Friday, May 19, 2006

Re-Elect Al Gore for President?

Well, one can make the case that after eight (8!) years of the worst presidency in history (TWPIH), something decisive needs to be done to begin right all the wrongs that have been done to the American governance, politics, international stature, and heritage. Yes, after TWPIH there is a real need for a course correction led by one of the best possible presidents we can muster.

But why would Al Gore want the job? History has already validated him: it's well settled that the American electorate made the worse choice - ever - in 2000. (OK, Okay, they actually elected him, but it shouldn’t have been close.)

Gore's legacy as the road-not-taken is huge. Without ever being seated at his desk in the Oval Office, his stature will eventually - in his lifetime - achieve Rushmorian proportions. If he does nothing more than write books and make movies, he remains an all-time American hero.

He has a lot to lose if he runs for president.

The problem is, there is some ambiance about, that people feel, whether they call it a mandate from heaven or manifest destiny. Gore will be confronted to respond to this call, one way or the other.

I won't be alive, mid-21st century. But I hope history will have recorded:
In 2008, Al Gore ran for President and to restore the American republic.
The gospel truth is Al doesn't need it nearly as bad as we need him.

But we are still in the middle of 2006. Your assignment for next week is to see
An Inconvenient Truth. Next Saturday, there will be a quiz or poll or something on this. I will grade on a curve. Take the Pledge!


  1. To make up for my foolishness in 2000 I would gladly vote and campaign for Al Gore if he decides to run in 2008. In my own defense, I knew enough about the idiot living in the White House right now not to vote for him in 2004. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, well that just makes me stupid.

  2. I am seriously wondering if the American people are ready to elect a statesman?

    The first obstacle, that I see, is your system that gives a preference to those candidates who are financially best backed. To get huge ammounts of money that is needed to run a campaign, one has to "prostitute" oneself to those interest groups that can pay the bills. Thus some of the candidate's principles and ideals must be watered down and perhaps even be forgotten.

    The other side of the coin is the American voter. It is starting to look exceedingly clear to me that people are not looking for somebody who could tell them, when need to be, any bad news. They don't seem to be wanting to hear about changing world where some new and sometimes painful adjustments have to be done now in order to secure a safe future. People have hard times seeing beyond their noses and if there are looming catastrophes ahead, they certainly don't want to hear it from their candidate. I am comparing an average American to a greedy share holder in a big company just looking at the immediate return and never mind the long term. In this atmosphere, it is certainly no wonder that you don't have, and perhaps will not have, a statesman leading your country.

    Lets face it, a statesman doesn't neccessarily has to be photogenic with an exactly right pitch in hi/her voice, nor is he prepared to answer your questions with throughly rehearsed and polished answers that offends the least number of people. Candidate that usually gets the best results is the one who always has easy answers to complex questions. That in some circles is called being a strong leader. The problem here is, though, that all the voters have is his word, and the real charcter will be learned after he has taken his office. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? This chap in the Head Quarters now was supposed to have been a strong hombre but,it turns out to be,he is just a simple man who should have never been allowed to be the most powerful man on earth. You, my friends, voted him in not only once but twice.

  3. Beach, God forgives you. (I feel certain she does.)

  4. The best way to gaurantee another Republican victory is to run Gore again. Man the left just never gets it do they?

  5. James, Al Gore out-polled Bush in 2000, would have beat him again in 2004, and can easily dust Jeb, John, Rudy or whomever you can talk into running in 2008.

  6. I know my friend Pekka is not addressing me, when he says: turns out to be, he [Bush] is just a simple man who should have never been allowed to be the most powerful man on earth. You, my friends, voted him in not only once but twice.
    Pekka figures to already grasped the fact that I hated Bush before it was fashionable. (Didn't hate him, just hated the fact that he was in office.)

    So, I am pointing out to new readers in these pages not to misconstrue silences in the wake of Pekka's casting of collective guilt. In fact, I don't have a smudge of guilt on my hands: I voted twice (legally) in 2000 against Bush, and once in 2004.

  7. outpolled, would have, could have.

    Mighty convincing argument.