either, and this would hurt him some especially with campaign cash. The billionaires politicians being of course Hillary or Obama who seem to have no shame kissing up to big money. Now with Al, you know he would want to go after global warming, and this is not exactly a position supported by the corporate elite (who would likely have to sacrifice some profits to curb greenhouse emissions). So, you know they would not be very positive about him at all. However, Al would really resonate with the American people. I think they would perceive him as a man with a degree of integrity, with principals, a rarity in politicians nowadays. But I do believe Al won't run because he put so much into the 2000 election on an emotional, personal level, which really "spun him up" way too much, and he has now had it. Of course, can you blame him? He has also found his niche, as a "philosopher king," and it is a beneficial role for him and for society. So, why be pres?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The journalism of confusion
Posted by: OldNavyGuy on May 26, 2007 8:16 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that Ms. Rufus' article fails as so many of these so-called objective analyses fail. Her first assertion, provided without evidence, is that Al Gore's book is a "philosophical edict" and that it somehow lies at a political extreme. To argue a reapplication of Enlightenment ideals is far from extreme. To do so to critique the media and the entertainment industry (of which Ms. Rufus is a member) for dumbing down the public thereby undermining the goal of a well-informed citizenry may be a practical and critical prescription for effective democracy but a "philosophical edict"? I don't think so, unless the meaning of that phrase is meant in some way never before used. To then say that Michael Savage could say what Mr. Gore has said "in the exact same way and even mean it in the exact same way" is to ignore context to the point of being either intellectually dishonest or just plain stupid. Could Savage really use the same assumptions and mean things the same way but reach a diametrically opposed view such as that global warming is a hoax? This is poppycock unless one defines "reason" as ideology or magical or wishful thinking substituted for scientific fact and lucid thinking. Reason relies on reality--that thing that has caught up with all of the media enablers of Iraq and millionaire "supply-side" economics. No, Mr. Gore has earned his place because he is right and has proven to be right about a whole host of issues--and he has the educational and professional cred to back it up. Mr. Savage is a mediocrity who spouts hate and extremist crackpot poppycock. Your comparison is invalid and your analysis is sophomoric.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Ghost of Zappa
Posted by: dm. on May 26, 2007 10:15 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where is the ghost of Frank Zappa when we need him? As in any golden age Japanese film or Shakespearean saga, perhaps he could help us with the credentials and deeper allegiances of Al and Tipper, past and present. Yes, people change and grow, but is there a place for, say, censorship, even of hate material, in the arts along with Gore's apparently long-standing care for environmental disaster? What do Al and Tipper have to say in dealing directly with the oil-igarchs and not just to the "little people", all of whom in my realm have been doing all he advocates, and far more for many, many years. Where are all the rock stars who were so shut down by the Gores and their sacro-sanct PRMC? Does anyone else remember anything from that period about the Gores and freedom of expression?

I smell trend-based bandwagoneering via such political and environmental correctness. And just why did he not buck the system for us all in continuing the charge against the butterfly ballot disaster?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Ghost of Zappa Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: The Ghost of Zappa Posted by: dm.
Jimmy Carter, arguably the greatest former president, and Al Gore . . .?
Posted by: cthelyt on May 27, 2007 12:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I must admit, I admire Al Gore version 2.1 or whatever much more than his earlier versions, and I was certainly among those who stood up and cheered his recent speeches criticizing Bush & Co. and what IT has been doing to the country for the past six (feels like 60) years. I also took my hat off in tribute to his road-show presentation depicted so well in An Inconvenient Truth; he manages to get a message across that needs to be heard and acted upon, and therefore he has sadly done far more than anyone in our government has who could actually implement policies to address global warming.

