Al Gore for President? Why?

NUMEROUS articles have been written in the last couple of days about whether or not Al Gore will and should run for president (a quick search on Google news turns up this, this, and this). In many ways, it sounds like a good idea. Al Gore has scored plenty of brownie points with not only this country but the entire world with his push toward environmental reform. He has won an emmy, he has won the nobel peace prize... At this point in his life, he is one of the most popular current or ex politicians in the world. It is understandable that people are asking if he'll run, and many are pushing for him to enter to presidential race.

But few people have asked the most important question of all: Why?

No, not "why would we want him to run?" I know the answer to that, because I'd prefer him as president to, and would consider voting for him over all the candidates in the field. No, the real questions are "Why would he run?" and "Why should he run?"

Why would he run? This is a question that sounds like it has an easy answer: Because, as president, he can do more to help the environment.

Really? Pause for a second. Do you real think that? Do you think the president can honestly do much of anything? And what about if there is a Republican majority again? Do you think he'll be able to get anything done at all?

Becoming president could easily be one of the worst things he can do for his message. Yes, he has an opportunity to be a very prominent voice in the most powerful position in the world. But I would argue he easily has that now, and without as television ad attacks.

Why should he run? This is similar to the answer of the former question. He should run if, and only if, he can do more of a significant amount of good as president than he can as a civilian - and while I'm sure many people are looking at our current president and laughing, we are talking about how much more good he can do as president than another good Democratic candidate who isn't running on that issue. All of the current candidates believe in global warming and will do something to reverse it, and while they are not as prominent in the field as Gore is, they can probably get the same amount done if for no other reason than Republicans in Congress are going to get in their way as well.

Similarly he'd be bound to many more laws and customs that would prevent him from influencing the mass public, if for no other reason that he'd become his own polarized political figure.

But this doesn't mean he should be out of politics completely. The press and the blogosphere act as though the only option for him is either to run for president or not to. I've given my reasons why I don't believe becoming president is a huge step up for his cause, but that doesn't mean I think he should not be in politics at all. What about head of the EPA? What about United Nations rep? These are two (of probably several) high ranking positions in government that he could use to oversee his important agenda while still keeping out of the political abyss that is the presidency and congress. He can use his influence behind the scenes while still remaining a seemingly non-political figure on television or in print or whatever else he'd use to spread his message (can you name the head of the EPA off the top of you head right now? If you are reading this sentence and have not yet thought of it, don't worry, neither has anyone else).

It's a conversation that doesn't make sense to me. I want to see Al Gore elected president [again] as much as anyone, but unless someone can explain otherwise, I don't see why he would see the need, nor why that is his only political option to enact change.

Best. Photo. Ever.

This is Michelle Malkin in her cheerleader outfit, flying through the air from flames out of her rear. From Sadly No:

What a horrible woman.

The Hillary Clinton Nut Cracker

Got this in a forward:

It's kinda funny. It looks like you can buy it here.

Why Giuliani and Romney Make Couches Happy

Because they lie a lot. From the Caucus at the New York Times:

Truth squadding the most contentious point of the debate last night, Michael Cooper, the Times’s City Hall budget reporter during the end of the Giuliani administration, notes:

In defending his fiscal record, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani said that during his tenure as mayor of New York City, spending declined. But he said that it declined on a “per capita” basis, meaning that the city’s population grew faster than its spending. But an analysis by the Citizens Budget Commission, an independent group, found that during his two terms, Mr. Giuliani increased city expenditures by 13.7 percent, when adjusted for inflation.

And Mr. Giuliani boasted, as he often does on the campaign trail, that he cut taxes 23 times as mayor. But fiscal monitors have noted that in doing so, Mr. Giuliani takes credit for some tax cuts that he did not initiate – including cuts made by the state.

And Michael Luo, the Times’s reporter covering Mitt Romney, notes that Mr. Romney’s claims are subject to debate, too.

