May 18, 2007

Al Gore book excerpt: The Assault on Reason. Also, a look at Gore as a stealth candidate in the 2008 presidential race.
posted by HawthorneWingo 17 years ago
  • Another good find, HW. When Gore talks about television skewing democracy, through the politicking for cash to buy air time, he's missing half of the argument. The other half was aptly demonstrated on the recent Frontline series, which discussed how the media either directly sold the war, or failed to investigate its claims seriously, largely for the need to sales revenue. It was a condemnation of tv news as a whole, where opinion passes for actual news (in light of production costs, largely), and where entire political views are bypassed by the corporate heads, in order to maintain popularity with target demographics of advertisers and viewers. They showed example after example, but the most glaring one (at least for me) was a vicious anti-war speech presented by Ted Kennedy. I had never heard it before, much less seen it. It was amazing -- he was making all these vitriolic predictions, every single one of which came true. I had never seen him so empassioned about anything, nor had I seen a politician so eerily accurate. In the end, his speech was presented on tv in something like 36 words total. Thirty six words, against the millions upon millions in favour of the war. The point was hard to miss -- if (arguably) the most prominent Democrat in the land can't even land airtime, what hope is there for a reasoned debate? Gore talks about money perverting democracy through the need to buy ads -- but just as much, the need to buy ads is perverting the programming which should inform that democracy. All that being said, all the information was available to us, if we wanted to look for it. Plenty of us found it, without too much difficulty, and made the appropriate judgement. So perhaps there's blame to go all 'round, not just for tv and money, but in our slothful citizenry as well. IMHO. IANAD, YMMV, etc., etc.
  • I would love to see or read the text of that Kennedy speech.
  • I haven't found it yet, myself.
  • A fine read. I expect that this book will shoot to the top of the bestsellers list when it hits the shelves on May 22. I'm planning to get a copy - which is something I don't usually do until after-the-fact. Gore's words resonate with me, more so than they did in 2000 (and pre-2000 for that matter). Thanks for posting, HW! And what bernockle said.
  • Just wrote to Kennedy's office asking for the text. If I get anything, I'll post it here.
  • next thing you know, al gore will ask us to stop watching tv during the HOCKEY PLAYOFFS! of course, what else would you expect from the guy that INVENTED INTERWEB? hello can you say "conflict of interests" sheesh
  • I hope he runs.
  • I'm also interested in the text of that speech. Indeed, please post if you come across it. "You are hearing me talk."
  • a look at Gore as a stealth candidate in the 2008 presidential race. I have to say I was completely on the edge of my seat during the Oscars wondering if he would announce it during the show. Actually, let me clarify, I was HOPING he would. Still crossing my fingers! pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplease......
  • C'mon, you guys have at least two solid candidates, each with myriad positive qualities, each with some solid possibilities to unify the Dems, and each with the opportunity to be a real first for an American president, the opportunity to really do something new and exciting. And instead, you want Gore back? It's like my side pining for Newt.
  • I am with you, Fes. I think that it is really thrilling (I am being serious) that the Democratic nominee is very likely for the first time to be either a black man or a woman. That is pretty damn exciting. And if Edwards sneaks in? Well, he is probably the major candidate I like the most, so I will be able to live with that. But as it stands right now, it is fair to say that there is a fifty-fifty chance we will have a black or female president two years from now. There are many who have told me that neither would happen in my lifetime, and people seem to not be as excited about those prospects as I would think they would be.
  • As a practicing vivisectionist, I really think that America's best candidate would actually be composed of a combination of the body parts of Obama, Clinton and Gore: perhaps Obama's black skin and powerful speaking voice; Hilary Clinton's vagina, breasts and commitment to universal health care; and Al Gore's doughty frame and high, girlish giggle. You can call it "proportional representation" if you want, but when all the sutures heal I think you'll agree that democracy will be the winner.
