OH Yeah He's Not a Candidate

[mylanta]

Gore: Bush is 'renegade rightwing extremist'

Oliver Burkeman and Jonathan Freedland
Wednesday May 31, 2006
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2006/05/30/alhaygetty372ready.jpg
Al Gore delivers his speech at the Guardian's Hay Festival. Photograph: Chris Jackson/Getty Images


Al Gore has made his sharpest attack yet on the George Bush presidency, describing the current US administration as "a renegade band of rightwing extremists". In an interview with the Guardian today, the former vice-president calls himself a "recovering politician", but launches into the political fray more explicitly than he has previously done during his high-profile campaigning on the threat of global warming.
Denying that his politics have shifted to the left since he lost the court battle for the 2000 election, Mr Gore says: "If you have a renegade band of rightwing extremists who get hold of power, the whole thing goes to the right."

Article continues (http://www.kickenhardware.net/forum/#article_continue)[Munched]

But he claims he does not "expect to be a candidate" for president again, while refusing explicitly to rule out another run. Asked if any event could change his mind, he says: "Not that I can see." Mr Gore, who appeared at the Guardian Hay literary festival over the bank holiday weekend, is promoting An Inconvenient Truth, a documentary and book detailing the climate change crisis that he warns "could literally end civilisation".
The new levels of attention he is receiving have led some Democrats to call on him to run again for president, while others have responded with anger that Mr Gore did not show the same level of passion in the 2000 campaign.
He has since acknowledged that he followed too closely the advice of his consultants during that campaign, and - before he started to scoff at the idea of running again - swore that if he ever did so, he would speak his mind.
In the years since, he has been a steady critic of specific Bush administration policies. He opposed the war on Iraq at a time when most prominent Democrats were supporting it, and more recently spoke out against what he called "a gross and excessive power grab" by the administration over phone tapping.
In the interview Mr Gore also distances himself from Tony Blair on the subject of nuclear power, which the prime minister has insisted is "back on the agenda with a vengeance". Mr Gore says he is "sceptical about it playing a much larger role," and that although it might have a part to play in Britain or China, it will not be "a silver bullet" in the fight against global warming.
In the US, Mr Gore's environmental campaign has sparked a backlash from some on the right who accuse him of scaremongering. A series of television advertisements, launched by a thinktank called the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argue that carbon dioxide emissions are a sign of American productivity and progress.
Mr Gore's true attitude towards a potential return to the White House - or, at least, a potential battle with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination - remains unknown.
At the weekend, Time magazine reported that he was telling key fundraisers they should feel free to sign on with other potential candidates. The magazine quoted unnamed Democratic sources as saying that the former vice-president had also been asking the fundraisers to "tell everybody I'm not running".
Mr Gore would not find it difficult to raise millions of dollars, if he did decide to run. But while public denials might prove a wise campaign strategy - not least by prolonging the period of positive attention Mr Gore is now receiving - actively turning away fundraisers does suggest a firmer resolve not to re-enter electoral politics.
It is significant, however, that Mr Gore refuses to go beyond saying that he has no "plans" for such a campaign. "I haven't made a Shermanesque statement because it just seems odd to do so," he has said - a reference to the famous announcement by the civil war general William Sherman, who unequivocally refused to stand in the election of 1884. "If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve," General Sherman said.
Jonathan Freedland's interview with Al Gore will be aired on More4 on Saturday June 3 at 4.55pm.





31.05.2006: Interview: Al Gore (http://www.kickenhardware.net/usa/story/0,,1786437,00.html)

Special report
United States of America (http://www.kickenhardware.net/usa/0,,759893,00.html)

[Pi rules]

[Al Gore] is promoting An Inconvenient Truth, a documentary and book detailing the climate change crisis that he warns "could literally end civilisation".
I'll have to read that book over the summer.

[jcampi]

I just hope Mr. Gore doesn't run again. The bone-head Democrats had better learn that a electable Democratic candidate has to be a moderate and appeal to the mainstream population. Gore was handed the election on a silver plater and blew it. Ms. Clinton looks like she will be the next one to lose for Democrats. Of course she COULD win the primary, but she will never win the general election for President. The Republican machine will grind her up and chew her up. They will have so much dirt on her the issues will never be discussed.

