READER COMMENTS ON
"Scalia on His 2000 Decision to Award the Presidency to George W. Bush: 'Get Over It'"
(37 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 1/25/2007 @ 12:18 pm PT...
GO BRAD AND ALL TRUE PATRIOTS GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 1/25/2007 @ 12:36 pm PT...
Scalia's statements and other unusually candid interviews with current and former Supremes can be found in a just-released book that received this glowing review in the LA Times (excerpt below). It sounds very intriguing for anyone who wants to gain a better understandng of how we got to this place in our nation's history, and the messy, human process underlying the lofty decisions that affect countless lives:
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 1/25/2007 @ 12:38 pm PT...
FUCK YOU Antonette Scumelia, I'll NEVER forget
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 1/25/2007 @ 1:17 pm PT...
He's right, actually. if we're stuck on 2000 or 2004, we're settng opurselves up to be blind sided in 2008.
There is exactly zero chance in hell of anyone reversing any decision made during the 2000 election. George may not have actually "won" the election. But George is there, none the less.
And now we really do need to deal with that.
By ensuring open, verfiiable elections for this nation in 2008. Instead of continuously asking "why", we MUST start asking.."what next".
Scalia's arrogance becomes a non issue then.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 1/25/2007 @ 1:41 pm PT...
Dan: How are we going to insure it by 2008?
Also, can we get rid of blatantly biased supreme court judges like Scalia? I think he's getting senile, too.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 1/25/2007 @ 1:47 pm PT...
It will be especially a non-issue when he is impeached in 2009. Like Floridiot, we'll never forget.
Dan --- I agree with you in part, but I don't think Scalia's arrogance is the issue as much as his unfitness to be a Supreme Court Justice. The arrogance is the icing.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 1/25/2007 @ 1:51 pm PT...
There has been, is, and will always be "those" who don't want all the votes counted and/or counted accurately. Since the beginning of this nation.
Where was everybody when e-vote machines could've been nipped in the bud? You can thank the CMSM...the biggest problem that transcends all other problems, and allows all other problems to proliferate. It's so bad, we "cheer" when the CMSM rarely does its job. We have a party, and everyone starts saying, "Hey, maybe they changed." Like after Katrina, they gave it some good coverage, and everyone said, "Hey, they're changing back."
Don't even entertain that notion, unless they re-eneact the Fairness Doctrine. See Bernie Sander's speech at the Media Reform conference. Bernie Sander's has now moved into my #1 position, as the greatest politician in Congress...by far!
How about Bernie Sanders for president? Seen Bernie on TV lately? I don't think so. We don't see an ELECTED Senator, Bernie Sanders, on CMSM TV...but we always see Gingrich, Santorum, Kristol, etc...when was the last time you saw Bernie Sanders on TV? And not on LINK-TV or FSTV?
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 1/25/2007 @ 1:56 pm PT...
We're seeing a lot of McCain & Hillary, too, lately. The CMSM is starting 2 years ahead of time, "setting up" the presidential election for us, telling us that Hillary likes "the Wizard of Oz", etc...
See a lot of Kucinich & Bernie Sanders on TV lately? Are we informed of their views? Or Ron Paul?
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 1/25/2007 @ 1:57 pm PT...
The fat boy sings with his greasy fingers.
He feels guilty, and is mad at us for his feelings.
Time for some therapy Scalia ... and I do not mean more meat balls.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 1/25/2007 @ 1:58 pm PT...
If Hillary wins, that will make 32+ consecutive years of a Bush or Clinton as Pres. or VP...like the royal families of England.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 1/25/2007 @ 2:11 pm PT...
What really sucks about that, is I am old enough to have voted in every single one of those elections.
God how time flies.
We kept em mostly honest in '06, with a favorable congress and real reform, 2008 should be doable.
I think we gotta stay active is all.
And yeah, an SCJ can be impeached. I don't think THIS congress has the political capitol to do any impeachment at this time. Maybe 2009...we'll see.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 1/25/2007 @ 7:35 pm PT...
