Daily Kos

The Goracle

Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 09:40:06 AM PDT

While researching his new book Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, Robert Parry says he was surprised to find how many times Gore was "tragically prescient."

Gore, whose admirers sometimes call him "the Goracle," comes across more as a Cassandra, warning the nation of looming disasters and finding himself either ignored or mocked by the dominant politicians and media pundits.

Time and again – from Campaign 2000 to the post-9/11 "war on terror" to the invasion of Iraq to Bush’s expansion of presidential powers – Gore pointed to grave dangers when nearly all other national political leaders and media bigwigs were either running with the herd or keeping silent.

Parry says it wasn't until he and his colleagues were putting the book together that Gore’s "extraordinary role" jumped out.

Though there were a few other political leaders who made prophetic comments, such as Sen. Robert Byrd in his pre-Iraq War speeches on the Senate floor, none was as consistently on target as Al Gore....

Hearing Gore’s nuanced advice about how to proceed after the 9/11 attacks, why invading Iraq made little sense or what are the proper limits of presidential power, you can’t help but wonder where the United States would be now if the popular will of the American voters had been respected in November-December 2000.

Parry says Gore might have prevented the 9/11 attacks and if not

President Gore surely would have focused American retaliation on Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, not left the job half done and gone after Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11.

Gore didn’t buy into the neoconservative agenda of invading Muslim countries to impose regime change designed to bring those governments in line with Israel’s goals for the region. Though a supporter of Israel who picked Sen. Joe Lieberman as his vice presidential running mate, Gore kept the neocon agenda at arm’s length.

With regard to domestic policy,

Gore also didn’t share Dick Cheney’s agenda of establishing an imperial presidency that could ride roughshod over the rule of law, the constitutional checks and balances, and the inalienable rights of American citizens.

Like no other American politician, Gore perceived the challenges and the opportunities of the 21st century. He recognized the potential of the technological revolution and understood the threat of uncontrolled climate change.

Parry says Gore might have been a "near ideal leader" for the new millennium, but

deep-seated problems in the U.S. political process and the U.S. news media kept Campaign 2000 close enough so Bush could exploit irregularities in Florida’s balloting to snake away with its electoral votes and thus the White House.

Parry worries that the same "deep-seated problems" will cloud the 2008 election.

Tags: Al Gore, Robert Parry (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 44 comments

  •  According to the article, (10+ / 0-)

    Robert Parry "broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek."  Thanks to Buzzflash for the link.

  •  So does Gore think we're going to attack Iran? (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    jpfdeuce

    We're having trouble working out whether the Insane Clown Posse in the White House is so stupid/indifferent/desperate that they might actually do it.

    John McCain: Getting Terrorists off America's Lawn since 1880

    by pat208 on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 09:39:48 AM PDT

    •  Wesley Clark has been trying to head off (4+ / 0-)

      the attack for months.  Perhaps Clark will prevail upon Gore to speak out.

      •  I would love to see THAT joint press conference. (5+ / 0-)

        It would be an event for the ages if they called out the Bush Administration on their 11th hour lunacy, and called the people to action.

        John McCain: Getting Terrorists off America's Lawn since 1880

        by pat208 on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:12:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Here is another truthteller (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        ybruti

        you do not see in the daily news... They have bad news, and these people are inevitably ignored.

        Where did you see those who were against the war?  Only on CSPAN, occasionally.  

        Clark is a true patriot, and so is Gore. They are being ignored by the media, they have too much at stake, getting rick in the Middle East!  

        President Carter is another truth-teller. Do you see him in the news at all?  He tried to warn us about the coming madness in Iran... and the debacle that would ensue in Iraq.  Where is he now?  In hiding?

    •  Agenda (0+ / 0-)

      Not stupid/insane but they have the stupid/insane agenda that they brought into the White Hosue to begin -- the Project for a New American Century.  That blueprint talks about Iraq, Iran, Ivomit :p, Syria and other countries that the US should "remake".  Unlike Clinton, I have no doubt Bush will be fine saddling a new administration with more war.  That's what he's doing now (like he did in his business days) -- just biding his time so someone else can clean up the mess he made.

