<As Cantarell goes . . . The Oil Drum DrumBeat: July 25, 2006>

88 comments on Two quick political notes...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jimvj on July 24, 2006 - 9:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
Obviously, Prof Goose had tongue firmly in cheek when he made the Gore-internet reference.  But...

I attended the Skeptics Conference (Michael Shermer) at Pasadena last month.  Shermer made the same Gore joke during his introduction speech.  So, during breaks, I asked attendees (randomly) when Gore had made that claim.  Most hum & hawed and said he probably did it when he was running for Prez.

A very small number - at a Skeptics Conference!! - knew the facts, as explained at Snopes.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Prof. Goose on July 24, 2006 - 9:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
True enough, but I think there's also an interview where Gore is asked if "he had invented the internet" and he snickers and doesn't deny it, which then led the media back then to throw even more fuel on the fire.

I like him, but he was a bad candidate.  There's a little too much self-aggrandizing (and revisionism) in ATC for my taste as well...but hey, it's his flick.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DIYer on July 24, 2006 - 11:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Hah, now you have a linkback from Sully's log to TOD. Clever!
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DIYer on July 24, 2006 - 11:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
And, Gore did push legislation to make DARPAnet available to the public. Until about 1990, it was pretty much just an academic / military laboratory curiosity.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jimvj on July 25, 2006 - 9:07am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Better a bad candidate than an imbecile who uses every opportunity to divide a country on religious/racial lines; an imbecile who abuses science (embryonic stem cell research, Global Warming, etc.), to pander to a vocal rabid religious base or corporate cronies; who never reads, but when called up on it, carries a book displayed prominently to and from the Marine helicopter for a few weeks; who hasn't the basic curiosity/empathy to inquire and get prepared for levees breaking when explicitly warned, but still shows up for photo-ops with sleeves rolled up - weeks later; who lied our nation into a war/occupation in Iraq (why the silence in this forum on PSAs?); who goes to a G8 conference in Russia and then insults the host dishonestly (posing Iraq as a democracy that Russia should aspire to); ...

The last does have energy related consequences, since Putin apparently has banned US/Brit oil corporations from bidding for contracts in parts of Russia.

As many have pointed out here and elsewhere, Bush was able to charm the media into overlooking his own glaring deficiences while his enablers played up every trivial "fault" of Gore.  How dare he wear beige suits!!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PeakOilPete on July 25, 2006 - 11:10am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
This highlights a problem with our "democracy": we have been "electing" the so-called better candidates at the expense of the better leaders.   How is it "we" seem to prefer a nice package to the smartest guy in the room?!  How could anybody have bought the BS that Gore or Kerry were fake Nam vets when it came from a guy who couldn't even show up for guard duty (it was a different guard then, b/c GWB wasn't in office and no one was sending them off to actual war) and his cadre of non-serving advisors?  

Unfortunately, you get what you pay for.  We bought a mean-spirited, selfish, not-curious nor compationate dope who bribed us (you) into voting for him with irresponsible tax cuts.  

Even more unfortunately, his people have been so effective it may be too late to undo what he hath wrought.

And then there is PO and GW.

Enjoy the relative calm before the Doom and Gloom,
-PoP

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Catskill on July 25, 2006 - 1:37pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
yeah but he seems like a helluva guy to have a beer with...

why do you hate America and freedom to have beer with the president ?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wstephens on July 25, 2006 - 2:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Question (this interests me, and btw, I'm very politically independent) if Gore/Kerry/Left are the smartest guys in the room then why did a top democrat (cannot remember who) recently say that the left doesn't have an 8 word "message" much less an 80 word "message" to sell themselves to the voters? Why isn't there a "nice package" on the left?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Damek on July 25, 2006 - 2:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I don't think anyone's saying Gore/Kerry/the left are the "smartest guys in the room," but given Gore vs Bush I think the jury was in on that before 2000.

"Why isn't there a 'nice package' on the left?"

Perhaps because reality rarely conforms to a "nice package."  Witness The Oil Drum, for one...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wstephens on July 25, 2006 - 5:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
But politics runs on "packages"! I find this fascinating. Al Gore didn't have diddly squat of a message, so Nader stole the election from him.

My wife and I were trying to analyse this the other night, and we came to the conclusion (at least I did) that the democrats are made up of too diverse a group of interests to easily formulate a "package". Try it for yourself -- come up with a short message that appeals to all the Dem groups. It's hard. (And not just smearing the other side).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Prof. Goose on July 25, 2006 - 8:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The problem is that the Democratic coalition is easily fractured.  Keeping ideologues, unions, African Americans, and the poor on the same political page is very very difficult.  