Fiscal conservatives offer mixed reviews of Mr. Romney’s record as governor of Massachusetts. He contends that he kept a campaign promise not to raise taxes, even as he successfully closed a $3 billion budget gap.

But even though he did not make any broad-based tax increases, Mr. Romney increased fees by $500 million and closed corporate tax loopholes, which critics argue amounted to tax increases on corporations.

Mr. Romney also touts the fact that he sought to reduce the state’s income-tax rate from 5.3 percent to 5.0 percent, but he was stymied twice by the state legislature.

And, for those of you who are sports fans, here is why Mo Vaughn left the Angels (hint, it's 9/11).

"That's Not How Gay Works."

Now that Larry Craig is staying, it seemed like a good idea to bring back this brilliant clip from the Daily Show, entitled "Trapped in the closet." Jon Stewart is a genius.

Ronald Reagan was the devil

Ronald Wilson Reagan
6 6 6

This daily tidbit courtesy of The Boondocks.

Not winning their case

In response to the skyrocketing costs of the occupation of Iraq, and the requested $23 billion in additional domestic spending, Democratic representatives David Obey, John Murtha and and Jim McGovern have proposed an additional income tax increase because "it is unfair to pass the cost of the war onto future generations":

"The war will cost future generations billions of dollars in taxes that we're shoving off on them and it is devouring money that could be used to expand their educational opportunities, expand their job training possibilities, attack our long-term energy problems and build stronger communities," Obey said.

The proposed measure will increase taxes on the lower and middle class by 2%, and wealthier people by 12-15%.

Among the many problems with this idea, one of its most glaring flaws is its inability to deter Republican attacks. Immediately after the plan was announced, an RNC spokesman responded: "Americans will reject Democrat [sic] plans to take away their hard-earned dollars."

Unfortunately, that is probably the case. Obey believes that by adding this tax-surcharge, Americans will "stop ignoring what this war is costing American taxpayers and call the president's bluff on fiscal responsibility." But I believe this bill falls short of doing that, and instead appears only to help fund the occupation that is growing more and more unpopular even amongst Republicans.

This action is dependent on the idea that Americans will realize that Bush's spending is out of control. Unfortunately, this assumes that the small minority of Americans who still believe in this invasion will not attribute an increase in taxes to the party they already associate with tax increases.

Basically, it gives those individuals credit for being smarter and more in-tune politically than they probably are. DailyKos supports this bill, and for our sake I hope that if it passes it works as planned, but its goal seems lofty and unattainable, and I believe its message will get lost with its effects.

Post from DailyKos

I had to post this here. Sorry DKos, but this is too funny. This is the new logo for the GOP 2008 Convention:

And yes, this is real, not an extremely clever photoshop job, and truly encapsulates what the Republican Party is all about.

Wide stance? Check.

In Minneapolis? Check.

Prison stripe-wearing? Check.

Starry eyed? Check.

As for the elephant humping the "2008"...

Are they going for a "Still screwing the country in 2008" theme, or is it a reference to hypocritical adulterers like David Vitter and just about the entire Republican presidential field?

All of the above? Check!

Apparently they ran out of space for a collapsing bridge.

Update: Can't you just picture the Daily Show and Colbert Report writers salivating at the possibilities?

Update II: From the comments:

- The Blue-to-Red ratio looks to be about 80%-20%. That sounds about right for the 2008 election too.

- [I]t looks like the elephant is wrapping himself in the flag.

- Very appropriate for 2008. The elephant has Assumed the Position

- Crapping on Minneapolis?

- Elephants only stand on their hind legs for one thing; count on the Extinction Party to know nothing of their habits.

- [N]ot to mention that the head looks like a snake coming out of a monkey's ass.

And okay, this is my new favorite:

- Total roadkill. [I]t really does look like an elephant that just got ran over by a truck and is now splattered and dazed on the ground, covered in skid marks.

And more from what might be one of the funniest threads ever on this site:

- The Lone Star eye of Texas is trained on the "con" in convention. How appropriate

- The head looks like it is partially decapitated.