      Each election year is an ethics test for the mainstream media, and the paper is invariably returned with "See Me After Class"

      by jpfdeuce on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 12:18:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here's another problem (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    JekyllnHyde, fink, blueyedace2

     title=

    Time is running out

    McCain just flushed his own campaign by his appearance at the FBF on Aug 16th, 2008.

    by shpilk on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 09:43:38 AM PDT

    •  He'll respond to a movement. (6+ / 0-)

      I think Al would respond to a netroots movement. I like how draft gore movements are showing up in specific states. If that trend continues over the next month, Al Gore can jump in saying he's responding to the people.

      -fink

      Al Gore didn't lose in 2000. America did.

      by fink on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 09:46:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't mean to come off trollish... (0+ / 0-)

        ...but lets remember this is Gore's call, ok?  The "Draft Gore" stuff rings of self-importance sometimes.  I respect the hell out of some of the dKos posters who are involved in Draft Gore stuff and I do not want to come off like I am sullying their efforts...  But Gore is not going to be "Drafted" into action.  He's going to say yes or no on his terms.  Not on the terms that the public set...  Well, not in the terms that his supporters set.

        Again, not trying to be trollish.  The groundwork is there to support a Gore campaign -- that's the promise of the Draft Gore people.  But it comes down to Gore's choice, not people trying to get him to run.  He's heard it a million times by now and he'll either say yes or no himself.  Not be compelled by others to run or not (he mocked that suggestion at the Oscars with Leo DiCaprio.  Funny stuff)

        And again, I apologize but lets just be honest with each other.  We want Gore, we're ready to work for Gore...  But it's his call.

        Each election year is an ethics test for the mainstream media, and the paper is invariably returned with "See Me After Class"

        by jpfdeuce on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 12:23:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree... (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          JekyllnHyde, jpfdeuce

          Or to be more specific, I think Gore's decision will be based on factors other than the enthusiasm of those who already support him.  I'm sure he appreciates the enthusiasm, but it takes more than a core group of committed workers to actually win.  Based on his statements over the past couple of years, he'd need to see some serious changes in the media environment, the public's tolerance for rational discourse (meaning such tolerance would have to, y'know, exist), and the sense that the electorate wants substantive change, not just to feel like we're getting slightly more palatable people in office, making it safe to let our collective attention wander.  IOW, he'd want to see a society capable of, and committed to, self-government and realistic approaches to problems.  In any case, it's not what the draft movement does that counts so much as whether the much larger electorate is willing to take its responsibilities more seriously than it has in recent decades.

          It's no wonder he's said that he can't imagine circumstances that would make him want to run, when you think about it.

          "Conservative principles" are marketing props used by the Conservative Movement to achieve political power, not actual beliefs. -Glenn Greenwald

          by latts on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 12:33:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And I agree with you but... (0+ / 0-)

            ...it's a catch-22 sometimes watching the US right now in general with politics and everything.  I think of what a campaign would put Gore through and (as a supporter, as someone who will not back another primary candidate -- period -- unless it's Al Gore) I wonder why Gore would subject himself to the bile and hate and mockery of a political campaign.

            Then I see another mockery of government take place -- or another candidate misstep or more-of-the-same promise/misdirection that makes me wonder why wouldn't Gore run?  He's not a panacea, but it's inarguable sanity compared to what the country has dealt with during this administration.

            Sanity of leadership and knowledge that seems to have escaped all branches of government under this regime.

            Gore can be happy in the role he is in right now -- trying to spread awareness...  But I think he can't be happy -- regardless of the different conditions you mention -- with how the country is being run and some of the empty rhetoric being spewed on the campaign trail.  

            So it comes down to "Why would Gore run... and why wouldn't he?!" over and over again and that's why I keep holding out hope and keep coming back to dKos to check the latest Gore news.  He won't be drafted, but he'll make his ultimate choice soon enough.  And I think it's easy to say we're all ready for it and though we may not be happy with the results (some don't want him to run, more than some do) we'll all finally find relief when he does.  I guess that's the other importance of the Draft Gore people - they will ultimately know first if Al is or isn't running because they will be told to pack up and go home...  or "We'll see you at the campaign office in Tennessee".