It's not THAT much easier for the Rs, but it is easier.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wstephens on July 25, 2006 - 9:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Actually, I think that each existing party should be split in two new parties: the "Preservatives" and the "Catalysts".

The Preservatives would be for saving old houses, "back to the basics", anti-GM foods, pro-union, pro-gun, and things that our "founding fathers" believed -- i.e. all things agrarian or old-style industrial.

The Catalysts would be for more free trade, pro stem cell research, "privatizing" government, pro gay rights, eliminating quotas, pro-immigration/immigrants -- i.e. all things that promote change from the historical norms or status quo.

These parties would make more sense to me, and I think, reduce the conflicts that have built-up in both current parties.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Fargo on July 26, 2006 - 9:04am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Re: so Nader stole the election from him.

You really ought to read the first chapter of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. There's plenty of evidence to prove that the election was stolen by disenfranchizing thousands of black voters in largely Democratic districts in Florida by having Choicepoint incorrectly label them as felons. Perpetuating this "nader stole it from gore" crap just makes it easier for them to keep stealing elections.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wstephens on July 26, 2006 - 9:20am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The numbers seem to show that Gore lost by less than 1000 votes and Nader's Green party got over 97,000 votes (more than all the other third parties combined). You may disagree, and there may be other data, but it's not "crap".
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Fargo on July 26, 2006 - 9:40am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Illegaly disenfranchising voters seems more important to me. I could make the argument that Gore stole the election from Nader. It's just as ridiculous as saying Nader stole it from Gore. Votes aren't guaranteed to any candidate, the candidate has to actually earn them.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wstephens on July 26, 2006 - 10:28am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"I could make the argument that Gore stole the election from Nader"

ROFL -- and you called my post crap!? I guess I should have used the word "sabotaged" instead of "stole". Did *you* vote for Nader?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Fargo on July 26, 2006 - 10:37am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Since you completely missed my point I'll repeat it.

Votes aren't guaranteed to any candidate, the candidate has to actually earn them.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Fargo on July 26, 2006 - 10:51am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
In Addition, thousands of registered Democrats voted for GWB in 2000. Geez, if only GWB hadn't run he wouldn't have "stolen" all the votes from Gore.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wstephens on July 26, 2006 - 11:38am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"Votes...earn them."

OK, re-stated: There are various ways to sabotage your opponents in an election -- some ways being illegal and some sabotage is caused by "luck" (e.g. bufferfly ballots), etc, etc. Whatever.

More importantly, there are various way to sabotage your "cause" -- and Nader succeeded in this with distinction!

I'll assume you voted for him.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Fargo on July 26, 2006 - 11:59am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Yes, I voted for him in 2000. As my nickname suggests I'm in Fargo, ND a hardcore red-state which Bush took with ease. I figured if I'm going to "lose" either way I'll actually vote for the guy I agree with more.

So you got one assumption right but to assume that "my cause" was sabotaged by Nader is to assume that Gore's "cause" was my own which I wasn't convinced it was.

But back to my main point, saying Nader "stole" the election from Gore takes away from the REAL theft which was disenfranchisement of black voters which is a MUCH more important problem.

Of course the "spoiler" problem could easily be fixed by the Democratic leadership if they helped push something like instant-runoff voting through but I doubt they really want to do anything that helps third-parties and independents gain more votes.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Fargo on July 26, 2006 - 12:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I'd also recommend the following documentary to get more info on the disenfranchisement of black voters in 2000. You should be able to get it off netflix.

Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
step back on July 25, 2006 - 3:59pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
doesn't have an 8 word "message" much less an 80 word "message"

Who was it that said, I would have written it shorter if only I had more time ???

Forming an 8 word message is hard hard work.
It takes more than a village.
It takes a hundred think tanks.

The Democrats don't even own a think pistol.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wstephens on July 25, 2006 - 4:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I read somewhere that Hillary was going to recycle Bill's "it's the economy, stupid" campaign. Is this the best from the left? "Once the Republicans screw-up, then vote for us!" (hey, that's 8 words).
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
step back on July 25, 2006 - 7:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"Love Life" is two words, and alliterative at that.

"Compassionate Conservative" is two words, and alliterative at that.

It probably took many think tanks and focus groups to determine that these two-word couplets would resonate with the voting public at the critical time.

Most Democrats are too "intellectual" to understand that the voting public does not do "intellect".

