Gore: The once and future president?

[RiverStone]

June 17, 2007
The Times Argus

Gore's movie about global climate change, "An Inconvenient Truth," won an Academy Award. His latest book on the sorry state of American democracy, "The Assault on Reason," is No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list. He has been nominated for this year's Nobel Peace Prize. And by all accounts, including the testimony of his wife, Tipper, he has never been happier in his life.

So why would he want to go and spoil everything by running for president again?

Gore is one of only four people in the history of the republic to win the popular vote but lose the presidential election. He is the only person in history to have had a recount — which may well have ended in his favor — stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court. If ever a man had reason to be bitter about the political system it is the former vice president and senator from Tennessee. But Gore's actions since the debacle of the 2000 election have not been those of a bitter man.

Time magazine recently addressed the question of Gore's future political plans in its cover story "The Last Temptation of Al Gore. Will he run or not?" The report, which was mostly laudatory, does not answer the question because at this point it is not answerable.

more:

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070617/FEATURES05/706170311/1014/FEATURES05

* * * * * * *



:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

GORE-GORE-GORE-GORE-GORE-GORE!

[BattyDem]

1. Oooooh ... a beard photo!

I'm suddenly feeling all warm and fuzzy! :loveya:

Thanks for the photo .. and the article. :D

[RiverStone]

10. I like the bearded look...

Somehow makes him seem more down to earth --- comfortable.:)

[saltpoint]

2. Pure speculation, but my guess is Al Gore could mop the floorboards

with any of the Republican candidates.

I bet this time there'd be no truncated effort in the Ohio campaign, either. I could see Al winning Tennessee, even over the overrated Fred Thompson, and winning back West Virginia as well.

People who cast votes for George W. Bush in these last two elections should have been ashamed of themselves when they voted, and while it's small comfort now to those of us who did not vote that way, the national consensus is that Bush is a fool, a dangerous little ninny trapped in an extremely limited Freudian aggression scenario with his old man, who isn't worth fighting with in the first place. Or, Junior could be the puppet president for PNAC interests in the Middle East, with oil and its attendant revenues as the arena of control.

An awful lot of things have gone sour under George W. Bush's administration and with polls overwhelming showing how immensely unpopular Bush really is, Gore's public addresses and overall comportment remind even the thickest of voters that they made a poor choice in 2000 and in 2004. Not the just-over-half who voted for Gore and then Kerry, but the just-under-half who cast ballots for Bush, before the Supreme Court stepped in and helped Junior cheat. It was a disgraceful performance in citizenship by those voters, and that's not just partisan belly-aching. The man is a fool, a cynic whose cynicism is unearned, a nitwit and a fake, with a well-practiced mean streak and no compassion or intellect to speak of. Also he talks like a hyena, if perhaps not as well or as coherently.

Bush should never have been let on the same stage as Al Gore in 2000 during those debates. And Hunter S. Thompson was exactly correct in saying that John Kerry "steamrolled" the incumbent in the 2004 debates, especially the first installment. Gore and Kerry, both cheated out of the presidency, are the true citizen-servants. Bush is the unmitigated political disaster, surpassing even Harding and Nixon in the worst-president-ever sweepstakes.

Gore's well-positioned in history right now and enjoys wide favorable response. If he sees an opening into the field, I think he's as interested in the job as he is qualified. And if you pressed me to lay my money down, I expect he'll enter the race in mid-autumn. It would surprise me if he doesn't.

And if he should do that and go on to win our nomination, the Republican field would do itself a huge favor by conceding the election. Because if he jumps in and wins nomination, Al Gore is going to kick their sorry butts a long, long way this time around.

[JNelson6563]

3. Wish I could nominate a reply!

Great post! Well said my dear! :toast:

Julie

[saltpoint]

7. Ms. Julie. Howdy-do to ya this fine summer day.

Always a pleasure and privilege to meet you on these boards.

I hope things are to your liking in all regards and that your summer is off to a good start.

I'm counting the days to the Iowa caucus because the first votes for our next president will be cast then. Only half a year away now. Dubya doesn't leave town until January the following year, but just starting the process will feel uplifting.

A warm howdy right back.