[mylanta]

You forget John, Gore really did win, it was probably simply a strategy flaw in how he ran in various states and the time he devoted to them. He was also dragged down by the Clinton scandals, no way to avoid it.

[mommalina]

You forget John, Gore really did win, it was probably simply a strategy flaw in how he ran in various states and the time he devoted to them. He was also dragged down by the Clinton scandals, no way to avoid it.

.......and, like Kerry, Gore was dumb enough and intimidated enough to listen to his handlers instead of his gut!

jcampi wrote:........Ms. Clinton looks like she will be the next one to lose for Democrats. Of course she COULD win the primary, but she will never win the general election for President. The Republican machine will grind her up and chew her up. They will have so much dirt on her the issues will never be discussed.

It's not just the alleged "dirt" on Clinton the Republican machine will use. They already are denigrating the Clinton marriage big time; i.e., how much time they spend together, who sleeps where, who's seen with Bill, etc.

Hillary will be swift-boated about Bill's sexual indiscretions and why she did not dump her husband. Right-wing clergy will ignore if not justify/bless/forgive the infidelities and divorces of Republican candidates and ignore their liberal stances on abortion, gay marriage, etc. Watch them buy and support Giuliani and Gingrich if it would further their agendas. Phony, hypocritical religious zealots sell their souls for power every day.

Lina

[Pi rules]

You guys know that Gore invented the internet...:rolleyes:

It will be interesting to see who the next Democratic candidate is...Gore, Clinton, Kerry?

[casey]

You guys know that Gore invented the internet...:rolleyes:

It will be interesting to see who the next Democratic candidate is...Gore, Clinton, Kerry?

Internet of Lies

Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet.

Status: False.

Origins: Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of something he said during an interview (http://www.kickenhardware.net/forum/#cnn) with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999. When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part): During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
Clearly, although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the http://www.snopes.com/quotes/graphics/gore.gif technology that we now know as the Internet. To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign. Gore never used the word "invent," and the words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings — the former is used in the sense of "to bring about" or "to bring into existence" while the latter is generally used to signify the first instance of someone's thinking up or implementing an idea. (To those who say the words "create" and "invent" mean exactly the same thing, we have to ask why, then, the media overwhelmingly and consistently cited Gore as having claimed he "invented" the Internet, even though he never used that word, and transcripts of what he actually said were readily available.)

If President Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960s that he, while President, "created" the Interstate Highway System, we would not have seen dozens and dozens of editorials lampooning him for claiming he "invented" the concept of highways or implying that he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement.

Whether Gore's statement that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet" is justified is a subject of debate. Any statement about the "creation" or "beginning" of the Internet is difficult to evaluate, because the Internet is not a homogenous entity (it's a collection of computers, networks, protocols, standards, and application programs), nor did it all spring into being at once (the components that comprise the Internet were developed in various places at different times and are continuously being modified, improved, and expanded). Despite a spirited defense (http://web.archive.org/web/20000125065813/http://www.mids.org/mn/904/vcerf.html) of Gore's claim by Vint Cerf (often referred to as the "father of the Internet") in which he stated "that as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround it," many of the components of today's Internet came into being well before Gore's first term in Congress began in 1977.

It is true, though, that Gore was popularizing the term "information superhighway" in the early 1990s (although he did not, as is often claimed by others, coin the phrase himself) when few people outside academia or the computer/defense industries had heard of the Internet, and he sponsored the 1988 National High-Performance Computer Act (which established a national computing plan and helped link universities and libraries via a shared network) and cosponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992 (which opened the Internet to commercial traffic).

In May 2005, the organizers of the Webby Awards for online achievements honored Al Gore with a lifetime achievement award for three decades of contributions to the Internet. "He is indeed due some thanks and consideration for his early contributions," said Vint Cerf.

Last updated: 5 May 2005

[Pi rules]

Interesting. I knew it wasn't true (or it was a large stretch of the truth), but I didn't know in that detail. Thanks. :)

[jcampi]

Believe me, I'm a Democrat. If Gore, Hilary or Kerry runs they will be toast and get beat badly. Stating that Gore won the popular vote doesn't help. He lost. Plain and simple. Electorial votes are what matters. If we keep this mindset and keep selecting left of center candidates Democrats will keep loosing.

