[-V-]

:thumbup:

In recent years he hasn't spoken much but when he has it has been more aggressive against this administration than any other Democratic leaders.

Despite what the Regressive smear mechanics spent a presidential campaign trying to convince America about Al Gore I'm proud to say I voted for him and would vote for him again against similar Democratic competition as his first run.
Stiff? Yeah, he stands straight. I don't have a problem with that. "Invented the Internet" would indeed be silly except that it was never his claim.

Sharp as a whip and, comparitively*, has his priorities in the right places. Maybe it's just me but I like "smarts" in my candidates.

I gave a similar review of John Kerry. It was no coincidence that both rose to the top of their class. Speaking of class, they both have a lot of it and I would love to see a Gore-Kerry ticket in that order. The order being the chronology of the elections that were stolen from them.

*especially at the higher levels, all candidates play the political poll game and compromise their ideals to appease swing voters

[Jane of Arc]

Hey -V-,

Before you throw ol' Al Gore out in the bath water based on the quote comparisons from 'ontheissues', consider a couple of things:

(1) All the quotes, with the exception of 1 quote Al Gore made in 2003, are OLD. They no longer do justice to who Gore has become in recent times. It's misleading and unfair.

(2) Make sure ... make very sure you see the movie on Gore and his environmental work called, "An Inconvenient Truth."

http://festival.sundance.org/filmguide/popup.aspx?film=6556

Unlike his former boss, Bill Clinton, who is making millions on the lecture circuit, Mr. Gore tells his story for free. He's a very serious guy on a mission who believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan. And he has a plan to save the planet.

Who knows if Gore will really seek the presidency even with all the urging and backing of Hollywood. The guy may just 'know too much' about the realities of politics and may see his time better spent on LITERALLY trying to save the planet.

But damn, he would be the right man at the right time in history. See the movie. You'll know what I mean. :)

[haus]

I've been googling for a half hour, and I'd be thrilled to see a single link, a line from a speech, or even a quote from a movie that says that Gore isn't:


pro-NAFTA/pro-WTO
pro-death penalty/pro-3 strikes laws
pro-school prayer/pro faith-based initiatives


These are really important topics.

The first item moves American jobs overseas and lets things happen like the UAE ownership of port operations.

The second item represents flat-out class warfare.

The third item programs a new generation of loonies who are unable to distinguish between the mental processes of logic and faith.

One would think that if he'd experienced a 180-degree change of heart about these topics, that there would be banners flying on all the pro-Gore sites. I haven't seen a single refutation. What I do see is Gore supporters telling me these issues aren't really important.

Do you support this sort of agenda as a cure to 8 years of Bush?

[Jane of Arc]

Those are really good points haus. Most people around Gore these days say he's a whole new man. The Clinton VP isn't the same animal that's out there criss-crossing the nation relentlessly giving free speeches.

I think we owe it to the man, the man many feel is the true President of the United States, not to close any doors.

If you haven't seen him speak recently ... especially his presentation on the environment ... you have to. He makes a clear, scientific case for an inevitable global environmental collapse in 10 years that makes other issues a "walk in the park." He's not a doomsayer. He has solutions.

People of the world have to listen to him and consider what he's saying. See "An Inconvenient Truth."

http://festival.sundance.org/filmgui...aspx?film=6556

[-V-]

As usual, I can't help but agree with both of you. I am drawn to Gore everytime I listen to him speak and I know I will be impressed with that video. His general intelligence and specific understanding of science, technology, and the environment are of particular interest to me. The words of his farewell speech of election 2000 still linger in my political conscience http://www.iknowwhatyoudidlastelection.com/2004-campaign.htm along with a haunting reminder of what might have been.

I trust that man (as much as I can trust a politician). Yet, as haus points out, the positions matter. They're the things that change the world long after the speeches are over!

Jane, do you believe a Gore candidacy could overcome the negative conditioning by the regressives on his image? They've worked long and hard at trying to make him appear "irrelevant".

[Jane of Arc]

Jane, do you believe a Gore candidacy could overcome the negative conditioning by the regressives on his image? They've worked long and hard at trying to make him appear "irrelevant".

