Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Al Gore to run for Prez, again, and again? Maybe.

In an interview with MSNBC's Don Imus, James Carville likened running for president with sex, saying "You don’t do it once and forget about it. You want to do it again." So, it looks like Carville believes Al Gore will run for Prez. Again! In 2008! Not that he will necessarily endorse him, because Carville's sympathies lie with Madame Clinton, it seems. And although Gore hasn't actually declared he intends to run, he hasn't totally denied it either; which means he probably will, in spite of Gore spokesperson Kalee Kreider's statement that “Obviously, he appreciates the sentiment from folks who are interested in this, but really, his efforts are focused on global warming.” So, does that mean that now Gore happens to be the 'ultimate authority' on global warming (what with his 2 Oscar nods for "An Inconvenient Truth"!!), he is going to eschew all his prior political and presidential aspirations to focus on what? eliminating global warming?

There are people urging him to run, however, and several on-line petitions (that I know of), including, that are collecting signatures and comments like the following:

"You, dear President Gore,are the compassionate, visionary individual with oceans of honesty, skies of mental fortitude, to be our finest president ever! You are the one!"

"Oceans of honesty." ? Hmmm. Isn't this the man who claimed to have created the Internet? Here's a comprehensive list of many of his other fabrications and the truth behind those lies. How quickly people forget! All this veneration (and his new found fame in la-la land) must certainly be fanning his tremendous ego, though, and with so many adoring fans begging him to seek the Democratic nomination, why wouldn't he run? He'll probably wait until all the other candidates snipe each other out of the running, and then come riding in as the savior of the land.

But, you have to wonder what masochistic aspect of Gore's personality would tempt him to try for the presidency, yet again, after losses in both 1988 and 2000. Third time lucky? He's a Hollywood star now, so if Reagan could do it, so can he? He deserves it because, after all, the 2000 election was "stolen" from him?

Frankly, I have no idea why anyone would aspire to become President in this day and age, but power (like fame and fortune) is a drug, and so you will always find people willing to sacrifice everything for it including, oftentimes, their souls.

P.S. 3/1/07- Jimmy Carter says he would endorse Al Gore. Does this tell you something?


Papa J said...

I have to call it like I see it. He is taking the cowards route. While the other Dems join the battle he is waiting on the hill to see if he should support a strong winner or attack a weak one after his opponent has already lost some political "blood."

In the meantime he looks like a hero because he is building a huge political platform to ride in on should he so choose and after all of the others have destroyed themselves with character attacks, he can ride in on an issue and say that he truly respects all of his Democratic opponents. And lets face it, if he does decide to run to a good portion of moderates he won't appear to be a stale, monotone, geek like he did in 2000; he'll look like the green knight.

Blazing Cat Fur said...

Scary thought that - he might just be the compromise candidate assuming Obama and Hilly drag each other down- even further I mean.

Incognito said...

It is the cowards route, Papa J, but very clever, nonetheless.

As a moderate, more or less, I know *I* won't be voting for him. I hope other moderates are as clear-headed as I think I am. But we shall see.

Incognito said...

Yes, BCF, it is a scary thought, because all we need is someone like Gore in office. We'll be in deep trouble.

The French and U.S. elections should prove very interesting.

Dave Gorman said...

Gore has it right on most issues, (or at least, more right than the other Dems running for prez) so he should run. Who wants to see a closet conservative who comes out against violent video games like Hillary win the Dem nomination anyway?

MUD said...

I am torn on this issue. I am really sad that the current administration hasn't supported my conservative (more fiscal than anything else) values. I know that the Dems have a bad track record in this area also. It makes me laugh that Al gets praised for his Green stance and then find out that he spend about the annual average cost to heat and run his house for a month. Yes, conserve but then live in a 10,000 sq ft house. I am truly fed up with the "Not in My Backyard" guys as well as the "Do as I say not as I do" crowd. I am awaiting the day when people will say Jimmy Who?

Incognito said...

Ms Clinton is far from conservative, she just plays that game to appeal to the moderates. People think she is actually a closet socialist. Just because she voted for the Iraq war doesn't make her conservative. And, of course, she is now backtracking, like everyone else.
And as for violent video games... that's great, if she has been critical of that.

Incognito said...

True, MUD, I always wondered at the hypocrisy of the drivers of Hummers and other large SUVs with Gore and then Kerry stickers on them.

As for Jimmy, he will always make sure he is never forgotten. He'll keep putting his foot in it.

Dave Gorman said...

Come on, Incog, you can't be for the censorship of videogames?

Incognito said...

Yeah I know, Dave, censorship is not a good thing. but I do believe there should be parental control re. violent content, and that includes video games.

I truly believe that being constantly subjected to violence in music, tv and desensitizes our youth. and then you get Columbines and all the other random violent acts that seem to have proliferated since the increase in violence in our viewing and listening material.

Murderers have actually been inspired by things they have seen. So, yeah... I don't think a 7 year old should be playing some of those videogames they have ou there.

Dave Gorman said...

Parental control is one thing, governmental control is another. Although if parents are going to censor their childrens' videogames, the kids better be VERY young. Any kid above the age of 6 or 7, at the oldest, should be able to play any games they want. As to whether or not videogames can cause Columbines, I'm not convinced.

Incognito said...

You really believe that Dave? That kids over 6 or 7 should be able to play whatever games they please?

Pre-pubescents are incredibly impressionable, and easily influenced. The problem with violence in entertainment (including video games) is that kids are too young to discern the difference between fantasy and reality. They see someone killed in a movie and the actor lives on to make another film.

There was a kid in Florida who inadvertently killed his younger, female cousin immitating some of the moves he had seen on some wrestling show. So you don't think something really violent couldn't somehow inspire copy cat killers or adversely influence young minds?

Adults have admitted they were inspired by films.

I think it's one of the reasons we have seen so much violence and murder by youths, in recent years.

Dave Gorman said...

Freedom always has its positives and its negatives. Although again, when it comes to letting kids play violent videogames, I'm still not convinced on the negative part. There have always been acts of violence committed by kids. When Cain killed Able a long time ago, I don't think the murder was inspired by "Grand Theft Auto".

Incognito said...

But Dave, what possibly can they *gain* from viewing violent videogames? If an adult chooses to play, then that's his prerorgative, I suppose, he's old enough to be able to make a choice. but a child... adults have a responsibility to protect their children, and that includes things that might unduly harm them.

Unlike you, I am totally convinced that the more one watches acts of violence, the more desensitized one becomes, so that it suddenly becomes the norm. That, I think, is horrendous.