First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Arnse Williams — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:30:39 GMT

Bought a box of Cracker Jacks, opened it up, a Nobel Peace Prize fell out!

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

RKA, IL — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:31:31 GMT

Is Hillary Bulletproof? It doesn't matter when the media just shoot blanks.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

IMPEACH — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:36:11 GMT

I believe the only bulletproof one is the idiot in chief. Hard to believe we are still in danger from this total nincompoop!
It scares the living hell out of me. The terror from the WH must be stopped now!

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Albert — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:37:50 GMT

There is no such thing as global warming. Dam it's hot.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Jessica, Wisconsin — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:39:12 GMT

Obama is actually in Iowa today not Wisconsin. He will be in Wisconsin on 10/15 for a huge event.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

(two ten six eighteen) ten-forty four — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:44:57 GMT

please tell me if you can what time does the train roll in

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Lyn, MD — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:44:59 GMT

Before I decided to post on todays coverage I decided to see who was writing it ...no surprise..Domenico.

As usual if there is a negative lne in an article he can find about Senator Obama he goes for it and it is the one he writes. If the article is at all positive its followed by some snarky remark.

First Read why do you keep this guy. Mark my words he will spell TROUBLE for you sooner or later. My bet is SOONER.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:49:24 GMT

Gore will endorse Obama, it's a natural. It will be a big deal, a really big deal. Maybe revenge really is a dish best served cold.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Emily Robinson, North Carolina — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:50:11 GMT

Al's donating the proceeds for the award? Mighty nice of him. What's Al worth now in days, 9 figures? Not bad for a guy that doesn't have a job.

Wasn't Mother Teresa worth 9 figures?

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Rick,ky — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:53:18 GMT

Congratulations to Mr. Gore on this award. I'm sure all the nuts who have NEVER done anything in their life to try & better the world, will be on here laughing at this Accomplishment. After criticizing Barack for his comment's earlier this year, here comes hillary saying the same thing. Now that's experience folk's! Spin away van, susan,bb&g,& all the hillaryites.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:53:40 GMT

All thats left for Al to do, other than finally be President, is host The Price Is Right.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Jason, Atlanta, GA — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:54:11 GMT

You guys wish that Gore endorses Edwards, this post almost sounds like you are begging for it. I actually like Edwards and I don't believe any of the BS rumors. I just like Obama the most!

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Amy G., Tampa, Fl. — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:55:36 GMT

Hey lookie here.. hillaryclinton.com

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

vanreuter, NY NY — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:57:05 GMT

Another watershed poll for Clinton. It is either getting EARLIER out there and people are paying LESS attention than they were before Labor Day, or Clinton has continued to increase her already formidable edge in the National Polls with two of the most recent showing her above the magic 50% mark (ABC News, Wash. Post) for the first time since the race began. RCP averages on the most recent National polls show Clinton with an almost 26 point lead (48.2-22.6) over her nearest opponent.

Some of the more interesting things about the Fox poll are the, "Most Qualified", and "Who do you think will be President?", questions, and how INCREDIBLY well she scores with independents.

From the fox poll;
do you think he/she is to be president of the United States? [RANDOMIZE LIST]

SCALE: 1. Very qualified 2. Somewhat qualified 3. Not very qualified

4. Not at all qualified 5. (Don’t know)

*****SUMMARY CHART*****

Very Qualified

Hillary Clinton 47%

John McCain 34%

Rudy Giuliani 32%

Barack Obama 23%

Mitt Romney 16%

The poll sees her as much more qualified (47-34) than even the nearest republican opponent.

The biggest mistake that the republicans and those who use the contention to hang their opposition to her candidacy on, is how much independent support she'll garner in the general election, and how that support will make her pantsuit coat tails much longer than even her most enthusiastic supporters have predicted.

The unspoken word for the republicans, the one they can't use in the campaign against Clinton is their Achilles heel, competence. It's the thing that they can't mention without impugning the entire two previous REPUBLICAN terms.

In the coming presidential campaign for the republicans, the less said about the Bush years the better. Competence will be an issue that the democrats will HAMMER the republicans with, and Hillary is seen, by far, as the most competent and qualified to lead the Nation. More independents (77%) Independents see her as most Qualified

48% of independents see her as VERY Qualified as opposed to 33% for Rudy, 39% for McCain, 23% for Obama, and 16% for Mitt and Fred.

--- Qualified --- - Not qualified -

TOTAL Vry Smwht TOTAL Ntvry Not (DK)

Hillary Clinton 72% 47 25 25 7 18 1

Democrats 94% 73 21 6 2 4 1

Republicans 48% 18 30 51 11 40 1

Independents 77% 48 29 21 9 12 3

27-28 Feb 07 65% 37 28 32 14 18 4

17. Regardless of how you plan to vote, who do you believe will be the next

president of the United States? (OPEN ENDED—DO NOT READ RESPONSES)

All Dem Rep Ind

(Hillary Clinton) 44% 61% 25% 45%

(Rudy Giuliani) 12 5 21 12

(Barack Obama) 6 8 3 8

(Fred Thompson) 3 - 7 2

(John Edwards) 3 3 2 3

(John McCain) 2 1 4 1

(Mitt Romney) 2 1 4 2

(Al Gore) 2 2 2 -

(Chris Dodd) 1 - 1 -

Van

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:57:53 GMT

Obama's problem is that he is a phoney. The kid has been running for office ever since he ditched his white girlfriend in NYC, stopped using the nickname Barry in favor of Obama, and went to Harvard Law.

That is why nothing he throws out sticks. People can't spot phoneys a mile a way. I don't care how good his speeches are.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

VL Concord, NC — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:03:27 GMT

Hilliary can't dodge this one, Obama has been out first some major issues it looks like Hilliary is playing copy-cat. She has the most "experience"....please

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Bee — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:10:08 GMT

Did i hear Hillary said she would meet the Iran without Pre-condititon? I guess she realized she was wrong during the debate and want to have it both ways now.

Why should we trust her now? She got it wrong on Iraq, She got it wrong on Iran, She got it wrong on diplomacy concerning iran. Now she want to have it both ways.

She lack judgement on foreign policy and i don't want her bush-cheney lyte policy.

This is what the clinton does best, when they are wrong they don't admit it but would rather obsure the facts and confuse American people about her position.

We know where she stand on Foreign policy? She want war against Iran.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Mike K, Denver — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:11:54 GMT

What I loved even more was Clinton last night with Olbermann saying that she hoped Gore wins the Nobel Prize. Sincere? Probably, but not out of the goodness of her heart sincere. Sincere in that, maybe this will keep him out of the race. If there's one person on either side of the political aisle that scares the hell out of her and her campaign, it is Al Gore and the massive amount of press and following he's received with his documentary, Academy Award, and everything else he's achieved in the last year. If he enters, even now, I think he could match her dollar for dollar and vote for vote towards Denver and the convention.

My guess is that he sticks to his guns and doesn't enter the race. As others, and myself have stated previously, there is no way he endorses Clinton. I don't think he endorses Edwards, either. I think he puts his name and also his time and efforts to getting Obama ahead of Hillary. He is the one person out there that knows the Clinton playbook better than anyone. Having that knowledge and how to beat it will be huge.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Lek — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:13:20 GMT

Here is the headline " Hillary Clinton agree to meet with Iran without Pre- condition"

This sound like turn around to me. Did she apologize to Obama for calling her naive on this issue?

I guess she want to have it both ways. Why is the media not reporting this...I get it Clinton is their darling

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Mike K, Denver — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:13:55 GMT

Van;

Please stop paying people to say they'll vote Hillary. Please stop muddying this decent forum for discussion with your useless bashing of anyone not named Hillary Clinton. We know you'd like to do her six ways from Sunday. Just stop. Please.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Crystal (Time for change) — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:18:39 GMT

Dickie Flatts-- Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? How is he a phoney? B/c he broke up with a girl in New York? I am confused by your logic, or maybe because it is not logical. Either way I am confused, please explain. To me he is the only one who is real, I love a person that don't just say what you want to hear but actually speaks the truth. He is not perfect but neither are you or I, but he sure does have the experience and foresight that is needed to be a good leader!!!!!!!!

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

A. Taxpayer — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:20:34 GMT

Congratulations to Al Gore for being a tool for the folks who want to diminish the U.S. I do believe that humans are responsible for some global warming. Allowing the rest of the world to dictate policy to us is inviting our demise.

The UN has become the world's democratic party, trying to redistribute our wealth by forcing us to give ground in order to level the field with the third world. The correct way to level the field is to raise developing countries to our level. There is tremendous wealth in other areas of the world but it is wasted by ignorance and poor leadership. That is where the UN should focus.