That said, I refer readers to British journalist and environmentalist George Monbiot's comments about Al Gore 2.1 here : "Have you ever noticed how much better people are at governance once they’re out of office? I mean, with Gore and Clinton, it was just a series of massive missed opportunities. They knew what they had to do, but they just didn’t do it. And it has to be said that Gore’s speech at the Kyoto Conference in 1997 was one of the most disgraceful pieces of international diplomacy I’ve ever come across. George Bush could have made that speech. It was just full of deliberate confusions and evasions and elisions about what needed to be done about climate change.

"And I’m afraid to say that the Clinton-Gore administration in some ways did more harm than the Bush administration, because while Bush has gutted the US response to climate change, Gore and Clinton gutted the international response to climate change. They made sure that the Kyoto Protocol was pretty well a dead letter. They destroyed it as an effective instrument. And so, they destroyed it for everyone."

Now some of my fellow commentators here have made remarks to the effect that, oh, well, that was then and this is now, once again proving Gore Vidal's point that the USA stands for the United States of Amnesia, that history is bunk, that people can and do change over time, and that because of all of these received ideas, we should jump at the chance to egg Mr. Vidal's relative on to yet another run for the White House so that he can finally assume his rightful place in the pantheon of US presidents. And since I've put it that way, "rightfully" I mean, even I am at least momentarily disposed to endorse just that, until somehow I defy my aging mental faculties, recall what he did and didn't do when he held public office, don my newly dry-cleaned Cassandra costume, and head for the nearest mountain hideaway. While there I shall quote myself a few grafs up, that Gore 2.1 "has sadly done far more than anyone in our government has," including Gore 2.0 and earlier--and, Cassandra-like, come once again to my senses and cry out to the gods to free me from my cursed acumen.

Just as the solution to another Bush is not another Clinton, neither is it another, later Gore. Those folks are up to their eyeballs in has and couldawouldashoulda beens. The problems that Gore has so eloquently articulated over the past couple of years, from global warming to civil liberties to foreign policy to putting the US back on track, deserve new minds, hands, and eyes to correct them. He has done a wonderful job teaching, writing, and lecturing since he left office, and he should continue to do so unencumbered by the messy imperatives of campaign fundraising and influence peddling that are the sad lot of our politicians today. Jimmy Carter isn't quite ready to hand the baton over to him, but alas that day will come sooner than we'd like to imagine. It's time for Al Gore to see that inconvenient truth and run with it as Carter has, and for us to thank him, continue to support his excellent efforts in a noble cause, but look elsewhere for someone to lead the country out of the wilderness into which it has fallen not completely beyond his own, earlier watch.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As Bill Hicks once said:
Posted by: irenicus on May 27, 2007 12:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have this feeling that whoever's elected president, like Clinton was, no matter what promises you make on the campaign trail - blah, blah, blah - when you win, you go into this smoky room with the twelve industrialist, capitalist scumfucks that got you in there, and this little screen comes down... and it's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before, which looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll.... And then the screen comes up, the lights come on, and they say to the new president, 'Any questions?' ... [President]: 'Just what my agenda is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Once again! All Hail Ceasar!
Posted by: vangogh69 on May 27, 2007 1:43 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Am I the only one remembering Gore's silence while Clinton prepared the way for Operation Iraqi Liberation ("O.I.L") via the sanctions and consistent bombing through the 90s?!? Even supposing we leave that bit alone, Gore is not to my knowledge championing a massive federal renaissance in public transportation (ala the Interstate) nor critiquing current agribusiness practices which, actually, contribute far more to environmental degradation and water upsurption than people. It's great that Gore is talking about global warming, BUT, BUT, BUT, we must remember that global warming doesn't occur in a vacuum and is the very specific result of the industrial revolution and an economic system (capitalism/global neo-capitalism) which is largely dependent on an unsustainable item (oil). If Gore is really serious about curbing gw, he should be critiquing the system, not encouraging these small steps (which are important but small compared to what needs to happen and what someone in his position can advocate happening).

Lastly, why has he not spoken about his capitulation in the 2000 election? Surely if he were serious about pointing out a systemic error and ethical/moral/legal rot in the US, that election would be a place to start.