That what makes Gore SO appealing. Corporate media makes him out to be a buffoon, a joke. Right-wing radio spews their flatulence across America continually berating the man. I know there are more disenfranchised, disillusioned Americans out there than goosestepping, flag-waving Regressives. I believe making Gore an outcast, when more Americans wanted him as their President, works in his favor. Most Americans feel outcasted.

Gore could be the 500 pound political gorilla in the room. He stays away from Washington like the plague. He's outside the reach of the choking tentacles of Congress. He speaks his mind like no other Democrat is speaking their mind. He demands impeachment while other Democrats choose their words cautiously. He uses words like treason, fascism and corporatism. He's outside of the loop on purpose. The man has integrity. To think that he would support any free trade that would hurt American workers and only benefit corporations is not knowing Al Gore.

But alas, I think the chances of him running are slim. Hollywood would absolutely fund him. But something stops him. While Bill Clinton is busy gathering money for his third term, Gore speaks for free. He packs huge halls talking about literally saving the planet. Clinton only offers up charm and collects millions.

Something tells me Gore likes truth more than power.

[Jane of Arc]

-V- ~ PS - This isn't a video, but a major motion picture being released on May 26. Do you think that may counter the negative influencing Regressives have done on his image? Who knows image better than Hollywood. ;)


Paramount unit to tell Gore’s Truth

Posted online: Friday, February 24, 2006 at 0000 hours IST


Paramount’s new specialty division has acquired worldwide rights to Participant Prods.’ global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth, featuring Al Gore.

Helmed by Davis Guggenheim (Deadwood,The First Year), the film, which had its world premiere at last month’s Sundance Film Festival, weaves the science behind the issue of global warming with the former vice president’s personal history and longtime commitment to communicating the pressing need to reverse the effects of global climate change. Paramount specialty division president John Lesher called the film “a visually mesmerizing and shocking look at the serious and dire state of our planet.” He added, “We are very proud to help Al Gore expose the urgency of global warming to the widest possible audience.”

“John Lesher and his team expressed such incredible passion for the subject and the particular importance of getting it out in a timely manner so that it may have an opportunity to make a difference in the world,” Participant president Ricky Strauss said.

To coincide with the release of the film — scheduled for May 26 — Rodale Books will publish An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s follow-up to his best-seller Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, which was published by Plume Books in 1992.

[-V-]

I hope your right Jane. The outsider/outcast image does work on some levels but lets not forget that he was "inside" the White House for 8 years. 8 years of peace and prosperity, I should add.

I know you can be very critical, Jane, so I am inspired that you are inspired by Gore. I was heartbroken when he didn't run in 2004. There does indeed appear to be something stopping him that is unspoken.


(note: I moved several of these posts here from the more general "who'se your candidate" thread. When the focus becomes this specific I believe it is better under the candidate's name where it can be easily referenced)

[Jane of Arc]

Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", could become the most clever campaign strategy in American politics. The movie opens May 24. I'll be there! ;)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12535070/site/newsweek/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12535460/site/newsweek/

[-V-]

count me in.

if you liked “March of the Penguins,” you’ll love “An Inconvenient Truth.”
...
Voters yearning for a principled leader who truly believes in something may find what they’re looking for in the former vice president.
...
Unlike front runner Hillary Clinton, there is no doubt about where Gore stands and what he believes in. He opposed the Iraq war, he was against the Patriot Act and he spoke out forcefully against President Bush’s torture policies and warrantless eavesdropping.

[Jane of Arc]

Come on. You know you like the guy now. The planet needs Gore to be the leader of the free world.


http://www.algore.org/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/normal_americanprospectcover04-gore.jpg

Cover story: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11299

[MAGI]

YEP, he's the BEST in the mix at this point in my opinion!

Let's hope "The People" are NOW willing to vote for INTELLIGENCE......... this time.

What do you think about Hillary accepting a fund-raiser from Rupert Murdock? Do the reputhuglicans want HER to be the candidate that badly?
WHAT? WHY?
:confused2:

[Jane of Arc]

Hillary Clinton is a globalist. She is pro-war, pro-corporation and a member of the global elite. Among this 'ruling class' there are those more sympathic to "The People" than others ... and I feel Hillary & Bill are kinder, gentler globalists ... but they are still members of an exclusive club hell-bent on world and space domination.