- An elephant never forgets how.

- Judging by the shape of the eye, I'd say he's been shot in the face by Cheney.

Fred Thompson...

Is so boring. But this photo from NYT with its caption made me laugh:

I don't know how to link to the video, so you'll just have to enjoy the brilliance of the Print Screen Button.

Stupid, Stupid, Stupid

What a bunch of idiots.

OLYMPIA — A sharply divided [Washington] state Supreme Court has ruled that a law that bars political candidates from deliberately making false statements about their opponents violates the First Amendment right of free speech.

In a 5-4 ruling, the high court affirmed a state Court of Appeals ruling that overturned the law. The measure was enacted by the Legislature in 1999, a year after a similar ban on false statements involving initiatives and other ballot measures was thrown out by the state Supreme Court.

...

"The notion that the government, rather than the people, may be the final arbiter of truth in political debate is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment," Justice James Johnson wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Charles Johnson, Richard Sanders and Susan Owens.

In that case, Dave Reichert voted that middle age Republican males should be allowed to engage in Beastiality.

Rush Limbaugh Calls Anti-War Veterans "Phony Soldiers"

So Brian McGough, a former staff sergeant who was wounded in Iraq, starred in a VoteVets.org ad saying: "Rush, the shrapnel I took to my head was real, my traumatic brain injury was real and my belief we are on the wrong course in Iraq is real. Until you have the guts to call me a phony soldier to my face, stop telling lies about my service."

To which Limbaugh responded by comparing McGough to a suicide bomber, presumably before he wet himself and abused more drugs, but we can't be sure.

Limbaugh called the ad "a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into."

Yeah. How dare you Brian. How dare you listen to Rush's comments completely in context and think he had anything negative to say about the anti-war veterans. Why would you think Rush has any disrespect for you, I mean, he called you a "valiant combat veteran" before comparing you to a suicide bomber.

Story

Intimate Korean Love

Which one is the girl?

This is a much bigger deal than it appears. President Roh Moo-hyun of South Korea and Kim Jong-il of North Korea, the two have decided to seek a formal end to the Korean war (which never technically ended) and two work together on various economic projects after meeting for the first time in seven years.

Full Story

My Dog is Smarter Than Our President

More Satire for your lifted pleasure.

From the Humor Gazette:

Education Accomplished! "Childrens do learn"

Mission accomplished! As recently as three years ago, America's education system was in a shambles. Millions of childrens did not even know that humans and fish can peacefully coexist.

President George W. Bush was so concerned that, on Jan. 23, 2004, he warned, "the illiteracy level of our children are appalling."

Mr. Bush had been aware of the problem since Jan. 11, 2000, when he observed at a South Carolina campaign rally, "Rarely is the question asked: is our children learning?"

But as his dad's vice president, Dan Quayle, learned at a sixth-grade New Jersey spelling bee in 1992, education can easily become a political hot potatoe.

The Washington pundits misunderestimated Mr. Bush's ability to get the job done, but in January 2002 he signed into law his landmark education plan: No Childs Left Behind.

Sure, there were critics. Some say the president has shortchanged his program by more than $50 billion. But Mr. Bush knows that childrens need a good education so they can grow up to get a heckuva job and put food on their families.

In today's global war on terrorism economy, he reasons, we must help childrens realize their dreams of becoming soldiers, oil executives or OB/GYN doctors, free to practice their love. Childrens, Mr. Bush understands, must be given the tools they need to compete for those good-paying jobs on the Internets.

So it was heartening to hear President Bush tell the nation -- during his speech last Wednesday urging Congress to reauthorize No Childs Left Behind -- that, when standards are high and results are measured, "Childrens do learn."

Notably, Mr. Bush's vision has also fueled an education initiative in the extremist Muslim world. In fact, many gifted first- and second-graders in Iraq and beyond are already hating America at a ninth-grade level, thanks to a policy called No Junior Terrorist Left Behind.