            Each election year is an ethics test for the mainstream media, and the paper is invariably returned with "See Me After Class"

            by jpfdeuce on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 12:48:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's a terrible situation, isn't it? (0+ / 0-)

              I mean, at what point does one give up and say that a loved one, or the American voting public, just isn't interested in doing what needs to be done to set things aright, preferring to muddle along with pleasing self-justifications and a tendency to lash out at anyone who crosses him/her/them?  Honestly, I would both deeply admire Gore and wonder if he's a fool if he makes one more attempt to reach people who are only indirectly indicating that they want to be reached... when individuals in similar situations are involved, more often or not the attempts end in failure, but few of us are happy choosing to walk away, even knowing that it's the most logical thing to do.

              Sigh... when did our country become like an occasionally-violent substance abuser waiting for an intervention?  And why do so many want to enable those tendencies, or at best try to slowly wean us away from them?

              "Conservative principles" are marketing props used by the Conservative Movement to achieve political power, not actual beliefs. -Glenn Greenwald

              by latts on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 03:13:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  I have friends in town from Germany (3+ / 0-)

    and last night we were talking about some political stuff.

    Steffen said, sharply, "Al Gore is a liar."  And Steffen isn't generally loud, cutting, or demonstrably passionate.

    I was shocked, and was reaching for the computer to start pulling out RealClimate and stuff....

    As the conversation continued, Steffen explained that he wanted to know where this Al Gore had been before.  Why didn't he talk like this up to the 2000 election.  Where was all the knowledge, the passion, the clarity....

    I tried to talk about the role of consultants in the 2000 election, and all...but....he did have a point.  Al was there, he was ready, and we blew it.

    •  "This" Al Gore was still dealing. . . (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      churchylafemme, ybruti, Residentcynic

      . . . with the fallout from being considered "part and parcel" of the Clinton Administration.

      It was a pretty daunting situation - people "approved" of Bill, but they didn't approve of his Lewinsky liaison. Al could neither embrace nor repudiate him, leaving him without the options of getting the "encumbent" edge, or setting himself up as a "change" candidate.

      He was stuck between the two sides of the nation's mixed feelings about President Clinton. . . (And yeah, having ol' Holy Joe around was probably the last thing he needed. Who thought that was a good idea?)

      "Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful or believe to be beautiful." -William Morris

      by Robespierrette on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 09:58:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Al Gore is a world class statesman (5+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        JekyllnHyde, latts, ybruti, oxon, Residentcynic

        Say, if he wins the nobel peace prize in October, why couldn't he make a deal with Obama, who has strong organizations in early states, to run as a ticket (with Gore heading it, of course).

        That would be an incredibly strong ticket and fits with Gore's prescient eye to the future.  

      •  Bob Somerby (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        churchylafemme, 0wn

        says that the only thing that gave Gore universal positive press coverage was picking Lieberman as VP.  I don't advocate that Dems do things for the approval of the press, but I do wonder how significant that window of good press was in a campaign that was pilloried almost daily.

        Any force that tries to make you feel shame for being who you are...is a form of tyranny... And it must be rejected, resisted, and defeated. ~Al Gore

        by Sinister Rae on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:12:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It was another example... (0+ / 0-)

          of Gore going too centerist.  Shrum was advocating winning over a majority of the middle and banking on the base sticking with Gore because the base was the base...  The Gore camp never figured in that they were alienating the base by trying to appease the middle.

          In contrast, I just damned a congressional candidate for going specifically for the base of her party and never acknowledging Joe Average and the rest of her campaign district.  She ended up with some 30 percent of the vote -- her Democratic base in her district.  You can't be too dependent on the middle or the base.

          But I digress.  Hell, I am starting to confuse myself :p..  

          Each election year is an ethics test for the mainstream media, and the paper is invariably returned with "See Me After Class"

          by jpfdeuce on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 12:34:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not true. (0+ / 0-)

            The Gore camp never figured in that they were alienating the base by trying to appease the middle.

            His campaign did figure that out by the time of the convention, but they should've done it sooner.