OT - not Scalia --- # 8 --- Big Dan --- Remember in the New York primary when Jonathan Tasini and, of course, Howie Hawkins were talking about things that mattered and Hillary Clinton was blatantly triagulating, trying to figure out how to package herself? Remember when Time Warner wouldn't let Tasini debate because he didn't have enough money even though a big chunk of Clinton's funds were Time Warner donations? (That was Kafka-like.)
That situation shows how the corporations "choose" candidates for us, shutting out those who are not likely to be corporate-friendly. "Packaging" with all the skills of marketing is the only possible way candidates are able to get away with ignoring issues that would are vastly important but may adversely affect the the particular flow of wealth (and structure of power) we have all been conditioned to think is good and inevitable.
The CMSM has taught the American population to think politics is mostly about image, not substantive, truly debatable issues. That's marketing and that's all it is. Everybody knows Hillary Clinton and others are packaging themselves, but a continual commentary about style and strategy on television, never asking questions that would reveal the truth and substance of issues has conditioned folks to think in those terms, to accept the parameters as enough - image, style, strategy - what they see every day. It's what the corporate powers of the country want and they've been successful. But not successful enough, now that we've (mainly on the internet) parted the curtain and seen the machinery. The CMSM is becoming a laughing stock.
Let's get some true, even radical (if necessary), media reform and never settle for a package instead of a thinking, sincere person as a candidate. Let's not get lazy. (It's not easy being reality-based. )
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 1/25/2007 @ 7:36 pm PT...
They guy who chose neo-conservative Joe Lieberman as his running mate?
The guy who kept telling the Congressional Black Caucus that he couldn't consider their petition to block Bush from taking office, because it didn't have a Senator's signature, when he himself was the one who had ordered all Democratic Senators not to sign their petition?
The guy who told us that the reason he was smoothing Bush's transition to power was to avoid civil unrest for the good of the country?
The guy who, to prove that he thought Bush was good for the country, then proceeded, as a Senator, to vote for everything Bush wanted?
The guy who, like every other environmentalist in the world, was fully aware of the dangers of global warming, but somehow forgot, during his eight years as Vice-President, to do anything about it?
I didn't watch the State of the Union, but my guess is that Gore, like Pelosi, stood up to give Bush a standing ovation.
That's the guy you want for President?
He must be a pretty special guy. Because if I'd been in Congress and had voted for everything Bush wanted, including his unconstitutional laws, his unjustified wars with their suicidal budgets, and I had never once stood up to filibuster any of his controversial appointments, or his withdrawal from international treaties like the Genevea Convention and the Conventios Against Torture, I don't think you'd be giving me the time of day, no less offering me money and your vote in gratitude.
There must be something about Gore that I'm missing because I don't have all the facts. Has he refused to accept corporate campaign contributions? Divested his stock portfolio of every defense contractor that has engaged in war profiteering or defrauded the government? Fought long and hard since 2000 to see that all elections were investigated for fraud, that everyone's vote was counted, that everyone eligible was allowed to vote, and for full citizen oversight?
Tell me what you see in the guy? His good looks and charisma? You like his wife, Tipper? Or is it just that you're grateful that instead of being a sore loser, which could have led to civil unrest in this country, perhaps even a revolution, he was just a loser, and that only led to about 650,000 unnecessary deaths somewhere else?
What's the story? Maybe if I knew the facts, I'd also want him to run. Right now I wouldn't want him running a kitchen waste disposal unit, because he doesn't seem to know how to dispose of garbage like Bush.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 1/25/2007 @ 7:58 pm PT...
Why is every quote in the AP article from justices who made the WRONG decision in 2000. Have the other four justice's tongues been cut out! Come on AP. Is this your attempt to downplay the fact that people have been convicted of fraud in the 2004 election theft?
But that's not all. Apparently the Senate Majority "leader" Harry Reid thinks the best way to handle a stolen election is to get over it. Here is a conversation that took place tonight on "Hardball":
"Do you think he (John Kerry) got a good count in Ohio for example."
"Well, I think the Ohio count was bad, but he is a good American. He realized it was time to end the election, and not drag this on. I think some votes could have been changed in the state of Ohio, but John Kerry did the right thing, he just pulled the plug."