  • Frankly, I care far less about having the first black or woman president than I do about having a president that is deeply concerned about, and pro-active in, the more far-reaching, world-impacting issues. Plus, I trust his instincts more than those of Clinton or Obama. Obama is not nearly seasoned enough - although in time, he'll be a very worthy candidate, and Clinton is too volatile and caught up in all the......politics. Although I do have respect for them both, I feel a sense of security with the idea of Gore as president. He's been around the block a couple of times, learned a few more things, and has gained insight that others do not yet have. Plus, he's disgusted by the system as are most Americans and may well be in a position to make some much needed changes. These days, having the first woman or black president just isn't as important. I can't make that part of my criteria when voting for a public officer. I look forward to the day when I can afford to make that an important part of the process. Better yet, I look forward to the day when no one even thinks about it because it will no longer be an issue. The day when we can have a president who is a woman or black or gay or any other minority based soley on the fact that they are well-qualified for the job and have been LEGALLY AND POPULARLY voted in will be a good day, indeed.
  • Wow, great thread, fine for clearing the palate after a weekend spent battling a hideous respiratory plague. Nicely posted, HW, and great comments from both the Captain and Darshon. I think I would like to see Mr. Gore try again, older and wiser though he may be. This is a man who appears to actually give a damn... how utterly refreshing. At this point we need a radical re-thinking of what it means to be American. The current administration has us circling the bowl pretty graphically lately, and I am convinced that only an extreme change of direction can save us. My fear is that the System has become so vicious and capitalistically burdened that most individuals of real character and integrity won't touch it with a 20-foot taser.
  • Darshon, I think Obama is a good candidate in many ways *because* he is not seasoned enough - he hasn't been entrenched in the Senate long enough to make a lot of ignoble bargains. And to my mind, the country as waited far longer than it should have for a female or African-American president. The US is one of the most diverse countries on earth, and strong because of it - it's unseemly that we have gone so many years, and yet we seem so reluctant to give someone from outside the white male political bastion the top job. It's time. It's way past time, in my opinion. I am two minds on Gore. He seems to be a man whose nature is concilatory, rather than divisive. This I respect. But I also recall that Gore was VP for 8 years, a senator for many more, and only now, shorn of those offices, does he come forward with his progressive plans. Perhaps it is the embodiment of the adage that only the powerless can speak their mind with impunity...? But I can't help but think that, for all Obama's or Clinton's flaws, Gore talks a good game when there are no stakes, but will return to his embrasure of the political status quo if/when he is returned to office.
  • C'mon, you guys have at least two solid candidates Fes, do you always align yourself to one side? And who are these two solid candidates? It's time. It's way past time, in my opinion. I agree. But at the same time, I don't think that is reason enough to give any non-white/non-male a free pass for the sake of it. I agree completely with Darshon. And I'm confused by bernockle. I can't get excited for Hillary based on the fact that she's a woman. Why must we focus on these attributions that should not make one bit of a damn of difference? I'm looking for someone that is Qualified. Someone that not only carries the pulse of the nation, but Respects it as well. I want a President that I can trust; an individual who will represent our nation with Dignity and Honor - rather than drag it through the gutters. I can only dream of the day when I look up to my country again. Right now, it's in complete shambles. I'm ashamed of where we are. I'm not alone in thinking this... Were Gore to drop his hat in the race, I wouldn't flinch. If he decides to stay out, I would be tempted to write his name on the ballot... Of the existing Democrats in the running, I feel almost nothing for Hillary. As a NY State resident, she is my representative. I would not support her. Obama is a step in the right direction for me. He is impassioned and visionary. This is something I think the US could use at this point in history. What worries me most, however, is his lack of experience; I sense that Washington would surely prey on this if he were elected. Edwards is a fine individual. I think he tends to be more low key than I prefer (not that I want Dean screams or something). Now, for the Republican side... Ron Paul, anyone?