Al Gore use to be part of the same club.

But something changed this 'insider' into an 'outsider'. His conscience maybe?

This I believe ... that until The People decide to take control of their country ... The Powers That Be are not going to sit by and allow just anyone to get elected President and control the largest military might the planet has ever known. That's why they are backing Hillary ... constantly calling her the "leading Democratic candidate" ... when she's not at all in the eyes of the public. We are being conditioned to accept her as a reality.

Where does that leave Gore? He knows the game. He knows The Powers That Be. He knows he could disrupt the apple cart with the backing of Hollywood heavies, independents, Greens and the backing of groups like MoveOn. He also knows first hand the electoral process is broken and if he did decide to run ... the new, bold Gore may take on the system for real.

Taking on The Powers That Be isn't for the timid. He may not do it. We'll have to wait and see.

[MAGI]

I'm also thinking Murdock wants the democratic nominee that is most easy to defeat...........as I fear is true. Too much baggage, her stance on Iraq, changing hats.........
:(

[Jane of Arc]

Since we still don't have verifiable elections that are open to the scutiny of the press or the public, nor can the privately owned software be examined ... who really knows who's defeated and who won?

It's out of the hands of We The People.

[Jane of Arc]

Al Gore's film was nominated for 2 Academy Awards today. He's selling out arenas "faster than Elton John". Tickets sell out in a matter of hours.

Gore is funny, profound and extremely popular. He could win the presidency. Especially after he collects his Oscar. But people around him feel he's not running. And yet, every once in a while Gore tests the waters.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/01/23/huffpos-melinda-henneber_n_39362.html

[-V-]

A nice speech opportunity at the Oscar podium might go a long way towards convincing him and the public that he is an '08 candidate. He just needs a push.

It is worth noting that despite the claims of one of our right-wing friends in another thread:

"An Inconvenient Truth" has been a critical and box office success, bringing in more than $24 million to make it the third highest-grossing documentary in history. A companion book has been on national best-seller lists for months.

[Jane of Arc]

http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/img/6/2/4/8/13248426-13248429-slarge.jpg

Rolling Stone

Run, Al, Run
The ideal candidate for the Democrats may be the man who won the popular vote in 2000 -- and who opposed the war in Iraq from the very start
TIM DICKINSON

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13248532/why_gore_should_run__and_how_he_can_win/1

[Jane of Arc]

Randi Rhodes on Air America Radio has spent the last 2 days saying "I want to talk about Al Gore ... callers tell me what you think about Gore in 2008."

Air America got swamped with phone calls from Americans begging Gore to run. Randi Rhodes is begging him to run as well.

Randi has a link on her website to sign a petition to draft Gore:

http://www.draftgore.com/

[Lionhearted]

As there is no thread in the liberal arts center concerning "An Inconvenient Truth", I thought (dangerous proposition that) I would bring this here.

Frosty E. Hardison is neither impressed nor surprised that "An Inconvenient Truth," the global-warming movie narrated by former vice president Al Gore, received an Oscar nomination this week for best documentary.

"Liberal left is all over Hollywood," he grumbled a few hours after the nomination was announced.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012401807.html

I'm sorry I know of no nice way to say it, some folks are just idiotic in the way they keep their respective heads in the sand.

[-V-]

I just signed the petition and wrote:

Al Gore said that he "would not forget us" in his 2000 concession speech. Let's hold him to that promise.

[Jane of Arc]

Lionhearted,

I'm sorry I know of no nice way to say it, some folks are just idiotic in the way they keep their respective heads in the sand.

You mean "up their ass" don't you? :p


-V-,

Good one! That's right he said that. Good memory.

[Jane of Arc]

Look who signed the Draft Gore petition. Cool.

21786 - Alex Jones TX - We need you, Mr. Gore! Stop the Globalists! Stop the NWO! Stop the Illuminati! www.prisonplanet.com

[Mr. Anderson]

I signed the petition to Draft Gore.

Why Gore?

Because he broke ranks with the DLC and globalists and went it alone.

Because he stayed in motels night after night traveling around the country for a cause.