Mr. Reid then quickly changed the subject with a joke.
There are some of us that worked awfully hard and spent a lot of time and money on that election Mr. Reid. We didn't get any promises from big corporations for our efforts. Why don't you just hold up you middle finger or scrap your chin when you make a statement like that!
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 1/25/2007 @ 7:58 pm PT...
That's why you are not likely to see Hillary Clinton on Democracy Now or Bernie Sanders much on the CMSM. They are different worlds. One is a world of reasoned analysis, the other is of packaging for effect. They are mutually exclusive. One is based in reality; the other is about preserving a deadly and hypocritical system of "commerce" and manipulation of wealth that likes to style itself the "American way of life", preferring to ignore the actual life of American citizens that falls outside its engulfing organism.
What we have to do is aggressively "unpackage" one side and nourish and grow the other. Nothing is more important than major media reform, I agree.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 1/25/2007 @ 8:16 pm PT...
Short on time, so only a short reply to Mark S:
Gore was not in Congress while Bush (43) was President. Thus, didn't vote for *any* of his initiatives or appointments.
Not to mention, I didn't say I was going to vote for him. I said he should run.
As to "what you missed," this might be one of them.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 1/25/2007 @ 8:18 pm PT...
By the way Senator Reid, if you want to know my opinion about the current state of the union, you can step out of your office this Saturday and go listen to what the Mayor of Salt Lake City is saying at the anti-war rally there. The Mayor attracted around 5000 people in Salt Lake when Bush was here on August 30th. A counter-rally held by the Republicans where all of the top leaders spoke got 300!
To all others, the Rally will be broadcast on C-SPAN at 11:00am (EST) this coming Saturday 27th. Set your VCR to record it and raise hell in the streets of your city.
Legally and peacefully.
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 1/25/2007 @ 8:39 pm PT...
#13 - Mark S --- I'm not a "fan" of Al Gore. I mentioned very serious issues concerning him in another post. I could mention many more, too. I'm living day-by-day, trying to figure out how to solve some immense problems that need to be solved soon, and one way not to do it is to look at a narrow part of the field of politics - the part that I like - and ignore the dynamics and realities of the parts I don't like.
I will support Bernie Sanders for President right now if I think it will be useful. Useful is what I care about...and I'll never minute-by-minute give you a much to go on because the paths of usefulness change all the time. You gotta take 'em when you can. Bullshit you say? No, it's not. It's the only way we are going to get anywhere.
So, rest assured. I'm not as dumb as I appear. I do look at Gore's evident intelligence as a good sign, but it is obviously not sufficient in the least. (But I actually could picture Gore on Democracy Now.)
I'm still a registered Green and Green to the bone, but the last year I got completely fed up with compulsive mutual masturbation in the state organization while the world burns. I'm in the process of rethinking things, how to actually work this thing. I'll make mistakes. People will get mad at me. Oh, well.
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 1/25/2007 @ 8:44 pm PT...
Oh, of course Mark was talking to you, Brad.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 1/25/2007 @ 9:01 pm PT...
Mark, Mark --- Wow, I guess I'm not a good multitasker and missed the points of your post in a quick glance. How can you be so indignant and ignorant at the same time? Not a good combination.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 1/25/2007 @ 10:48 pm PT...
One more, then I'm out of here. Larry --- That Harry Reid quotation in #14 is awful. The Ohio count was bad, but Kerry quit so he is a good American? Is Brad Blog the only place where people understand the simple concept of every vote should be counted because --- well, this thing called representative democracy? Is it a old-fashioned (or quaint) notion or something?
(Very sorry, folks, to have taken up so much space tonight. I'm as passionate about the media issue as Big Dan is --- but he does it with such style, verve, and humor that I usually don't say much about it. Got carried away tonight. And when Mark came down on Gore, I thought he was talking to me as I had just posted a remark and have posted some pro-Gore stuff elsewhere. Didn't see Brad's reply until I posted mine. That was kinda dumb. Sometimes I talk too much. This is just one of those nights.)
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 1/25/2007 @ 11:41 pm PT...
Okay, Arry, hang in there.
