Washington File

Despite the hero worship Gore is enjoying, many will sing a much different tune when they (the average tax paying consumer), will have to sacrifice luxuries for unselfish reasons. Being green is more a topic of discussion for those pretending to care. The sad fact remains that too many americans are driven by lies that embrace sacrifice as a form of weakness, and poverty. In other words its ok to show off because its better than looking poor. Big cars, huge homes, energy draining appliances like central heat and air, as well as a vicarious appetite for consumer goods are goals to be achieved, not thwarted. They will grow up and learn to walk, sweat, and burn calories the old fashoined way when there is no other choice. And they can thank Al Gore for it. If he gets his way that is. Thank you for letting me vent.

Jerry, you still haven't responded to my posting. It seems you're far too busy worrying about some claim that Gore invented the Internet to even debate the real issues he is focusing on.

Who cares about the Gore/Internet thing, anyway? George Dubya claims to have graduated from Yale (I know he did). But, considering his shaky grasp of the English language, his knack for mispronouncing simple words and phrases, I'm surprised he can even spell 'Yale'. (The word is Nuclear, Dubya, not New-cyou-lur).

Last post from the voice in the wilderness: A thing can only be created once. Signing on to legislation which provides money for the internet is not the same as creating it. When Gore hyped and exaggerated his role in creating the internet it was a preview of his tactics on global warming. Much exaggeration to scare the pants off of people who do not know climatology or Al Gore. Slowly the real science is getting out but the people who idolize Al do not want to hear it.

Why is it that when Al Gore speaks on the environment, poses questions and talks of the dangers of global climate change, people like Jerry line up to lambaste him. They cast dispersions on his character and vilify him no end. When a pathetic retard like George Bush talks about global climate change being made up of "bad science" no one calls him on it. It's as if the right wing will allow anything this man has to say to pass but whenever anyone of intelligence even thinks of refuting the regime's party line they are worse than suspect? Why is that Jerry? Why defend a proven moron against the weight of scientific evidence? Is GWB a scientist of note? No, I don't think so. In fact, the closest brush Bush has had with science is when he went AWOL rather than test positive for a cocaine addicition. I realise you're only trying to salvage the reutation of your country by apologising for the retard you elected to office, but c'mon man! Give credit where credit is due! At least Al Gore has it right and Bush is, as usual, nowhere.

Dear Mr Cat, I think we have already settled what Al said and where, but thanks. Ditto on who actually created the internet. Yes a collective effort by those sharp pencils in the pentagon in 1969. Al was 21 that year.

Hey Jerry once again AL Gore never said he invented the internet he said he helped create it on an interview w/ Wolf Blitzer on CNN which was taken out of context to trick people like you. Hope is not lost in your ignorance as I see you can use a computer. So, use it and Google who invented the internet and you will see a lot of people did as a group . You must have dumb lucked into saying that our government had it 1st as they did but not like we know it now.Al Gore helped free it up so the world could have it and it grew. The next time you type on a blog thank Al Gore and others like him . The next time you BI@CH about thank W and his boys.

Earth to Sven, Al Gore is not interested in "fighting big corporations". He owns a large part of a very BIG corporation. A very BIG ENERGY corporation called Occidental Petroleum. He also own a little operation that buys and sells "carbon Offsets" for a tidy profit. It ties in well with his new "save the earth" persona. People, Al Gore is "the man behind the curtin".

If I was paranoid...

It would be amazing to see how effective the insiders within the CBC IT department get the word out to the North American Oil lobby to begin commenting on Al Gore.

But, the reality is just effective use of technologies like Google... (Sorry CBC IS/IT, we use linux too.)

Energy Corporations:
Scared they are. And concerned they will be.

Manipulation of the media by large Corporate concerns and the related NGO's they spawn give more credence to the opinions expressed in the articles on the Environment by media, than the reality set by the Scientists who did and are doing; the work.

But, like the tobacco lobby, and Al Gore knows intimately the Tobacco lobby, and the spin machine it spawned; the Energy industry either changes, or would be forced to change.

Silent player in all this is "S.O." the one company which could benefit from moving forward and leveraging the benefit of changing from a classical energy-going concern to a advanced-modern energy going concern where they could affect change by leveraging the prices high enough to force change, and leveraging the benefits (profits) in the move to alternatives, that would save the planet, save the customer base (indirectly) and provide a larger profit center from which to expand, and be all the better for it.