Because as the Clintons were out in ballrooms speaking and collecting millions, Gore didn't charge a dime.

Because Gore stood up and harshly criticized Bush and his administration for dismantling the Constitution, when no one else did.

Because Gore was against the war from Day 1.

Because Gore knows the dirty secrets and dark lies.

Because Gore will save the environment.

Because Gore won't be fooled again as NeoCons attempt to steal another election.

Because Gore won in 2000. He's truly the legitimate president. Not the Monkey Boy!

[NeoCon Newbie]

I beg to differ Mr Anderson. Its called the electorial college popular vote doesnt mean s***. Do some reading before you say republicans stole the election why dont you first blame ralph nadar he cost you the election.

[Lionhearted]

I beg to differ Mr Anderson. Its called the electorial college popular vote doesnt mean s***. Do some reading before you say republicans stole the election why dont you first blame ralph nadar he cost you the election.

Young man, have you ever had an original thought in your life? Do you honestly think that Mr. Anderson, or anyone here for that matter has no idea of how the electoral process (is supposed to) work(s)? When one states or implies they believe the 2000 election was illegitimate, it is because of the shenanigans that went down in Florida, not because Mr. Gore won the popular vote. If you would like a real education on our current electoral process, you should read some of Jane D'Arc's posts on the subject.

Please, if you don't like Mr. Gore, fine, state your reasons and/or provide some links (preferably from a source other than Newsmax or Fox News) and be done with it. It reflects badly on your intelligence to come in here and post simplistic, child-like crap like the posting I just quoted.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Al Gore is in the race for President of United States 2008. It's too early now for any of the presidential candidates to be running really. Al will try to hold out, but I know he's in.

[Mr. Anderson]

I beg to differ Mr Anderson. Its called the electorial college popular vote doesnt mean s***. Do some reading before you say republicans stole the election why dont you first blame ralph nadar he cost you the election.

NeoCon Newbie,

Excuse me ... coffee just came out my nose because I was laughing SO hard. :rolling: I was reading about the electoral college and the popular vote when you were just a speck in the eye of some amorous, mating gargoyles on some far-off Lizard planet before you were spawned on earth.

Ralph Nader had nothing to do with the election being stolen from the American people. Here's what actually happened. Allow me to refresh your medulla oblongata. The Florida Supreme Court decreed that all Florida counties would require manual recounts where so-called “undervotes” had not been subject to manual tabulation. The US Supreme Court jumped in and in an unprecedented action, that stomped on States Rights, STOPPED THE COUNTING OF VOTES and declared their conservative buddy the KING.

Subsequently, under the Freedom of Information Act independent news organizations like the New York Times and the Washington Post counted the votes. The analysis found that of the more than 60,000 ballots in ONLY eight counties showing overvotes - the bulk of the statewide total—Gore's name was marked on 46,000, while Bush was marked on only 17,000. This includes several thousand ballots in which both Gore and Bush were marked.

If the US Supreme Court hadn't stopped the counting of votes and interfered with the will of the people - President Gore would be tackling global warming, tidying up the details on the first Universal Healthcare Program of America and we'd be enjoying peace and prosperity.

But oh no, girls and boys and gargoyles! In our lovely, fascist New World Order version of 'democracy' ala Bush and assorted other war criminals, a US Supreme Court STOPPED the democratic process, VIOLATED the will of the people and annointed the Grand Lizard of Doom the King!

[Lionhearted]

@ Mr. A. :rolling:

[NeoCon Newbie]

You want to talk about a stolen election all right then the last election for govoner in the state of Washington. dino rossie got screwed by Kristine Gregoire and her librel friends. They recounted the votes twice and he won and the third time they magically found 1700 votes and she won the third time and gave the election to her so since he won 2 out of 3 he should be president. But since it was in King county mainly librel it was unfair it was a miss trial. Dont give me crap about stolen eletiond till you have heard all the facts.

[Lionhearted]

They recounted the votes twice and he won and the third time they magically found 1700 votes and she won the third time and gave the election to her so since he won 2 out of 3 he should be president.