Brad, you're right, and I stand corrected. As Arry pointed out, I suffer from a combination of ignorance and indignance.
I've been to Washington, DC, once in my life, about 45 years ago, and I visited the Smithsonian. I've never been near the White House, no less inside it. I've never been inside Congress, although I used to watch C-Span when I had cable, about 25 years ago.
So I didn't have Al Gore's advantage of being a political insider. I've never met anyone in the Bush family, not socially or for any sort of business.
And of course, I missed Al Gore's speech last, year, so thanks for the link.
And now I have another dumb question. When Gore conceded to Bush, I knew that Bush was a fascist, and I knew what was going to happen. So if somebody as ignorant as me understood the situation, why did it take Al Gore SIX FRIGGIN' YEARS TO FIGURE IT OUT?
Excuse me. Didn't mean to yell. That's the indignation taking over from the ignorance again. See, I haven't been silent about the stolen election since it happened in 2000. And I find the uh, truth, that it took until Gore was considering another Presidential run for him to speak out a little too, uh, inconvenient for my taste. Or is that convenient? Never mind, I'm sure you know what I mean.
See, there's another point here somewhere, that I think that Paul Lehto wrote about in his article about the recent Cuyahoga County convictions. Gore was, and is a Democrat. And the Congressional Black Caucus was almost entirely Democrats. And their petition was not just on behalf of the Democrats who had been illegally disenfranchised in Florida 2000, but on behalf of all the other Democrats in the country who felt disenfranchised and betrayed.
Did Gore really believe that Bush was a fine fellow and would make a great President? Did he really believe that there wasn't that much difference between him and Bush, and it would be better for the country if he conceded graciously than if there was civil unrest in opposition to a fascist coup? Because if he did, he wasn't qualified to be President then, and if it took him six years to figure it out and say something about it, then he's too stupid to be President now.
In my ignorant, indignant opinion, of course.
You see I was 60 years old in 2000, and once Bush took power, I tried desperately to leave the country but didn't qualify for resident status anywhere. I knew things would be bad, but I had no idea of how bad. I never thought that Bush would remove checks and balances from government, condone torture, or lie us into war. I just knew that with Bush in power, this wasn't going to be a place I wanted to be.
Now I'll go back and reread last year's speech by Gore that Brad provided a link to. My eyesight must be failing, because I seem to have missed the part where he apologized for ordering the Democratic majority in the Senate not to sign the CBC petition to block Bush from taking office. Or does he still think that he did the right thing, because he truly believed at the time that Bush was an intelligent, law-abiding, knowledgeable, responsible person with the qualities it took to be Commander-in-Chief? I may be ignorant and indignant, but if that's what Gore believed, he's dumber than the guy he conceded to.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 1/26/2007 @ 12:25 am PT...
When Gore conceded to Bush, I knew that Bush was a fascist, and I knew what was going to happen.
Excellent point! A lot of us knew that. What was wrong with the politicians? (Rhetorical question, okay? please.)
I think you can see and hear Gore's Constitution Hall speech here. It seriously rocked.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 1/26/2007 @ 1:02 am PT...
Gore has given four incredible speeches. The first one was in about 2002. I share your anger and don't know who to trust anymore, but consider the fact that even this long after the stolen election of 2000, only about two Democrats have said anything about the election fraud, and the Democrats helped put the horrible HAVA act in. Gore must have known this was a dead issue in 2000 if it's still dead in 2007.
I can never forgive Kerry though, and I cannot forgive any other Democrat for not speaking out by now. No level of ignorance can explain away this travesty against the concept of "One Man, One Vote".
I'm pretty sure I heard Gore say recently that he wasn't sure he made the right decision that day. If possible you should find all of those speeches. They were all as good as that last one.
Don't worry about it Arry, we're all too angry to hold it in. And we shouldn't!
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 1/26/2007 @ 2:22 am PT...
I was just looking at this article about some disputed comment made by Lieberman. Of course I have no way of knowing what Lieberman actually said.
But has Gore said anything about why he chose Lieberman as a running mate, what he thinks of Lieberman's voting record since then, and whether or not, if he runs in '08, he plans to have Lieberman as a running mate again?
