Al Gore on Bush and other stuff

[GeraldFord]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3195676&page=1

[freedom78]

To quote the article, and respond:

He begins discussing the president by accusing him of sharing President Richard Nixon's unprincipled hunger for power.

If Bush were 1/16th as intelligent as Nixon was, this Presidency would be going much better.  Nixon is remembered for Watergate, but he was certainly competent and had a vision that far exceeds Bush's.

"The Assault On Reason" begins as an academic discourse about the one-sided, corporate-controlled television medium with no interactivity.

Gore argues that television not only creates a dynamic that runs contrary to Thomas Jefferson's desire for a "well-informed citizenry" but lulls viewers in a partially immobilized state and allows unreasoned communicators to sell false bills of goods, such as, say, that there was a connection between the Sept. 11 hijackers and Saddam Hussein.

I hate to rain on Gore's parade, but if he thinks "corporate-controlled television" is lulling the electorate into immobility, then he has failed to understand the biggest flaw in American politics, which is a system that leads to two party rule, promotes extremism, through primaries that discourage moderates and centrists from voting, and a connection between those in power and those seeking to use that power (i.e. those with $$$).  Of course, as part of that two party system, and having benefited from it, Gore is unlikely to find it troubling.

Gore writes that since "Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack?then that means the president took us to war when he didn't have to and that over 3,000 American service members have been killed?unnecessarily."

While this is completely true, I am having a great deal of trouble truly understanding the Democratic party's approach to military intervention.  Do they advocate liberal policies of collective security action, wherein states that, essentially, misbehave are held to account by the rest of the international community, militarily if necessary?  Or are they realists, advocating using a state's military only in situations where it is truly in a country's interests to do so.  This was clearly isn't one a realist would have pursued, and "neo-conservatism" is a very twisted of international liberalism...but what do the Democrats believe?

[GeraldFord]

...but what do the Democrats believe?

We are all over the map.

[The Dog]

"I hate to rain on Gore's parade, but if he thinks "corporate-controlled television" is lulling the electorate into immobility, then he has failed to understand the biggest flaw in American politics, which is a system that leads to two party rule, promotes extremism, through primaries that discourage moderates and centrists from voting, and a connection between those in power and those seeking to use that power (i.e. those with $$$).  Of course, as part of that two party system, and having benefited from it, Gore is unlikely to find it troubling."

Totally disagree with you here - the extremists that are voting in the primaries are the ones who are concerned with the issues - granted they are THEIR issues but they are still motiviated to get out and vote.  If the moderates realized how important the REAL issues were (not gay marriage or abortion) they would realize what was at stake and get out and vote.
this nation has been dumbed down to a 5th grade level - there is even a show now to see if you are smarter than a 5th grader! haha.  but seriously, paris going to jail is not news, rosie vs. trump is not news - but more people probably can tell you about that then where Iraq is on a map.

[freedom78]

"I hate to rain on Gore's parade, but if he thinks "corporate-controlled television" is lulling the electorate into immobility, then he has failed to understand the biggest flaw in American politics, which is a system that leads to two party rule, promotes extremism, through primaries that discourage moderates and centrists from voting, and a connection between those in power and those seeking to use that power (i.e. those with $$$).  Of course, as part of that two party system, and having benefited from it, Gore is unlikely to find it troubling."

Totally disagree with you here - the extremists that are voting in the primaries are the ones who are concerned with the issues - granted they are THEIR issues but they are still motiviated to get out and vote.  If the moderates realized how important the REAL issues were (not gay marriage or abortion) they would realize what was at stake and get out and vote.
this nation has been dumbed down to a 5th grade level - there is even a show now to see if you are smarter than a 5th grader! haha.  but seriously, paris going to jail is not news, rosie vs. trump is not news - but more people probably can tell you about that then where Iraq is on a map.