[Hubert Flottz]

4. People have learned that there are far worse things than oral sex.

Like George W. Bush and his 40 thieves!

[saltpoint]

8. Hello, Hubert Flottz. Yep. The Right tried to crucify Bill Clinton for

his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky. It struck them as abominable. Funny how so few of those same Right voices are silent as Bush bombs and abandons Baghdad.

The Republicans have a lot to answer for these days and I think the 2008 vote is going to demonstrate to them how unpopular their ideology is.

[RiverStone]

11. well-positioned in history...

I echo comments already in this thread --- very thoughtful post Old Crusoe.

Gore is indeed well positioned as you said, the 64 dollar question is if he see's his greater destiny to include the role of President??? He knows the rigors of the road and all the associated bullshit that goes with a biased media. I think if Al get's the intuitive sense that his victory is basically assured - we would run.

He does not want to lose again.

My hope is that rather then assuming the rethugs will concede the election (they won't) that Hillary concedes her "presumptive" media darling position for the good of the party and the country. Al is uniquely positioned to win, he deserves to win. It's practically a mandate; but he won't attempt it unless there is complete buy in from other DEMS in the field. That means letting go and I have my doubts if the DLC establishment is ready to encourage Hillary and to a lessor degree, Obama to do that.

Al is the best person at this time in history to be our President!

[saltpoint]

12. Hi, RiverStone. I think you are right about Gore's sense of the

field. If it looks good, I think he's in.

I had not considered your point on other Democratic leaders stepping aside for Gore for the good of the party. Evan Bayh had raised some money, but dropped out saying he didn't raise enough. Was there a private arrangement made to Bayh that if he stepped aside he would be shortlisted for the vice-presidency or ensured a Cabinet post? That's not a fair question, and I'll own the guilt, but confess I asked myself that very thing the day he dropped out of the race.

Clinton leads for now, and she is formidable. I'm not sure she can become more popular or register in higher percentages in the polls, at least until someone else drops out. If Obama were to drop out, and I'm not hoping he will or expecting he will, would his supporters be drawn to any of the other announced candidates or would they hold out for Al Gore? If Clinton isn't any higher than say 35%, albeit a leading 35%, by October 15, there'd still be incentive for her to remain in if Gore announced (say, after the Noble Committee announced the winners for 2008) that he will seek the presidency, but less support, less buzz, and a smaller fundraising base almost overnight.

I'd like to see Edwards do better than recent polls suggest, and he may yet, but his Iowa campaign appears to be drawing the kind of vote totals Clinton had counted on in there when Vilsack dropped out. If Vilsack dropped out and endorsed Clinton, but Edwards still leads, that's hardly a ringing endorsement of her candidacy there. She leads in national polling but has been out-grassroots'd in Iowa by John Edwards. I also think Obama will beat her in Iowa, and very possibly Joe Biden. I think Iowa Democrats who are asked to consider Clinton versus Biden will check the headlines out of Baghdad and choose Biden. I'm calling her 4th in Iowa, and 5th if Gore jumps in.

[RestoreGore]

5. He is destined for greater things

And I don't know why so many people place so much on the presidency. You would think we didn't live in a Democracy with the worshipping of one title over the great amount of work passionate citizens can do to bring about change... I think he sees that and is actually on the road to doing something even greater than any president could do. As a matter of fact that is the only way anything of substance had happened in our history. But of course, on a "political" board that kind of vision seems to be missing to a great degree.

Also from the article:

Gore doesn't exactly hate television. What really bothers him is the advertising, which he calls "the principal business of television." He credits economist John Kenneth Galbraith for noting as early as the 1950s that television advertising altered the classic law of supply and demand that guided the marketplace, when modern advertising campaigns began to "create high levels of demand for products consumers never knew they wanted, much less needed." In this new age of television, Gore writes, it would not be long before "consent of the governed was a commodity to be purchased by the highest bidder. To the extent that money and the clever use of electronic mass media could be used to manipulate the outcome of elections, the role of reason began to diminish."

Gore has good reason to be gun-shy of the news media, especially after the 2000 election campaign when he was repeatedly criticized for exaggerating his accomplishments, such as his alleged claim that he "invented" the Internet.