You should read this

That's all I'm saying. It's an interesting article:

“Man, you know what would have happened to one of us if we talked to them that way?” said one disbelieving man as he walked away from me and my blank notebook. “We’d be in jail right now.”

Read me. "Reporting While Black."

Inspired by Bill O'

After posting about Bill O'Reilly's racism in the last post, I read this article by Bob Herbert at the New York Times and decided it should be posted as well:

The Ugly Side of the G.O.P.

Article Tools Sponsored By
By BOB HERBERT
Published: September 25, 2007

I applaud the thousands of people, many of them poor, who traveled from around the country to protest in Jena, La., last week. But what I’d really like to see is a million angry protesters marching on the headquarters of the National Republican Party in Washington.

Enough is enough. Last week the Republicans showed once again just how anti-black their party really is.

The G.O.P. has spent the last 40 years insulting, disenfranchising and otherwise stomping on the interests of black Americans. Last week, the residents of Washington, D.C., with its majority black population, came remarkably close to realizing a goal they have sought for decades — a voting member of Congress to represent them.

A majority in Congress favored the move, and the House had already approved it. But the Republican minority in the Senate — with the enthusiastic support of President Bush — rose up on Tuesday and said: “No way, baby.”

At least 57 senators favored the bill, a solid majority. But the Republicans prevented a key motion on the measure from receiving the 60 votes necessary to move it forward in the Senate. The bill died.

At the same time that the Republicans were killing Congressional representation for D.C. residents, the major G.O.P. candidates for president were offering a collective slap in the face to black voters nationally by refusing to participate in a long-scheduled, nationally televised debate focusing on issues important to minorities.

The radio and television personality Tavis Smiley worked for a year to have a pair of these debates televised on PBS, one for the Democratic candidates and the other for the Republicans. The Democratic debate was held in June, and all the major candidates participated.

The Republican debate is scheduled for Thursday. But Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson have all told Mr. Smiley: “No way, baby.”

They won’t be there. They can’t be bothered debating issues that might be of interest to black Americans. After all, they’re Republicans.

This is the party of the Southern strategy — the party that ran, like panting dogs, after the votes of segregationist whites who were repelled by the very idea of giving equal treatment to blacks. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. (Willie Horton) Bush, George W. (Compassionate Conservative) Bush — they all ran with that lousy pack.

Dr. Carolyn Goodman, a woman I was privileged to call a friend, died last month at the age of 91. She was the mother of Andrew Goodman, one of the three young civil rights activists shot to death by rabid racists near Philadelphia, Miss., in 1964.

Dr. Goodman, one of the most decent people I have ever known, carried the ache of that loss with her every day of her life.

In one of the vilest moves in modern presidential politics, Ronald Reagan, the ultimate hero of this latter-day Republican Party, went out of his way to kick off his general election campaign in 1980 in that very same Philadelphia, Miss. He was not there to send the message that he stood solidly for the values of Andrew Goodman. He was there to assure the bigots that he was with them.

“I believe in states’ rights,” said Mr. Reagan. The crowd roared.

In 1981, during the first year of Mr. Reagan’s presidency, the late Lee Atwater gave an interview to a political science professor at Case Western Reserve University, explaining the evolution of the Southern strategy:

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger,’ ” said Atwater. “By 1968, you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”

In 1991, the first President Bush poked a finger in the eye of black America by selecting the egregious Clarence Thomas for the seat on the Supreme Court that had been held by the revered Thurgood Marshall. The fact that there is a rigid quota on the court, permitting one black and one black only to serve at a time, is itself racist.

Mr. Bush seemed to be saying, “All right, you want your black on the court? Boy, have I got one for you.”

Republicans improperly threw black voters off the rolls in Florida in the contested presidential election of 2000, and sent Florida state troopers into the homes of black voters to intimidate them in 2004.

Blacks have been remarkably quiet about this sustained mistreatment by the Republican Party, which says a great deal about the quality of black leadership in the U.S. It’s time for that passive, masochistic posture to end.

For an article about Tavis Smiley's response to the GOP snub, click here.