I'm not sure this was clear, but when I say that primaries discourage moderates and centrists, I mean that, in many states, you have to register as a Republican or Democrat to vote.  Centrists are less likely to belong to or strongly believe in one of these parties...because they're extremist parties, in many ways.  I certainly don't hold the great American middle blameless for its apathy, but I think the two party system does a very good job of creating that apathetic atmosphere.  Specifically, I'm referring to Congressional elections, rather than the Presidency, because in Congress, 90%+ of the seats are generally considered "safe," meaning that the party that is virtually guaranteed a victory can nominate the nuttiest right or left winger available.  Further, the idea that two parties can really represent the vast majority of America is silly.  Aside from those who actually take the time out to vote for a third party, how many really feel that a Republican or Democratic platform accurately represents their beliefs?  Hell, the two parties can't account for the differences between social conservative and libertarian Republicans, or labor and environmental Democrats, proving that they're willing to include completely contradictory ideas within these parties, simply to get a larger voting base.  Of course, despite loyalty to the party, if your particular faction isn't the trend of the times, you're S.O.L.  But, as you say, "if moderates realized how important the REAL issues were, they would realize this was at stake and get out and vote."  I agree.  I'm just irritated that, for most of us, to do so means that we must first register as a member of one of the two parties that both dominate our system and confound it into pessimism and petty squabbling, such that we're AMAZED when something gets accomplished in a bi-partisan way.   

[The Dog]

i hear you.

but whats the point of appealing to moderates when all they care about is the OJ trial and who is anna nicoles baby's daddy?  perhaps if we all were a bit more informed and active in our politics we would take a side, even if we weren't happy about it, we'd still be taking one and voting.  and perhaps if more people (moderates) were voting then candidates wouldn't have to pander to the lower number of extremists and the retarded social issues this country LOVES to discuss wouldn't be at the forefront but the real issues like our economy, healthcare, spending, the WAR!!, would be.

the vote is the only real voice a people have in a democracy - we don't use it b/c we don't care, are not informed enough and are too easily distracted.  its one thing to watch american idol and then the 10 o'clock news, but the 10 o'clock news talks about american idol!!!!

[freedom78]

i hear you.

but whats the point of appealing to moderates when all they care about is the OJ trial and who is anna nicoles baby's daddy?  perhaps if we all were a bit more informed and active in our politics we would take a side, even if we weren't happy about it, we'd still be taking one and voting.  and perhaps if more people (moderates) were voting then candidates wouldn't have to pander to the lower number of extremists and the retarded social issues this country LOVES to discuss wouldn't be at the forefront but the real issues like our economy, healthcare, spending, the WAR!!, would be.

the vote is the only real voice a people have in a democracy - we don't use it b/c we don't care, are not informed enough and are too easily distracted.  its one thing to watch american idol and then the 10 o'clock news, but the 10 o'clock news talks about american idol!!!!

And I hear you! 

At the same time, more people voted in the 2004 election than in any previous election, and Bush won by appealing to divisive, socially conservative (a kind phrase) values, rather than appealing to the middle.  At the same time, you have to wonder how much people REALLY care about all the shit news on tv.  I certainly don't care about Anna Nicole's baby or the OJ trial, except in that I hope the child has a nice life, and the trial reflects a flaws in our justice system.  At some point, I wonder if it's not "we care because it's on tv" rather than "we care, therefore it's on tv." 

That's not to say that there aren't good people on the extremes, though it's tough to find them over the yelling.  And, of course, plenty of moderates vote...in the general elections, at which point it doesn't really matter.  Perhaps it's just the last six years that are getting to me, and hopefully the next election will change.  Of course, it won't change the Republicans.  And I can't blame them.  If it worked for two cycles, why not try it again, until it fails?   

[freedom78]

In evidence of my point, I just went to msnbc.com and their featured story was entitled "And the 'Idol' Is..."