In fact, he never made such a claim. However, as both congressman and senator he was one of the first to foresee the potential of the emergency military computer network known as Arpanet. It was principally because of his tireless efforts to push its development and get major federal funding for it that Arpanet would become the Internet. Did he invent it? No. Is he, more than any other single person, responsible for its creation? Very probably yes.

That was one of many issues Gore had with the media that year. According to the Pew Charitable Trusts' Project for Excellence in Journalism, Gore received only 13 percent positive coverage, compared with Bush's 24 percent, while 56 percent of his coverage was negative, compared with Bush's 49 percent.

It is this knowledge about and experience with the news media that leads me to conclude that Gore does not want to go through that again, meaning he really does not want to run for president again.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And that is really what the topic discussed should be... what Mr. Gore wrote in his book which was a clarion call to US to get up and do something of substance to change it. But of course, that isn't discussed anymore either unless GORE 08 can be attached to it here regardless of anything he may say, because God forbid any of his supporters wish to discuss this book or his current work based on its merits lest we are ostracized and deemed unworthy to do so unless we cheerlead with it and go with a crowd that does nothing but the same sound bite political campaigning here.

However, he is correct in that the media and political parties on ALL sides have been rigging elections with BS ads and emotional lies to appeal to the areas of the brain that do not reason but only act on impulse and emotion long before electronic voting machines came on the scene, and it is not going to change for the next "election." But let's not talk about what WE the people can and should be doing now to fight to change how this system works and bring back reason, let's just keep ignoring the work we have to do and keep pushing him to do it for us. That seems to be the new American way.

[mdelaguna2000]

6. Serious change requires a leader who "gets it"

I can't imagine accomplishing serious change in the way the media operates, putting into place national and international revolutionary measures to combat the climate crisis, or containing corporate/military/industrial power on policy-making without a leader who isn't bound by interest groups that represent the status quo.

As long as there is corruption on high, "we" the people will be seriously ineffective, IMO.

I would be sad to see this great man bruised again by the gamut of another presidential campaign, however, some risks might be worth taking (and I'd be happy to shoulder as much of the burden as one little campaign volunteer could). There is no other candidate with the gravitas, foresight, and wisdom, who could steer the course of world history in an intelligent direction.

(Yes, I think highly of Al Gore!)

[glitch]

9. Wonderful post. K & R nt

[mdelaguna2000]

13. :>

[RestoreGore]

15. Serious change requires leaderS

Which is the point of his new book. And Mr. Gore is already steering the course of this world in an intelligent direction, and has done more in the last six months than this government has done in thirty years on this crisis, and is just beginning. The preoccupation with the presidency being the be all end all as if it is a Kingship is in my view one good reason why this country remains stagnant. If people don't get up and get out and demand change by seeking knowledge and reason, it matters not who is leading in this system. It goes far beyond "elections" at this point. He is already a leader to me, and it is a shame that so many can't follow his words as a leader now because he needs a "title" in order for them to do it.

[Turn CO Blue]

14. It's NOT merely the title of President we hope for.

It is the leadership VP Gore would bring to the table, as well as the appointees, nominees and cabinet heads. When we elect a President, we are ALSO electing the hundreds and hundreds of staffers and appointees that follow as well as any agenda of the President's (which would include climate change measures with this particular one) -- and THAT is I get excited about with someone as intelligent as Al Gore.

It's not just Bush and the GOP who have done all this damage the last 6 years...it's also the Brownies and the Chertoffs and the Rumsfelds, and the other 1000 idiots that Bush put "in charge" over the various departments. And that is where the REAL damage (or change) gets done in government.

Can you imagine how imminently qualified Gore's chosen Secretary of Defense would be? Or his National Security Advisor? Or his SC Justice nominees? Or his Secretary of the Interior? Or how informative the daily briefings with the WH spokesperson will be? Etc. Etc. Etc. I long for the time when we can get some highly informed, intelligent, civil servant-minded nerds in these positions.

I just feel that Gore would be able to fill these positions better than any of the other candidates currently running for the office.

[glitch]

16. Excellent answer. nt

[RestoreGore]

17. Again, if you read his book, you know that isn't going to happen in 2008

Unless you get EVERYONE in this country to shut off their TVS.