We have the ability to do something about global warming ourselves, without sacrificing our way of life. We know what we need to do, we just all need to make the effort. We don't need the UN using this excuse to try and subdue the U.S.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

VL Concord, NC — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:20:51 GMT

Dickie where are you getting your info from...KKK??? Don't forget to iron the white sheets in your closet.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

John B, Des Moines, IA — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:22:47 GMT

Congratulations to Al Gore. He might not be the source of the big ideas but he certainly recognizes which ideas will become big and promotes those causes.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Amy B Portland, ME — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:24:59 GMT

I get a fearful feeling in my gut listening to Rudy-Romney talk about foreign affairs as neither as any experience in that field. Guiliani was never responsible for making decisions on military matters and I don't think Romney encountered Iranians with nuclear aspirations while running the Olympics. At least when you hear Edwards-Obama-Biden-Clinton debate you get the feeling they know what they are talking about, having dealt with issues of National Security in the Senate. The Republicans seem to be pushing ideology, as usual, "we are inherently superior, so trust us." Whereas the Democrats are debating actual strategy. Personally, I want to see a return to reality in our national policy.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Grace, NY — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:25:12 GMT

Quoting Fox ...let see Murdock right LOL. Most of the MSM won't quote polls from these guys.

BTW wasn't it done about the same time as the Gallup poll and the new AP Pll all with different results... I rest my case.

Math 101 if you add in (bogus) high number they will impact the average.

Do you really think this will change the minds of anyone who doesn't plan to vote for her....the only people this impacts is the people who aren't following it close and that is what they want. Works for now!!!

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Bee — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:33:29 GMT

Before i forget, let me use this opportunity to congratulate the true American hero - Al Gore.

At least we know where Gore stand on the issues. He is man of conviction.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

REG; East Valley Phx. AZ — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:35:34 GMT

One year from now we will be voting for a new president and completing eight years of the worst presidency this country has ever known. The latter is just as true as the former and rather than take the time here to cover the vastness of the evidence, I’ll just encourage anyone who is unsure to objectively review the arrogant and self-serving, grossly dishonest performance and consider all of the costly results that benefited Special Interests and a select few while providing the average American only the costs, apathy and subterfuge – and in actuality, that has negatively impacted for generations to come.
With another election coming up it is important to understand how America ever came to elect, not once but twice, George W. Bush and the supporting politicians that allowed him to do all he has done. The extensive details can be recalled but because of space constraint it is best to just identify those efforts that succeeded in manipulating the voters. First, the sociopathic personality, while without a conscience, is quite capable of faking most anything and even with it’s arrogance and gross dishonesty, is very apt to be impressive – an accurate term would be ‘an accomplished con-artist’. Next, with the substantial overt and covert support of very powerful and influential people, who were to benefit, they pursued an ‘in your face’ aggressive plan to discredit the competition, intimidate the critics, coerce the resistant and deceive the voter by first dividing based on individual biases and then with subterfuge addressing those biases. Then they recruited support from community and religious leaders by stroking their egos and convincing them that they actually shared concern for the same limited issues, thereby creating distraction from the total picture. Bold, belligerent, arrogant, deceptive, etc., tactics,.. yes, but nonetheless successful and when objectively viewing the actions and results, there should be no doubt about the lack of sincerity.
As examples, here in Arizona we have Senator John McCain who abandoned his identity, and his constituents, as a principled Independent Republican to become a strong Bush-backer and Senator Jon Kyl who always subserviently supported Bush in everything, including offering the scripted subterfuge word-for-word. And consider the unbending support offered with arrogance by Senators Frist and DeLay and others. Without that kind of strong and blind support, the Bush administration couldn’t have done the harm it has done and that really needs to be recognized for next time.
Whether Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, Christian or non-Christian, American born or immigrant, hawk or anti-war, wealthy or poor, whatever, each of us needs to fully recognize how those individual biases, those single issue concerns, were used to segregate and then manipulate. The only way to combat that is to check our own biases, so we can’t be manipulated by them, to objectively view the total picture, to independently determine what we believe and to make our own decision while refusing to be swayed or led or controlled by anyone else. Then maybe the result will be a true representation of the American majority’s will and we can hopefully avoid ‘more of the same’.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

PJ — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:38:55 GMT

Congratulations Mr Gore. To all those who will come on here and insult and belittle his accomplishments (as well as those of Jimmy Carter), I have a question...What are YOU doing to make the world a better place?

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

ki houston — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:39:47 GMT

my goodness ,is there any way to say that MSNBC is not anti-Obama . I mean they might as well take out and ad in the paper and beg Gore not to endorse Obama there. My god people !!!!!

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

exxon employee — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:44:20 GMT

LMAO...you can pick a bushie out of any crowd on any subject..."al gore is a loser" "there is no global warming issue and if there is its natural" "bush has saved us from those pie eyed ideas on being stewards of our planet" "clinton did it" are all republicans so mean spirited and ignorant or will the real ones ever stand up and denounce the bushies and their christian crackheads?

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:45:22 GMT

I love it! Al Gore wins a Nobel Prize! Which right-wing-nut radio pundit will slash his wrists first over this?.....My money is on Limbaugh.
Hillary's got da' juice, plain and simple!
Romney and Giulliani looked like a pair of cat-fighting schoolgirls the other night.
BVy the way, Giulliani LISPS even more when he's frustrated.
Obama's done, so his 5 year old speach doesn't matter. Biden's a good guy, Brownback's a jerk.....but again, none of this matters because Hillary is our next President.
PERIOD.
Have a nice weekend.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Peter, Pittsburgh, PA — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:50:56 GMT

a taxpayer wrote, "The UN has become the world's democratic party, trying to redistribute our wealth by forcing us to give ground in order to level the field with the third world. The correct way to level the field is to raise developing countries to our level. There is tremendous wealth in other areas of the world but it is wasted by ignorance and poor leadership. That is where the UN should focus."

This morning the IRS released some interesting figures. In 2005 the richest 1% of the US got 21.2% of all the income. That's is an increase over the the 19% of income they got in 2004. There is quite a bit of income redistribution going on here. Is that the UN's fault too?

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Braveheart, Imperial Beach, CA — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:57:12 GMT

I hope Al Gore gets in the presidential race. He has solid inside experience as a Congressman, Senator and Vice President, but he has been outside of WDC for the last seven years so he is not responsible for any of the current mess - didn't vote for the War in Iraq, didn't increase the deficit, didn't reduce USA standing in international politics. He was an early, vocal and lucid critic of the Iraq War without self-centered political gain. His work on climate change goes back to his days in the Senate and his participation in Rio 1992. Al Gore could bring the best aspects of the Clinton Administration back to WDC, without the worst aspects (the Clinton's themselves). A Gore/Obama ticket would be a powerful combination.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

vanreuter, NY NY — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:57:19 GMT

"I wrote about my suspicions that Penn et al are touting inevitability of the Hillary nomination in order to suppress African-American support for Obama, by capitalizing on African-American fears of disenfranchisement. If I'm right in that assumption, then that's another example of the heinous type of Republican cynicism to which I refer."

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 8:14 PM)

If touting her inevitability in going after the black vote is somehow heinous, is it also despicable in going after the Hispanic vote? the Polish vote? the auto mechanic vote? How is touting inevitability, which Rudy is trying to do on the republican side, like Kerry did after Ia in 2004

" I can't convince myself that these votes were anything but political posturing for the general election and that kind of pragmatism seems corrupt for me."

Mitchell, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton and my other representatives weren't posturing back in October 2002, less than 13 months since we had been attacked, less than FIVE miles from where I live, less than a month before congressional elections when Bush pushed the vote while republican candidates used the horrors of 9/11 to depict any democrat running for election as a traitor and/or in league with OBL, if they weren't voting for the resolution. Ask Max Cleland if it was posturing. Clinton was one of the SEVENTY-SEVEN senators who voted for the resolution. Schumer, Biden, Dodd, EDWARDS, and seventy-two others did also, the house passed the bill, 296-133.

Was Clinton and many of the other democrats and republicans gung-ho for war? No, they were not, and while I will only quote senator Clinton here, she was emblematic of the reluctance exhibited by many others.

Senator Clinton; Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts IS NOT A GOOD OPTION!

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783

To depict her as anything less than reluctant and extremely cautionary would be false.

As to her vote, again as part of a large majority (76-22) of senators, on a non-binding resolution, like declaring June 7-13th, "National Asparagus Week". Your opinion is;

"I can't convince myself that these votes were anything but political posturing for the general election and that kind of pragmatism seems corrupt for me."

If you think that the first vote was about political posturing, if history can't sway you, I won't be able to. The second vote IS political posturing. That's what non-binding resolutions are for, taking political positions that you don't have to back up. They are nothing BUT posturing, that is their purpose.

If pragmatism is corrupt, than you should be in love with Bush. If it is your belief that Clinton would be the only candidate PRAGMATICALLY POSITIONING themselves for the primaries, with an eye on the general election, you aren't giving any of the other candidates from either party proper credit.

I have no thoughts of trying to change your mind on Clinton. I do hope that you look at all of the facts with an open mind when we get to the general election.

I hope that the article I posted for you will do something towards blunting your beliefs that Hillary is owned by corporate entities, at the least.

Van

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Dave, Tn — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:03:51 GMT

Gore & the IPCC that's perfect. Many of the scientists involved in the IPCC project sued to have their names removed from the report. WTG AL!!