Here's the problem.  If you care about American Idol, you probably watched the show and, thus, know who won.  If you don't care about it, then you have no interest in reading this story.  So...why is it the "biggest" story?  It's on Fox, so msnbc.com (or MSNBC or NBC or CNBC, for that matter) have no compelling reason to push this show on their readers/viewers.  If anything, it promotes the competition.  Yet a major news website makes it their feature story, while there's a war going on, while Congress is pussing out on Iraq funding, and so on.

In the age of 24 hour news, I think they're so desperate to fill any potential void, that anything will be seized upon as news.  Today, I swear to God, I turned on to receive BREAKING NEWS!...there was a minor brush fire...near a strip mall...in Florida.  Now, if you're from that community in Florida, I don't want to minimize the importance of said brush fire, particularly if your favorite Chick-Fil-A happens to rent space at that strip mall.  But for the rest of us, this isn't news.  While I DO find that my weekly trip to the cigar store is always enhanced when some lunatic (ALWAYS in LA) decides to flee the cops, it isn't national news.  It's local news...the kind that should be covered in (wait for it)...LOCAL NEWSCASTS! 

The news used to be important.  It occurred for an hour, on three networks, and people watched.  So of course people don't vote, when the news is American Idol and brush fires near strip malls in Florida.  After all, my vote is unlikely to affect those things.  I don't know that it's voter apathy so much as the fact that, by being bombarded with useless news 24 hours/day, we grow numb to the real issues and our power to affect them.

And, yes, I do realize that I'm now arguing in support of Mr. Gore's point...I was never against it...just offering a parallel argument.

[The Dog]

you gotta look at the other side in order to better understand your own if you ask me 

funny how you mention the news was like a real program back in the day....  6pm, time for the news.  i would always get so pissed at my dad when he'd kick me off the TV.  haha.  nowadays though you can get the news ANYTIME.  but i think the corporations own the media outlets and they def put their bias into it (fox is a great example - its blatantly conservative/republican).  thats not news, its opinion. 

i think with cable TV there is also more tv to watch then there was 20 years ago.  and with the net and computers, vid games, even more distractions.

despite all of this, the people themselves should feel empowered. us 20-40 somethings LOOOVE to type about how pissed off we are, but not many of us get off our asses and do anything about it (i'm guilty of that for sure) besides casting a vote.

sadly, i don't see it changing.  i think americans are always going to vote for the candidate who "they would want to have a beer with" instead of the smartest guy in the room...

[freedom78]

you gotta look at the other side in order to better understand your own if you ask me 

funny how you mention the news was like a real program back in the day....  6pm, time for the news.  i would always get so pissed at my dad when he'd kick me off the TV.  haha.  nowadays though you can get the news ANYTIME.  but i think the corporations own the media outlets and they def put their bias into it (fox is a great example - its blatantly conservative/republican).  thats not news, its opinion. 

i think with cable TV there is also more tv to watch then there was 20 years ago.  and with the net and computers, vid games, even more distractions.

despite all of this, the people themselves should feel empowered. us 20-40 somethings LOOOVE to type about how pissed off we are, but not many of us get off our asses and do anything about it (i'm guilty of that for sure) besides casting a vote.

sadly, i don't see it changing.  i think americans are always going to vote for the candidate who "they would want to have a beer with" instead of the smartest guy in the room...

Well, at the ripe old age of 28, I'm happy to say I've learned my lessons:

1.) Don't vote for someone just because he/she is related to someone else who has held office.  This goes for Bushes, Clintons, and Kennedys.

2.) Don't assume that relatives have similar beliefs.

3.) Don't vote against someone because his cunt of a wife wants to censor all music.  He probably can't help that he married a dumb bitch.

4.) Don't vote for someone that you'd want to drink a beer with.  The Presidency isn't one of those "if you could hang out with any three people, alive or dead" questions, so don't treat it like one.

