PDA

View Full Version : Gore: Bush Is "Renegade Rightwing Extremist"



Gold9472
05-31-2006, 07:56 AM
Gore: Bush is 'renegade rightwing extremist'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1786442,00.html

(Gold9472: Ya think?)

Oliver Burkeman and Jonathan Freedland
Wednesday May 31, 2006

Al Gore has made his sharpest attack yet on the George Bush presidency, describing the current US administration as "a renegade band of rightwing extremists".

In an interview with the Guardian today, the former vice-president calls himself a "recovering politician", but launches into the political fray more explicitly than he has previously done during his high-profile campaigning on the threat of global warming.

Denying that his politics have shifted to the left since he lost the court battle for the 2000 election, Mr Gore says: "If you have a renegade band of rightwing extremists who get hold of power, the whole thing goes to the right."

But he claims he does not "expect to be a candidate" for president again, while refusing explicitly to rule out another run. Asked if any event could change his mind, he says: "Not that I can see."

Mr Gore, who appeared at the Guardian Hay literary festival over the bank holiday weekend, is promoting An Inconvenient Truth, a documentary and book detailing the climate change crisis that he warns "could literally end civilisation".

The new levels of attention he is receiving have led some Democrats to call on him to run again for president, while others have responded with anger that Mr Gore did not show the same level of passion in the 2000 campaign.

He has since acknowledged that he followed too closely the advice of his consultants during that campaign, and - before he started to scoff at the idea of running again - swore that if he ever did so, he would speak his mind.

In the years since, he has been a steady critic of specific Bush administration policies. He opposed the war on Iraq at a time when most prominent Democrats were supporting it, and more recently spoke out against what he called "a gross and excessive power grab" by the administration over phone tapping.

In the interview Mr Gore also distances himself from Tony Blair on the subject of nuclear power, which the prime minister has insisted is "back on the agenda with a vengeance". Mr Gore says he is "sceptical about it playing a much larger role," and that although it might have a part to play in Britain or China, it will not be "a silver bullet" in the fight against global warming.

In the US, Mr Gore's environmental campaign has sparked a backlash from some on the right who accuse him of scaremongering. A series of television advertisements, launched by a thinktank called the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argue that carbon dioxide emissions are a sign of American productivity and progress.

Mr Gore's true attitude towards a potential return to the White House - or, at least, a potential battle with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination - remains unknown.

At the weekend, Time magazine reported that he was telling key fundraisers they should feel free to sign on with other potential candidates. The magazine quoted unnamed Democratic sources as saying that the former vice-president had also been asking the fundraisers to "tell everybody I'm not running".

Mr Gore would not find it difficult to raise millions of dollars, if he did decide to run. But while public denials might prove a wise campaign strategy - not least by prolonging the period of positive attention Mr Gore is now receiving - actively turning away fundraisers does suggest a firmer resolve not to re-enter electoral politics.

It is significant, however, that Mr Gore refuses to go beyond saying that he has no "plans" for such a campaign. "I haven't made a Shermanesque statement because it just seems odd to do so," he has said - a reference to the famous announcement by the civil war general William Sherman, who unequivocally refused to stand in the election of 1884. "If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve," General Sherman said.

PhilosophyGenius
05-31-2006, 04:57 PM
Please God let Gore become President in 08.

Gold9472
05-31-2006, 05:01 PM
I don't trust him... He seems sincere, but there's just something I don't trust... he was once part of the click...

PhilosophyGenius
05-31-2006, 05:26 PM
I don't trust him... He seems sincere, but there's just something I don't trust... he was once part of the click...

I agree, he wasnt really my fav in 2000. But since Bush has been imposing his police state (or whatever you wanna call it), it's like Al Gore has got that fire he never had during the election. That's what America needs right now, someone with that fire burning inside them and Hillary or anyone else sure as hell dont have it.

Gold9472
05-31-2006, 06:49 PM
Yeah, but... there's still something I don't trust. He was part of the inner circle, and it's hard to trust anyone from there.