We follow the crowd. We "stay the course". We don't "cut and run" from the herd. We don't "flip flop". We are all of one vision. We are the proud, the few, and busy being all that we can be.

Either you are with us or you're against us.
Simple as that.
Simple is as simple does. (-Forrest Gump)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
smekhovo on July 26, 2006 - 12:38am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Three leading Democrats think the most useful thing they can do, in the current situation, is to boycott the puppet "leader" of Iraq because he doesn't love the Isssraeli criminals enough!
That's all you need to know about their party, right there.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wstephens on July 26, 2006 - 8:16am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Maybe the Dems just need a good slogan too. Hmmm. How about...

Fairness and Justice, For the rest of us! -- Vote Democrat

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oilrig medic on July 24, 2006 - 9:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Jim,
  I read your snopes link.  Explain to me the difference other than diction if I state "I invented the question mark" and "I created the question mark"
matt
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jimvj on July 24, 2006 - 10:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Obviously Gore who was a congressman at the time, was stating that he had taken the lead in providing support for that project of DARPA.  That any sensible person would think that Gore, who has no computer background, and never held a computer related job, would be claiming to have invented the internet is just mind-boggling.  Shows how much influence rightwing talk-radio (& other media) has.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Cherenkov on July 24, 2006 - 11:27pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I am surprised that so many here are still pushing that old internet/Gore canard. Gore was responsible for pushing through the monies necessary to fund DARPA and many infrastructure needs that are directly responsible for you TURDBLOSSOMS being able to sit around on the Internet and snipe at someone who is so far above that common piece of retard known as GW Bush that it beggars description.

Nothing reveals more about your character than to push this blatant lie. It tells me you buy into the right wing noise machine without even checking the facts. It tells me that you would ignore the important work that Gore is doing regarding telling the people about Global Warming in order to pick petty arguments that you people are clearly too ignorant to make.

You scum probably were among the whiners and whingers crying about Clinton's blowjob and are still talking about it today AS IF THAT MEANS SHIT IN A WORLD WHERE WE WERE LIED INTO A WAR, A WORLD WHERE OUR SOLDIERS ARE GETTING KILLED FOR A COMPLETE LIE, A WORLD WHERE IRAQIS ARE BEING KILLED FOR A COMPLETE LIE.

This sort of BS tells me we have little to no hope when it comes to gaining any acceptance regarding informing the public about peak oil. Why would anyone believe people who continue to push this lie, who continue to try and bend the truth in order to make it seem that the lie is true.

Such sad, twisted creeps.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jim Harrison on July 25, 2006 - 12:48am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
As has been exhaustively documented by Bob Sommersby on the Daily Howler, the sliming of Gore was mostly orchestrated by supposedly liberal mainstream journalists and pundits. What makes this sort of absurd characterization possible is the stupidity of people who judge politicians as if they were trying out for American Idol. Obviously there is no propaganda tactic so obvious that you idiots won't fall for it.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Damek on July 25, 2006 - 2:51pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It wasn't necessarily "orchestrated," it likely happened out of sheer journalistic laziness.  More on this at Media Matters, and they include the Gore/Internet thing.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
earldaily on July 25, 2006 - 1:17am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
che
here is another uncontribution to the peak oil debate
while I totally agree with your sentiment, (hell, I can't get over the polarizing statements on the cBS tv news about the huge conspiracies  of all major oil producers to take our oil right at the  start of ww4. and the cantarell news at the same time? to much for my paranoid mind) I do enjoy the mix of folks here. it seems to be common ground. There is a problem,peak oil. peace loving or piece loving we all seem to be here
and as I've said to my friends around these parts. If you realize the wars in the middle east are about oil and can stand behind them I have much more respect for you than someone who thinks this is about freedom democracy or christianity
sorry I've been playing music with friends for about five hrs. that means about 4.5 hours of drinking beer and
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Consume More on July 25, 2006 - 7:57am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"Turdblossoms."  Very creative.  Once again, the collective minds of this forum cower in the shadow of your towering intellect.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mikeB on July 25, 2006 - 12:23pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"Turdblossom," as I understand it, is Bush's pet name for Karl Rove.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DIYer on July 24, 2006 - 11:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I can create a question mark like this? But I didn't invent it.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Vintermann on July 25, 2006 - 6:07am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Snopes does not give a fair presentation to Vint Cerf's defense. He didn't just say Gore did a lot to keep up to date on technology, he said he was fully justified in making the statements he made.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

88 comments on Two quick political notes...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.