  • The US is one of the most diverse countries on earth, and strong because of it And yet we often seem to be so very much opposed to embracing diversity. One of the most damnably confusing and horrid things about us. I mean, Pakistan has already elected a woman. Goddamn Pakistan. And they did it twenty years before our next election.
  • SMT: well, I *am* a registered Republican :) Although often as not, I vote outside my ticket, so I am a poor Republican at best, according to party faithful on both sides of the aisle. The two candidates are Obama and Clinton, they seem to be the front runners for the Democrats. I have no love for Hillary, but I can't argue with her popularity within the Democratic party, nor can I deny she has no small political expertise. But I can't help but think that Obama's "inexperience" is a bit of a manufactured problem. For one, he was a member of the Illinois legislature for seven years prior to his election to the Senate, and Illinois politics are not what you'd call entirely genteel :) But yes, at the national level he's inexperienced - and yet, I feel that's an asset, rather than a detraction. Look at him in comparison to long-time Senators, like Biden and Kerry - they have legislative baggage, whereas Obama does not. Guys who have been in the Senate for a long time have the aristocratic air of privilege, as well as a bagfull for ammo for the opposition called a voting record. Obama is still close enough to his roots to be genuinely populist. And he has what BIll Clitnon had - a sense that he's a *real* guy. He's had a hard time quitting cigarettes. He's tried marijuana. He's an actual person, with actual person qualities. Other actuall persons appreciate that, I think. I know I do.
  • Aiee crap, sorry about the Freudian typo on our immediate past president's last name *smacks head* I want to assure everyone that THAT was unintentional.
  • Holy crap.
  • erhaps it is the embodiment of the adage that only the powerless can speak their mind with impunity...? That's what it looks like to me, Fes. Speaking as someone who usually tends to vote the donkey, I wouldn't mind seeing Obama and Clinton as running mates. Either O/C or C/O.
  • LOLL PLEASURABLY IN A BUCKET OF PIG WASTE while we bring you the thrilling tale of Bile Clitnog, the juiciest damn politician you ever did squeeze. SCENE THE FIRST A YOKEL approaches our Heroic Arkanesian Presidentialist. YOKEL: Whatcher doing thar, Bile? BILE: I done ejaculated on mah electorate agin. YOKEL: H'yuk! You shure are a dummass, Bile! BILE: Git off-a mah porch Randolf before I ooze charisma on-a yer wife. YOKEL: Aw she-it Bile I shoudda knowd that you were too damn moist to be electabubble.
  • *buries head in hands*
  • /buys ale and peanuts
  • There is a typo in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.
  • Thanks for putting a big smile on my face, Fes! *attempts to muffle laughing*
  • Sometimes reading these threads makes me feel drunk even though it's before noon.
  • Yeah, I voted Clitnog/Ogre in '96. Or was it '69? Anyway, let's all have a nice cuppa. Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
  • C'mon, you guys have at least two solid candidates Not gonna happen. Neither one will get elected by themselves or together. If the GOP puts up somebody halfway in the middle (ex: Rudy or Fred) racist America (sorry Bob, but that's how we roll) will not vote for Hussein. I mean Osama. I try not to get swept up in the sign-waving for Obama because the left is agog, but dammit he really is that good - it's just not time yet. We're not ready. Our dialogue is still fear-based. And Hillary's not Bill. That's the story of the election that would be, in three words. She won't win over anyone who's not already there (again, me) and she won't win with the 40% +/- she's got locked up - and that's before the gaffes and full bore Fox News treatment. Al's the man. And it's not like The Right throwing Newt in there. Newt's a prickly history teacher, and a divisive bastard who can't help himself. Al's a savvy political thoroughbred who would sweep up if he doesn't listen to the advisors he would once again be plagued with in a campaign. Gore talks a good game when there are no stakes, but will return to his embrasure of the political status quo if/when he is returned to office. Agreed. Because politics in this country is an ugly, ugly sight to behold. Al Unleashed (or Unfettered, anyway) is what we see now. So I don't want him to announce until very late. We know who he is - there's no need to get on the trail until late. Besides. I doubt we've had enough. The 2004 election taught me that we're really, really, really stupid. Was that too cynical? Should I take out one of the "stupids"? How's my tie look?