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Scott R. — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:04:54 GMT

Mitt Romney on Lawyers and Use of Military Force
October 12, 2007; Page A15
I'm disappointed The Wall Street Journal got it wrong in yesterday's editorial "Send In the Attorneys?" The question I was asked at the Republican debate in Michigan was not when I would use military force, but rather when congressional approval would be required. What I said in response, and have said since, is that a president must act to protect the American people. As to what involvement Congress may have, that's a matter for legal consideration.

If there is any confusion, let me be very clear: As president I would not shrink from the use of military force when grave threats confront America. At the same time, when time and circumstances permit, I would indeed seek the involvement of Congress as required by law and the Constitution.

Mitt Romney
Belmont, Mass.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Sierra, SF — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:06:17 GMT

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY: '...Gore will endorse Obama, it's a natural. It will be a big deal, a really big deal. Maybe revenge really is a dish best served cold....'

Mitchell, I really don't think endorsements mean much. I don't think Jimmy Carter or Al Gore
would cause many people to change their minds.

Amy B Portland, ME: '...I get a fearful feeling in my gut listening to Rudy-Romney talk about foreign affairs as neither as any experience in that field...'

Amy, they all lean on advisors. None of the candidates are really foreign policy 'experts'.
But, I've read that Guiliani is attracting the neo-con crwod to his side. After all their failures with the Bush team, their flocking to the next bozo !

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

VL Concord, NC — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:16:36 GMT

Flip-Flop-Flip-Flop does Hillary stand for anything? I'm sorry Sen. Clinton you can't hammer Obama for being first on the idea and turn around to adopt the idea without admitting you were wrong. This is the fourth error of judgement you made and you claim that Sen. Obama is "naive". You can't spin this, your hand was caught in the cookie jar. There is no wiggle room. You are not qualified to make good decisions, you can't come up with your own ideas, and you lack the fortitude to stand behind your ideas. That's not leadership, that's calculation...

Hillary you are the weakest link....

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Bill C. — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:29:29 GMT

It's right here, just take a lookie.. hillaryclinton.com

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

vanreuter, NY NY — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:34:26 GMT

Source: Gore thinks Clinton unstoppable

"WASHINGTON (CNN) — A source involved in Gore's past political runs told CNN that he definitely has the ambition to use the peace prize as a springboard to run for president.

But he will not run, because he won't take on the political machine assembled by Sen. Hillary Clinton, said the source. If the senator from New York had faltered at all, Gore would take a serious look at entering the race, the source said. But Gore has calculated that Clinton is unstoppable, according to the source.

Gore repeatedly denied he has any plans to run again, but this week a group of grass-roots Democrats calling themselves "Draft Gore" took out a full-page ad in The New York Times in a bid to change his mind. (Watch more on the movement to draft Gore)"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Don't know if it's true, as it quotes a, " source involved in Gore's past political runs.", but id does make for an interesting little tidbit...

Van

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

The Admiral — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:35:03 GMT

Democratic Presidents, and vice-Presidents win Nobel Peace Prizes. Republican Presidents and vice-Presidents just dissappear into obscurity. What a difference huh? Proud to be a Democrat. Suck it neo-cons.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Edwin Chewning — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:39:43 GMT

I'm with Braveheart from Imperial City, Ca. I hope Al Gore jumps in the race. He's the only one who can out poll Hillary! And yes, he could bring all the good things back from the Clinton WH without having a Clinton. A Gore/Obama ticket would be fantastic and just what this country needs now! Here I thought all was lost in this thanks to the of the idiot and his policies currently in the WH. Gore is clearly the most capable, experienced and dedicated leader that could send the Republicans packing in '08.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Jeremy, Iowa City, IA — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:40:44 GMT

The Clinton camp would like to pretend that Obama's answer ended with "I would" then only talk about the exact phrasing of the question. They completely ignore the FACT that Obama went on to talk about initiating diplomatic efforts first.

The reason for Hillary's success in this campaign might be simple: Rovianism works. Even though Obama's experience includes a track record of legislative accomplishment and good judgment that she doesn't match up to, she "attacked the strength" in Rovian fashion. Then, she used obfuscation as well as Rove ever did on this diplomacy issue.

The only way the campaign is going to turn around is if voters and reporters start calling her on this stuff. For example, she talks about her experience in completely abstract terms. Even as the Clintons fight to keep the details of her service as first lady secret, she touts that. Well, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. had plenty of abstract experience and look where that landed us.

Perhaps a good place for hillary to start getting concrete would be to talk about how her experience has informed the most important judgments she's made. I'm afraid that political expediency, and not experience, is the answer to that.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Short-Bus Driver, Far and Wide — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:41:12 GMT

Hey, you neocons - don't let ANYONE call you "stpuid beyond all human comprehension" because you chose a weasely little coward and war criminal (by '04) over a Nobel prize winner. No, Sir!

You're all VERY special to all Americans who aren't flat lining. Especially you, "Arnse." That you can function in society to the point where you purchased a box of Cracker Jacks - you're an inspiration to your fellow Bush voters.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Susan, Nebraska — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:41:42 GMT

I am amazed, I have been away from here for a few months and nothing has changed. Conservatives are so anxious to blame the quagmire the World is in today on anyone but the GOP that they are even willing to jump on and discredit someone who is truly trying and being successful at raising awareness to a GLOBAL problem. These are the same mice that will follow the pied piper into a war on faulty information and stand behind him 6 years later with NO progress but are unwilling to believe our world is literally melting around us. Shameful. . .utterly shameful. Way to go Al!!!!!

Y'all probably have bumper stickers that read "if you aint a republican you aint right!" Join Ann Coulter in spewing hate for no reason. Birds of a feather.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Jeremy, Iowa City, IA — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:44:35 GMT

BTW, Why would Clinton re-record a 5 year old speech from when she was touting Bush's false WMD and Saddam-aQ claims?

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Lee in CA — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:45:11 GMT

"are all republicans so mean spirited and ignorant or will the real ones ever stand up and denounce the bushies and their christian crackheads?"

Here I am, employee! Joined the Repukagain party last week. Time to clean a few war mongering cowards and Holy Inquisitors out. "Ya say you want a revolution?" Ron Paul.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Lyn, MD — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:00:44 GMT

If you think that the first vote was about political posturing, if history can't sway you, I won't be able to. The second vote IS political posturing. That's what non-binding resolutions are for, taking political positions that you don't have to back up. They are nothing BUT posturing, that is their purpose.

I have no thoughts of trying to change your mind on Clinton. I do hope that you look at all of the facts with an open mind when we get to the general election.

I hope that the article I posted for you will do something towards blunting your beliefs that Hillary is owned by corporate entities, at the least.

Van

Very insightful of you....know you want change anyone's mind. It's like spinach, either you like it or you don't. It doesn't matter how people try to sell you on it,..in your gut you don't like it.

For many people (myself included) that is what it is. It's a gut feeling.

I will give you credit for trying...but again you are right on not changing my mind and wrong I won't consider voting for her UNDERSCORE EVEN CONSIDER.

We shall continue to agree to disagree.

BTW did Hillary change her mind (again) on talking to Iran without "CONDITIONS"? Notice I didn't say flip, flop (since you accused me yesterday of being flippant

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Richard, Washington State — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:01:18 GMT

Who is the Chairman of the Board of the Alliance for Climate Protection (the recipient of the Nobel cash prize).

And the winner is: Al Gore

The cash prize that comes with this award will go far in funding private jets and accomodations for Brother Al's Travelling Climate Salvation Show. Perhaps it will go toward purchasing carbon credits on behalf of the organization as it goes about exceeding the carbon footprint of the average citizen.

The Alliance for Climate Protection is a public relations entity (some might say propaganda)that is also set up to be a temporary organization.

Just go to the net and type in the Alliance for Climate Protection.

It's like if Jimmy Carter donated his award to the Peanut Farmers Information and Promotion Bureau.

Tax avoidance the John Edwards way.

What a charlatan. Hypocrite comes to mind as well. There were far more deserving nominees. Perhaps, as someone recently suggested, the Monks of Burma, truly courageous people.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Rick,ky — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:05:46 GMT

There's your so-called experience folk's, 3 month's after the Fact that Barrack had already outlined the same. # month's after the fact, The world as we know it, could be gone. Is that the kind of Leadership we need in our next President, I Think NOT ?

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

John B, Des Moines, IA — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:07:11 GMT

A Taxpayer; I agree that we have the ability to combat global warming. We have the best research facilities, the best researchers, the best industrial base. If we take the lead in this area the rest of the world will buy these developments from us and we can even make a profit. In fact it's such a great idea it was a centerpiece of Al Gore's presidential campaign. So why aren't we doing it?

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

VL Concord, NC — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:11:52 GMT

Hey, Van

When is Hillary going to release her earmarks from the Senate?? Obama already has. I see no leadership at all from your BFF Hillary. Awwwww... is she hiding something??

