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).

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