Al Gore Draft Petition

Christina Bellantoni reports that an online Draft Al Gore for President petition has over 100,000 signatures, including plenty of Republicans and Independents.

I bet it does. Indeed, an Al Gore candidacy may be just what the Republicans need to keep the White House in 2008.

It’s true that Gore won the plurality of the popular vote in 2000 and lost in the Electoral College by the slimmest of margins owing to a string of highly debatable circumstances in Florida. But that was Democratic Leadership Council, New Democrat Gore, running on the strength of popular affection for Bill Clinton and a strong economy. Somehow, I don’t see Ranting, Raving Gore doing quite so well, the baggage of the Bush administration notwithstanding.

FILED UNDER: General, , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Security Studies professor at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Tano says:

    So, in the Joyner dictionary I guess making a strong argument for a policy that James disagrees with is “ranting and raving”.

    Funny, but I always associated those terms with name-calling, over-the-top mischaracterizations of opponents, mocking, ridicule – y’know the staple stuff of RW radio, Regnery books, and a host of RW blogs, as well as that guy at the end of the bar staring into his beer.

    Once again, you may disagree with Gore’s ideas, but I dont think you can deny that he is making a forceful positive case for a particular policy, using rational arguments, and trying to persuade in a totally reasonable manner.

    I think you are being hugely unfair here, and perhaps, whistling past the graveyard.

  2. floyd says:

    “”running on the strength of popular affection for Bill Clinton””

    ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

    The fact that this statement is true shows how divided America has become! It is proof that we are all sitting nervously on a political powder-keg! Anybody got a light?[lol]

  3. Steve Plunk says:

    I don’t think Gore is to the point of being characterized as ranting and raving. However, I do think his global warming schtick will melt under close scrutiny. A good reason this nonsense continues is the lack of critical thinking being applied to it. If Gore becomes a candidate you can expect a closer look into all aspects of the science and politics behind it.

    Movie stars and rock stars may jump on this bandwagon given all the idle time they possess but common working people don’t want a rich guy telling them what to give up while he jets around and keeps livin’ large.

    Gore and Edwards are both facing that kind of stereotype.

  4. Grewgills says:

    However, I do think his global warming schtick will melt under close scrutiny. A good reason this nonsense continues is the lack of critical thinking being applied to it. If Gore becomes a candidate you can expect a closer look into all aspects of the science and politics behind it.

    The science has already weathered serious scrutiny.
    I once again lay down this challenge to anyone who thinks that global climate change is not happening, that its consequences are not problematic, and/or it is not anthropogenically caused: produce post 2000 articles from any reputable peer reviewed scientific journal that support your position and I will produce 10 that refute it for every one of yours.

    I have posted three in the other Gore thread, but that comment is being reviewed by the site admin. Is this sop for any comment with links?

  5. jpe says:

    So, in the Joyner dictionary I guess making a strong argument for a policy that James disagrees with is “ranting and raving”.

    At a minimum, Gore has been tarred with that brush, and it’s a stain that won’t come off. The upshot is that, whether deserved or not, Gore would indeed be the best thing to happen to the GOP.

    Gore is like Cheney: great as an attack dog, poison as anything else.

  6. yetanotherjohn says:

    Grewgills,

    Your challenge would be a bit like asking for any canonical writings that dispute the earth centric view during the Galileo trials. Uniformity does not ensure accuracy.

    How much grant money is flowing to those who agree with your position vs those who don’t? Is it surprising that the peer review herd is following the money?

    If you really think all of the facts presented in “an inconvenient truth” could stand up to serious scrutiny, I don’t think you have studied those facts with a critical mind.

    I suspect that within 10 years that at least one, if not all three of the positions you stated will have the credibility of the positions taken by the disarmament crowd in the 80’s. Remember then when the mantra was Reagan was pushing the world towards a nuclear war by stationing nuclear cruise missiles in Europe? Didn’t quite work out like predicted did it?

  7. Joseph says:

    I would vote for Al Gore under one condition – He needs to “man up” and publicly debate the global warming deniers. Until then, I say he’s ‘all hat and no horse’.

  8. By late 2000, I think Gore had already come unmoored from his past “DLC centrist” position; he clearly ran to the left of Clinton and lost states Clinton had carried comfortably (not to mention his home state of Tennessee).

    Besides I think Gore is doing well for himself as the respectable (if less enthralling) alternative to Michael Moore; why bother being in the White House if you’ve got rock stars kissing your ass and thinking you’re some sort of guru already?

  9. All the articles lined up in support of AGW may only prove how politicized science and science publishing has become. Real science isn’t about popularity. Albert Einsein won his Nobel Prize in 1921 “for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.” Relativity was much more important, but it wasn’t popular enough in the scientific community to safely “reward” with a Nobel Prize at that point.

    Key elements of any new theory are to match the available data, be reproduceable (where practical), and to be able to accurately predict behavior that is otherwise unexplained or unexpected. The climate change models have failed spectacularly at these tests thus far.

    Maybe AGW is real, certainly GW is real. But the scare mongering is over the top and the solutions all look suspiciously like political power grabs.

  10. Len says:

    Given the current mood of the country (have you seen the latest Harris Interactive survey?), I kind of think the new “ranting and raving” Al Gore would do quite well. America seems to be in a ranting and raving mood right now.

  11. Grewgills says:

    I notice all of you who deny the likleyhood of anthropogenically induced climate change have yet to produce any credible evidence. The scientific literature is out there to be scrutinized by anyone. It has thus far stood up to that scrutiny.

    When it comes to the immediate health and well being of you and yours most of you likely weigh all the legitimate evidence available to you and consult with experts and take their analysis seriously. Why not here as well?

    Re: Einstein’s Nobel
    You diminish the importance of his work on the photoelectric effect. It effectively birthed quantum physics and was certainly worthy of Nobel recognition.
    Your argument that this should somehow lead us to doubt the motives or judgment of scientists involved in the peer review process is without validity.

    Key elements of any new theory are to match the available data, be reproduceable (where practical), and to be able to accurately predict behavior that is otherwise unexplained or unexpected. The climate change models have failed spectacularly at these tests thus far.

    Where do you come by this? The climate modeling papers I have seen all match available data, are reproducible, and predictive. Have you read any of these papers?

    Maybe AGW is real, certainly GW is real. But the scare mongering is over the top and the solutions all look suspiciously like political power grabs.

    Who is grabbing for power and what power are they grabbing for? What power is gained by increasing CAFE standards or moving to more renewable energy? The much more obvious political motivation is that of the oil industry in opposition in order to maximize profits and of the auto industry to avoid research and retooling.

    Re: scaremongering
    The modelers I know are all seriously concerned about the effects of climate change.

  12. Dan says:

    Giuliani is inevitable, you silly bastards. And thank god.

  13. spencer says:

    If you want to see “ranting and raving” I suggest you watch one of Bush’s press conferences.

  14. G.A.Phillips says:

    If you believe in global warming or in Al gore,your in luck, I’m printing up some carbon offsets on my computer right now that I would be more then happy to sell you so that we can save the planet.

    Please contact me at; http://www.youareliberalyretarted.sucker
    Hurry get your order in, we don’t have much time left and I’m running out of ink.