The winner of the Washington state gubenatorial election gets to be president???? I had no idea how misinformed about our electoral process I have been. Thanks for the info newbie although the topic of this thread is Al Gore. I would suggest, no I would urge you to start another thread elsewhere so that we can discuss and you could educate us some more on this little known fact about our electoral process. Thanks.

[Mr. Anderson]

NeoCon Newbie (democrats_suck),

Thank you for posting a thread you wrote yourself with an opinion of your own. I appreciate that very much.

The reason I am an Independent, and there are lots of us in America, is because I believe more in the citizens of our country than I do in what I believe to be a severely corrupted, corporate runned government. And that means I believe more in you and your rights and me and my rights, as an individuals, than I believe in the constitutionally illegal influence of corporations on our government.

Whenever corporations run nations you have fasicsm. It's the actual definition.

I believe both parties have committed electoral fraud. I would like to learn more about what happened in your state. If you read my post below and research it for accuracy, please try to keep an open mind and just consider the possibility that Bush was placed in power by a court that did not respect the constitutional rights of the citizen to elect their representatives.

Just consider this thought from a fellow citizen and I will consider your thought that there was foul play in your state.

That's a place for citizens to start - and maybe together - we can take our country back.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Al Gore, the environment, Occidental Petroleum, soft money, land deals, the U'wa Tribe in Columbia and Federal oil land in Bakersfield, CA:


The Colombian Connection: Al Gore & Big Oil
NewsMax.com
Friday, May 12, 2000

It’s a major scandal waiting to break, the story of a Colombian tribe of Indians, a major oil company and the vice president of the United States.
In a startling expose in the current issue of The Nation, writer Ken Silverstein uncovers the shocking tale of Gore’s historical super-close connection to the giant Occidental Petroleum company, its ongoing attempts to despoil the U’wa tribal ancestral homeland, and the shady role the Clinton administration is playing behind the scenes.

And the expose is given more weight in view of the fact that it appears in an ultra left-wing publication one would expect to be backing ultra liberal Al Gore’s presidential bid to the hilt.

Briefly, the dispute, which turned violent when Colombian security forces used tear gas against members of the tribe demonstrating against Occidental’s drilling plans, resulting in the subsequent death of three children who drowned when fleeing the melee, involves the company’s plan to drill on U’wa tribal land, which the company believes holds 1.4 billion barrels of oil worth about $35 billion in today’s prices.

Interestingly, in view of Gore’s pretensions to be a dedicated environmentalist, one of the principal objections to Occidental’s drilling is its record of disastrous oil spills from its Caño Limon pipeline, just north of U'wa land and repeatedly bombed by guerrillas. The spills, Silverstein reports, have badly polluted rivers and lakes.

"The Colombian Oil Workers' Union published a report in 1997 saying that Caño Limon is ‘the best example that petroleum exploitation should not be permitted [on the U’wa reservation] at any price,’" he wrote.

Silverstein says the U’wa opposition to Occidental’s plans represents something of a last stand. "A 1998 report by Terry Freitas — one of three U'wa supporters from the United States killed by leftist guerrillas while visiting the tribe's territory last year — says that the Colombian government stripped the tribe of 85 percent of its land between 1940 and 1970,” he explained.

He quotes Roberto Perez, president of the Traditional Authority of the U'wa People, as saying: "The key issue for indigenous groups is defending our territory ... The Occidental project is an affront to our livelihood, our lives and our culture."

Gore has repeatedly refused pleas from fellow Democrats to meet with Perez.

Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, for example, told Silverstein she wrote to Gore and asked him to meet with U'wa leader Perez and to support an immediate suspension of the Occidental project.

"I am concerned that the operations of oil companies, and in particular Occidental Petroleum, are exacerbating an already explosive situation, with disastrous consequences for the local indigenous people," she wrote. "I am contacting you because you have remained silent on this issue despite your strong financial interests and family ties with Occidental."

She wrote to Gore again on March 30 to complain about his failure to answer her previous letter. Finally Gore sent her a note saying he simply didn’t have the time to meet with Perez.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Continued:


Most fascinating is the historical connection between the Gore family and Occidental Petroleum, in which Gore holds about a quarter of a million dollars worth of stock in trust for his mother. The connection goes back to Gore’s father’s close relationship with the late Armand Hammer, Occidental’s founder and the son of Julius Hammer, the man who founded the U.S. Communist Party. For all of his life, Armand Hammer remained close to the murderous Joseph Stalin, his successors and the entire Soviet leadership during the Cold War.