But Classical Energy is the status quo, and -that- is the smart reason Al Gore is avoiding doing anything for being a puppet to the NGO handler space that being the President would mean. He is better off affecting change a community at a time. Because it is communities that Corporations cannot compete against.

-sven

Jerry - you are right. Al Gore is a liar and an idiot. For example, in the debates during the 2000 election, he said stuff like:

"Governor Bush would spend more money on tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent than (on) education, health care, prescription drugs and national defense all combined."

Clearly he was misleading the voters, or just being dumb, for including national defense on that list. After such blunders, really who could trust him?

Jerry, you still have yet to give any real evidence of anything negative you have said regarding Al Gore.

Snake Oil Salesman?? How so?

Refuses to debate?? Since when?

Your claim that he knows nothing about film-making is irrelevant. Plus, someone with a journalism background, as he does, certainly has an idea about how to convey a message.

Gore may not be a Climatologist by trade, but he HAS done his homework. Plus, he's certainly not the first person to bring forth this particular message. Real Climatologists, for years, have been talking and warning about the very same things Gore talks about in his documentary. Gore just happens to have a higher profile, giving him a wider audience to the message. If you think Gore just made all this stuff up for sh*ts and giggles, and to stroke his supposed massive ego, you're simply being ignorant.

You can choose to believe what you want about about the causes of our climate's changes. As for Gore, you know what they say...don't shoot the messenger.

Have fun burying your head in the sand.

Don I think you are being a little unfair to the "shaved apes" out there, many of whom may take offense at being thrown in with the "disgruntled rightwing retards". Seriously, the sophistication and pure logic of your post has caused me to reconsider Al Gore. Yes, now that I think about it, I believe he IS a scientist, he CAN make the world love America again, he DID win in 2000, he DID invent the lightbulb I mean internet. By God I am going to let Al do ALL my thinking for me. Yes, now that I have drunk the Koolaid things seem OK again.

Jerry;

What's to defend? The suit in the UK was launched by a disgruntled right wing retard who has an axe to grind with eco propaganda. Apparently this no name is all right with anti-eco proaganda, and is looking to protect school kids from learning about things that could be vitally important to them as they grow up. You may be surprised to know that Gore is not responsible for trying to make copies of his film become required viewing in UK schools: that one goes to people in the UK who think it vital that kids have all the facts, not just the wishful thinking and blind disavowels of the shaved apes on the right.

I think it's pretty clear that the credibility you are so desperately defending is that of Gore's detracters on the right, who, notably, have spent theirs years ago. You may as well face facts: the republican candidates you supported against Al Gore in 2000 have all proven to have been an abysmal choice and led to the ruination of your country. Because of them America is universally loathed: because of Al Gore America may yet recover a modicum of respectability. Everything he said against America's wars has proven true, and his tireless efforts to wake us to the very real dangers of climate change is indisputable. Only the truly weak minded continue to hold out against the evidence of their senses, the science, the facts, and the results before us.

Oscar, Al Gore is not well educated. Unless you consider that a degree in journalism makes someone well educated. He is not trained in climatology and knows nothing about film making. He is accorded the status of some sort of prophet yet he refuses to debate his strongly held opinions. Take a closer more critical look at Al. There is less than meets the eye. Believe me you don't need to be a right-winger or Republican whiner to spot a snake oil salesman. Bob Dylan held a similar status with some in my generation. Recently in an interview he spoke of how people still today approach him and ask about complex issues as though he is the one with the answers. He has the integrity to tell them he is just a song writer. Dylan has a healthy control of his ego. Al Gore does not.

I find it funny that the people who bash Al Gore seem to do it for no apparent reason at all. You'd think you'd have some credible facts or evidence to back up the fact that you think Gore is ego-driver, hypocritical, know-nothing hack.

What I really think bothers right-winger and Republicans is that Gore doesn't reduce himself to the level of petty name-calling. He is intelligent, educated, and passionate about a cause he feels is of utmost importance.

What's wrong with that? What's more, why would anyone believe he has ulterior motives, as some right-wing mouthpieces have claimed in the past?

