Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Wag the Blog: Fix Readers Discuss Al Gore

The Fix asked and you answered.

More than 160 comments have already been offered on the question of whether former Vice President Al Gore will (or won't) run for president in 2008 and why. There were many that were smartly crafted and well thought out; here's a sampling of The Fix community's best:

* "My guess is that Al Gore likely won't run because he's doing quite well in the private sector right now.

"This is his last and only opportunity to run. He's on top of the Global Warming issue right now, plus he has the war issue on his side, too. Remember that Nixon lost a close race in 1960 and ran in 1968 (and won), so he can do it. Now would be his best political climate to do so." -- Posted by: Noam M. Kogen

* "I most definitely believe Mr. Gore will run for President....Mr. Gore has evolved before our eyes as a man with deep ethical convictions and more focused leadership skills. More than anyone else, he has the credibility to return leadership to the office of President after a vacuum of eight years." --Posted by: David Henderson

* "I don't think he'll run, for a simple reason--as soon as he gets in, he is seen not as the guy who is running to reverse global warming, but as the guy who is running to stop Obama or Hillary. Unfortunate, but true." --Posted by: Ray Lodato

* "Gore will run. As the campaign drags on and the top tier candidates embarrass themselves more and more, I believe he'll feel obliged to run. Obama is woefully inexperienced and Clinton is just as polarizing as President Bush." --Posted by: JJ

* "No he won't run. Being President would be a smaller job than the one he has now--World Environmental Leader." --Posted by: windserf

* "Will Al Gore run? I think it depends on whether or not someone can convince him that the country desperately needs his service. I think he's too smart to run for the ego stroke, and too comfortable with his lifestyle to run for the power." --Posted by: Gregg Greene

* "I don't believe Al Gore will run. I fervently wish he would; but I don't think it will happen. The ferocity of the attacks about his power usage (forget that he uses green power, drives a hybrid, and is spending the money for solar power) are just a hint of what he'd face if he announced his candidacy. I just don't think he will put his family through that again." --Posted by: Skipper37919

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 26, 2007; 10:19 PM ET
Categories:  Wag The Blog  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Bill Shaheen: Brokering Middle East Peace?
Next: The Case Against Fred Thompson

Comments

We have a Gore insider who tells us that he will announce in August. See: http://www.lostnation.tv/ for the story.

Posted by: Joe Bergeron | April 14, 2007 9:43 AM | Report abuse

I hope he runs. We would be so much better off if he had become president. We wouldn't be in Iraq, and we would be dealing with global warming. To doubters on the climate crisis issue: even if the earth is in a natural warming trend, wouldn't it behoove us to lessen the human impact as much as possible? Do you know that the seventh most popluated country in the world - Bangladesh - is 1/3 under water in the rainy season? If sea levels rise, 147 million people could be permanently displaced. Makes Katrina look like a day at the beach! And this is only one example of the disastrous consequences of climate change. No Republican president will prioritize this issue sufficiently, and the front-running Dems will have a hard time getting bipartisan support. But I really think Al Gore has the experience, and the respect of enough Americans and the international community, to get the ball rolling on responses to climate change. As to Iraq, he was right to oppose it (I recently re-read a speech he gave prior to the invasion, and it was amazingly prescient); I have no idea what we should do with it now. What a mess!

Posted by: Suzy M. | March 30, 2007 3:02 AM | Report abuse

Remember a few weeks ago when conservatives were attacking Gore as an environmental hyocrite because of his house was big and his utility bills were high? Remember his response? Yea, me neither. The attacks were absurd on so many levels, and amateurish by right-wing attack-dog standards. But you would have to be a left-leaning blogger like ourselves to have heard to a passionate rebuttal to them. Gore's own response was dry, and wimpy. He judged the attacks to be ridiculous and decided to ignore them.