He also remained close to Albert Gore Sr., and later to Al Jr., bestowing his largesse lavishly on both.

Hammer, Silverstein notes, liked to brag that he had Gore Sr. "in my back pocket."

When Gore Sr. retired from the Senate in 1970, he got a $500,000-a-year job at a subsidiary of Occidental as well as a company directorship. When the elder Gore died, his estate included hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of Occidental stock.

In the 1960s, Silverstein reports, the Gores discovered zinc ore near land they owned in Tennessee. "Through a company subsidiary Hammer bought the land for $160,000 - twice the amount offered by the only other bidder. He swiftly sold the land back to Al Gore Sr. and agreed to pay him $20,000 a year for mining rights.”

Gore Sr. then sold the property for $140,000 to Al Jr., who has gotten a $20,000 check just about every year since, although Occidental has never mined an ounce of zinc or anything else on the property.

In 1985, Al Jr. leased the property to Union Zinc, a competitor of Occidental.

In his book, "Witness to History," Neil Lyndon, an employee on Hammer's personal staff and the ghost writer of his memoirs, revealed that whenever Hammer he came to Washington he met with Al Gore for lunch or dinner.

"They would often eat together in the company of Occidental's Washington lobbyists and fixers who, on Hammer's behest, hosed tens of millions of dollars in bribes and favours into the political world," Lyndon revealed.

The ties between Gore and Occidental outlived Hammer. In 1992 the company lent the Presidential Inauguration Committee $100,000. In 1996, the company gave $50,000 in soft money to the Democrats in response to a phone call from Gore.

"All told, Occidental has donated nearly half a million dollars in soft money to Democratic committees and causes since Gore joined the ticket in 1992,” Silverstein wrote. In the current presidential campaign Occidental is his No. 2 oil industry donor with company executives and their wives kicking in $10,000 to Gore's campaign.

It’s paid off handsomely. In 1997 Gore, the fanatical opponent of vehicles powered by fossil fuels such as oil, supported the $3.65 billion sale to the company of the government's interest in the Elk Hills oilfield in Bakersfield, Calif., the largest privatization of federal property in U.S. history.

"On the very day the deal was sealed Gore gave a speech lamenting the growing threat of global warming,” Silverstein reports.

For a full account of the Gore-Occidental relationship, see "The Buying of the President 2000," by Charles Lewis and the Center for Public Integrity.

You can read Silverstein’s blockbuster report in The Nation by going to: http://www.thenation.com/

[Lionhearted]

Thank you Jennifer, this is why I consider Mr. Gore a phony environmentalist.

[-V-]

this is why I consider Mr. Gore a phony environmentalist.

Even if (big IF) Gore is guilty of corruption linked to an oil company 10 years ago I fail to understand how that negates his efforts on global warming.

I don't know about you but all I can take credit for is seperating my trash into recyclable and un-recyclable bins and screwing in a few compact flourescent light bulbs.

[-V-]

They recounted the votes twice and he won and the third time they magically found 1700 votes and she won the third time and gave the election to her so since he won 2 out of 3

2 out of 3? Elections are not a game of rock-paper-scissors! Even if it took 100 recounts to come up with the accurate total of the WILL OF THE PEOPLE then justice was served.

If the integrity of the 1700 votes or any of the hundreds of thousands of votes counted before that is in question, that is the only question you should be concerned with Newb.

[Lionhearted]

My two cents if I may:

Some Inconvenient Truths About Al Gore (http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2301/Some_Inconvenient_Truths_About_Al_Gore)

While his “cousin Albert” has effortlessly inhabited the vestments of a liberal politician, to hear Gore Vidal tell it, the former Vice President’s liberalism is merely a prop developed to bring him to the head of the Democratic Party.

“Well, although we are cousins, and I was a friend of his father’s, I’ve always thought he was absolutely pointless as a politician. He’s just another conservative southerner.”