I also think right-wingers, in general, have a problem accepting the fact that human activity may have a profound effect on the planet's climate and environment.

Why?

Because many - a majority, I'd guess - believe that humans have no control of the planet's destiny. Rather, it is in the hands of God. It's an absolving of responsibility. Some people don't want to believe that they, in fact, can have an impact on a global scale. It's unfathomable that we, the sheep, can possibly be of any consequence regarding the fate of the world.

Think about it.

Matt, in defending Al Gore's credibility you are taking on a big job. True believers may be interested in knowing that a judge in the UK ruled that since there are multiple significant lies in Big AL's crockumentary Inconvient Truth, it must be shown in schools with a warning label. As to the father of the internet, I admit I don't know who this Vern is, but I am pretty sure the internet was created by the pentagon in 1969 as a cold war tool to be used in case of nuclear war.

Well, as a non-president the guy gets to be a much loved speaker, film maker and blooming pop icon who can say exactly what he wants to, follow his own desires, sleep in on the weekends and *shudder* even grow a beard.

As a president he would have to shave and start wearing those old conservative suits again every day while dealing with a quagmire war, a fluxuating economy and while worrying about every intern that walked by. Not to mention of course the fact that millions of voters in the US don't believe in global warming (or even evolution) so his tongue might get awfully swollen from continuous biting.

Gore would have to be out of his gourd to run now and besides, he’s accomplishing much more being free of the need to pander to the ignorant voting blocs who would see science textbooks replaced with religious myths.

Jerry,

So when Vint Cerf, the universally acknowledged father of the Internet, spoke out in support of Al Gore and said that his lobbying within government for support of the Internet was indispensable ... he was lying? He spoke out directly in response to the Republican attack machine's "take" on Gore's comment. I think I'll take the word of a known Internet icon who will go down in history as having transformed humanity over that of a bunch of whiny Republican hacks looking to score political points.

Matt

Jerry,

Your point is lost on me, since the poor can't afford to pollute all that much either. I don't know many frequent flyers living below the poverty line.

Whether we deal with global warming or not, the poor aren't going to have large houses or fly private jets.

And it wasn't Gore who campaigned on tax cuts for the richest Americans, resulting in the largest income gap since 1929. A new Gilded Age, thanks to President Bush's economic policies.

"He (Al Gore) pays extra money for his energy and for his flights to purchase the carbon offsets." -Dan D in Toronto
Talk about revealing. So Dan D if you are wealthy you can pollute. The rest of us will be stuck with a "carbon tax". Quite an elitist notion. Apparently some are more equal than others after all.

This notion of Gore's house/air travel is revealing.

Gore has never claimed that to combat global warming, one must live the life of a hermit, in a shack in the woods by candlelight. Gore merely advocates a carbon neutral life.

So the absolute amount of energy the Gore's use in their house (from which they also run two businesses and host a secret service detail, which are hardly "typical" household activities as far as energy use goes) is immaterial, so long as it does not add to the carbon in the atmosphere.

Now the Gores buy renewable energy at great additional cost to themselves so their energy use is not contributing to global warming.

When Gore flies, he buys carbon offsets and he only flies private jets when commercial routes are unavailable. This nonsensical notion of him galivanting around in a private 747 is a farce.

So quit calling him a hypocrite unless you can actually find him failing to adhere to his own stated principles. He pays extra money for his energy and for his flights to purchase the carbon offsets. This is the opposite of hypocrisy.

It's funny, the right is often afraid of what global warming will mean for business and capitalism. The image of the crazy environmentalist preaching some kind of acetic naturalist hippie lifestyle for all the world is what they fear. Yet here is Gore, showing how one can continue to lead a modern life, running profitable businesses while not contributing to the climate change problem. It's everything they demand and nothing they fear, and yet they abhor Gore's message and person so much. Why is that?

Congratulations Mr. Gore, and the scientists of the IPCC, you all deserve this honour.

When Al Gore moves into a house as small as mine, then I will begin to take him as a person who is seriously concerned about global warming.

Ever notice that Reg and company who like to rip into Gore never actually offer any constructive input on the US political process?

Are they that thoroughly jaded?

Or is there another agenda?