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

i am still waiting — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:13:32 GMT

stardate spetember 11 2001 dead or alive stardate october 12 2007 468 days left

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Doug, San Diego — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:23:54 GMT

I think what freaks the conservatives out, what they can't figure out, is our motivation. Why would anyone be motivated by anything but personal gain, or simple revenge? They have always been the "what's in it for me?" crowd, right? The "I've got mine, get your own and keep off my ground!" folks. So they try to spin this to ask how much money is Al making off of this global warming thing. They also want to make it about how the liberals hate business, hate America and are determined to drag it down with regulations. They don't get that we simply want to help the planet and ALL the people on it, not just the ones who already have it good (us). I am truly sorry for you if that is such an alien motivation. I really pity you if you can't see further than your interests and your family's and friend's. Peace to you, and hopefully, spiritual evolution. The world needs it.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

HP, Kansas — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:25:52 GMT

I agree with Braveheart......Gore/Obama, will lead us in the right direction. I hope that happens.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

juan,ft lauderdale,fl — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:42:14 GMT

It curious that since Reagan Republicans have been against public education, universal hlthcare and environmental protection. It is simple: 1) keep the masses stupid; 2)keep the middle class sick and eventually die off,3) keep corporate polluters happy and wlthy.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Blue state baby — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:43:57 GMT

Susan,Nebraska welcome back! Good post.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Richard, Washington State — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:45:17 GMT

Anyone else see the article about the hurricane forecast being substantially wrong for the third year in a row? The article is from Reuters and is entitled "Atlantic hurricane season puzzles experts".

These are scientists who are not able to accurately predict one year out and we're supposed to accept as gospel, on the word of Brother Al's Travelling Climate Salvation Show (my apologies to Neil Diamond), the predictions and models that extend 30, 50 or 100 years?

The term of my skepticism is hereby extended.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:47:23 GMT

Sierra:
I agree that most endorsements mean nothing, but the Al Gore endorsement carries a lot of weight (even if he has taken off some of his own tonnage). There is the emotional content of guilt that haunts Dems and Indys who may have voted for Bush as a result of the Clinton/Monica thing and those that voted for Bush because they bought into the 'wooden Al' concept and 'who would you rather have a beer with?' thing. Also the fact that many (including my self) feel that the 2000 election was stolen from Gore, may lend him a certain martyr status. In addition, a lot of Nader voters who helped to defeat the most environmentally friendly candidate of a major party since TR, may feel that Gore has earned the right for their support and will support his endorsee - although I admit they will have to work through Obama's position on nuclear (thank God we can finally eliminate the word 'nucular' from the American lexicon) energy and how it is to be researched and only used when the waste problem is solved. Finally, I think that Gore has achieved a status of greatness and relevence, even a position of moral authority, that is really quite remarkable. Unlike other endorsements, Gore's will be a consolidating force that will help Obama to emerge as the anti-Clinton candidate.

Van:
I agree with your link that Hillary does not vote in lock-step with corporate interests. However, her poisonous associations (most importantly, her pollster) may result in decisions that are contrary to the interests of middle class and working people (as I feel that it was with NAFTA; it's careless implementation has resulted in a waterfall effect of liquidity and jobs from this country). The Clintons have had a long history of accepting donations from questionable sources (not unlike many candidates) and I'm looking for a candidate who is more selective in his/her associations.

As to her vote for authorization of force in 2002: when I read your quotes it seems as if she was trying to have it both ways. She voted to side with the president's request for authorization of force but yet advised caution. She claims that she intended the authorization only as a tool to help enforce the president's negotiating power with the Saddam and the UN. However as Chris Matthews points out in his 'street-wise' eloquence, (and I paraphrase) when a robber asks to borrow a car and promises you that he won't use it to rob the store, do you believe him? Van, all of America, knew that this president planned to go to war. I remember that I knew it at the time. And in addition, I knew that Saddam had nothing to do with the Saudi/Qaeda terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. If I knew it, I'm sure that Hillary did. And if Senators like Jack Reed (a military guy) voted against the authorization because the NIE (a report on which Hillary claims that she was well briefed) cast serious doubt on the presence of WMD, I can only assume that if her vote did not represent political posturing then it was indicative of awfully bad judgment. The nay vote on the Levin amendment was only not self-destructive to Congressional authority (ceding war making power to a president who lacked credentials for judgment and trust) but it was a disavowal of basic Constitutional principles. I won't even go into the Lieberman/Kyl resolution and its implications.

Man what a mess! I can't see how I could, in good conscience, vote for HRC in the general, even as the lesser of two evils. I hate the idea of third party candidates, but I may be forced into that position if she is the nominee and if that were the case, I could only hope that a third party would ensure that the Democrats would increase their majorities in the House and Senate (something that I don't think Hillary, as the nominee, can do).

Anyway, contrary to your excellent representation of the national polls, I think that Iowa is up for grabs, that as Howard Fineman wrote in Newsweek on 10/2, the race in NH is very fluid (confirming my 'inside information' - he reports that only 17% of voters in the Granite state have made up their minds) and that South Carolina will depend on how the black electorate perceives Obama's electability. Man, I hope that I'm right.
Obama '08

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Richard, Washington State — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:50:16 GMT

Doug, San Diego: Are you promoting religion?

I'm a conservative and a Republican and I would bet that my lifestyle is more environment-friendly than Al Gore's.

But thanks for your pity anyway. With stereotypical yahoos like you around, I am deserving of it.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

John B, Des Moines, IA — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:58:15 GMT

Doug, San Diego, excellent post. I think you make some excellent points. A while back my politically conservative brother told me of an eye opening revelation he had. In terms of environmental issues he suddenly realized that the world would go on, but nothing said our society as it exists now or even the continued survival of humans has to be a part of that.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Mike K, Denver — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:01:35 GMT

<<...Peace to you, and hopefully, spiritual evolution.>>

Republicans don't believe in evolution.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Amy B Portland, ME — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:18:43 GMT

Gore/Obama would be ideal, HP Kansas..we can dream, can't we?

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Chris Malley — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:27:29 GMT

Truly amazing that Gore has won the Nobel. Most others earn the award through hard work and self sacrifice. Gore has earned through self promotion along with Hollywood sponsorship. He has also benefited from his propaganda financially. The committee that has selected Gore should be embarrassed for themselves and their award. The award has been greatly diminished, and the previous winners of the award (Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, on and on) should feel slighted.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

stunned — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:35:04 GMT

first read,quotes from dylan thomas and william shakespere are censored.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:35:38 GMT

PJ, they are making the world a better place by borrowing more money than they can pay, waving the flag and being armchair warriors who switch the channel when they see anything which makes them uncomofortable.

Van, your wide-eyed support of Hillary masked by your "informational posts" is not much different than James Dobson's treatise's on Jesus' teachings. Both of you believe your interpretations are true but neither of you get the point of what was actually being said.

To Richard in Washington, the definition of a charlatan is a confidence man who is trying to gain monetary or other advantage by false pretense. This can't be Al Gore. Probably 75-80% of scientists, not paid by energy companies, believe global warming is serious problem. So, what Al Gore has said cannot be false pretense. However, going into Iraq under false pretenses to enrich a part of the private sector with strong Republican Party ties sounds more the work of a charlatan to me. Raising money or else "being called to heaven," the whole Jim and Tammy Faye fiasco, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, and a whole host of others are more charlatans than Al Gore. At least, Al has some scientific evidence to back up his belief.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

John Doe, The Peanut Gallery — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:35:52 GMT

"Gore & the IPCC that's perfect. Many of the scientists involved in the IPCC project sued to have their names removed from the report. WTG AL!!
Dave, Tn (Sent Friday, October 12, 2007 11:03 AM)"

Dave,

They sued to have their names taken off the report because key scientific items were removed at the request of the Bush administration. By the time our diplomats got done censoring the report it stopped being science and was quickly being a political football that reputable scientists didn't want to be associated with.

Maybe try doing some research before spouting your mouth off.

BTW this is exactly why Hillary is getting refered to as "bulletproof". It's not that Americans will forgive a Clinton anything. It's that people like you have spent the last 16 years screaming your heads off at every little thing you think might somehow be vaguely bad about the Clintons and so much of it has turned out to be complete BS that no one is willing to listen to your or any other Rethug's latest hysteronics.

Folks like Dave, Jerry, IntheMiddle, and every other right wing nut job have helped pave the way for a Clinton Presidency. Heck of a job, guys...

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Houston — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:37:16 GMT

Richard, Washington State [[These are scientists who are not able to accurately predict one year out and we're supposed to accept as gospel, on the word of Brother Al's Travelling Climate Salvation Show (my apologies to Neil Diamond), the predictions and models that extend 30, 50 or 100 years? ]]

The scientists were wrong about global warming, too. It's happening much FASTER than they had feared it would. The north polar ice cap is melting leading to a squabble between northenr nations over the resources and ship routes its retreat has made accessible. The subtropical climate zones and their species have moved northward at a much faster rate than expected, pushing some northern species of plants and animals to the brink of extinction. And some island nations in the Pacific are threatened with inundation by the rising sea level.

The vast quantities of hot air that far-right gasbags are expelling over Al Gore getting a well-deserved Nobel Prize only add to the global warming problem.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Houston — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:37:16 GMT

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Nick, Ohio — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:41:21 GMT

On Gore:

The Nobel Prize is quite an accomplishment and is well-deserved.

Gore shares the prize with the IPCC. That body will use its share of the money for keeping that panel in the black. Gore will donate his to the Alliance for Climate Protection. That money will go to help keep that group in the black.

