He should be president.
I don't know whether he should or should not be president, but at the very least it would be prudent of him to first build a successful "unpolitical" career unmarred by his previous failure, for example by advertising himself as, say, "the (environmental) conscience of the nation".
Or something like that..
though I'm not a fan of Gore, always came across to me as a complete moron, he is certainly better than the maniacal shrieking hilary clinton.
And it'd be pretty hard for him to market himself as the environmental conscience of the nation... he lives in a 10,000 sq ft house with 20 rooms and flies about on a private jet to promote his film (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm)
as well as opposing nuclear energy. sorry the environmentalist ruse doesn't fly with me.
Gore is a very liberal politician and for them, environmentalism is every bit a religion as the radical christian right is for far-right conservatives. There is no such thing as a legitimate environmentalism movement in the US, but making a movie about it is a way to rally the radicals around him - which is what politicians on both sides need in order to gain the support of their party.
No, I wouldn't be surprised if he ran again - he's a career politician. There isn't anything else for him to do. My first thought when I heard about his movie was that he'd be running for President again and be using that as a centerpiece.
Note: I'm not saying anything about the global warming issue itself. It is legit - but I question his motives and sincerity. His entire life has been one big string of carefully calculated political maneuvers.
Hopefully, his 20 room home uses solar , and just think of the carbon emissions (per person) of a corporate jet as opposed to an airliner.
I wouldn't go that far - there certainly is not a national environmental movement that one can point to, but many places have adopted so-called 'environmentally friendly' policies, e.g. natural gas vehicles, electric vehicles, recycling, energy conservation, . . . . One of the biggest growth areas for GE is 'wind turbines'. Large investment firms like Goldman Sachs are trying to cut down on energy and product consumption, as well as fund 'green' industries.
Even the very conservative nuclear industry endorses 'global warming' and touts nuclear as a way to reduce or avoid 'greenhouse gas' emissions.
Yeah, well, one could say that about most or all of the Senators, and most persons in Congress, governors' offices and mayors' offices. Certainly, it applies to Bush.
Perhaps some conservatives in the US may gain a bit more respect for Al Gore if he actually chooses NOT to try again to be elected?
I can't say whether I respect him or not (I know too little of US politics), but I certainly will respect a man who goes whole-heartedly into environmentalism (and keeps doing that!), and uses his political know-how to get things publicly known and that intelligent measures are taken.
Right, but I was talking about an organization with a coherent, comprehensive, and more importanly, reasonable strategy/goal. There are a number of great issue-specific organizations (the SPCA), but none of the general organizations (Greenpeace, Sierra Club) are legitimate environmentalists because they are too ideoloically motivated to be reasonable or useful.
Nuclear energy is the biggest issue on which environmenalists let their ideology cloud their judgement. And the nuclear industry is right, but I don't give bonus points to those who'se motivation comes entirely from their wallets.
Yes, but some much, much more than others. For some (the Bushes, Kennedys, and Gores), politics is the family business. To his credit (and detriment) I doubt Clinton (for example) gave much thought to how his actions at age 20 would affect his future political career.
Yes, that would make his sincerity easier to believe.
When I heard about the movie, I thought the same thing, that he's gearing up to move back to the center of the public/political spotlight after playing it fairly low key for a few years. When I have seen him interviewed more recently about the movie, it looks like he's also taken critique of his image from his first bid for presidency to heart, and has been appearing in more casual clothes and more relaxed. That was part of what did him in the first go around, he seemed unapproachable and stiff, too much of an intellectual elitist rather than just a smart guy folks wanted to listen to.
The problem I have with the environmentalist "movement" in the US is that while they've done a fairly decent job of identifying the problems, their proposed solutions are off in la-la land. They propose things that just aren't practical or feasible.
But, it should make an interesting face-off between the two parties, at least for a while. The Republicans now have been branded as supporting big oil and being lax on environmental regulations, lax on coal mining safety, and guilty of letting oil and gas prices rise sharply. To set that head-to-head against an environment-friendly, alternative fuel, clean-air campaign would be something that would make for interesting debates. Of course, that would depend on who the Republican candidates are and where they stand on that issue, but they're all going to have to live with Bush and Cheney's legacy on that.
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,080,000,000
Here's one. It looks like there's more.
How could you say that about Bush. He spent his first 40+ years partying as a privileged rich brat before a few concerned conservatives dried him out and poured a political viewpoint into him. Of all the bad things you could say about him, being a career politician isn't one of them.
I was very specific about my definition of what constitutes a "real" broad-focus environmentalist organization. Ie:
That group suffers from the same basic flaw as most groups: they lack a national energy policy, and you can't do anything more than feel-good-environementalism without one. But at least they aren't Greenpeace - their proposals were, at least, reasonable. Just not comprehensive enough to be useful.
Bush was an unsuccessful candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1978. Then he worked on his father's campaign. Since then, there are others who had priority. Bush was waiting in the wings.
Bush became Gov. of Texas in 1995, so he would have campaigned in 1994, and he certainly has been a career politican since.
So who would be preferable as a presidential candidate, Gore or Kerry? :rofl: :yuck:
Preferable (as a democratic) presidential candidate for which party and what purposes?
Even if gore ran and got elected, environmentalism policies wouldn't be the top of his priorities. He gotta fix that mess (a really really big mess) that Bush created.
Has your constitution changed yet to allow Arni to run?
Maybe I should have worded it, whose worse Gore or Kerry? :rofl:
I don't think either one should run, but quite honestly who *would* be a good candidate? Isn't it about time that we had some decent candidates?
Not gonna happen without open primaries.
That is so true. I've changed between Democrat and Republican parties several times trying to take part in the "real" selection process (the primaries). If only the election of 2000 had been Bill Bradley vs John McCain.
Register, everybody register in a party! Whether you like it or not, it's where the election really happens.
Separate names with a comma.