It seems these folks are trying to knock Gore down just in case he runs for president. Are they worried he may jeopardize Hillary's or Rudy's chances? Is Gore a threat to the corporate agenda simply because he has been right on too many things too often?

If you still believe in the rule of law, world peace, and the importance of environmental conservation - and that it does matter who the President of the US is - then you know Al Gore would be a far better president than any of the contenders today. There is simply no better alternative.

If you don't believe some or all these things, then you attack Gore with all your might.

This time though, you are wasting your time.

People are ready for an honest and courageous man for the President. The last 8 years (not to mention the prevous 20) demands it.

Don, I don't blame you for changing the subject, but Al Gore not only said he invented the internet, he said it during committee hearings in Congress. He is a thoroughly discredited politician who is only taken seriously now a days by people who don't live here. As in Oslo.

ed note..

Gore did say, rather intemperately, that he invented the internet and he did say it at a congressional hearing. But reading of the transcript shows that what Gore was talking about was the congressional efforts that provided monies for research to those scientists and computer experts who were working on defence projects and saw a future for interlinking that was unheard of at the time.

hyperbole yes, but Gore did lead in the raising of those funds....h

Jerry in Seattle - your facts about Al Gore aren't exactly right are they? He never said that he invented the internet: that republican propaganda has been debunked for many years now. As for providing the inspiration for Love Story, US media with an axe to grind took an innocent, off the cuff remark about his relationship with his wife and blew it out of all proportion to embarrass him during the campaign. Character assassination in other words. Media coverage of the 2000 campaign was decidedly pro-Bush: now that the tables have turned we now see a media bias that is anti-Bush and pro-Gore, as if that alone makes everything they've done to destroy his reputation all good again.

It's obvious that Gore's a threat to the neocons if you stoop to regurgitating half truths and blatant falehoods about the man: claiming a deferment for Gore so that he could attend a seminary school hardly rates with Cheney's deferments or Bush's outright cowardice to serve when he went AWOL from the National Guard. Of the three, I suspect that it is Gore who has the greater credibility. it goes without saying that he is head and shoulders above both Cheney and Bush when it comes to principles, years of dedicated service and of course, courage. Something neither of them apparently know anything about.

Mr. Champ has written a very jejune assessment on whether Mr. Gore will run for President. I am surprised that such an experienced reporter and Washington insider did not offer a more detailed hypothesis. Among the questions that needed answers and details are whether Mr. Gore (reluctant or not) will decide that leading the crusade to reverse global warming outweighs all the negatives of being in the political arena? Furthermore, someone needs to uncover whether Mr. Gore recognizes that leading on the environment from the White House will in turn go a long way to the US regaining much of its international credibility lost under the oppressive Bush administration. Perhaps there is a story out there if someone would put some effort into it?

Wait a minute! Do you mean the Al Gore who flunked out of Vanderbilt University? The Al Gore who went to seminary school with an eye to avoiding combat in Viet Nam? Then dropped out of that then got a degree in journalism? The Al Gore who's family owns half of Occidental Petroleum? Which makes him a crusader against his own product. The Al Gore who is the inventor of the internet? The Al Gore who seriously claims that he and Tipper are the inspiration for Eric Segal's novel Love Story? THAT AL GORE? Letterman and Leno can't wait.

Judging from Big Al's rapturous reception up there in Canada, where he seems to actually be considered a real scientist/rock star, he might do better running against Harper. I know, I know.

From Don's post - "Americans lurch from one side of the street to another desperately searching for the next big thing or the next great hero: when those turn out to be duds they can get pretty vicious."

You can say that about Maple Leafs' and Canadiens' fans too - but I digress.

"As president [Al Gore] would be hamstrung by a recalcitrant congress, big business and a hostile media."

Exactly. Nothing to do with Americans or democracy.

"For all the epic incompetence shown by this president over the last seven years, well, america deserves that too because they haven't done anything about it."

I think human nature makes us apathetic - as long as our comfy lifestyle is not disrupted, we couldn't care less about our neighbours - especially if it would mean having to pay more for our running shoes, or gas. And this is true in every country.

Obviously there are exceptions - this is why marches and protests take place, perhaps not are regularly as they should and without the multitidues of citizens that should be present, but they are there. And they exist in America too.

Don, we probably agree on a lot of things, except on our views of "the Americans".