            Any force that tries to make you feel shame for being who you are...is a form of tyranny... And it must be rejected, resisted, and defeated. ~Al Gore

            by Sinister Rae on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 05:11:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Gore himself was and is a centrist. (0+ / 0-)

            So what's your problem with that?

            Only centrists can win national elections. Liberals lose. They have no chance. Wake up.

          •  You don't represent the base, do you know that? (0+ / 0-)

            Gore got as many Dem voters ad Clinton did in 1996.
            So your point is utter nonsense and defies the facts.

            Gore had problems with indies and Reps due to the Clinton scandals. Not with Dems. Most have a positive opinion about Joe by the way.

            When will you understand that the far left is only a fringe minority and you cannot win a national election by appeasing them?

            •  Stupidity this thick doesn't even warrant a reply (0+ / 0-)

              BUt just to humor you -- if you're going to tell a Democratic activist that they aren't a portion of the base of the party...  well, shit, I'll just leave that "logic" you've laid out for everyone to see.

              "You don't represnt the base, do you know that?"  Do you know I was one of the voters that was alienated because Gore kept trying to be everything to everyone and not keying in on the issues of the Democratic party?  Are you going to be an asshole and suggest that Howard Dean was so far left he represented the loony wing of the Democratic party?

              GORE ALIENATED THE BASE.  PERIOD.  END OF STORY.  Spin it however the fuck you want to but the votes that went to Nader?  THey were votes on the LEFT.  Not votes from the middle or the right.  The LEFT.  And who did Bob Shrum try to coax not just Al Gore but John Kerry to appease the most?  The CENTER.  What issue was dropped from Gore's campaigning that would have reached out to the LEFT (BASE) ELEMENT?  THe Environment.  Who actually makes retarded, inept and illogical dot connections that I'm not part of the Democratic base?  Only spineless assholes like yourself.  

              You going to tell me I'm a hillary backer next?  You going to suggest I'm a Bush backer as well and I'm only on Kos to try to upset you?  You going to suggest something else outlandish and idiotic or shut up and stop defending mistakes made in the past -- i'm assuming you're going to launch into a "It's all Nader's fault and that's the only fault that lies in the history books!" revisionist history
              of 2000 that overlooks all other misteps by the Gore camp.

              You want to attack a Gore backer...  That's fine.  That's good...  Make yourself (a gore supporter -- your diaries are noted) look like an asshole.  You want to attack a Gore supporter and try to alienate him politically?  Fuck you.  You could have made an argument but you went personal suggesting I'm not a Democrat  -- and by suggesting I am not part of the Democratic base, you DID suggest I am not a Democrat.  I'm on this site because I'm interested in this party deeper than most casual political followers.  What's your excuse?

              Each election year is an ethics test for the mainstream media, and the paper is invariably returned with "See Me After Class"

              by jpfdeuce on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 06:22:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You may keep living in your fantasyland (0+ / 0-)

                if you want. But the fact remains that the left cannot win a national election today in the US.

                If you want a chance you have to be in the middle because that's where most voters are.

                That's why Clinton could win in 1992 and 1996 that's why Bush had a chance in 2000. And Kerry lost because he was perceived as too liberal by most independents. Even though Nader was not a factor in 2004 Kerry still lost by 3 million votes.

                I don't care whether you are alienated or not but your theory that Gore should have been more on the left an than he would have won more votes is utter bullshit and you presented no evidence whatsoever that that's what would have happened.

                The environment was a non-issue in 2000, especially global warming. I don't know where you were but please tell me exactly how many voters voted in 2000
                based on what they thought about the environment?
                And how many of them didn't vote for Gore because they thought he didn't talk enough about the environment?
                And how many voters would Gore have lost had he talked more about the environment?

                Do you have the data ro you have a big mouth only an
                a pack of uncontrolled emotions?

              •  Dean was perceived so far left that (0+ / 0-)

                he didn't have any chance to become president.

                Did you look at the polls in 2003? He was losing badly to Bush. More than Edwards or Kerry.

                Now it was not true, Dean was actually a centrist based on his record in Vermont. But the perception was created by his enemies that he was a lefty and that was it for him. He lost his chance to win.