What Ralph Nader thought of Gore the Environmentalist is 2000 (http://www.debatethis.org/gore/enviro/naderopenletter.html#globalwarming)

Vice President Albert Gore is preeminent among the politicians who have seized on this new corporate prerequisite for investment as an avenue for career advancement. He has best defined the role of politicians deemed attractive by corporations that appreciate the dangers and opportunities of environmentalism in politics. Corporations now reward politicians who can deliver environmental votes and opinion without seriously deterring their goals with burdensome environmental constraints. Albert Gore is the politician who has best understood that his ability to attract and deliver the environmental constituency would make him attractive to corporate backers. Earth in the Balance, Gore’s script for his re-emergence as a national politician was an advertisement for his calculated strategy and availability as an environmental poseur, prepared to attract, barter and mollify environmental support for corporate cash. As a broker of environmental voters on corporate terms, Gore is the prototype for the bankable, Green corporate politician. He has literally written the book.



What Al Gore Hasn't Told You About Global Warming (http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=66413)

When Al Gore says he wants to free emissions, presumably he's talking about planetary emissions, not U.S. emissions. Otherwise, he's asking humanity to freeze the current stark disparity in resource use in place. That's politically impossible and morally disagreeable. Since the U.S. and UK generate a disproportionate amount of global greenhouse gases, a responsible approach presumably would require them to disproportionately reduce their emissions.

Monbiot argues for a global carbon emissions cap allocated on a per capita basis. Since all of humanity shares the biosphere, which has only a limited absorptive and cleansing capacity and all humans are created equal, then each should have equal use of that capacity.


Lest we forget, it was Al Gore who first introduced us to Willie Horton during the 1988 Democratic Primaries, not George H. W. Bush.

-V- from what I have read you are apparently doing more than Mr. Gore, but if you choose to give him a pass that is certainly your perogative

[Jane of Arc]

Thanks Jennifer and Lionhearted. That was some excellent research!

As you know I like Al Gore. I just do. I am absolutely blown away by his good deeds. He has zig-zagged this country for years now giving free speeches on global warming to anyone that would listen.

Has Al Gore changed from 2000?

Or is he so diabolical that he's "greenwashing" people?

I've spent the last hour researching online whether or not he still owns the Occidental Oil stock to no avail. I read in USA Today that he dumped the zinc mines in 2003.

Does anyone have some updated info on his Occidental stock?

[Lionhearted]

Thanks Jennifer and Lionhearted. That was some excellent research!

As you know I like Al Gore. I just do. I am absolutely blown away by his good deeds. He has zig-zagged this country for years now giving free speeches on global warming to anyone that would listen.

Has Al Gore changed from 2000?

Or is he so diabolical that he's "greenwashing" people?

I've spent the last hour researching online whether or not he still owns the Occidental Oil stock to no avail. I read in USA Today that he dumped the zinc mines in 2003.

Does anyone have some updated info on his Occidental stock?

Dear Jane,

As near as I can tell or find out, Al Gore Jr. has never owned any Occidental stock himself, he is the executor of his father's estate and the prime beneficiary of that estate is Mr. Gore's mother. My point was not necessarily about the stocks and whether or not he owned it, my point was that Mr. Gore throughout his political career has shown himself to be a typical, corporate, globalist and I am not ready (and may never be) to annoint him as the savior of the planet. I would hope that we would delve into our chosen candidates political backgrounds with the same fervor we would the Bushes and Cheneys of the world.

Can a large, carnivorous feline change its camouflagic markings? I dunno, but off hand I cannot think of a single politican who has (though I am sure someone must have done so at sometime or another).

[-V-]

A few comments:

1. Moving to the liberal side of the Democratic strategy has never been a winning game plan for any candidate. Besides, Gore declined an '04 run and probably considered an '08 run a longshot. That's a damn long global warming road to trek with the prospect of pissing off a lot of powerful people who could hurt his prospects (if he had them).

2. Picking the environment to scrutinize Gore on reminds me of when people seek to dismiss my animal-rights efforts with questions like "do you wear any leather?". I don't, but if I did have a leather belt does throw me into moral equivalence with meat eaters? If I copy a CD do I deserve a cell next to a bank robber?

