Should Al Gore get involved in the 2008 Presidential race it exponentially increases the GOP's chance of holding on to the White House.
About a month ago, I was on my way to the Old South Meeting House to see former Nixon White House counsel John Dean speak. As I approached the entrance, a man standing outside the door asked me if I wanted to sign a petition to draft Al Gore to run for the White House in 2008. I ignored the man, walked inside and laughed to myself.
But now that Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize the proposition doesn't seem such a bad idea after all. I now support the efforts of the Left to draft Al Gore to run for President. Conservatives should be delighted if Gore decides to run one more time.
Why you might ask?
It's very simple. Who stands the most to lose should Al Gore enter the 2008 Presidential race?
Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The fact that there is an effort to draft Al Gore is a strong indication that grassroots Democrats are less than enthusiastic about Hillary, especially on the War in Iraq which Gore has opposed from the outset. His entry would expose the deep divisions amongst the American Left for all to see. Al Gore would be a thorn in Hillary's coronation. This isn't to say that Hillary can't turn back Gore's challenge. Do you think Hillary is going to let Gore ruin her ascension to the throne? Not on your life. But the challenge would be so bruising that it's doubtful these grassroots Democratic activists could be sufficiently motivated to vote for Hillary on election day. Of course, Gore could run as an independent. He could be to Hillary what Ralph Nader was to him in 2000. Either way, should Al Gore get involved in the 2008 Presidential race it exponentially increases the GOP's chance of holding on to the White House.
Can you say President Giuliani?
Of course, Gore insists to the high heavens that he is not running for the White House. Sure he now has the Nobel Prize. He has the Academy Award. He has the Emmy. He's been a rock n' roll impresario. He's hosted Saturday Night Live. But somehow that doesn't seem enough. For eight years, he was within a heartbeat of the Oval Office and came within a hair of winning it in his own right. He was so close and yet so far. I am certain that Al Gore would give up his Academy Award, his Emmy Award, stop hanging out with Cameron Diaz and sell the environmental movement down the river if he could live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for the next four to eight years.
aargold24@hotmail.com
http://www.poetsforthewar.org
Read more articles by Aaron Goldstein
Can you say President Snagglepuss? There is the remote chance that he could win, having beaten a charismatic conservative in the popular vote. I think his odds are better than Hillary's as her unfavorable rating is much higher. Combine this with fewer conservatives voting for a more liberal Republican candidate, and we could be looking at four or more years of slow, drawling sibilant "s's." Heavens to Mercatroid!
Comment by Jim | October 16, 2007
Deep inside Gore is aware that his only chance of winning is to allow Hillary to lose and try in 2012. He will be praying for those 4 years that the climate change model he created will develop. This of course will make him as the modern day Nostradameus for many and steamroll him into the White House as mankinds only chance of survival. I know Al representing the Messiah is a stretch, but when you break it down, the man who invented the internet is banking on it. He knows as well as Hillary that any Gore/Hillary run will only result in a loss for both of them very similar to Bush/Perot/Clinton.
I never thought about it much– but maybe Al is always flying around in his private jet so this global warming plan can speed up by 2012 and help him into the presidency. That sly little (excuse me, HUGE) Al. Can you imagine future historians looking back on a Gore Presidency?
Future student: What issue allowed Al Gore to be the leader of the free world?
Future Historian: The weather.
Enough said
Comment by Honker | October 17, 2007
No doubt Hillary Clinton would make a terrible president. However, Al Gore would make an excellent president. While he might be overly concerned about global warming (hey, at least it is a serious matter and at least he has the integrity to actually stand for something important) he was right on just about every major issue currently facing the United States. He was especially right on the Iraq War (huge error) and he was brave enough to argue against the invasion when others who should have known better stood around and clucked like a bunch of scared chickens. So yes, I would vote for Al Gore in a second over any other candidates - Democrat or Republican.