  • tie looks good. Go get 'em, tiger.
  • Beyond that, I read your post as less of an analysis of why Gore would be a good candidate (we're racist, Hill's not Bill, Al's savvy, politics is ugly) as a justification, a rationalization, for what is the inherently conservative position: going with the devil you know because you think they can win, as opposed to the devil you don't because you think they can't. And THAT, to me, is one of real detractions of the political process. Voters are so into the idea of their team winning that they are afraid to vote for candidates that they believe in because they don't think they can win. It is this cultural amphisbaena that, I believe, entrenches the moribund two-party system in this country and assures all of us that nothing of note gets accomplished, that any progress proceeds at glacial speed. America does have a problem with racism - but voting for Gore instead of Obama because you believe that Obama is unelectable because of racism... if enough do this, we'll never know, will we? We assume racism, sexism, prejudice and ignorance, and yet I think these are less causes as they are excuses, designed to justify the real practice of voting for someone you don't believe in because you think that it is better that the team win than the electorate's true feelings be known. I think that America has been ready for an African American president, a Hispanic president, a female president, for a long time, but the fetters of ideology, promulgated by the parties, restrain us and provide our excuses at the same time.
  • the "you," above, obviously the royal version. No personal charges should be inferred.
  • Voters are so into the idea of their team winning that they are afraid to vote for candidates that they believe in because they don't think they can win. It happens. See: 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004. it is better that the team win than the electorate's true feelings be known. It is better that the team win. That's democracy (and baseball) for you. After all, this is 7 long and insufferable years under one of the most corrupt, inept, violent and hypocritical administrations ever. Al Gore is FINE. Besides, I actually do think he'd be better than Obama. As great as I think Obama is (from what I've heard), Al would be a better president in 2009. Of course, we still have almost two years left to discuss it. Lemonade?
  • I think the Dems can win with Obama or Gore (or maybe Edwards or someone else), but not with Hilary. And it's not because she's a woman, it's because she's polarizing even within her own party, and more nakedly (and probably more completely) a political animal than Obama or Gore. In other words, she's harder to trust. Thanks for the lemonade, but I'm more into Italian and Spanish reds these days.
  • I disagree with nearly everything there except the lemonade part. I firmly believe that people ought to vote for the person they believe would do that best job. If that's Gore, fine. But I don't belive they should vote for someone they don't believe in because they don't think who they do believe in can't win - it undermines the essence of democracy. I think of the Republican party and I ask myself: what have they done for me, in exchange for my loyalty? Not much. I am willing to wager that the democratic party has give you the same, and from what I can gather, the voters' due is, from the party point of view, overwhelmingly disappointment. Are we to simply line up for whom the party selects and pony up our votes like good little automatons? Is the gaseous pleasure of "winning" so invested in our self-image that we sacrifice our franchise for the opportunity to say, every four Novembers, that "our guy" won? I don't know Bush. I don't know Gore. I've never seen them and they affect my life in the same way as God does - rarely, and arbitrarily. I get nothing from them winning or losing, nor from either party. And my guess is that, unless you are in line for patronage, neither do you, save the for marginal policy differences that, in the US anyway, are so miniscule and self-serving (for them) as to be nearly non-existent.
  • Do you have any lime wedges? *pulls up a chair and allows petebest to be my proxy speaker* So I don't want him to announce until very late. Agreed. Honestly, I think this is the winning tactic. America does have a problem with racism - but voting for Gore instead of Obama because you believe that Obama is unelectable because of racism... if enough do this, we'll never know, will we? A good point, Fes. And I'm glad I would not allow myself to vote that way. Personally, I think Obama *is* electable.