              •  Nader voters were not Gore's base. (0+ / 0-)

                And they were not the Dem base either.
                they were far left lunatics who wouldn't have voted for any Democrat in the general election. Because no Democrat would have been so stupid as to move left just to appease idiots like you.

                You didn't vote for Gore because you didn't agree with him on some issues or you thought he was not enough liberal for your taste. Fine. But that didn't matter. Because if Gore had tried to make you happy he would have lost even more people from the middle and then the result would have been even worse.

                Stop overstating your significance. You are not the base and you are certainly not the electorate which decides the election result.

                Moreover you lie, as Gore certainly didn't drop the environmnent from his campaign. How much more should he have talked about it? Are you so stupid as not being able to understand something if it's said once? You need 100 times? Repetition all day and all might long?

                I watched the same campaign. And I knew exactly where Gore stood on the environment. For me he talked more than enough about it. If it wasn't enough for you that's your special problem not Gore's.

              •  People that voted for Nader, (0+ / 0-)

                would have never been happy with Gore.  No matter how far left.  I hope you haven't forgotten that the Green Party encouraged Greens to run against Paul Wellstone.  If Greens didn't believe that Paul Wellstone was "left" enough, how could Gore have ever been "left" enough to appease them?

                What issue was dropped from Gore's campaigning that would have reached out to the LEFT (BASE) ELEMENT?  THe Environment.

                Will you please stop lying and read this: Link.

                Hopefully, after being confronted with the actual evidence, you'll re-think your statement about Gore and the environment during 2000.  However, I believe that you will hang on to your faith-based statement instead.

                "It's all Nader's fault and that's the only fault that lies in the history books!" revisionist history

                Do you believe that Nader is completely without blame?

                You want to attack a Gore backer...  That's fine.  That's good...  Make yourself (a gore supporter -- your diaries are noted) look like an asshole.  You want to attack a Gore supporter and try to alienate him politically?

                Forgive me, but why do you support Gore today?

                "My chief political consultant will be my conscience." - Theodore C. Sorensen

                by 0wn on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 08:23:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  You're not the only one: (0+ / 0-)

            Hell, I am starting to confuse myself

            As you pointed out, you cannot depend completely on your "base".  That's a losing formula.

            "My chief political consultant will be my conscience." - Theodore C. Sorensen

            by 0wn on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 08:30:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Picking Joe was a good idea precisely (0+ / 0-)

        because of what people thought of Clinton.

        It's not rocket science.
        Joe was perceived as Mr Morality and Ethic, plus him being the first Jewish veep candidate was a surprise and historic. Gore got good press for it -- which he desperately needed if you know what the press did to him 80% of the time.

        There is no evidence that Gore would have won more voters had he picked a different running mate and there is certainly no evidence that Gore lost more voters than he won due to Joe being on the ticket.

        The left may hate Joe but most voters do not. And the left do not decide elections. Swing voters do.

    •  Mem, tell Steffen there are second chances (5+ / 0-)

      Gore had to trim his sails to be a team player, to fit the whims of the beaten down consultants. Tell him about the press that hounded him constantly, the frei-republick folks.

      Gore had really no help on his side. No left-wing media (the Nation and others were against his populism), party organizing positions were empty, even the DNC was underfunded and not very supportive.

      And he was ridiculed constantly. When he was passionate, they called him strident. They ridiculed everything he said-the part that got to national press.

      Gore had incredible speeches on his site all the way up to the end-but the press never covered or broadcast them.

      A Crushie for Democracy

      by CarolDuhart on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:02:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This always seemed kind of silly to me. (8+ / 0-)

      As the conversation continued, Steffen explained that he wanted to know where this Al Gore had been before.  Why didn't he talk like this up to the 2000 election.  Where was all the knowledge, the passion, the clarity....

      I absolutely think Gore could've done a better job of representing himself and his ideas and his inability to do so can be blamed on him (although the problem was exacerbated by the ridiculous media coverage Gore received).  If I knew Gore during the 2000 elections, I would've grabbed him by the shoulders, looked him in the eye, and told him to Chill.  The Fuck.  Out.

      His convention speech, on the other hand, was great.