Remember, we're not talking about the Bush gang here, who are not above board in their private dealings.

I really don't expect him to run for President anymore. He's had his time in the political scene in DC and I'm sure he's not that pleased to jump into the muck once again. However, we'll see...

On Clinton:

Hillary is a formidible opponent and has one thing that may set her apart from all the other Dem candidates... she can win. The Clinton political machine is strong and will not take mud slung at them, sitting down. They may not sling it themselves since Kerry set that precedent, but they will surely defend themselves to the end.

While I may favor John Edwards, who is a much better candidate than many realize, he is also in a spot where he is coming from behind. (The same with Obama, who is someone I like very much, but I feel it is not his time just yet. This campaign is his time to get the experience in the whole process and become more of a household name. If he loses, he will run again and again and will someday win.)

Hillary is more prepared to lead this country than any other candidate on either side. If Rudi wins the GOP nomination, it will be the toughest battle, but Hillary will prevail since no one can challenge her toughness on terrorists and get away with it. With Hillary in the Dem seat, Rudi will not be able to use the "Patriot" card for his actions during 9/11.

Next stop: the primaries. The Dem squabbles with New Hampshire demanding to be #1, even at the insistence of the other states eliminating their primaries, is quite ridiculous and very petty. The DNC needs to allow any state to have their primaries whenever they wish, as long as it is not before a specific date (and that date should not be the NH primary date or timeframe).

Finally, remember the Dems like to argue amongst themselves. When it comes time to back their candidate, they/we all jump in with both hands and feet.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Susan, NC via LA — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:44:31 GMT

Chuck, Chris, and the peons' crush on Hillary Clinton is really cute - NOT. How surprising that 6 of 8 sections of this post mention Sen. Clinton in one way or another.

The more I read First Read, the more <a href="http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/dewey_defeats_truman1.jpg">this image</a> pops into my head.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Tom, SC — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:05:36 GMT

Union Leader

Clinton can parse her decision any way she wants, but the obvious truth is that she made a calculated choice to break her word for political advantage. She's a Clinton, so few will be surprised by that. But voters will want to remember that decision. If she'll break her word to participate in a virtually meaningless primary, what won't she break her word for?
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=36993ac7-40a6-40d1-a96a-55253123b1a1&headline=Clinton%27s+%27is%27+moment%3a+Who+cares+what+words+mean%3f

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Richard, Washington State — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:20:37 GMT

Nick, Ohio:

What don't we know about Bush and Cheney's private dealings? As public officials they are obligated to disclose their personal financial position. The information is available to you or any other private citizen. You will even find that Hillary Clinton is worth more than either of them. I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt that her private dealings are above board.

A few facts, please, not a simplistic statement of what you would like to believe.

And please, no Halliburton, no Harken, no Texas Rangers or any of the other things that are also public knowledge and as such completely above board whether you like anything about these particular examples of old news.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Richard, Washington State — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:26:40 GMT

Bill Clinton was no more straightforward than Hillary and in possession of no fewer evasive positions than Hillary. In fact, he is universally admired by Democrats for being a master politician, which entails evasiveness and keeping options open.

He was just so much better at it than Hillary.

So what's the problem with Hillary's position on the war and on Iran? If you look closely, there is a lot of nuance there.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Houston — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:27:54 GMT

Chris Malley [[Truly amazing that Gore has won the Nobel. Most others earn the award through hard work and self sacrifice. Gore has earned through self promotion along with Hollywood sponsorship.]]

I just KNEW that the rightwingnuts would quickly work themselves into a frenzy of hate over Al Gore getting a Nobel Prize. Gore has had the courage to stand up for the "inconvenient truth" for decades despite the vicious attacks from the inconvenienced corporate liars, such as G. H. W. Bush (aka "Poppy"), who ridiculed Gore as "Ozone man" back in 1992.

And among Poppy's many other sins, he spawned the current abominatuon occupying in the White House who, in his turn, has tried to intimidate and silence scientists warning the public about the politically incorrect facts of global warming. The rotten apple doesn't fall far from the blighted tree.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

HMT-MI — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:36:29 GMT

Another happy hate day to all-------never ends does it---congratulations Al Gore---go to hell to you jealous little neocons(Bush wackies)

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Richard, Washington State — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:39:46 GMT

Robert Catalano: I am in complete agreement with one of your statements:

"the whole Jim and Tammy Faye fiasco, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, and a whole host of others are more charlatans than Al Gore."

I also think that among charlatans, Michael Moore is a more accomplished charlatan than Al Gore. You can measure that in the career box office totals.

I agree that it's just a matter of degree.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Richard, Washington State — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:43:00 GMT

He REG:

I disagree with everything you said.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Richard, Washington State — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:52:16 GMT

Houston:

You're right, we were just waiting. When the ridiculous occurs, people have opinions. What's the problem?

Most liberals and Al Gore afficionados constantly beat the drum that global warming is an undisputed fact. Actually, it is because I do trust thermometers. These afficionados go much further though and take models, predictions and other dubious conclusions as gospel. Therefore, your contention is usually that everyone but a few idiots agree with Al Gore. With such overwhelming support, how courageous does Al Gore have to be?

You guys usually associate courage with the skeptic. But I guess being a skeptic in this case comes with a different set of rules, huh?

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

nuanced — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:55:02 GMT

Ronnie was teflon coated
Bill was bullet proof
I propose since she is riding high in the polls that:
Hillary is unsinkable

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

nuanced — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:57:53 GMT

Domenico said "Imagine the level of grief Clinton would have gotten if she had re-recorded a five-year-old speech in order to give the campaign better audio for use in paid advertising?"

I am imagining zero. What is your point? Reaching for something?

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Peter, Pittsburgh, PA — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:07:17 GMT

Richard from Washington State wrote, "I'm a conservative and a Republican and I would bet that my lifestyle is more environment-friendly than Al Gore's."

I'll bet your lifestyle is also more environment-friendly that Bush's is too. It's also more environment-friendly than Cheney's. Why are you still a Republican and not an Independent?

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Susan, NC via LA — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:08:51 GMT

http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/dewey_defeats_truman1.jpg

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

AR Thompson, St. Louis — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:28:37 GMT

Houston - the only one here that seems to be having a conniption fit is you. Al Gore is nothing more then a front for ecological propagandists. He had 8 years as the #2 man in the executive branch, and did a lot more with fundraising for the Democrats then he ever did for the environment. The man was a phony then, and is a phony now. Running around saying the climate is changing it about as effective as Chicken Little saying the sky is falling. News flash, the climate is always changing. And, to say that the climate is changing is one thing, but it is a little phony to say you know why, and even more phony when you say you know how to fix it. Gore would be slightly more convincing if rather then talking the talk, that he'd walk the walk, and show the world that he can be example for the "Green" lifestyle. Instead, he looks a little, okay a lot, hypocritical with his lifestyle.

What Gore is very smart about is that he's tapped into something that seems to have made him immensely wealthy. It takes a lot of lemmings to support the Gore's riches, and Houston, you appear to be one of them.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Houston — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:36:09 GMT

Richard, Washington State [[Most liberals and Al Gore afficionados constantly beat the drum that global warming is an undisputed fact.]]

Um, no. It's not "liberals," it's scientists who have determined that global warming is an indisputable fact. The climate is changing drastically. Al Gore's opinion is actually _optimistic_ compared to some scientists who've concluded that it's already too late to prevent a run-away greenhouse effect that will cause a global catastrophe.

[[Therefore, your contention is usually that everyone but a few idiots agree with Al Gore.]]

On this issue, that's pretty much the truth.

[[With such overwhelming support, how courageous does Al Gore have to be?]]

Duh, it was already pointed out that Gore was sounding an alarm about global warming when it was politically unpopular. Poppy Bush's stupid "Ozone man" insult. Remember that from a few posts up?