I bring this up, because those attacks and his response reminded me of why I promised NEVER to vote for him again after the 2000 Presidential Elections. I like Gore, I admire him, and I believe that a more qualified candidate has not run for the Presidency in the past 100 years. But the man will not fight! He has shown time and again that he prefer to lose with dignity ala Dukakis, rather than win a streetfight ala Clinton (Bill).

Posted by: Mike Cooper | March 29, 2007 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore has been proved correct on so many counts by events as they have unfolded.Only the Supreme Court in the biggest electoral fraud in a modern democracy stopped him from being in the White House now.It is almost unbearable to think how life would have been so much better had that dreadful event not occurred.
Al Gore can continue to serve now as an internationally respected World Ambassador on environmental issues or seek to be President.He must decide where he can have more influence. He doesn·t have to make his mind up yet.

Posted by: Cam | March 28, 2007 7:18 AM | Report abuse

I suppose I should make a comment about whether or not Algore should run. I fall back on what I said to a friend of mine in 2000. I mentioned that I planned to vote for George W. Bush, who I felt then and still feel now was the better candidate. But I also noted that I thought that no matter who won the election, that the country would be in good hands, as I felt that all 4 people (Bush, Gore, Cheney, and Lieberman), were all highly qualified and would do right by the country. I felt then and still feel now that in the 2000 election the country, metaphorically speaking, when it came to presidential candidates, had an embarrassment of riches when it came to having people qualified to run the country running for the highest office in the land. While I don't agree with many of Algore's policies, I do think him to be a decent man, and I think he would have much to add to the presidential debate. I still probably won't vote for him if he wins the democratic primary, but I most surely would prefer him over Hillary, or Obama.

Posted by: bdstauffer | March 27, 2007 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Forgot to mention in the last line that the 11 year sunspot cycle peaked in the mid to late 1970's, and NASA blamed increased drag on Skylab due to thermal expansion of the atmosphere due to heating due to the peak in the sunspot cycle.

Posted by: bdstauffer | March 27, 2007 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Flat Earther: Interesting comments. However, I'm too dignified to deign them worthy of comment. That being said, Algore in his presentation made no errors of commission that I'm aware of. Ommissions, that's a different story. He never mentioned that going back 100's of 1000's of years, CO2 levels rise AFTER temperature rises. But beyond Algore, I perused the INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE report. An interesting summary report. My personal impression of it was that these guys had a pre-ordained conclusion and then went about trying to prove it. They also ALMOST completely ignored any effects of changes in solar output. Here is what they had to say: Changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to cause a radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30]
W m-2, which is less than half the estimate given in the TAR. {2.7}. Now, here's what NOAA had to say on this subject: The total energy output of the sun is nearly constant. At the top of Earth’s atmosphere the total irradiance from the sun is about 1366 W/m². Imagine thirteen 100 Watt light bulbs shined all of their energy onto a square meter. During the course of an 11-year solar cycle, the average output of the sun changes by about 1-2 W/m² or about 0.1%. Thus, the solar constant varies between 1365 and 1367 W/m² and is therefore, not really a constant. AND ALSO: It is thought that the total solar output of the sun has changed by larger amounts over longer time scales. There is evidence that the total solar output may have been as low as 1360 W/m² during the 19th century and even lower than that during the 17th century. Thus over centennial time scales, the solar output may have changed by 0.5%.
My point is this. If NOAA is correct, than chanbes in Solar Output ALONE could be responsible for 1.2 C change in worldwide temperature. If the solar output during the 17th and 18th centuries was less as was suggested, due to an almost total abscence of sunspots, a period known as the Maunder Minimum, it would call into question much of the hypothesis of the theory of CO2 induced global warming. I've got one for you I'm just dying to hear the answer for. If solar variability doesn't cause changes in temperature on the Earth, then why did NASA in the 1970's claim that thermal expansion of the Earth's atmosphere in the late 1970's increased drag on Skylab and caused it to plummet into Australia in 1979?

