OPINION & EDITORIAL
Allure of Gore may save Dems, climate
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ben Patterson:
- What would Jesus do with millions? (November 6, 2007)
- University of Wisconsin System hinges on budget allocations (October 9, 2007)
- Homeless need to find their bootstraps and pull up (September 25, 2007)
- Bush veto puts spotlight on incompetent government (May 4, 2007)
- UW to fund discrimination (April 20, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Obrador threatens stability (September 15, 2006)
- New face needed in 2008 for Democrats (December 9, 2005)
- '08 hopefuls test political climate (November 15, 2006)
- Gross incompetence (October 18, 2004)
- Gore good choice for nomination (March 15, 2007)
by Ben Patterson
Friday, March 2, 2007
As each day passes, the United States' favorite pastime continues to build a firm grip on the influential minds of potential voters. I'm talking, of course, about speculation. What would a presidential election be without literally years of speculation building up to it? Probably a good election. Well, we all know that's never going to happen, and so to fight fire with fire, I want to add to the questioning of every angle within the federal election system by speculating on how Democrats can finally win the presidency. As much as it may hurt to say, Al Gore is their best shot.
So why won't Obama, Hilary or John be able to do what Gore can for the Democrats? One word: timing. He's been quiet thus far in the process, but right now, that may be the smartest move. The election is two years away, and candidates are already turning themselves into bumbling idiots, and the media is right there to lap it all up. While Gore quietly waits in the shadows, ready to jump in, Hilary, Barack and John are on tour opening themselves up to criticism that could follow them all the way out of D.C. Eagerness may prove to be their downfall. Why get caught up in all the hearsay and rumors that have defined American politics? Gore has the name recognition to wait this all out until people want to make up their minds. The horse races taking place now portray these candidates as nothing but puppets wanting to please as many demographics as possible. Not to mention the mass media loves to expose a fake, and by getting into the race now, every candidate is risking his or her own credibility.
Timing isn't everything, however, and Gore has the qualifications to become the Democrats' wisest choice. If you think all the way back to when Iraq became an issue, Gore was right about a lot of things that no one else was. Hillary's Senate voting record is an easy reminder of this — voting yes on the initial Iraq decision. Obama barely has a voting record, and that may be seen as inexperience to many voters. It's clear Gore knew what we should have done, and hopefully knows what to do now.
Looking at what Gore has done with his political career, it's hard to argue that he wouldn't be a fitting president. To begin, he was the vice president for eight years in one of the most successful administrations in history. He was a member of both the House and Senate for multiple terms, and if Jeb Bush weren't governor of Florida, he would be president today.
Even with all that to fall back on, Gore has got more. Recently, he won an Oscar for his documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth." With the environment continually becoming a larger issue in politics, Gore has got the credibility to be viewed as the "Green" candidate; something no other candidate can claim. And to add even more, Gore has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work concerning the environment.
When Gore finally does enter the race, he is going to be able to say he knew how we should have done it all, and now everyone can make the right choice (again). As a long-time, accredited and influential member of United States government, Gore has got the edge on all of the competition, and not just the Democrats. Time will prove that Gore is not only the smartest choice for the Democrats, but the entire United States as well. Maybe, "I Told You So," will become the most powerful slogan in all of politics.
Ben Patterson (bpatterson@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in political science.
Anonymous (March 2, 2007 @ 7:47am):
Maybe Gore should stay home, lay off the private jet, close off a few rooms in the old mega-mansion ans spit some wood to lower his gigantic carbon footprint.
Yeah, yeah, I know - he buys carbon credits, but did you know he's not just a customer of the carbon credit company, he's the president!
Until it gets warm enough to farm Greenland (like the Vikings did 1000 years ago) "global warming" won't be done - and there's not a damn thing that puny little humanity can do about it.
Anonymous (March 2, 2007 @ 9:18am):
Gore needs to saves Mars too! He should go there now. Maybe he could shade both planets from the Sun with his fat ass?
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Anonymous (March 2, 2007 @ 9:45am):
Considering the weather we're having outside, I don't think anyone's buying what Al Gore has to say. Global warming, yeah right!
Anonymous (March 2, 2007 @ 9:51am):
The "carbon offset" certificates Al Gore buys for his 200-bazigawatt house are actually just stock certificates in a company he founded. But he feels very guilty about getting rich from it.
http://billhobbs.com/2007/02/more_on_gore.html
Anonymous (March 2, 2007 @ 10:19am):
attack of the 'manbearpig.'
Anonymous (March 2, 2007 @ 10:43am):
No one who ever lost an election to George W. Bush should be allowed to run for president again. Ever.
Anonymous (March 2, 2007 @ 11:11am):
Hilary? Did you do that on purpose?
Is that a cross between hilarity and Hillary?
Anonymous (March 2, 2007 @ 11:39am):
I don't think I've ever met a global-warming denier who didn't:
A) Personally attack Al Gore, as if he has anything whatsoever to do with this issue.
and
B) Pointing out that it is cold or snowing, in the winter, in Wisconsin, so global warming must be fake.
It would be pathetic if it was just the college kids making these "arguments", but it is supremely pathetic that there are grown adults in politics and the media who make these same silly comments. Sad.
Anonymous (March 2, 2007 @ 12:33pm):
Gore is a ChickenGreen!
http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2007/03/gorebot-carbon-offsets-and-surplus.html
Anonymous (March 2, 2007 @ 2:19pm):
Just answer the Greenland question Smart-pants 11:39am.
Greenland is the biggest island in the world, nominally part of Denmark, but virtually uninhabited and moreover largely uninhabitable. But it wasn't always so.