Comment by newsdawg | October 18, 2007
newsdawg,
Do please elaborate. Precisely on what basis has Al Gore ever been right on any issue other than according to liberal and his own belief? Being right entails substantive arguments backing said contention. Saying you are justified in stealing is very different from saying it’s wrong and are sorry for having stolen … or, worse, continuing to steal despite any qualms that causes. As far as the war goes, you presume to speak for everyone that the war was a mistake. That’s your opinion unsupported by any proof. We went to war for solid reasons, the same reasons we have gone to war in the past often when it was liberals calling the tune. In any case, Gore didn’t denounce the war on principles; he denounced it because it made him, once again, relevant. For his part, Gore was far from being alone in denouncing the invasion, including those you now deride as “scared chickens” (however true that may be). The only reason Gore did not stand with his fellow Democrats when they finally conceded the need to invade was he held no office or other position for which he’d be held accountable, there is no public record we can now cite what position he would have taken, and he had everything to gain and nothing to lose by playing the lone maverick. Moreover, his resistance to the Iraq invasion is inconsistent with his defense of our meddling in the Balkan business.
However, we do have his past record, and that is pure inconsistency consistent with a political-hack. Gore, like Kerry and others, can be counted on to talk out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. In 1996, Gore promoted faith based initiatives. In 2000, he waffled between supporting and condemning them because Bush was succeeding where he’d failed. This might have passed under our radar except for his little slip up with the Buddhists. Gore’s healthcare proposals are standard Democrat fare (see http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/09/07/president.2000/gore.healthcare/index.html), Gore’s stances on defense, minimum wage, taxation v. budget, abortion, trade, education, gun-control, state-managed retirement and child endowment accounts, housing, immigration, treatment of so-called ‘deadbeat dads’, are all similarly stock Dem positions (see http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm). His positions on these and other issues have changed in lock-step with party doctrine, and his voting record as a legislator reflects a ‘wind-tester’. To be fair, Republican stances on these same issues are not greatly different from Democrat, and all the emphasis on points-of-difference is largely window dressing. I liken them to ‘liberal’ versus ‘liberal-lite’. Even so, there are differences of consistency and extremism between the two parties, and it does become a question who you trust more to deliver on those issues that matter most (e.g., combating terrorism, border-control, freedom). For the most part, Gore-2008 is indistinguishable from Gore-2000; so, if we can count on anything, it is that Gore is all about Gore and getting back his power. To that end, he will go to any length, go out on any limb, or pull any media grabbing stunt.
As for Global Warming being ‘something important’, I say: Tommy-rot! Are you really taken in by that chicken-little, sky-is-falling rubbish? Or do you just like stirring it up knowing it’s a hot-button you can push. GW is not settled-science any more than it is ‘consensus’ science. It hinges entirely on faith there just might be something to the notion of a climate ‘tipping point’, a point on the temperature scale our planet has surpassed many times with no indication of runaway effects of the order Gore insists are even now occuring. To this end, you would have us spend every spare dollar to prevent the unpreventable, ignoring real catastrophes already taking place and which we do have some means to ameliorate.
If I were to tell you there is a far more dangerous to our planet substance than CO2, one that actually kills thousands of people every year, contributes to acid-rain, is unstable, is a constituent in a variety of highly toxic substances, has the official notice of the FDA, FEMA and CDC, causes severe burns in its vaporous state and breaks down skin tissue in its solid state, is a major cause of soil erosion, corrodes everything from steel to concrete, is a major electrical hazard, causes premature brake failures, found in cancerous tissues, given to vicious dogs shortly before attacks, associated with killer cyclones and hurricanes, and is an even bigger contributor to global warming than CO2, can I count on you to help get it banned? The name of this evil substance is dihydrogen monoxide (http://www.dhmo.org), but you would know it better as water. The science is proven for every allegation, yet no one is concerned about water or our increase of atmospheric dihydrogen monoxide (other than as a ‘theorized’ increase in response to increased atmospheric CO2, a nuance hastily introduced to prop up a shaky GW theory not getting enough traction). If you don’t want to listen to a conservative, go read what Michael Crichton (a liberal) has to say about GW hysteria and how pointless it is (http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html).
Comment by Robert W. Stapler | October 21, 2007