I mean, it would seem obvious to most people now that he shouldn't, and that Lieberman strongly supports the Bush agenda that Gore is so expediently opposing. But Lieberman is nominally a Democrat, and a lot of Democrats vote a straight ticket, as they'd prefer the worst Democrat in the country to the best Republican (a lot of Republicans have the same affliction), and he can pull some of the Jewish and fundamentalist votes, so even though I think Gore wouldn't do anything that stupid, he has done it before, and I wouldn't bet money on it.
Has he explained that in any way? Like he had never met Joe Lieberman before selecting him as a running mate, and it was just due to bad advice from his consultants, or something?
I haven't looked at those other speeches, Larry, but I'm sure they're the best that money can buy. I just wonder if he mentions Lieberman, or if his strategy is that if he remains silent, nobody will remember who his running mate was in 2000.
Agent 99, people seem to have gotten in the habit of voting for people who don't represent their values, in the hopes that if they vote for them often enough, and send them enough money, they might have an epiphany one day and become different people. I've seen it happen as part of a political campaign, but it rarely seems to continue after the inauguration. Sometimes it doesn't even last until the inauguration. With Kerry, for example, he knew that the polls showed that ensuring that our votes would be counted was a winning issue. So he talked about it in every fundraising appeal, he just never bothered to do it.
So, uh, Larry, you think Gore said that he wasn't sure that he made the right decision that day? He still doesn't know that he made the wrong decision? He's allowing for the possibility that he might have made the wrong decision, but he is also allowing for the possibility that he made the right decision?
Yeah, I know I have a right to be angry and that I shouldn't hold it in, but I'd really hate to deface Brad's blog with my thoughts about that. Let's just say that I'm not any less angry. In fact I think it is possible that I might be even angrier......
And now I'm going to have to go wipe up the blood on my forehead, and tomorrow I'll call somebody to patch the new hole in my wall.
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 1/26/2007 @ 2:33 am PT...
Harry Reid can say those types of things and get away with it in front of CMSM because he's part of the same corporate owned political machine that brought GWB to power.
It is this very same corporate controlled power structure in AMerica who wish not to upset the status quo.
To say "Stepping aside meant Al Gore was a good American" leaves a huge point unspoken.
Stepping aside made Al Gore good CORPORATE American.
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 1/26/2007 @ 2:47 am PT...
Know what you mean about the blood on the forehead and holes in the wall. I think it is 1000% safe to say that Gore would not choose Lieberman again. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say he didn't exactly choose him the first time... just agreed to what the consultants and party operatives thought was the best politically at that time. I think Gore has learned many extremely valuable lessons from all this. He might not be the dream president, but he is ten times better for the job than any of the people running as of now. It's unfair to expect that he knew HOW bad * and his fascist operators were going to be. He had no reason to think he'd be much worse than HW. Al Gore is one of the finest Americans we have. He is not a born politician. It's difficult for him, and it shows in his stiffness and scripted responses in campaigns, but he is extremely intelligent and I believe strongly he would do everything humanly possible to get America back for us.
Really, Mark, he had no way of knowing the extent of the harm that would come of his decision not to buck the Supreme Court ruling. I'm dirt certain that if he had it to do over again, he would die trying to prevent what has befallen America. John Kerry does NOT have the same excuse.
It's easy to get mad at Gore, or, better, NADER for the travesty of 2000, but we really should be this angry with ourselves for letting that happen. Truly, now, being totally honest, none of us, not even those of us barfing over the thought of * becoming president, could have known then just how thoroughly he would ruin so much.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 1/26/2007 @ 9:25 am PT...
#26 --- Dan --- I certainly do agree with your first two paragraphs, and having dealt with (to a small extent) Harry Reid when I lived for a time in Nevada, I must say I was entirely underwhelmed.
Yes, the CMSM is packaging a product for our consumption. That's its purpose. Sad but true.
I think Reid's remarks were about Kerry --- at least those Larry quoted. There is no excuse for Kerry's behavior.
99 --- the Supreme Court is the sole agency to blame for the installation of GWB into office. He would not be there but for Scalia and his buddies.