[mommalina]

Interesting. I knew it wasn't true (or it was a large stretch of the truth), but I didn't know in that detail. Thanks. :)

Pi rules, I always do a search on www.snopes.com to check rumors, half-truths, exaggerations, and outright lies.

I quote Snopes when I want to alert those who send me emails with such garbage. Problem is, however, that some have an agenda, resent revelation of the actual truth, or just don't read things thoroughly. I often get the same crap from the same person several weeks or months later.

Don't believe everything you read, hear, or see-- emails, newspapers, the internet, radio, TV, your professors, or your politicians. Find the truth at www.snopes.com

Lina

[Pi rules]

Don't worry, I didn't believe it, and looked it up (on snopes) a while back. I used a different snopes story on my recent research paper to disprove a common myth.

[mylanta]

Believe me, I'm a Democrat. If Gore, Hilary or Kerry runs they will be toast and get beat badly. Stating that Gore won the popular vote doesn't help. He lost. Plain and simple. Electorial votes are what matters. If we keep this mindset and keep selecting left of center candidates Democrats will keep loosing.

John I think you are so wrong here. I see Hillary kissing Murdoch's ass and she will never amount to anything that way. Kerry wind surfing and hunting won't do it either. But Gore's pluses were also his minuses and that was Clinton. Today realizing what that era was like, it becomes a total plus for almost all voters...regardless of party. He is a shoe in and the popular vote does matter. remember kerry lost with 300,000 uncounted votes in Ohio that would have given him the victory. Gore lost to trickery in Fla and then the Supremem Court backed up the criminals...the disenfranchisement of blacks in Fla, the confusing ballots had Jews voting for Buchanon. They didn't win these elections they stole them with criminality. This next election, none of that will matter.

[mommalina]

.........remember kerry lost with 300,000 that would have given him the victory. Gore lost to trickery in Fla and then the Supremem Court backed up the criminals...the disenfranchisement of blacks in Fla, the confusing ballots had Jews voting for Buchanon. They didn't win these elections they stole them with criminality. This next election, none of that will matter.

Unfortunately, Rich, I'm not that optimistic. The neocons were brutal and aggressive in 2000 and 2004. They are desperate now and have been and are doing their homework -- electronic voting machines with no paper trail, push for no-gay-marriage amendment to constitution, increase in Homeland Security funds to states that voted for them, push for voter ID cards (a form of poll tax again), and tactics that would make the Mafia proud. ... :frown:

Lina

[mylanta]

Ah Lina, but I look at things like almost all incumbents lose in Pa primaries as a sign the electorate is finally sick of leaders in both camps and that presents a really interesting prospect for change on both sides. believe me I want Dems like Lieberman banished also. I find it amazing that a candidate no one has ever heard of in Connecticut in his first day of fund raising pulled in $38,000 in Conn against 3 time Senator Joe Lieberman.
I think it may be short lived but the vote in 2006 will be one for the books and shape the contest of 2008 more than anyone would ever believe.
Remember the country wasn't always so Conservative and Liberal wasn't always such a "dirty" word. JFK was elected as a liberal Catholic in 1960, 2 things no one thought could happen, after 8 long years of boring conservatism. Our 8 long years is hardly boring and "the winds of change" are well upon us! I doubt anyone can call what is about to happen
Hillary and McCain "politics as usual" are falling into a trap that by 2008, I would not be surprised if either one survives the first 2 primaries and the candidates will be ones we never thought of most likely now.I am not convinced a third party may not rise out of all this cronyism and corruption reaction. That is also a possibility. If Perot hadn't bungled it by declaring and then pulling out and declaring again, he actually might have been president.

[RAK]

I wouldn't go as far to say that JFK was a liberal; old Papa Joe Kennedy would roll over on his Swatzika at such a description. And don't forget that brother Bobby worked for Joe McCarthy. But compared to Nixon at that time(before he reinvented himself as a "Progressive Conservative") I guess he would seem like one. But these artificial labels are part of the problem; The choice to the American People should not be framed as Conservative vs. Liberal, but Truth vs. Truthiness (thanks , Steven Colbert). And Mr. Gore is right; the truth is often "inconveniant".