Perhaps we can let Gore bask in the sun on this issue. A sun that may be significantly cooler and livable under due, in part, to his efforts of bring the issue to the light of day. Perhaps we should let the Repugs and global warmists do their own dirty work trying to ruin Gore's earth cred and minimize the issue in the process.

3. I don't know enough details to defend Al Gore and I applaude the scrutiny of any politician. At the end of the day, however, it comes down to this.

Which candidate has less "inconvenient truths"?

Which candidate would be a better environmentalist if elected? And if there is a better one, can he/she pass your scrutiny on other issues, and which issues should be prioritized?

[Lionhearted]

A few comments:
2. Picking the environment to scrutinize Gore on reminds me of when people seek to dismiss my animal-rights efforts with questions like "do you wear any leather?". I don't, but if I did have a leather belt does throw me into moral equivalence with meat eaters? If I copy a CD do I deserve a cell next to a bank robber?

I feel picking the environment to scrutinize Mr. Gore is precisely the proper thing to do because it is the issue he has chosen to appear most passionate about and at the same time the issue where he appears the most transparent. His voting record in the House and Senate was that of a conservative, corporate, globalist, his 1988 Presidential Campaign was that of a corporate, globalist, and his years as VP were marked by much of the same. While on his lastest worldwide speaking tour, he had the opportunity (in Denmark I believe) to debate Bjorn Lomborg, the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, himself somewhat of a shrinking violet (from what I have read) when it comes to debating his beliefs. Gore's agent thought it would be a great idea, then pulled out. Why? I honestly don't know because all I found to answer that question was speculaton.

I don't know about anybody else, but I want to see that man behind the curtain and whatever it is he is doing in there. Perhaps Al Gore had an epiphany and truly has seen the light, I highly doubt it (on a personal level but then again I am a cynic) but stranger things have happened and maybe one day I will have the strange sensation of being among those calling on Gore to run for president. Highly unlikely but as Judy Tenuta used to say, "It could happen!"

As for copying a CD, no I would not equate you with a bank robber, but the RIAA likely would.

[haus]

1. RFK, for example, changed his stripes but it got him shot. I think Obama and Edwards are in a footrace to the left in the buildup to '08.

2. I don't have any issues with Gore vis-a-vis environmental issues.

3. That said, Gore has a lot of ugly policy positions that are widely found in southern democrats (http://www.ontheissues.org/Al_Gore.htm). He's been consistently iffy on abortion for 24 years. He's got the standard southern democrat stance on marriage equality. He's for teaching "family values" in public schools. He favors the racist three-strikes sentencing laws and the death penalty. He's very much pro-free trade. He prefers prison to rehab for drug offenses. He supports the deeply flawed idea of "faith based initiatives" where churches are given our tax dollars to provide welfare services.

I don't think I'm impossible to please on the issues. Feingold, Nader and Kucinich all pass with flying colors. Hilary and Dodd come close, but they both suffer from lingering evidence of being corporate-owned. Obama and Edwards are a little further away, but much better than any republican and the democrats that are furthest to the right: Richardson, Vilsack and Gore.

[-V-]

hmmm. Overall, these are things to consider lion & haus. I'd like to hear what he has to say on the issues in the Primary process.

[NeoCon Newbie]

http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~j15/mascot-flag.jpg
4 president

[-V-]

uh, Bush can't run again newb.

[Jumpin Jupiter]

Gore to me just isnt credible enough for me, although he could talk an Eskimo into buy ice from him, while making the Eskimo feel good about it. (No offense to Eskimo's here).

Some more reading

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

I look at Gore as if he already had his chance with 8 years, but didnt do much while he was in office. NEXT !

[-V-]

he could talk an Eskimo into buy ice from him

In regards to global warming, he's trying to smooth talk the world population into saving the planet, and that's a good thing in my book regardless of how much electricity the article points out that his own estate uses.

And should we punish his hypocricy with our own this election by voting for another candidate who probably uses more electricity but at least doesn't promote using less?

he already had his chance with 8 years, but didnt do much while he was in office

Clinton was no "W". He ran his own policies and Gore appeared in a support role, like just about every other vice-prez before the current Fox sitcom called "Cheney in Charge".