As I will undoubtedly say ad nauseum --- there are some big problems with Gore's corporate supporting past. Nevertheless, he has shown a detailed understanding of the processes of global warming, has written and spoken brilliantly the last few years against Bushevist policies (and, I should add in a manner that stuck in the craw of the CMSM - score one for Al), and, on a personal and subjective level he just doesn't seem comfortable with "packaging". I like that a lot. When people seem comfortable with that crap - then you gotta worry.
He will have to say a lot more about the role of corporations and a lot of other things, and we don't have to choose anybody, but there are some good things about Gore we can't ignore.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 1/26/2007 @ 10:18 am PT...
Actually, guys, there is a theory out there that Gore had his victory taken away from him precisely because he meant to impede the corporate greedheads in a big way. And, if you think about it, that would absolutely have to have been his position. He cannot be as passionate as he very clearly is about global warming and alternative energy without meaning to cramp the style of some monster heavy hitters.
My gripe with him is that he has a completely unAmerican stance on gun control. I don't care WHAT you say, if the government isn't afraid of us, even a little, shit happens. THIS happens.
But, I even think he'd listen to reason on this issue as well.
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
said on 1/26/2007 @ 1:56 pm PT...
Look, if Gore let his consultants choose a running mate for him, somebody he didn't know and didn't bother to check out, and Gore, a Washington insider who had been Vice-President for eight years, was totally unfamiliar with the Bush family and the neo-con agenda, and Gore let his consultants talk him into forbidding all Democratic Senators from signing the Congressional Black Caucus petition, then Gore is not only stupid, but he can be easily swayed by any consultant who tells him that acting against his own best interests and the interests of the American people is a winning strategy.
If Gore is not yet certain that he made the wrong decisions in 2000, he may even be paying and listening to the advice of the same consultants today that he had in 2000, and would be very likely to continue to retain and listen to them if he was elected President.
To think that he really cares about the environment, and truly believed that by smoothing George Bush's transition to power, he would be helping the environment, is beyond belief. Was he entirely unfamiliar with Bush's environmental record as Governor of Texas? Doesn't Gore read? Is his environmental stance something he arrived at himself, or something his consultants put together for him?
I had many ways of knowing what a Bush regime would mean. If Gore had no way of knowing, he simply doesn't keep up with current events, didn't bother to do so as Vice-President, has blind faith in incompetent consultants, and can't think for himself. And you think he'd make a good President because he'd be better than Bush? Anybody would be better than Bush, so why don't you run down to the nearest homeless shelter and offer the first lunatic you see a few thousand dollars in campaign contributions and a pledge of your vote if they run for office? You can't deny that they'd make a better President than Bush. Is that the only standard that you have?
Telling me that Gore would make a good President because he has poor judgment, listens to bad advice, can't think for himself, won't admit his mistakes, and, despite having been a Senator and Vice-President of the United States, is unfamiliar with the character and personalities of some of the top players in D.C., like Bush and Lieberman, is only going to convince me that your judgment is as bad as his.
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
said on 1/26/2007 @ 2:16 pm PT...
Environmentalists have been extremely concerned about global warming for a long time. We made absolutely certain that both Clinton and Gore were aware of the problem when they were in the White House. We begged for them to take action. They did not.
Then, when Gore was contemplating another Presidential bid, his consultants told him that since he could not take a stand on anything more controversial, he should buy a marketing campaign to position himself as an environmentalist and make an emotional appeal to the American people to convince them that what he would not do as a Senator or as Vice-President, he would do if only we elect him President. See, he really wanted to do something about global warming all along, but Senators and Vice-Presidents aren't powerful enough to speak out the way environmentalists do. If we make him President, he'll stop being Al Gore and become Superman with the power to shut down the oil industry, ban SUVs, stop industrial pollution, or, at the very least, mildly suggest that Congress might think about doing something against their own corporate interests even if he can't.
Gore's campaign promise to do something about global warming is the same as Kerry's promise to ensure that our votes would be counted. It is a campaign promise, get it? All politicians have to make campaign promises in order to raise money and get elected, but they don't have to keep those promises.