  • As an aside, and as a proper European lefty who would love to see everything re-nationalised as soon as possible, and Bush and Blair sent to jail while it happened, that Fes is damn cool, and the best argument that his side has. A proper gentleman who understands that there is more to politics than partisanship. I know this sentiment has been voiced before, but I would like to add to it.
  • He's pretty dapper, too! Quite the clothes horse from what I understand.
  • He's also got a Nike tattoo on his forearm. It shimmies sexily when he flexes.
  • "I've never seen them and they affect my life in the same way as God does - rarely, and arbitrarily." Honestly? Rarely?
  • *worries that this is about to turn into a "is there a God?" thread*
  • But I don't belive they should vote for someone they don't believe in because they don't think who they do believe in can't win - it undermines the essence of democracy. I don't know about undermining the essence of democracy - I think that may be a discussion about election reform. And I'd be quite prepared for that eventuality. ("Hard Day's Night" quotes, anyone?) It's a good point, and I freely admit to a certain amount of pragmatic cynicism regarding the election process, but somewhere between Reagan's Michael Deaver, the "Christian Right", and Karl Rove - all bets are off. Just win the White House and philosophize later. Because this last joker is the worst evar. I don't have time to guess whether America is racially tolerant enough for Obama. This whole pre-emptive war, torture-espousing, budget-busting, illegal wiretapping, partisan judiciary administration has to be stopped (a.k.a. Dems win the WH). Election reform - now that's a topic I'd bet we agree on quite a bit. But that's really the philosophizing part, isn't it? *unwraps nibbly cookies*
  • Rarely? Well, yes. I mean, what has the president done to/for YOU lately? The president is as remote from the average person as is Quetzlcoatlus on his pyramid. One could make the case that the laws that the president signs have an affect on us, but to my mind there are two gulfs there: first, the president merely enacts the laws of others, it is Congress' job to write them (which obligation they pass off to lobbyists and ne'er-do-wells, but that's for another thread), and two, the federal executive branch, overwhelmingly, deals with... federal, executive branch things. Macro-[insert term here]. We as individuals are inherently micro-. When it comes to political affect at the individual level, influence decreases mightily as proximity decreases. The political office that has the MOST sway on me? The president of my Homeowners Association. He lives down the street. He comes by to chat. And he has told me what kind of pool I'm allowed to build in the backyard, if I can have a shed, replaced my streetlight. My city alderman determines my zoning, how many cops are on my street, and can fix it when the city wants to build a five foot deep drainage pit covering 2/3 of my yard (this actually happened). My county rep determines my tax rate; the state rep and senators, they argue with the utility companies, and occasionally cut ribbons at new businesses. My congressman... well, other than being a corrupt p.o.s., I'm not sure what he does. He keeps the Air Force Base open, which helps to maintain the economic stability of the region and keeps a lot of my neighbors in town so they can be my neighbors. My senator complains a lot about how the Republicans are shits. And my president... It's not for nothing, the adage "all politics are local." Although I think that, rightly, it should read "the most important politics to you personally are local." Because this last joker is the worst evar. Well, that's a pretty large statement, and worthy of some debate. LBJ made Vietnam (a war far FAR more divisive and bloody than Iraq could ever hope to be) worse, likely profitted from it (sikorsky), and is suspected (by tin foil hat types) of engineering the murder of his predecessor :D Adams instituted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were way more onerous than anything envisioned by the Patriot Act. Buchanon pretty much started the Civil War. Wilson the racist aesthete, under whom the Klan grew and prospered (not to mention the pitiful League of Nations). Jackson's genocide (no other name for it) against the Indians. And then there's Nixon. That's some big league fuckery to exceed, and honestly, I think it's beyond the malevolent capabilties of our rather minor-league president.