People, don't be so naive as to pin your hopes on a man who keeps silent about the really important things. (Also, does Gore support the official story of 9/11? It's important to know and to my knowledge, he does, which tells us something about his paradigm!)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Once again! All Hail Ceasar! Posted by: Radicalizer
I wonder why
Posted by: curious1 on May 27, 2007 8:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Looking desperately for "leadership" and seeing no one except Gore that I might "follow", I'm haunted by his choice of Joe Lieberman for VP. How would that team have responded to 9/11 and the Israel and Palestine realities? Global warming is only one of many challenges. I'd sooner follow a consistent Humanist like Ralph Nader, but then, reading a website such as this disqualifies me as fitting into the US mindset. We pick the best of who the masses will support, or at least those that vote...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It crossed my mind that Al Gore is like Bobby Kennedy
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 27, 2007 9:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both were involved in politics, and spent several years free of the corrupting influence, and came out better for the experience. Bush stealing the election was not good for the country, but it was probably the best thing that could have happened to Al Gore! A few years in the wilderness seems to have done wonders for the man.

For example, Al Gore asks "Why was our beloved country so shockingly vulnerable to such crass manipulation?" - and the answer to that is almost certainly corporate consolidation of the media. Unfortunately, the 1996 telecommunications act, signed by Clinton, has played a role in the consolidation of media in the United States. "Political realities" led to support for this bill - and that's why you hear Gore speaking the truth today - he's no longer constrained by 'political realities'.

The only way we are going to end this 'crass manipulation' is to enforce the antitrust laws - the corporate media monopoly has to be broken up. Media is so important that it needs special ownership rules to ensure its independence from the same corporate business interests that installed Bush as Fuhrer.

What we have in the corporate media today is not that different from Soviet state propaganda - except that most Russian citizens probably knew they were being fed BS, while a good chunk of the American population still laps up the spew, and regurgitates it at the drop of the hat.

At least there's the Internet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I agree 110% Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: I agree 110% Posted by: Basenjis
» But we're catching on! Posted by: Lincoln fan
A Memorable Day Salute to the Architects of Gulf War 2 and Other Republican Hawks.
Posted by: HughScott on May 27, 2007 9:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George W. Bush: Went AWOL during the Vietnam War and lied about it to get elected.
Dick Cheney: Dodged the draft, never served and bragged about getting five deferments.
Scooter Libby: Dodged the draft and never served.
Donald Rumsfeld: Evaded overseas duty while a Navy instructor pilot.
Paul Wolfowitz: Dodged the draft and never served.

Other noteworthy Republican hawks who NEVER served in uniform, much less saw combat.

National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley
White House Legal Counselor Dan Bartlett
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow
Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan
RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman
Former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie
Former Bush 43 Administrator of Iraq Paul Bremer
UN Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, UNU.S. Ambassador to Iraq
Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas
Former Attorney General John Ashcroft
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
Majority Whip Mitch McConnell
Senator Orrin Hatch
Senator Rick Santorum
Senator Richard Shelby
Senator Jon Kyl
Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott
House Majority leader Dennis Hastert
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey
Representative David Dreier
Former Representative Tom Delay
Representative James Sensenbrenner
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich
Former Representative JC Watts
Florida Governor Jeb Bush
New York Governor George Pataki
NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg
Jack Kemp
Rudy Giuliani
William Bennett
Bill Kristol
Rush Limbaugh
Bill O’Reilly
Sean Hannity
Ken Starr
Gary Bauer
Ralph Reed

I, Hugh Scott, Vietnam veteran and ex-USAF pilot with a family history of honorable military service going back to 1776, thank all of you not serving in America’s armed forces. They deserved a lot more than what you had to offer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

is he more effective outside the spin cycle?
Posted by: defiant on May 27, 2007 9:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was one of those deeply disappointed by the stolen 2000 and 2004 elections, but we cannot right those wrongs this way. It is 2007 and we are where we are because most Americans have been complacent with what Bush has done (or not done, depending on the issue considered).