[[You guys usually associate courage with the skeptic. But I guess being a skeptic in this case comes with a different set of rules, huh? ]]

Are you also "skeptical" that NASA really landed astronauts on the moon? Disbelief in defiance of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary is not skepticism; it's gullibility.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Lee Holmes — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:39:30 GMT

John B: We are not doing it because of the Democrat leadership in Congress. Ironic,is it not,that when they were on the outs,it was the duped Americans who placed them there that figured these to be the agents of ''change''that would bring new dawns of prosperity,ethics and a devotion to the reduction of global warming. Politics,however,demands more iron realities,as displayed in todays New York Times article,''Liberal Base Trying To Democrats''.
Democrats,especially in the House,have withstood demands for greater fuel efficiency standards. Led by ''Tailpipe John''Dingall[D-Mi],rust belt and pro-union Democrats have hardened their stance against CAFE standards bowing to the UAW.[ of course,these emissions are a primary source of global warming]. It does not end there.
Farm belt Democrats,Tom Harkin,[Ia]Kent Conrad [ND],Tim Johnson[SD-prior to hospitalization],who pushed this years massive Farm Bill,also allowed environmental standards to relax allowing everything from the chemicals used,to the unregulated storing and dispersal of livestock byproduct[also a global warming ingredient],to remain untouched.
As Mr. Frequent Flyer AlGore will instantly tell you,nothing is being done on the front of more efficient jet and aircraft construction either. Again,Democrat deferrence to aircraft/airline workers unions plays a direct role in seeing that nothing gets done,despite airtravel having a major causual link to global warming.[and with the release of BOEINGS new monstrous jet,the 787].
Perhaps the real tragedy of the Nobel Prize efforts is that they were so deffcient in grasping the nature of what ''peace''encompasses. They err in assuming that global conflict,divorced from religious and sectarian violence is propelled by global warming. This is a farce on its face. The true reality is that radical Islam works its desires by engaging in either direct or proxy wars,or ,as in the case of Africa,to acquire mineral and oil-rich territory.[If one wishes to see what a real ''war for oil''looks like,let them go to Nigeria].Todays Daily Telegraph [UK]''What Has Al Gore Done For Peace?'' misses the point. That he stands convicted of certain hypocrisy in his own lifestyle is a given. However,he is but one person who yet cannot determine the course of nations and worlds based upon belief systems,which inject themselves into the realms of hard science.[the idea that Manhattan will be under water in twenty years is absurd to the point of the ridiculous]. Even this aside,African strongmen,Burmese and Sri Lankan militarists,the Chinese,and of course the Islamic radicals could care less for Gores platitudes.
While Gore is feted in triumph upon his return to a Manhattan-socialite shindig with assorted Tinseltown fawners,press sychophants[keep an eye on these people and note their names. These are the members of the Fourth Estate that will be peddling their agitprop garbage that would make O'Reilly look like St. Augustine],UN diplomats and corduroy-jacket leftists cluttering up the place,people reaching for real peace in the world divorced from partisan mudslinging will continue their uproad battle for peace and the cessation of the degredation of human rights,ignored by Stockholm,and the world community. A few faces who are more deserving than ''Zinc mine''Albert A. Gore Jr.

Ayyan Hirsi Ali -Somalian feminist who has fought against worldwide ''honour killings'',beatings and sexual abuse,and genital mutilation of women and girls. She has been abandoned by her adopted nation,Holland,and is under a death threat fatwa issued by Islamic extremists.

The Rev. Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness- Paisley,a radical Protestant,and McGuinness,who was the leader for the Catholic IRAs political arm SINN FEIN,once sworn enemies,have not only cemented peace in Ireland,which is now enjoying the fruits of that peace with a higher standard of living,more jobs and a highly skilled tech sector,but have also moved beyond Irelands borders to instill the ideas that longtime enemies can achieve compromise and peace. This summer,both men met with Iraqi Shia and Sunni members in order to establish a peaceful understanding between the two warring sectarian groups. [We should point out here that the sectarian violence expected in Basra as a result of British withdrawl never came to fruition,nor did the press-touted Tet-style ''Ramadan Offensive''which idiots like the New York Times and leftists including KOS,TRUTHOUT,and William Pitts asserted with confidence only a month ago, and that Shias are beginning to abandon al Sadrs ''Medhi''Army in droves].

Akbar Ganji- Leading Iranian dissident and author-journalist who has worked since the Iranian Revolution for the democratization of his nation and the separation of the mosque from government. Nominally opposed to the Bush administrations war in Iraq, he is yet sounding the alarm on what a nuclearized Iran will mean for the peoples of the world.

Any of these would have whipped Big Al in spades for the work they and others are pulling hard for in the true ''Peace''Dept.[To be fair,Gore was a more palatable choice than the one that wrecked the reputation of the Nobel panel when they picked Arafat].

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Richard, Washington Stateq — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:04:08 GMT

Peter, Pittsburgh, PA:

Right on both counts, no question, but Bush and Cheney aren't preaching to me about it, so the comparison is irrelevant. And I don't judge them, or Al Gore for that matter, on their lifestyles. My comment regarding Al Gore is simply for political discussion. Absent that, I don't much care about his lifestyle compared to mine either.

As to why I'm still a Republican and not an independent: From what seems to be an implicit assumption that being environmentally conscious is incompatible with being a Republican and a conservative, I would conclude that I'm being pretty independent already.

Since being an "Independent" politically shouldn't hinge on one issue, I'm more than happy to stay with what is otherwise 90% compatible with my personal political perspectives and beliefs. I disagree with my wife on things at times, but I'm not going to leave her for another woman.

I consider myself environmentally informed and aware. I don't consider that to be incompatible at all with being a conservative and a Republican. I'm just very skeptical about environmentalism as I perceive it to be practiced by Al Gore, particularly on the global warming issue.

Yeah, on that note, I think I might actually be the independent here.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

they exemplifly the warming plight — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:15:17 GMT

watch the birds outside your window

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Richard, Washington State — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:26:14 GMT

Houston, you're just one big non-sequitur. Poppy Bush's "Ozone Man" comment is your comeback along with name-calling? Well, you're predictable at least.

For the record, I don't dispute thermometers. Global temperatures are going up. Beyond that, I'm skeptical. I still remember the scientists predicting the onset of another Ice-Age back in the 70's as I pursued my Environmental Studies/Biology degree.

I am still thrilled when I hear the words "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." That little jab was really stupid. I see purchasers of carbon credits as gullible, or worse, culpable.

Houston, I think it's you who has the problem.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

John B, Des Moines, IA — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:30:34 GMT

Lee Holmes, what stopped the Republicans from doing something about the issue when they controlled the White House and both houses of Congress? If Republicans have such respect for science why does the Administration expect nearly all scientific content to be edited by political appointees before distribution? Why have government scientists been ordered to not talk to the press without prior approval, a change in practice from prior administrations? So you found a handful of actions by Democrats that are of questionable environmental soundness, that pales in comparison to the guns blazing assault on science that's been mounted by the GOP. I'm talking about everything from refusal to replace the retiring satellites that are used to monitor global warming to administratively rewriting the Endangered Species Act to suggesting that evolution is just some crackpot fantasy.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Houston — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:39:47 GMT

Lee Holmes [[Democrats,especially in the House,have withstood demands for greater fuel efficiency standards. Led by ''Tailpipe John''Dingall[D-Mi],rust belt and pro-union Democrats have hardened their stance against CAFE standards bowing to the UAW.[ of course,these emissions are a primary source of global warming]. ...]]

The Democrats are no prize as a group, but as the nation has found out to its profound regret, an imperfect Al Gore would have been a vastly preferrable to the nightmare of the Bush regime over the past 7 years.

[[The true reality is that radical Islam works its desires by engaging in either direct or proxy wars,or ,as in the case of Africa,to acquire mineral and oil-rich territory.[If one wishes to see what a real ''war for oil''looks like,let them go to Nigeria].]]

Yeah, forget about global warming and the melting ice caps. All of the world's problems are the fault of the "Islamofascists," except for the problems that are Bill Clinton's fault, of course. The Nigerian civil war, and the near-genocide in Darfur have nothing to do with an evil world-wide Islamist conspiracy; these wars are stricly local struggles over resources.

[[To be fair,Gore was a more palatable choice than the one that wrecked the reputation of the Nobel panel when they picked Arafat].]]

Gore was also a better choice for a Nobel than that war criminal Henry Kissinger. His "peace" agreement with the North Vietnamese proved to be meaningless and worse still, Kissinger was complicit in the coup that overthrew the democratically government and replaced it with a bestial fascist dictatorship. Yep, the Nobel committee has chosen some clunkers. But they obviously chose wisely when they awarded the prize to Gore.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

REG; East Valley Phx. AZ — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:53:32 GMT

Hey Richard: Washington State and any other Bush affectionates - I support your right to your opinion but have a hard time rationalizing that the following could possibly be wrong: (from previous comments)

"Some may question whether there is a powerful group behind the Bush Presidency that ‘call the shots’ but anyone who saw George in that class room, ‘sucking his thumb’, after hearing that planes had crashed into the World Trade Towers and then saw him again after he had been given direction and coaching, they wouldn’t doubt it. The same image change was played out again after hurricane Katrina hit. George W. Bush has always struck me to be like a spoiled teenager who just hasn’t grown up. When we were thirteen and fourteen years old we use to strut instead of walk like he does, we use to have that cocky smirk and in-your-face attitude as he does, we would smile at the wrong times as if saying ‘look at me, aren’t I something to see’ as he does and we had that same ‘chip on our shoulder’ but by sixteen or seventeen we had learned that it didn’t pay and that we weren’t really such hot stuff after all, we had matured. I personally think that Dick Cheney, who I see as the liaison with and part of the decision making team, has more real power than George. I compare George W. Bush to a gun that someone else loads and points and then he just goes around shooting. Who really does the loading; who establishes the direction and makes the decisions? I think I would start with a think-tank group like the Carlyle Group and then include those who are obviously greatly benefiting: Halliburton, the oil companies, James Baker, the defense contractors and maybe several others. The real proof is seen in the Bush Administration’s total focus on a private agenda for benefiting Special Interests and a select few, who in return provide significant financial support, likely including deferred compensation for when out of office, and powerful backing to facilitate, influence, intimidate and manipulate, all while providing the average American only apathy, the costs, the problems and an abundance of subterfuge. It helps them that several of their people (George W. Bush, Karl Rove,,) have strong sociopathic personalities which indicates they don’t have a conscience, they don’t experience guilt, they do/say whatever they think will help them, they are simply self-indulgent, they are dishonest without hesitation and they are simply without any real concern for others."