  • I don't expect Gore to show up, and if he does, I expect he'll be met with disappointment again. In 2000, there was much talk about how similar Gore and Bush really were, in that they were creations of their patrician families. True, Bush was the screwup and Gore the boy scout, but they were never men of their own making so much as they were their families'. For all the talk about Gore's profound disappointment in the 2000 election, and his grandiose talk about letting the rule of law take its course, no matter the consequences to himself -- I found it fairly clear that Gore was in a way relieved to lose -- to finally be out from under that pressure, and to become whomever it was he wanted to be. Which, to a certain extent, he has. Only now, public pressure has supplanted itself for the pressure once imposed by family, and he may be forced into something he doesn't really want. For this reason, I hope he doesn't go in, for if he does, it'll be another loss, both for him, and for a great chunk of the country. I have to think back to when I was living in Florida, and had to study Earth in the Balance. I remember it being a fairly good book, entirely reasonable in its proposals on climate change. But even then, I was struck by the fact that he had written it as a Senator, but as a V.P., none of these proposals had moved forward. I thought it was a bit duplicitous, but now, I think that he was constrained by the limits on how he was allowed to act on his own. And being a cynical bastard, I see those constraints as only being greater in the Presidency itself. For all of this, I hope he doesn't step in. He can probably do far more good outside of the office than in it, as Jimmy Carter in a way. A statesman, but not a politician. On the more crass side, if Gore steps in, there will always be a whiff of '2nd choice' to the man, the one who lost to Bush, of all people. As with Hilary, there may just be too much baggage there. If I could make a suggestion, I would think that the U.S. would be best served by someone entirely new. They've reached such a stage of divisiveness, that to go back for someone of the past, of the old rivalry, will only worsen the crisis. There are a lot of Democrats looking to settle scores, but that's not going to help anyone, only stall the recovery the country needs to make. The metaphor isn't quite right, but just as South Africa just had to forgo a lot of punishment and retribution just to get on with life, perhaps the States does now too -- just cut the anchors loose, and move on. I think Obama is a real possibility. Hearing him speak is so refreshing -- there hasn't been a real orator in Washington in a while. And he's not aligned with any of the traditional power bastions. Perhaps that means he won't get in, but he could make a real run for it, and in the process, lift the debate as a whole. Which is a remedy in itself.
  • Well, yes. I mean, what has the president done to/for YOU lately? HE'S LISTENING TO MY PHONE CALLS AND STUFFING THE SUPREME COURT WITH FASCISTS!! *bangs receiver on desk* Err . . but otherwise, fair points all. LBJ made Vietnam . . . Adams instituted the Alien and Sedition Acts . . . Buchanon pretty much started the Civil War . . . Wilson the racist aesthete, under whom the Klan grew . . . Jackson's genocide . . Bush is no Vlad the Impaler or King Louis XVI either, but in those historical contexts I think we can agree he'd suck as well. Should we be grateful he's dim (as ol' Louis) and not aggressive as Nixon was? (Isn't that what Cheney's for?) Bush is precisely the worst evar because he should have learned from Jackson's genocide, Harding's corruption, Johnson's war-for-idealism, Clinton's economic focus: but he hasn't. He won't. He refuses to learn his lessons or accept advice even when it's forced on him by any authority he regards (which is Cheney, his Dad, and . . Jesus.) He didn't even know the difference between Sunni and Shia before invading Iraq. That's bad. That's the worst ever. Would Jackson have made the same mistakes? Maybe. Hence the argument. see also
  • ...he's dim (as ol' Louis)... *harrumphs*
  • No, no, the King Louis. The other King Louis. French revolution guy. *sigh* The other French revolution guy.
  • History will determine how bad Bush is, of course. Let's wait 10 years and see how the geopolitical and civil-rights-in-the-U.S. situations evolve before letting him off the hook so easily. He seems dangerously close to deserving the mantle already, though.
  • History will determine how bad Bush is, of course. No, no. I got it.