PhilosophyGenius
06-01-2006, 12:01 AM
I may be missing something but I've never read or heard any shady dealings Gore's been directly tied too. This may be a case of him being guilty by assosiation but who knows, I could be wrong. Haven't read anything which suggest others though.

Partridge
06-01-2006, 12:29 PM
Do you really want Tipper Gore as First Lady?

Say goodbye to freedom of speech in music!

Anyway, Bush, Gore, Clinton, Cheney, Kerry, Edwards - they're all cut from the same cloth. Especially in Gore's case - you don't become Vice President if you don't represent the people that can afford to put you there.

PhilosophyGenius
06-01-2006, 05:00 PM
Do you really want Tipper Gore as First Lady?

Say goodbye to freedom of speech in music!

Anyway, Bush, Gore, Clinton, Cheney, Kerry, Edwards - they're all cut from the same cloth. Especially in Gore's case - you don't become Vice President if you don't represent the people that can afford to put you there.

If you refering to censoring rap music then good, bring on Tipper Gore.

As far as being from the same cloth goes, from the democratic side you've either got Hillary or Kerry (S & B). Or your choice of any republican ( :sickcold: ). If that's the case then I'll take the new Al Gore out of this group any day of the week.

Holla!

AndrewLoweWatson
06-01-2006, 09:16 PM
Call me naive, but I think Gore is an ok guy and way preferable to Hillary. But then I'm not an American so how should I know?

AndrewLoweWatson
06-01-2006, 09:19 PM
I could not sleep for days after the 2000 election. I knew a great crime had taken place.

PhilosophyGenius
06-01-2006, 11:42 PM
I could not sleep for days after the 2000 election. I knew a great crime had taken place.

Then your 2 steps ahead of me, and I live in a very liberal area (bay area).

AuGmENTor
06-02-2006, 08:12 PM
Do you really want Tipper Gore as First Lady?

Say goodbye to freedom of speech in music!

Anyway, Bush, Gore, Clinton, Cheney, Kerry, Edwards - they're all cut from the same cloth. Especially in Gore's case - you don't become Vice President if you don't represent the people that can afford to put you there.
It seems like we're trying to decide if we want the crack-head, or the arsonist to park our car... there are shamefully few honest politicians on the planet, and the miniscule percentage of them that there are are so insignifigant so as to be non-exisent! There is not a solution to this countries ills to be found within the current set of choices we have to vote for (my humble opinion). I do not know what the overall answer to adressing these issues is, so I just try to watch which way the wind blows and stay stocked up on bottled water, shotgun-shells, and tuna!

PhilosophyGenius
06-02-2006, 10:55 PM
It seems like we're trying to decide if we want the crack-head, or the arsonist to park our car

Good one, hehe....But call me naive but I dont think the situation is that bad on the Democratic side where there seems to be a lot of good guys who wanna look out for the American people.

AuGmENTor
06-03-2006, 08:22 AM
Good one, hehe....But call me naive but I dont think the situation is that bad on the Democratic side where there seems to be a lot of good guys who wanna look out for the American people.
So then what you're saying is that you believe that if we get the demies back in, that the following will happen:

The truth about 9/11 will come out in its entirety, including the footage of what hit the pentagon?
The Olklahoma City bombing video footage showing from a total of thirteen angles irrefutably that there was a second (govt sponsored) bomber.

That the speed being gained by the movement to turn this country into a police state will reverse itself, and the freedoms that we have lost under the guise of protection will be restored?

You see, I don't believe these issues are party specific, they are government specific. The government, in my opinion, is about 40% bigger than it should be. I don't believe this country was founded under the premis of us being controlled by our government. We are supposed to control IT! The information mentioned above should be public knowledge. How is the video footage from the DC Sheraton of what hit the pentagon, and the footage of the federal building a matter of national security? How could the general public having access to that information compromise our security? The answer is simple, it couldn't. The real truth is that if we knew what REALLY happened, we wouldn't be good little sheep anymore. I know that much, but thats as far as my brain can take me. That's why I'm in here listening!

Ciao

Partridge
06-03-2006, 01:34 PM
Good one, hehe....But call me naive but I dont think the situation is that bad on the Democratic side where there seems to be a lot of good guys who wanna look out for the American people.

(Note, I don't live in the US, so don't vote there - but my point is general. I could change the names of the parties to Irish ones, but that would confuse a lot of people I suspect)

No doubt there are many good and generally honest Democrats in the Party (and there are no doubt decent and honest republicans in the Rep Party too!).

But A) whether they are 'honest' or not isnt really an issue for me - its their politics - I vote on politics and not on personal integrity. That is to say, you could have the most honest Republican in the world running for office, but there is no way in Hell I would vote for them - because Republican politics are repulsive to me. It's a bit different for Democrats - I would vote for McKinney and possibly (depending on the record of the person) for someone aligned with the Progressive Democrats of America / Progressive Caucus. I would never vote for anyone allied with the Democratic Leadership Council (roughly equivilent to New Labour in Britain - ie neo-liberalist, "humanitarian interventionist" etc).

Which brings me to point B) Leadership, specifically in the Democratic Party. While recognising that there are many democrats in the party who would have somewhat similar broad political views as myself - the big problem is that these people are not in the leadership of the party. Certainly not on a national or state level (I don't know about the county/city level). And the way American politics has developed over the last century - they never will be. The democrats rely almost as much on Big Donations and Business Lobby Groups as the Republicans do. And these groups (understandably form their point of view) do not want people like me anywhere near the reigns of power - and what they fear even more is an extension of democracy into places like the workplace, environmental regulation, and heaven forbid business regulation (these are some aspects of what I view as REAL democracy - people controlling their own communities, workplaces, etc). And this is why Howard Dean (who in my humble opinion was a moderate, when compared with the vicioulsy pro-war John Kerry, not someone from the 'far left' at all) was 'unelectable' - or we were reliably informed that he was. And of course, this is why the Democratic campaign against Ralph Nader (not perfect by any means, but he would have got my vote) was so vicious - not because he was a 'threat' to Kerry, but because he was raising political ideas that John Kerry/John Edwards/DLCers would not touch with a fofty foot pole. That, incidently, is the reason I supported Nader running in 2004 (and 2000, and if he runs again in 2008 I will support him still). If the DLC was confident in their policies and politics they would have engaged publicly with Nader in town-hall debates, would have lobbied vigoursly to have Nader (and others) included in the [stage managed] 'Presidental debates' - afterall they Democratic Party, going by their name anyway, you would presume that they believe in 'democracy' and 'diversity of opinion' and not in hiding and shafting Nader as best they could. But they were afraid of Nader - again not because they thought he was a real threat - or even that he would win the election - but they were afraid of his ideas getting a wider platform. And if you ask me, a big factor in the collapse of teh nati-war movement over the past two years has been that during the 04 election, the progressive forces in the democratic party (who also operate in the Anti-War Movement) subjugated themselves to largely uncritical support of a pro-war candidate (Kerry).

Well that's just my two-cents from across the Atlantic.

PhilosophyGenius
06-04-2006, 02:39 PM
So then what you're saying is that you believe that if we get the demies back in, that the following will happen:

The truth about 9/11 will come out in its entirety, including the footage of what hit the pentagon?
The Olklahoma City bombing video footage showing from a total of thirteen angles irrefutably that there was a second (govt sponsored) bomber.

That the speed being gained by the movement to turn this country into a police state will reverse itself, and the freedoms that we have lost under the guise of protection will be restored?

You see, I don't believe these issues are party specific, they are government specific. The government, in my opinion, is about 40% bigger than it should be. I don't believe this country was founded under the premis of us being controlled by our government. We are supposed to control IT! The information mentioned above should be public knowledge. How is the video footage from the DC Sheraton of what hit the pentagon, and the footage of the federal building a matter of national security? How could the general public having access to that information compromise our security? The answer is simple, it couldn't. The real truth is that if we knew what REALLY happened, we wouldn't be good little sheep anymore. I know that much, but thats as far as my brain can take me. That's why I'm in here listening!



Ciao
Let's face it, that would be political suicide.

PhilosophyGenius
06-04-2006, 02:41 PM
And intersting article Patridge. Good insight into policits.