When you come to think about it, Greenland is a pretty weird name for anyone to give to a country that is now 99% glacier or barren rock and 1% lichens. Not the sort of name that springs to mind for such a grey, treeless and windswept place, is it?
But wait. A thousand years ago, Greenland was settled by the Vikings, who prospered, and grew wheat and flax there, and it was at that time that it received its name.
It was, 1,000 years ago, genuinely a green land.
At about the same time, monks in Yorkshire were tending their vines.
If the Vikings could grow wheat in Greenland, and monks in Yorkshire could grow grapes, it was pretty certain that those two spots did not enjoy the same climatic blessings as they do today.
Since wheat growing in Greenland is now impossible and grape growing in Yorkshire would be a distinctly unprofitable occupation, I would incline to the view that we could have a good deal more global warming without coming to too much harm.
If it was fine for the world to be that warm then, what's the problem with it being quite a good bit colder now, even if the temperature is going up?
http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/eco/hotair4.html
Anonymous (March 2, 2007 @ 2:37pm):
Of course we don't begrudge Gore his life of luxury--only his sanctimonious insistence that the rest of us sacrifice our comforts to the dubious god of global warming. And there's no reason he couldn't live in a smaller house and throw his money at solar power.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009720
Anonymous (March 2, 2007 @ 3:45pm):
Nobody is denying that some global warming is taking place, the only question is whether or not to ruin the global economy in order to "fix" it.
Anyway, if dems can say that ALL changes in weather are attributed to global warming, then it is certainly fair to point out the hundreds of instances in the past few years where global warming circle jerks have been cancelled due to cold or snow.
Anonymous (March 2, 2007 @ 4:25pm):
Anyone who couldn't carry their own state should never run for president ever again.
I would also ask what all these successes of the Clinton administration you refer to are? Radically hyper-overinflated stock market/economy that crashed shortly after leaving office?
Anonymous (March 2, 2007 @ 10:03pm):
only balanced budget in how many years? i would call that success.
Anonymous (March 3, 2007 @ 8:16am):
"I would also ask what all these successes of the Clinton administration you refer to are?"
We get it, you hate Clinton and believe everything Rush Limbaugh says. Clinton didn't personally deliver the bag full of gold bullion that you were expecting, now you have a chip on your shoulder.
The Bush administration, no matter how you cut it, has not been an overwhelming success either.
I mean, we complain about high gas prices and blame it all on OPEC and Exxon. Really, high gas prices are partly due to the weak-dollar policy of the Bush administration (vs Clinton's strong dollar). When we're at the pump, our dollars can't buy as much gasoline (a commodity) as it used to.
Bush has done this to bring the dollar closer to the Yuan so that our trade deficits won't look so large; however, that strategy has not worked BECAUSE, in turn, we shifted our trade imbalance to oil producing countries.
Oil producing countries, by the way, that support terror. We're fighting the "war on terror" by funding our troops and their troops.
You might criticize Gore for hyping global warming, but his end-game will only benefit the United States by cutting off money to countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela.
I know you want to compensate for your undersized manhood by driving the largest truck you can afford, so I'm sure American innovation can accommodate your needs. In the meanwhile you have to get out of the way and let the "greenies" do their thing.
American Liberals, Greens, Libertarians, and Conservatives are ALL still capitalists at heart.
Anonymous (March 3, 2007 @ 10:00am):
People that choose to merely question the complex and scientific question of human-induced global warming should not be grouped in the same category as Holocaust deniers and 9/11 skeptics. It's irresponsible and dangerous to let climatologists like Melissa Etheridge and Al Gore open and close the book on this question and give liberal elites the magic wand to fuel legislation that will paralyze our economy and jeopardize our position as a global economic power. It's easy for them to lecture the rest of us from their power-hogging Tennessee mansions and beachfront estates in Malibu. Maybe it's easy to listen to them now, but rest assured, when you become a homeowner, taxpayer and parent, you'll come to undertand the terms 'unemployment', 'income tax' and 'proprety tax' and just when you think you cant take anymore....a tax on your 'carbon emissions' and regulations on what light bulbs you can and can't use. And it may not make a bit of difference. There was an ice age a few thousand years ago that caused glaciers to drastically transform our landscape. Then they melted. What caused that? It certainly wasn't all the coal power plants or giant SUV's. So am I questioning that America is ruining the atmosphere? You bet I am.
Anonymous (March 3, 2007 @ 10:46am):
"only balanced budget in how many years?"
The so-called "balanced budget" was an illusion done with accounting that would make an Enron or WorldCon accountant blush. The total debt increased each and every year of Slick Willy's term.
Anonymous (March 3, 2007 @ 12:01pm):
when you become a homeowner, taxpayer and parent, you'll come to understand the terms 'unemployment', 'income tax' and 'property tax'
Parent: tax credit for children
Homeowner: tax write off for mortgage interest
Unemployment: government safety net in place
Property tax: federal tax write off
Taxpayer: who DOESN'T pay taxes?
Global warming: an unclear threat
Pollution: a real threat
Conservation: good policy, especially for "conservatives"
Do you want clean water? Do you want clean air? Or, do you want to live in the Detroits and Pittsburghs of the 1970s? How soon you forget.
Anonymous (March 3, 2007 @ 3:48pm):
Mr. Gore's electricity consumption at just one of his homes is nearly 20 times that of the average American household has dented his image as the Green Moralist-in-Chief.
Mr. Gore's natural gas-based emissions alone account for as much warming as the total due to electricity, heating, transport and "indirect" factors of an average American household.
Anonymous (March 3, 2007 @ 7:16pm):
3:48, Al Gore is a hypocrite, just like every other politician. No matter who you vote for, they WILL lie to you. Like when Bush went around to churches saying he would be the one to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