      That said, a lot of the stuff we love Gore for today is his reaction to the current criminal administration.  Stuff was going pretty well in 1999-2000.  There were still serious problems to be sure, but in 2000 the climate was completely different.  He couldn't give speeches like his great one against the AUMF or his MLK day speech during that election.  The tone and quality wouldn't have fit those times.

      I guess I just think it's a lot easier to tap into that passion and anger when everything is going to hell than when stuff is pretty okay (and you're part of an incumbent administration to boot).  

      Any force that tries to make you feel shame for being who you are...is a form of tyranny... And it must be rejected, resisted, and defeated. ~Al Gore

      by Sinister Rae on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:07:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly!! (4+ / 0-)

        I've been saying for a while that the 2000 campaign was probably the most trite, silly, superficial, content-free one we've ever seen, and hopefully will ever see.  The electorate was fat, dull, & disconnected from anything except foolish whims, and preferred mocking serious ideas-- after all, the economy was good overall, we were popular, and not even the mighty Y2K problem had caused more than minor inconveniences-- to thinking about how we needed to use our prosperity & goodwill, much less how we'd deal with a sudden crisis.  It's no wonder that a serious, farsighted person had more problems than usual (there will always be some, since we're not exactly a nation of deep thinkers) that cycle... the bottom line is that the real, substantive problem in 2000 was us, not Gore.

        "Conservative principles" are marketing props used by the Conservative Movement to achieve political power, not actual beliefs. -Glenn Greenwald

        by latts on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:57:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yup. (4+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          JekyllnHyde, latts, 0wn, Residentcynic

          Gore was a serious candidate in frivolous* times, and that juxtaposition didn't benefit him.

          *There were, in fact, plenty of problems that needed to be solved and weren't at all frivolous, but that's not how things were presented in the that election.

          Any force that tries to make you feel shame for being who you are...is a form of tyranny... And it must be rejected, resisted, and defeated. ~Al Gore

          by Sinister Rae on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 11:05:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  In everyone's defense... (4+ / 0-)

          I think we were all blindsided by the audacity of Team Texas. They had an incredible political machine in place and they went off the deep end to take that election.

          It was a preview of what was to come but we didn't know what we were up against in 2000.

          -fink

          Al Gore didn't lose in 2000. America did.

          by fink on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 11:08:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  True... (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            ybruti

            We didn't know, although I still maintain if the party had been pushing back as a matter of policy instead of pretending to be above it all, things may never have gotten this bad.  That's one area in which Gore's famed (and justifiably so) prescience took a detour, I'm afraid; actually, we were all asleep that the proverbial switch.

            "Conservative principles" are marketing props used by the Conservative Movement to achieve political power, not actual beliefs. -Glenn Greenwald

            by latts on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 03:16:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  The whole idea that Gore would have won (0+ / 0-)

        more votes if he had talked even more about global warming is incredibly stupid.

        The vast majority of Americans didn't give  shit about global warming in 2000. Why?
        That was before Katrina, before the III. IPCC report, before the 2006 heat wave and before the MSM itself talked about global warming seriously.

        Gore could have said whatever he wanted it wouldn't have helped him.
        In fact, his support of Kyoto only alienated voters in coal states like Tennessee and West Virginia.
        Him being against the internal combustion engine hurt him in the South where most idiots believed Gore wanted to take their SUV or even ban automobils.

        Passion doesn't win elections. If it did Dean would be president today.
        Or Pat Buchanan or Ralph Nader for that matter.

        If most voters simply do not agree with you they will not vote for you no matter how passionate you are.

        Even today, when more Americans think AGW is real and a major problem Gore has about 50%-50% approve/disapprove in the polls.
        Why does anyone think that in 2000 it would have been any better is beyond me but sure that belief has nothing to do with the facts on the ground.
        It's just a fantasy.

        Global warming was not and is not a winning political issue. That's the reality.

    •  I keep trying to explain this... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      ybruti

      ...and people keep just blaming Nader.  Gore compelled people to go further left because his handlers in 2000 compelled him to go center.  Gore lost his base vote by ignoring his passion project or just not mentioning it.  Shrum did a job making sure Gore was just a different flavor of Bush, not a true difference.  Between the misdirection and the idea of "party building" with the Greens and Nader...  Gore lost votes.