As much as I would like to see Al Gore as President from 2008-2016, he seems to be doing far more good to affect the system by producing strong work, taking the high road, and staying outside the spin cycles of politics and the sensationalist media related to it. Currently, Gore is able to speak the Truth and give voice to it in a way that a candidate or President in our shopping mall society cannot try.

Perhaps he'd be the one to break the cycle, but it's a big risk to take, and the cost of failing to change the system is to reduce his own current effectiveness toward change and to continue the spin itself. The politico-media system is so dysfunctional and specious that Gore is probably better off avoiding it entirely, focusing on grassroots efforts.

Still, wouldn't it be great??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you
Posted by: maazz on May 27, 2007 11:37 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a lovely well written piece about how we come to truths and how hard it is to find our own in a world that is yelling at us from all sides. While I can respect Al Gore for his passion and his commitment, his methods really aren't any different from any person trying to get their truth across, through a passionate idealism which some may see as coercive (and endearingly still puts so much faith in empirical science, that objective god). Gore acknowledges the humanness of those he is in political disagreement with, and Rufus in turn articulates a profound verbal portrait of the humanness around her in wanting to believe: in something good, in something involving, in something bettering. The dark side is clearly when we find our belief overrides or is superior to the person next to us. Climate change or American Idol? Who knew those two concepts had so much in common?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Ultimate Disgrace on Memorial Day weekend: Cheney giving a speech to West Point grads.
Posted by: HughScott on May 27, 2007 1:28 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The worst U.S. vice president in American history, Dick Cheney, who dodged the Vietnam War draft with five deferments, bragged about them and went on to become the Bush administration's biggest liar, spread more falsehoods in front of the West Point 2007 graduating class.

Mixing fear-mongering with distortions, deceptions and outright lies, the Chicken Hawk made the following statements:

Noting that West Point is about 50 miles north of where terrorists struck lower Manhattan on Sept. 11, 2001, Cheney said, “Nobody can promise us we won't be hit again.''

`We're fighting a war over there (Iraq) because the enemy attacked us first,'' Cheney also claimed, even though Saddam Hussein had nothing to with 9/11.

Continuing the rightwing propaganda, he said, ''The terrorism fight now centers on Iraq because that’s where the enemy has massed.”

Of course, it makes no difference to Cheney that we invaded Iraq four years ago without just cause, enough troops, an adequate peacekeeping plan or viable exit strategy.

With the straightest of faces, Bush’s side-talking sidekick promised that GIs would have all the manpower, equipment and support it needs to carry out the troop surge. Again, he omitted important facts -- such as the Army refusing to supply its combat units with the best helmet liner pads and body armor available, in order to save money.

How much more shameful could a White House speech be on Memorable Day weekend? Only if Devious Dub-ya delivered the OOO-RAH rant instead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a silly article
Posted by: Shakti on May 28, 2007 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This piece trivializes Gore and his message. Ridiculously superficial. Next time, get someone who knows something about climate change and/or politics to write a Gore article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: a silly article :Shakti Posted by: Basenjis
Ms N.
Posted by: maandI on May 28, 2007 10:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please recall,Al Gore had 8 years in power and we are still in the awful position of facing severe climate change because NOTHING MEANINGFUL WAS DONE in the"Clinton Years".Mr Gore should have to snswer for that before he signs one single book. And, by the way,if he did win in 2000,why did he not fight harder, the way I always believed a true leader would do, for what was rightfully earned by him.
My humble opinion is that Mr. Gore is riding his way back to power on the" back" of a Global Waming prediction,as he did before, without a plan that he will actually implement when he is in a position to do it. Unfortunately, he is still better qualified than most of the other so-called candidates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ms N. Posted by: Basenjis
He never said that he invented the internet
Posted by: fanny666 on May 29, 2007 4:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He was talking about this:
Al Gore Internet

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement