Gore and Prius

PaulLev · 04-02-2007, 05:07 AM

How many Prius drivers in the US would like to see Gore in the White House?

Here are some of my views on the matter -

blog posts: Gore Nomination for Nobel Prize Poetic Justice and After the Oscars: A Good Night for Absolute Rulers and Elected Presidents and A Modest Political Proposal: Supporting the Best Candidates in Both Parties

podcast: Gore Back On Center Stage

What do you think?

larkinmj · 04-02-2007, 09:50 AM

To answer your question, I would like to see Gore enter the race. On Iraq, the environment, and most issues he's on the right side. Despite the head start that the other candidates have in this early race for the presidency (I heard this morning that Clinton has raised $26 million already), it's conceivable that Gore could jump in at this "late" point and still raise money (which, of course, is what it's all about).
I did read your blog entry about supporting the best candidate in both parties. An interesting idea- hedging your bets. Of course it's contrary to the mindset of American politics, which is all about winning at all costs; not about ideals. I agree with your picks of Gore and Obama, and I might also consider Edwards as a good candidate. I'm not at all in favor of Hillary Clinton; she has been a supporter of the Iraq war although she is attempting to re-write that, and her triangulation to appease the right makes it impossible to see what she really stands for. I'm not so sure about Ron Paul (I read a bit about him after seeing him on Bill Maher's show). I'm confused about his stand on issues such as abortion rights, separation of church and state, etc., where I thought that Libertarians were on the side of individual rights; that doesn't seem to be where Ron Paul stands. If I had to choose a Republican candidate that I could accept if he actually won, I would probably go with Chuck Hagel. On virtually every issue other than the Iraq war (the environment, civil liberties, etc.) I am on the opposite side from Hagel. However, I would at least take some consolation that a Democratic-controlled Congress could prevent him from making extreme policy decisions in those areas. When it comes to ending the war (and avoiding new ones), the President is the key player.

daniel · 04-02-2007, 10:45 AM

I'd much rather see Obama elected as president.

Stev0 · 04-02-2007, 11:49 AM

If the Gore of 2007 ran in 2000, I would have voted for him in a minute. However, in 2008 people will still remember the Gore of 2000, so there's no way he would get elected.

dragonfly · 04-02-2007, 12:07 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Paul Levinson @ Apr 2 2007, 03:07 AM) [snapback]416343[/snapback]</div>

Quote:

How many Prius drivers in the US would like to see Gore in the White House?
[/b]

Although I voted for him in 2000, I didn't like him much. I like him much more now. I'd be happy with ABB right now, and although I'd love to see Gore or Hilary in the White House, my preference right now is Obama.

akorovesis · 04-02-2007, 12:12 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Apr 2 2007, 11:49 AM) [snapback]416421[/snapback]</div>

Quote:

If the Gore of 2007 ran in 2000, I would have voted for him in a minute. However, in 2008 people will still remember the Gore of 2000, so there's no way he would get elected.
[/b]

i can't help thinking the gore of 07 is a hypocrit - granted he's a politician so my expectations are low to start off with. but flawed as it was, the clinton administration (as much as i loved those years) didn't sign the kyoto protocol. didn't even attempt to amend it. so gore loses the 2000 election, grows a beard and all of a sudden he's in tune w/ mother earth and wants to stop global warming? he knows, in addition to it being a very real problem, its a popular topic among hollywood types and liberals. too little too late. and how annoying is it that he won an oscar?

dragonfly · 04-02-2007, 12:25 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gonegreen @ Apr 2 2007, 10:12 AM) [snapback]416439[/snapback]</div>

Quote:

i can't help thinking the gore of 07 is a hypocrit - granted he's a politician so my expectations are low to start off with. but flawed as it was, the clinton administration (as much as i loved those years) didn't sign the kyoto protocol.
[/b]

How can you blame Gore for that? He tried. Also (in Clinton's defense), the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming wasn't reached until 2001, under GWB's watch.

Lywyllyn · 04-02-2007, 12:34 PM

I would prefer fresh blood. He tried and failed. Perhaps because he is destined for something greater and more useful to humankind then President of the US. Besides he doesn't drive a Prius

akorovesis · 04-02-2007, 12:37 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Apr 2 2007, 12:25 PM) [snapback]416448[/snapback]</div>

Quote:

How can you blame Gore for that? He tried. Also (in Clinton's defense), the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming wasn't reached until 2001, under GWB's watch.
[/b]

i don't blame him for that, i blame him for not pushing for an alternative. if only he were half this proactive while he was the v.p. and the main reason the protocol wasn't signed wasn't b/c of lack of scientific evidence. i'ts b/c the u.s. didn't like the fact they were being regulated while developing countries like china and india weren't. we'd lose an economic advantage. i mean, i know gore is a genius seeing as he develope the internet and all which allows us to have this discussion, but i'd much rather see hilary or obama.

MarkMN · 04-02-2007, 01:29 PM

I am not sure that Gore as VP could have been all too effective at pushing policy (has any VP ever been proactive about policy??). And in defense of Gore's last 7 years, he has been a strong environmentalist since he walked into the US House in the 70s. His last 7 years is just an extension of his previous environmentalism. I don't care if Al Gore runs or not, however, I actually would be a bit surprised to see him run against Hillary Clinton.

As far as the horse race, I am currently leaning towards Hillary. Obama is a nice fresh face and I probably agree with his policy stands the most, but given his relative youth and is relative short history of US policy votes, I would rather see him step aside in the race. His idealism will start to hurt him later after his newness wears off, and I worry if he could pick up many independent votes in the general election against a Guiliani or other moderate republican. Hillary is a bit more pragmatic and I think she has a better chance at winning the general election, even if she has a lot of haters out there from insecure men and women who hate strong women. I reserve the right to change my mind later.

04-02-2007, 09:50 AM	#2
larkinmj Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,996 My Car: Package: Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 0	To answer your question, I would like to see Gore enter the race. On Iraq, the environment, and most issues he's on the right side. Despite the head start that the other candidates have in this early race for the presidency (I heard this morning that Clinton has raised $26 million already), it's conceivable that Gore could jump in at this "late" point and still raise money (which, of course, is what it's all about). I did read your blog entry about supporting the best candidate in both parties. An interesting idea- hedging your bets. Of course it's contrary to the mindset of American politics, which is all about winning at all costs; not about ideals. I agree with your picks of Gore and Obama, and I might also consider Edwards as a good candidate. I'm not at all in favor of Hillary Clinton; she has been a supporter of the Iraq war although she is attempting to re-write that, and her triangulation to appease the right makes it impossible to see what she really stands for. I'm not so sure about Ron Paul (I read a bit about him after seeing him on Bill Maher's show). I'm confused about his stand on issues such as abortion rights, separation of church and state, etc., where I thought that Libertarians were on the side of individual rights; that doesn't seem to be where Ron Paul stands. If I had to choose a Republican candidate that I could accept if he actually won, I would probably go with Chuck Hagel. On virtually every issue other than the Iraq war (the environment, civil liberties, etc.) I am on the opposite side from Hagel. However, I would at least take some consolation that a Democratic-controlled Congress could prevent him from making extreme policy decisions in those areas. When it comes to ending the war (and avoiding new ones), the President is the key player. __________________ Mike Larkin http://www.myspace.com/deadbluessociety

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Al Gore III 100MPH & Drug bust.....In a PRIUS	9G-man	Prius and Hybrid News	86	07-09-2007 03:55 PM
Al Gore's son busted for 100mph in a Prius	HOVer	Prius Main Forum	1	07-05-2007 01:18 PM
Gore busted golng 100 in a Prius	amped	Fred's House of Pancakes	1	07-04-2007 02:40 PM
Go see Al Gore and come home with a Prius	tomdeimos	Prius and Hybrid News	7	08-08-2006 03:31 PM
Al Gore on his Prius & earth issues	Danny	Prius and Hybrid News	62	06-25-2006 07:33 AM

04-02-2007, 05:07 AM	#1
PaulLev Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 10 My Car: Package: Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 0	How many Prius drivers in the US would like to see Gore in the White House? Here are some of my views on the matter - blog posts: Gore Nomination for Nobel Prize Poetic Justice and After the Oscars: A Good Night for Absolute Rulers and Elected Presidents and A Modest Political Proposal: Supporting the Best Candidates in Both Parties podcast: Gore Back On Center Stage What do you think?

04-02-2007, 10:45 AM	#3
daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 8,964 My Car: 2004 Prius Package: #6 Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 0	I'd much rather see Obama elected as president.

04-02-2007, 11:49 AM	#4
Stev0 Aluminum Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Northampton, MA Posts: 4,544 My Car: 2006 Prius Package: #7 Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 7	If the Gore of 2007 ran in 2000, I would have voted for him in a minute. However, in 2008 people will still remember the Gore of 2000, so there's no way he would get elected.

04-02-2007, 12:34 PM	#8
Lywyllyn Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 199 My Car: 2001 Prius Package: N/A Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 0	I would prefer fresh blood. He tried and failed. Perhaps because he is destined for something greater and more useful to humankind then President of the US. Besides he doesn't drive a Prius

04-02-2007, 01:29 PM	#10
MarkMN Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Downtown Minneapolis Posts: 228 My Car: 2007 Prius Package: #2 Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts TOTM Awards: 0 Friends: 0	I am not sure that Gore as VP could have been all too effective at pushing policy (has any VP ever been proactive about policy??). And in defense of Gore's last 7 years, he has been a strong environmentalist since he walked into the US House in the 70s. His last 7 years is just an extension of his previous environmentalism. I don't care if Al Gore runs or not, however, I actually would be a bit surprised to see him run against Hillary Clinton. As far as the horse race, I am currently leaning towards Hillary. Obama is a nice fresh face and I probably agree with his policy stands the most, but given his relative youth and is relative short history of US policy votes, I would rather see him step aside in the race. His idealism will start to hurt him later after his newness wears off, and I worry if he could pick up many independent votes in the general election against a Guiliani or other moderate republican. Hillary is a bit more pragmatic and I think she has a better chance at winning the general election, even if she has a lot of haters out there from insecure men and women who hate strong women. I reserve the right to change my mind later.