Who am I talking to here? Teenagers? Paid Democratic Party political operatives? People whose last contact with reality was a few hundred crack pipes back?
Al Gore has been a Washington insider since before some Bradblog readers were born. He knew full well who Joe Lieberman was and what he stood for. He knew full well who George Bush was and what he stood for. He didn't get to be the number two man in the country through ignorance, but the same way anybody does: for his willingness to go along to get along. He's not a leader, he's a team player, and unfortunately for us, he's on the wrong team. He's on the corporate team, not on the people's team. Always has been and always will be. Wake up!
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 1/26/2007 @ 3:11 pm PT...
Mark said, Environmentalists have been extremely concerned about global warming for a long time. We made absolutely certain that both Clinton and Gore were aware of the problem when they were in the White House. We begged for them to take action. They did not.
Yep. That's the big problem --- the biggest problem, as far as I am concerned. We need answers and lots of them.
Where we differ (you and I) is that I believe Gore is serious now. Naturally, I don't know this, but his speeches and articles are consistent, individual, and reveal a strong intellgence. People aren't doing this for him. (He's not making campaign promises because he's not running. But we need specifics; we need to demand them.) I think he is serious because he obviously understands the problem in detail, and how could anyone possibly not be serious if he or she understands global warming in detail? Whether or not he can personally reach across his mental experience to see what needs to be done --- well, that's what we have to determine.
All of us - Al Gore included - in one way or another have to deal with the corporate prison we are in and it's lock on the political system. That's the problem. Not Al Gore, not even Joe Lieberman.
I don't think we should make too much of arguments for and against certain politicians right now. If we can elect people to facilitate needed change, that's good. But they are not our parents who are going to take care of everything. We need to have a strong citizens movement. Most of us have been too corporatized to think in terms of movements that take the country in the proper direction --- but they have always been vitally important. (labor unions, abolitionism, civil rights) You and others may disagree, but I believe there is a storm of populism happening right now that is shaking up the status quo (which is damn hard to shake). If we don't understand that it is happening, it will fail.
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
said on 1/26/2007 @ 6:01 pm PT...
OK, you hate Al Gore's guts. Who's YOUR man? I'm not trying to be snarky here, just asking. Who do you trust to be president?
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
said on 1/26/2007 @ 6:10 pm PT...
I just skipped sixth grade and my new English teacher says that people don't always recognize their own sophistry. Britney for President!
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
JUDGE OF JUDGES
said on 1/26/2007 @ 8:18 pm PT...
A few more environmental regulations and some real adult (I.E. Al Gore)
Governmental oversight then g.m. & ford may have not gone into the RED . . .
Vaffanculo! antonin scalia Vaffanculo!
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
FRANCES LEE BRIGHT
said on 1/28/2007 @ 11:06 am PT...
WHEN SCALIA WROTE THE STAY AND SIGNED THE STAY TO STOP THE VOICES OF FLORIDA?.. HE STOLE OUR SO CALLED DEMOCRACY. THE PEOPLE'S VOICES. WHEN KERRY ALLOWED FRAUD TO BE COMMITTED AGAIN IN OHIO AND OTHER STATES? AND NOT FIGHT BACK?.. HE DID NOT STAND WITH THE PEOPLE. THESE SO CALLED AMERICANS MAY THINK THEY HAVE NO ONE TO ANSWER TO.. BUT WHAT THEY DO NOT KNOW IS THAT THE MOST POWERFUL WEAPON LEFT.. TO OUR NATION'S CITIZENS IS NOT THE BALLOT OR THE CONGRESS OR LAW... BUT THE POWER OF THE PURSE. IF THE PEOPLE EVER STOP BUYING TO PROTEST THEIR GOVERNMENT?.. IT ALL WILL COME TUMBLING DOWN WITH A CRASH. YOU SEE DUE TO GREED OUR ECONOMY IS NOW ONLY SPENDING .. ABOUT 85% OF IT. WE STOP? IT ENDS FOR ALL.
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
said on 1/28/2007 @ 4:08 pm PT...
Well? Who do you trust to be president?