We americans did not vote for Bush, we voted for al gore, unfortunately our vote did not matter. George W. does not represent what we are all about, we are better than that. What better way to right the wrong that happened than by having Al gore run and win the presidency - that is my hope and prayer.

The comments by Reg of Windsor are typical of those on the far right. There is never an attempt to engage in rational debate or to refute the position of an opponent.

Rather, we get a smearing attack ("left wing liberal clowns...") that far too many people shy away from responding to, giving people such as Reg the moral high ground.

This sort of intellect-bashing mindset is similar to that found alive and well in a fascist regime. Its along the lines of what one sees on Fox News and, frankly, one that has done enough damage in the Western world in the past 6 years.

I understood he had a life changing defining moment with his family.

When that happens you learn what is really important in life and what is trivial.

I don't believe he will run for president for that reason.

Sometimes you make more difference in the world by not being in the spotlight as defined by a specific role by the public.

It allows you to get more results without being under the microscope of the media all the time.

Hillary might crush him but another 8 years of Clinton and Gore could be just the tonic for Uncle Sam.

I lived in Washington during the Clinton Administration and have longed believed Gore was positioning himself for a run. However, I have recently come to the same conclusion as you. I no longer expect him to run. Another factor to consider is that Hillary Clinton has solidified her support both within the Democratic Party and among the public at large more than had been expected. As a result, any run by Gore at this stage would highly risky.

Although it is true that Gore has little to gain personally by running for the presidency, he knows that he could do a lot to help reduce the damage we do to the environment. There are many, many changes he could make if he were in such a position of power.
But there's the rub! The American public won't elect someone who will make real changes because they don't really want changes to be made. They would like this global warming thing to go away, but aren't really interested in making changes in their lifestyles that might affect their quest for wealth. To be honest, the same is true of Canadians.
Gore has been free to make bold statements, but it is a lot easier to talk when you don't have to follow through.
So, a Gore who remains committed to his ideals, which have earned him so much international praise, won't get elected because of them.

Gore is following a long line of former politicians (particularly in the U.S.) who truly blossom only when they have left formal politics. On of the most famous examples is Jimmy Carter.

The Nobel committee is correct to expand the definition of peace for the Nobel Prize. just as long as the definition of peace doesn't stay too far that the ideals of working for peace might get lost in the process.

Frank - the old saw I used in my post wasn't my invention, merely an observation, but a very true and telling observation regardless. Here's another quote that sums the entire thing up a bit better perhaps.

H.L. Mencken on democracy - "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." In the America we know today, I dare say they are getting it good and hard.

Now why on earth would someone as intelligent as Al Gore want to demolish his hard won reputation by stooping to becoming a mere politician again? As president he would be hamstrung by a recalcitrant congress, big business and a hostile media. He would be lampooned mercilessly, and when he fails to deliver the goods Americans will expect of their latest cause celebre, they will turn on him faster than they turned on George Bush. Americans lurch from one side of the street to another desperately searching for the next big thing or the next great hero: when those turn out to be duds they can get pretty vicious.

In any case, those who voted for Bush in 2000 deserve this president: those who voted for Gore and had their votes stolen or nullified by the Supreme Cour, and didn't do anything to stop it, deserve this president: those who didn't vote at all deserve this president. In every case, americans deserve this president. They have the power to impeach Bush yet haven't exercised that power. They deserve this president too. For all the epic incompetence shown by this president over the last seven years, well, america deserves that too because they haven't done anything about it.

Like I said, they get the government they deserve but they also deserve to get it good and hard too.

Gore run? Perhaps, as a last moment, up the middle candidate, if the democrats have trouble reaching consensus. The temptation of the office and political pressures may be irresistible.

I was glad to read about Mr. Champ's observations about Mr. Gore’s personality. I had always thought Mr. Gore to be quite stiff, appearing uncomfortable when the lights were turned on him. Now I realize that he is self conscious, just like many of us would be if we had to talk to the press or engage in public speaking. It is nice to see the human side of a politician.

One thing is certain. I wish he had won that 2000 election. The whole world would have been better off.

Dear Don,

I think your statement that "Americans get the government they deserve" is way too short sighted and unfairly pre-judges a large proportion of good, honest, hard-working people.