      Gore lost votes because of Clinton.  Gore lost votes because he got away from his base.  Gore lost votes by listening to Shrum.  And yet, he nearly won.  Doesn't that say something too?

      We can damn Nader, damn John Ellis Bush in Florida, but it all does come back to Gore himself.  And the only thing that matters in this entire post is the following truism:  THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW

      Each election year is an ethics test for the mainstream media, and the paper is invariably returned with "See Me After Class"

      by jpfdeuce on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 12:29:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, Gore didn't lose his base. (0+ / 0-)

        Stop this idiocy. You have no evidence.

        Look at the exit polls.
        Gore won less Republican -- yes Republican -- votes in 2000 than CLinton won in 1996. But they won about the same number of Dem votes.

        So what will you say? That Clinton also alienated his base in 1996? Because sure as hell he was not less of a centrist than Gore was.

        Gore lost Republican and indy votes thanks to Clinton fatigue. It had nothing to do with losing lefties. Those who voted for Nader wouldn't have voted for any Dem in 2000 anyway. And they were not part of Gore's base. They were the far left.

      •  your read on the 2000 race is mistaken (0+ / 0-)

        i'll give specific responses to your comments, but I encourage you to go over this I have written: The 2000 Presidential election: A Synopsis

        (and look up other comments there).

        In summary, Gore started 15-18 point down in early/mid 1999:

        He won the popular vote 48.4% (Clinton got some 49% running as a sitting President without the complications Gore inherited.)

        Gore got more than Clinton'96 (wh among Dems AND Indies. He lost among Reps.

        More later. But please feel free to post your further thoughts. Thanks.

      •  How do you believe Gore is different today? (0+ / 0-)

        He's not saying anything now that he would not have said in 2000.  He spoke just as passionately about the environment in 2000.

        "My chief political consultant will be my conscience." - Theodore C. Sorensen

        by 0wn on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 08:05:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Florida (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    JekyllnHyde, ybruti

    Florida was stacked in Bush's favor with thanks to Katty Harris and John Ellis Bush.  I had made an argument on another thread last month about Gore also veering too far to the center and alienating his base -- with no environmental talk and too many promises to woo the middle, he lost votes that went to everyone's favorite scapegoat from 2000, Ralph Nader).

    But I also want to put out the fact that it isn't a question of if Gore would have prevented 9-11 or not, but if he would have faced more security threats like 9-11.  Under Clinton-era security protocols, every warning would have been heeded and investigated.  They were ignored under Err George.  Also in question is if the United States would have gone after Bin Laden just for a threat of attack on the US...  Meaning if 9-11 was thwarted but we knew who was responsible, would we have gone into Afghanistan to kick ass and take names?

    I mean...  I'm reaching saying that 9-11 wouldn't have happened, but the truth is there was so much ignored, brushed off and just flat out dropped by the Bush administration.  Anyone without a specific agenda would have heeded this shit that was put before them.  Gore had no agenda like the Bush team did (Project for a New American Century was their goal -- and it started in Iraq).  Why WOULDN'T Gore's administration see the warnings and do something?

    Each election year is an ethics test for the mainstream media, and the paper is invariably returned with "See Me After Class"

    by jpfdeuce on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 12:16:02 PM PDT

    •  Except that Gore didn't alienate the base. (0+ / 0-)

      The base -- i.e. the Dem party -- voted for him overwhelmingly.

      The far left was not Gore's base, exuse me.
      They were mad at both Gore and Clinton and Lieberman and everyone who was a moderate for everything from NAFTA to the Iraq sanctions, welfare reform and don't ask don't tell.

      But only moderates can win the presidency.

      Even Bush did everything he could to look like a moderate in 2000 with his stupid compassionate   conservativism.

    •  no environmental talk? (0+ / 0-)

      no environmental talk

      I'm sorry, but that is pure nonsense: Link.  

      too many promises to woo the middle

      Gore is, and always has been, a middle of the road populist.  Just like his dad.  I would also like to know which promises you are referring to?

      "My chief political consultant will be my conscience." - Theodore C. Sorensen

      by 0wn on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 08:00:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Permalink | 44 comments