and

"The gross dishonesty of the Bush administration, fully backed by the Republican Party, is totally offensive and then their arrogance just ‘adds insult to injury’. Consider the following Bush administration’s positions (if you know the details, you know the boldness of the deception and then the arrogance in the repetition tells the real story): * tax cuts for the wealthy benefit the economy; * warnings before ‘9/11’ weren’t specific enough; * attacking Iraq was justified; * our troops needed to find WMD and to get Iraqi prisoners to confess; * there is a real coalition sharing the costs and casualties in the Iraq War; * the Iraq War didn’t take away from the effort and focus on the War on Terror in Afghanistan; * the Iraq War has always been part of the War on Terror; * importing American drugs back into the USA is unsafe; * Global Warming wasn’t a problem; * ‘private accounts’ will solve the Social Security problems; * policies benefiting ‘big money’ and encouraging the exportation of American jobs and taxes doesn’t hurt the average worker; * the growing deficit and balance of trade deficit aren’t problems affecting the economy; * energy companies need government incentives and tax breaks even though they are making humongous profits; * there isn’t any fault with giving no-bid contracts and favored treatment to Halliburton, the defense contractors and others; * turning our port security over to Dubai Ports wouldn’t be a problem; * the administration had no part in the disclosure of the CIA agent's identity; * the squelching of the ‘wiretapping without a court order’ story in an election year was done for security and not political reasons; * the heightened warnings of terrorists attacks before our elections and then disappearing afterward, wasn’t using government to manipulate public opinion; * Homeland Security has achieved significant advances and hasn’t wasted tax payers money; * America is safer and not actually worse off today because of the Bush administration’s actions * the administration’s response after hurricane Katrina wasn’t just apathetic at best; * Iraq hasn’t generated into a civil war; * by next summer bringing home less than the number of troops sent over in the surge is a reduction; * the Iraqis are making progress and not just pursuing their sectarian and individual interests; * the Bush administration fairly represents all of us and is not just focused on a private agenda benefiting Special Interests and a select few who are significant Bush supporters and who provide overt and covert public opinion manipulation; * even considering all of these things and the necessary contradiction of a sociopathic personality, President Bush is strong on Christian values; * the loss of international prestige, the costs of nearly 4,000 Americans dead, 21,000+ injured and the estimate that a trillion dollars will be spent is really justified even when 190,000 weapons disappear, $4 million a day in Iraqi oil money is diverted, Iraqi police readily fire on American soldiers, Iraqis are fighting Iraqis,,; * faulting the ‘moveon.org’ for their ‘General Betray-us’ ad wasn’t just the often used tactic of ‘aggressively attacking the critic to avoid answering the criticism’; * having the Bush sponsored seminar on Global Warming, with the agenda being to discuss concerns, then go home to think about everything and decide what you can do without anything being binding, is a responsible approach and not just camouflage for continuing to do nothing; * and on and on as these few items are only a small sampling."

Any way that more of the same could occur, literally scares me!

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Lisa, Fort Worth TX — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:46:21 GMT

REG, I appreciate your posts. You often say what I have trouble putting into words.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Richard, Washington State — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:48:26 GMT

REG: Thanks for supporting my right to my opinion, which hasn't changed.

I can understand completely your difficulty in rationalizing that you could possibly be wrong, but keep practicing and it will eventually come to you.

I hope at least that you're cutting and pasting your rant, not retyping it every time and I completely respect your right to rant.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Mark Thieme — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:53:30 GMT

REG:
Superb post. The only slight bone to pick is your reference to James Baker and corporatism in general. There are, in fact, Republican patriots in this country, or at least those who consider this the worst administration in history. Same goes for corporations. Corporations want to make money and this administration has hurt our politico-economic standing around the world, making it tougher for most corporations to do business, although the few you mentioned have indeed hit the mother lode in the past 7 years.
Corporations are not interested in buying candidates as much as not wanting to be left out. That is why many hedge their presidential bets so carefully. The Clintons are not owned by corporations, but global corporatism does indeed trust them more than anyone running now. Another reason Gore will stay out. (and Hillary will win the whole shooting match)

One last point: Lee Holmes is the most intelligent, honest and articulate conservative poster here. Don't often agree with him, but he always makes me think.
Kudos to both posters!

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Houston — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:53:50 GMT

Richard, Washington State [[Houston, you're just one big non-sequitur. Poppy Bush's "Ozone Man" comment is your comeback along with name-calling? Well, you're predictable at least.]]

Talk about nonsequiturs, the above seems to be meaningless nonsense babbled in a feeble attempt to avoid admitting that Gore had the courage to embrace environmentalism decades ago while Poppy and his wretched progeny sneered.

[[For the record, I don't dispute thermometers. Global temperatures are going up. Beyond that, I'm skeptical. I still remember the scientists predicting the onset of another Ice-Age back in the 70's as I pursued my Environmental Studies/Biology degree. ]]

I think you're confusing contemporary Repub talking points with 1970's science. Whatever evidence existed for a possible cooling effect, there was NEVER the amount of alarm, nor of the overwhelming evidence forglobal cooling in the '70s as there is for global warming today. As a matter of fact, there IS a "global dimming" effect from pollution that blocks sunlight and has slowed down global warming. But not enough to save us.

[[I am still thrilled when I hear the words "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." ]]

Goody for you. But "skepticism" about global warming and the major role humans play in it is every bit as silly as skepticism about the moon landings.

[[That little jab was really stupid. ]]

What's stupid is to continue to deny that humans are responsible for the global warming that will certainly lead to global catastrophe if nothing is done about it just because you hate the fact that Al Gore is right and his enemies on the fringe right have been wrong. That's not just stupidity, it's dangerous stupidity.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Lee Holmes — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:12:16 GMT

Houston: It is all quite easy. When you and yours are vaporized in a suitcase nuke attack,you will not need to worry about ''melting ice caps''. Dunderheaded,is it not?,to put the cart before the horse. Further,you are historically defficient. Lay off the cheap Scotch. Kissinger had not a damned thing to do with installing North Vietnams Minh government OR South Vietnams Diem government. Read Houston,read. You forget that Islamic rebels are most certainly active in Nigeria and several other African nations and that this phenomenon is spreading.

John B: Ah,but you ignore the fact that Democrats sided with the GOP to trainwreck CAFE and agricultural enviro standards and are doing it now as the majority. Indeed, gaining the knowlage we already have thanks to Al and the UN scientists,greater in its scope,then WHY is there still stonewalling among the Democrat majority on this issue? All talk. No action. Is anyone really dumb enough to believe that an increased price of fossil fuels is going to keep global warming on the front burner when a gallon of milk goes for eight bucks a pop and unemployment rises to 8.5%?[or more]. Trust me on this one. It will not be algores financial ass in a sling over this one. But ordinary Americans who,like with Carter in 1979,will demand that he get with the program chop-chop,or be canned in the next election.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Lee Holmes — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:15:09 GMT

Houston: It is all quite easy. When you and yours are vaporized in a suitcase nuke attack,you will not need to worry about ''melting ice caps''. Dunderheaded,is it not?,to put the cart before the horse. Further,you are historically defficient. Lay off the cheap Scotch. Kissinger had not a damned thing to do with installing North Vietnams Minh government OR South Vietnams Diem dictatorship. Read Houston,read. You forget that Islamic rebels are most certainly active in Nigeria and several other African nations and that this phenomenon is spreading.

John B: Ah,but you ignore the fact that Democrats sided with the GOP to trainwreck CAFE and agricultural enviro standards and are doing it now as the majority. Indeed, gaining the knowlage we already have thanks to Al and the UN scientists,greater in its scope,then WHY is there still stonewalling among the Democrat majority on this issue? All talk. No action. Is anyone really dumb enough to believe that an increased price of fossil fuels is going to keep global warming on the front burner when a gallon of milk goes for eight bucks a pop and unemployment rises to 8.5%?[or more]. Trust me on this one. It will not be algores financial ass in a sling over this. But ordinary Americans who,like with Carter in 1979,will demand that he get with the program chop-chop,or be canned in the next election.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Houston — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:53:05 GMT

Hey, I've got an idea for the wingnuts who are besides themselves with rage because Gore won a Nobel Prize. Why don't you take it to the Supreme Court and get them to take the prize away from Gore and award it to Duhbya? After all, that's what they did with the presidency. The Nobel Prize would be a trivial theft in comparison to that.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

REG; East Valley Phx. AZ — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:24:19 GMT

Richard: Washington State
If you noticed I tried to be respectful of your position and now suggest you could do the same. I really don't expect you to change your opinion based on mine, only to recognize that there is validity in finding fault with what the Bush administration has done and in being concerned over 'more of the same'. It might help you to understand that I was a registered Republican for many years and hadn't voted for a Democrat, before voting against George W., since John F. Kennedy. As for 'ranting', you seem to be doing a whole lot of it while trying to hold off quite a few criticisms. Possibly that is just something you enjoy doing, I don't and and only express myself because I am really concerned.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Mark Thieme — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:26:05 GMT

More on Baker: Interesting character. Known as the "consigliere" of the Bush family, he really doesn't like George W. Never has. While he and Papa Bush go way back, there has always been an uneasy rivalry between them as Baker is considerably better read and brighter than GWHB. Baker always wanted to be president.
Both George I and Baker are solid in the world of global corporate commerce. George I and Barbara were not so sure about this Bush Jr presidency and neither was Baker. Until 9/11. Then the corporate world gathered around Bushco and took over. At that very moment it was over for Baker. Cheney was anointed shaman of the cult leaving Baker to write his memoirs, which he did. He made sure there was a sharp edge to his blade as he, with great, precise skill, eloquently, subtly, deconstructed Bushco for all the world to read. Moreover, on his book tour, he saved harsh words for Jr's intelligence and judgment. Of course, he told no really damning tales. That would be dangerous indeed.