[The Dog]

you gotta look at the other side in order to better understand your own if you ask me 

funny how you mention the news was like a real program back in the day....  6pm, time for the news.  i would always get so pissed at my dad when he'd kick me off the TV.  haha.  nowadays though you can get the news ANYTIME.  but i think the corporations own the media outlets and they def put their bias into it (fox is a great example - its blatantly conservative/republican).  thats not news, its opinion. 

i think with cable TV there is also more tv to watch then there was 20 years ago.  and with the net and computers, vid games, even more distractions.

despite all of this, the people themselves should feel empowered. us 20-40 somethings LOOOVE to type about how pissed off we are, but not many of us get off our asses and do anything about it (i'm guilty of that for sure) besides casting a vote.

sadly, i don't see it changing.  i think americans are always going to vote for the candidate who "they would want to have a beer with" instead of the smartest guy in the room...

Well, at the ripe old age of 28, I'm happy to say I've learned my lessons:

1.) Don't vote for someone just because he/she is related to someone else who has held office.  This goes for Bushes, Clintons, and Kennedys.

2.) Don't assume that relatives have similar beliefs.

3.) Don't vote against someone because his cunt of a wife wants to censor all music.  He probably can't help that he married a dumb bitch.

4.) Don't vote for someone that you'd want to drink a beer with.  The Presidency isn't one of those "if you could hang out with any three people, alive or dead" questions, so don't treat it like one.

thats good advice.  can you get the rest of america to follow it please?

[freedom78]

you gotta look at the other side in order to better understand your own if you ask me 

funny how you mention the news was like a real program back in the day....  6pm, time for the news.  i would always get so pissed at my dad when he'd kick me off the TV.  haha.  nowadays though you can get the news ANYTIME.  but i think the corporations own the media outlets and they def put their bias into it (fox is a great example - its blatantly conservative/republican).  thats not news, its opinion. 

i think with cable TV there is also more tv to watch then there was 20 years ago.  and with the net and computers, vid games, even more distractions.

despite all of this, the people themselves should feel empowered. us 20-40 somethings LOOOVE to type about how pissed off we are, but not many of us get off our asses and do anything about it (i'm guilty of that for sure) besides casting a vote.

sadly, i don't see it changing.  i think americans are always going to vote for the candidate who "they would want to have a beer with" instead of the smartest guy in the room...

Well, at the ripe old age of 28, I'm happy to say I've learned my lessons:

1.) Don't vote for someone just because he/she is related to someone else who has held office.  This goes for Bushes, Clintons, and Kennedys.

2.) Don't assume that relatives have similar beliefs.

3.) Don't vote against someone because his cunt of a wife wants to censor all music.  He probably can't help that he married a dumb bitch.

4.) Don't vote for someone that you'd want to drink a beer with.  The Presidency isn't one of those "if you could hang out with any three people, alive or dead" questions, so don't treat it like one.

thats good advice.  can you get the rest of america to follow it please?

I'm not sure...after all, one of the "heavyweights" is someone whose main qualifications seem to be that she was married to a previous President and that she was good enough at faking "I'm a New Yorker" to get elected to the Senate. 

And you always hear whispers about Jeb Bush, for sometime after 2008 (though I truly believe he IS more competent than Dubya...just compare their Spanish skills!).

[Vicious Wishes]

(fox is a great example - its blatantly conservative/republican).  thats not news, its opinion. 


just like cnn, nbc, abc, cbs, ny times, la times is blatantly liberal. that's not news, its opinion.

[freedom78]

(fox is a great example - its blatantly conservative/republican).  thats not news, its opinion. 


just like cnn, nbc, abc, cbs, ny times, la times is blatantly liberal. that's not news, its opinion.

I agree that Fox is blatantly pro-Republican and that the New York Times is liberal.  And, of course, there are liberal and conservative shows on many of the networks (MSNBC, for example, has both).  I think it's tough to tell who's liberal, during times like these.  You aren't liberal just for pointing out that Bush is a fuck up.  That would make 70%+ of the country "liberal."  I think being moderate/neutral, for news networks, often means that they talk common sense or give both sides a fair chance...but when something is as fucked up as the US has been the last few years, then being moderate means pointing out that very fact.