Posted by: bdstauffer | March 27, 2007 6:20 PM | Report abuse

bdstauffer: On the science stuff you better hope that when you get your head out of the sand that it's not underwater.

Too many mainstream scientists agree with the Ex-VP. Or has Frank Luntz convinced you that maintream automatically means bad?

Posted by: Flat Earther | March 27, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

He is too honorable to be president of this military/industrial complex. I wish people could focus on the crisis we are now facing instead of obsessing over whether Mr. Gore is going to run for anything, for the clock is ticking. I also think his testimony on Capitol Hill last week and the radical plan he proposed told us plainly that he has no desire to enter a political process that is toxic and based more on the amount of money you can raise for frivolous expenditures to prop up your ego than on ideas. He is a great man doing a great thing, and to me it is greater than being president. He is our Global Environmental Ambassador inspiring people around the world to save their only home. What could be more important than that?

Posted by: Jan | March 27, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Algore, with whatever award it was that the film makers on the left coast gave him, sure looks like he's running to me. I think he's up for a Nobel peace prize as well. God help us! That being said, anyone who has even a modest scientific background ought to be able to shred Algore and his movie and book to pieces in a real debate, especially one where the other guy can use charts as well. Unfortunately, the media has not taken a critical examination of what he has said, as might be the case if it were something of a purely political nature, although the Doctored Truth is mostly political, not scientific. But I digress. Anyway, the press has disappointed me in this respect. They have not given any one with any credentials on the other side of the debate a fair forum. They have not even discussed at all what the criticisms of the Theory of CO2 induced global warming are. But back to the main question. Will Algore run? With all the press he is getting, why not. Besides, he's GOT to be better than the Wicked Witch of Rodham!!!

Posted by: bdstauffer | March 27, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cillizza:
All the comments you chose to display here speak to the same point: Gore is a good man. They either think he will run because he's so good, or think he won't run... because he's so good.

Posted by: Russell | March 27, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

"I don't believe Al Gore will run. I fervently wish he would; but I don't think it will happen. The ferocity of the attacks about his power usage (forget that he uses green power, drives a hybrid, and is spending the money for solar power) are just a hint of what he'd face if he announced his candidacy. I just don't think he will put his family through that again."

If this is the worst thing that Gore will face then, by all means, he should run. I mean look at the Republicans and their divorces and flip flopping of issues. If the Republicans want to go after Gore for his energy usage the Democrats can counter back with some real ammo.

This country is hungry for some real leadership and integrity. Voters can focus on what is important.

Posted by: soccermom | March 27, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

If you like the man join the DC www.draftalgore.meetup.com/9/ group.

Posted by: DCforGore08 | March 27, 2007 10:52 AM | Report abuse

You know, Abraham Lincoln once said in a speech that prohibition was the great "moral" cause of his time and he urged people to take the temperance pledge. The temperance movement went on to become a political movement, albeit a very short-lived and ill-fated one. Lincoln contrasted the moral cause of temperance with the political cause of slavery. Al Gore won't run because he's got it all wrong. Environmentalism isn't the "moral" cause of our time. It's the political cause. Multinational companies aren't going to sign a pledge to stop clearcutting forests or increase emission standards or convert to renewable energies. Al Gore is a fake environmentalist who doesn't have the backbone to champion environmentalism as a cause for government to undertake, or recognize it as the political struggle that it is. That's why he won't run. Because his character is deeply riven by irreconcilable inconsistency. He'd rather take Inhofe out to lunch (as he suggested he'd like to do in his testimony) than politically undercut people like Inhofe. Al Gore, you're not going to change the Inhofes of this world because you helped to create them by being the born again Christian, free trade advocate, Plan Colombia champion and panderer you've been your whole career.

Posted by: jgg | March 26, 2007 11:47 PM | Report abuse

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our
liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a
moneyed aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance.
The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored
to the people to whom it properly belongs."

Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2007 11:10 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company