It would be dangerous... because the Bushes might get angry? Not the main problem. The main problem is that global corporatism got stuck, just like everyone else, with an idiocy cult in the White House. Enough humiliation already.
The secrets known by Baker are also known by many. The Clintons have been wired into this for years, as early as the 1992 presidential election.
Ever wonder why GWHB nor any of his folks said much about the Gennifer Flowers (et al) scandal? Well, secrets go both ways and let's just say Clinton kept his mouth shut too. James Carville and others sat in a room with the Bush folks and negotiated a truce that holds to this day.
Global corporate interests will be served by a Clinton presidency and thus, ironically, by the interests of Bushco as well. None of the Republican candidates is even in the game.

Last word on global corporatism. No one who is not in bed with this mega-cartel can serve as President of the United States. If by some miracle of democratic idealism Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich won the presidency, the wheels would come off. Disaster. The game is played on a small private field and they are not players. They have no union card. No badges. It won't happen because it can't.
The good news is that geo-corporatism is basically apolitical. They like well run companies (Bush W: NOT) and they like happy healthy consumer/producer mice. The Clintons will provide that in a true win/win for America, you, me, and our Big Brothers around the world. That, simply put, is the true American Dream of the 21st century and the Clintons are ready to deliver.

It could be worse.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Cyril Sorrells — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:26:13 GMT

Lee Holmes, what stopped the Republicans from doing something about the issue when they controlled the White House and both houses of Congress? ;;;;

"doing something about the issue". What do you suggest? What does Algore suggest? Bring civilization to a grinding halt? And, if the US agrees to doing something, what about China, India, and Russia? What do they think about doing something? If they're not in the club, why bother, right?

It is unbelievable how the left in the US view this issue. They seem to think it can be all over in a couple of years. The left has no clear goals though, so what ever happens can be viewed as a success, but only if they are somehow in charge. The fact is that climate change takes eons, not a couple of years. And its affected more by the sun and natural events on earth then by what ever man does. So then people like Algore use it as an issue to rally the naive to their cause. But, the joke is, there is no solution. But, if nothing else, Al tried, right?

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Richard, Washington State — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:01:27 GMT

Houston:

The environment was already a significant issue by the mid 70's, about the time Al Gore began his political career. There was no negative environment (pun not intentional)for getting involved in such issues. As always, there were differences of opinion but there was no great courage involved in being environmentally active or promoting environmental issues.

We'd already had 6 Earth Days by the time Gore started his political life.
When Gore embraced environmental issues, it didn't take a lot of courage. Being called the "ozone man" is hardly persecution.

The discussion about cooling and a possible ice-age wasn't Republican talking points. It was one of the serious discussions of the day, no more, no less.

Maybe I can attempt to make a distinction here. I do not dispute temperature readings. I do not dispute that average global temperatures are going up. In fact, I don't know of one of Al's enemies on the fringe right that deny that temperatures are increasing.

What I do question are the conclusions about what is causing it, the almost religious certainty that the effects have already been determined by theories and models, and that it's Al's way or the highway!

I'm sure you've pigeonholed me as one of the enemies on the fringe right, but I'm not Al Gore's enemy. He has nothing to fear from me. If you consider me an enemy for disagreeing with Al, then I think you are just a bit dangerous yourself.

I just think he's far less than the messiah you all seem to consider him and I believe that there were far better people to give that award to and far better ways to spend that money.

As for the moon landing vis-a-vis proof of the long term effects of global warming and the various possible causes of it: We know we landed on the moon. The science behind the moon landing was realized in concrete, provable terms. That's not the case with the predictions of whatever effects there will be from global warming and the jury's still out on the cause, in my opinion.

I can't possibly hate the "fact" that Al Gore is right

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Peter, Pittsburgh, PA — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:49:35 GMT

Richard, Washington State wrote, "These are scientists who are not able to accurately predict one year out and we're supposed to accept as gospel, on the word of Brother Al's Travelling Climate Salvation Show (my apologies to Neil Diamond), the predictions and models that extend 30, 50 or 100 years?"

Let me go on record here as predicting that January, 2108, in the northern hemisphere, a little over one hundred years from today, will be colder than July, 2108, in the northern hemisphere. Let me go on record predicting that the high temperature on January 3, 2008 in Pittsburgh, PA will be 27 degrees. My model for the first prediction is the tilt in the Earth's axis as it goes around the sun. My model for the second prediction is the average temperature in January for Pittsburgh.

Which prediction is most likely to come true Richard?

On a deeper level, you begin your sentence with the scientists forecasting hurricanes and end it with Brother Al's Travelling Climate Salvation Show (BATCSS); this is sloppy thinking. The scientists forecasting hurricanes may have nothing to do with BATCSS. Some of the hurricane forecasters may even be in agreement with you.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

REG; East Valley Phx. AZ — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:57:00 GMT

Mark Thieme:
The reason I think James Baker is one of the elite insiders with the Bush admin is because he keeps popping up to cover their tracks and in particular, how, even when his consulting firm with Baker's political connections was pd like $100m by the Kuwaiti's to get the money owed them by Iraq, Bush blatantly assigned him the job of getting countries to forgive Iraq's debt. You just can't get more of a conflict of interest than that.

And as far as corporate America is concerned, we have seen what Bush has done with many industries; i.e., not only for the oil and energy companies, Halliburton and defense contractors, but also insurance, drug companies and several others. He is boldly and belligerently 'greasing his own wheel'; as he has arrogantly stated, he looks forward to building up his finances when he can collect exorbitant speaking fees like his Father and Bill Clinton are doing (close to his own words).

I suspect we do agree that this is 'the worst presidency ever' and then, in my defense, I do feel strongly about it all, not only being offended by their gross dishonesty but also angry at their arrogance and boldness. Hopefully this country can avoid 'more of the same'.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Peter, Pittsburgh, PA — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:13:09 GMT

Richard, Washington State, wrote, "I'm a conservative and a Republican and I would bet that my lifestyle is more environment-friendly than Al Gore's."

From this statement I jumped to the conclusion that your environmentally benign lifestyle was very important to you. This turns out not to be the case, since in your response to me you wrote, "My comment regarding Al Gore is simply for political discussion. Absent that, I don't much care about his lifestyle compared to mine either." Did I jump to conclusions again or is my understanding an accurate one?

You then jumped to the conclusion that I was making the "implicit assumption that being environmentally conscious is incompatible with being a Republican and a conservative." I made no such assumption. I was simply pointing out that if you were upset by Gore's lifestyle you should also be upset by those of Bush and Cheney. Conservative and Republican never entered my mind. I know many conservatives and Republicans that consider the preservation of the environment as a very important issue.

You then wrote, "I consider myself environmentally informed and aware." I find this hard to believe. I can believe that you TRY to keep yourself environmentally informed and aware, but Republican talking points seem to trump environmental information.

You also wrote, "I'm just very skeptical about environmentalism as I perceive it to be practiced by Al Gore, particularly on the global warming issue."

I am very skeptical about the Bush brand of environmentalism. It seems to consist of doing nothing. Everybody can pollute as they please. The market will sort it all out in the end. Unlike Gore, Bush controls public policy.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

Utahreb, Veyo, UT — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:59:32 GMT

Have donated to both major parties in the past (have been an Independent for over 40 years) and just got a poll and request for money from the DNC. Asked which candidate I would vote for - I chose "OTHER" and said any candidate that did not support the amnesty for illegal aliens. And, of course, no donation was sent!

We are not hearing much about the illegal alien problem now, and I consider that a very real and dangerous problem for our country.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

sting — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:59:23 GMT

the honeybess may have the final

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

not if i have anything to say about it — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 19:54:11 GMT

Mark Thieme, according to your way of thinking, our elections have been bought and sold for many years to come.

First thoughts: He shoots, he Gores

accentuate the positive — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 21:40:32 GMT

can;'t win unless you"carry" the south can't win if you are a senator or not can't win if you are not deep in pocket money or are, can't win if you don't kow- tow to lobbyists or do, can't win unless you have the"pin" in your lapel or don't, can't win if you are a governor or not, can't win if you are a nascar supporter or not, can't win if you are for abortion or not,

voting is a positive statement make sure it counts and