First of all, the current administration was not elected with an overwhelming majority. Secondly, I am quite sure that may of those who did vote for the current administration are very unhappy at how their government is acting - if you need proof of that, look at how low the President's approval rating is.

To Don and to all of those who insist on bashing "the Americans" at every opportunity possible, please realize that in America, as it is in every democratic country, the actions of a government do not necessarily represent the philosophies of its citizens.

I have said enough! This post was supposed to be about Al Gore and not about America-bashing.

Peace and respect to all of you and from all of you!

Next president? I think not. Let him do what he is doing now. Good article Henry Champ

If Al Gore should run for the next presidency because of his environmental work, then Jimmy Carter and his humanitarian and peace efforts should also run for his 2nd term presidency.

Its just plain silly talk !!!

You people can't be serious? There was no doubt that the left-wing liberal clowns in Oslo (the same ones that gave the terrorist Arafat the "peace" prize) would give that idiot Gore the prize. What would be news is if they didn't give it to that private jet using, 20,000 square foot home that uses the same amount of energy of 20 families hypocrite.

He is free to speak the truth about the illness of American ways, and free to challenge the world to wipe its backside and stop polluting this great beautiful planet.
If he were the President, he'd just be another corperate puppet and risk assassination if he deviated from American corporations' desires.

You are absolutely right. From Al Gore's point of view, there is no good reason to run for president. He would be sacrificing his freedom and a measure of his personal influence. However, as was evident to the Greeks, sometimes the best leaders are those who don't want the job. The relevant question is not if Gore needs the presidency, but if the presidency needs Gore.
The fact that running for president may actually hurt Gore, combined with the fact that he just may be what the county needs right now, adds an extra nobility and sense of obligation to the argument that he run. While it is true that Gore doesn't owe America anything at this point, the question is that of service and sacrifice rather than lust for power and opportunism. Gore may be in the historically unique position to make an informed, public sacrifice and choose to serve his country as President and be immune from any taint of ambition that has hounded Presidents past.

Congratulations Henry. I am an avid reader of your comments and views, and agree with your views on Mr. Gore. Having said that however, I would like to encourage Mr. Gore to perhaps seek the presidency of the United States. The man has the ability and the smarts to run the country. His "being free and himself is what the American public is looking for. I believe they have had enough of the fake and dishonest rhetoric of many politicians, who are self serving and there only to fill their pockets. Mr. Gore has nothing to lose , as he is an honest man with a sincere wish to improve the health of this planet.

Well said. Like some former Presidents (Carter, Bush Sr. and Clinton), former President-who-should-have-been Gore is free to pursue his passion and doesn't have to be concerned with public perceptions that make or break a political career. I can't imagine why Gore would want to re-enter the political arena and have his hands tied. He already has a legacy of his own making, and a positive one at that -- unlike George W. Bush whose entry in the history books will be as the President who took that once-great country into its darkest days.

Too bad he probably won't run - I consider him to be a man of integrity and considerable knowledge and yes he was robbed of the presidency.

The next president - whoever it may be - should make him the new Secretary Of The Environment.

There's certainly a great deal of cachet involved with being the REAL leader of the free world, one whose comments on just about any topic are met with respect rather than the derision - entirely justified! - afforded his 2000 opponent. The United States would have been infinitely better off under Gore than they have been under Bush, that's now an accepted fact (or should be, at any rate) by even the most die hard members of the right wing, however, the old saw goes that "you get the government you deserve." In this case, can Americans be so completely and utterly lame that they deserve this walking bacteria infecting the Whitehouse? One has to assume that if the saw is true, then they do, and that is such a pity because Americans used to be rather okay people who never deserved this kind of sentence at all. Of course, every cloud has a silver lining and in Gore's case the lining turns out to be that unlike a normal politician - reviled, untrusted, derided - he stands as the single shining light to emerge from the tattered remains of America's once great image of itself. It may just be possible for America to rehabilitate itself as Gore has managed to do but almost too much work needs to be done on that front for a mere two term (at best) president to accomplish. It will take probably three or four presidential terms to repair the damage Bush has done, but it's doubtful they can, because, again, Americans get the government they deserve and we have all seen how badly they LOVE to screw things up. Good on you Al Gore!