Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Mired in Gore
Christopher Hitchens at Slate looks into Al Gore's future: Next month the Nobel Peace Prize, next year the presidency!
Hitchens famous 2001 interview with reason.
|9.25.07 @ 9:29PM|#
Al Gore is quite possibly the only big name Democrat who could hand the Presidency to McRomliompson.
SIV|9.25.07 @ 9:33PM|#
Given the right circumstances they all could lose to a Republican.Al Gore would make it a lead-pipe cinch.
|9.25.07 @ 9:35PM|#
How can anyone take seriously speculation about the American
political scene from someone who writes things like:
George Bush at his worst is preferable to Gerhard Schröder or
Jacques Chirac-politicians who put their own countries in pawn to
Putin and the Chinese and the Saudis. Beyond the obvious
question "Whose blood do Schroder of Chirac have on their hands?"
there's the little matter of "put their own countries in pawn to
Putin (see into his soul), China (seen the debt lately?) and the
Saudis (no comment)" being a completely accurate description of
George Bush himself.
Or She has succeeded in getting people to call her
"Hillary."
Everybody in American, including her most passionate detractors,
have been calling her "Hillary" for the past decade and a
half.
Quick, let's ask the homeless guy who thinks the first president
was George Jefferson what he thinks about Al Gore.
Ashish George|9.25.07 @ 9:37PM|#
Hitchens writes: "George Bush at his worst is preferable to
Gerhard Schröder or Jacques Chirac-politicians who put their own
countries in pawn to Putin and the Chinese and the Saudis."
Really? A president who led his country into the worst foreign
policy disaster since the Vietnam War is preferable to two leaders
who kept their countries out of that mess with the full support of
firm majorities of their populations?
There's a lot more that's wrong with Hitchens' piece, but perhaps
nothing quite so unsettling as the fact that people continue to
take him seriously.
Ashish George|9.25.07 @ 9:42PM|#
"Given the right circumstances they all could lose to a
Republican.Al Gore would make it a lead-pipe cinch."
If by the right circumstances you mean that Iraq quickly becomes a
successful democracy and the batteries die in the cloaking devices
hiding Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, then yes,
Clinton or Obama might lose to Romney or Giuliani.
SIV|9.25.07 @ 9:50PM|#
Ashish,
Who expects any significant change in our Iraq policy if Clinton or
Obama is elected? Bush won't be the GOP nominee.
The link to the Hitchen's piece has a link to a story about the
animal rightists trying to ban horse-drawn carriages in NYC. I
can't believe the inhumanity of it all...horses forced to pull
wheeled carts!Next thing you know people will be forcing them to
fight!
K.|9.25.07 @ 9:57PM|#
Off-Topic:
With Brian give a response to this:
http://www.mises.org/story/2720
Ashish George|9.25.07 @ 10:12PM|#
The candidates (and pundits on the war):
http://www.slate.com/features/iraqposition/
As you can see, the results can be neatly summed up: Republican
frontrunners delusional, Democratic frontrunners better, Ron Paul
best.
iih|9.25.07 @ 10:27PM|#
I like Hitchens better when he writes about
religion.
I like Hitchens better when he writes about nothing. I think he's
an opportunist. Whatever the fad is, he's on the band wagon. Just
compare his reason article (where Islam/Muslims) are not mentioned
anywhere, and, now, not one Hitchens article will be written
without mentioning these three key words. Not because he is an
atheist, I really dislike that guy. He is an authoritarian
atheist.
|9.25.07 @ 10:30PM|#
I like Hitchens better when he writes about
religion.
K. , I agree. BTW, I thought you were great in The
Castle.
iih|9.25.07 @ 10:35PM|#
corrections: "two key words" instead of "three key words".
And he defends the Iraq war for God's (pun intended) sake.
|9.25.07 @ 10:35PM|#
George Bush at his worst is preferable to Gerhard Schröder
or Jacques Chirac-politicians who put their own countries in pawn
to Putin and the Chinese and the Saudis.
Two out of three ain't bad.
|9.25.07 @ 10:46PM|#
"animal rightists trying to ban horse-drawn carriages in
NYC"
I hate those things. Should they be banned? I guess. I dont care
what people do, but, IMO, the horses look unhappy.
The Libertarian Guy|9.25.07 @ 11:27PM|#
Gore might as well run in 2008... what's one more authoritarian, finger-wagging patrician when both parties already HAVE authoritarian, finger-wagging patricians in the hunt?
|9.25.07 @ 11:45PM|#
Al Gore wouldn't be the worst things to happen. Sure, he has a
few leftie causes, but he's basically a southern conservative
democrat (albeit with a few causes). The point is: I'll take him
over Barak and John. And I might take him over Hillary, but I
haven't heard enough about how he plans on extricating us from a
certain mudslide in the middle east.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to have a beer with Al Gore to
save my life. But with the current field on the Democratic and GOP
sides, I can't say I wouldn't give him an honest shake. Yeah, I
know his downsides, don't lecture me. Who doesn't have a repugnant
downside these days?
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|9.25.07 @ 11:54PM|#
joe wrote: "Christopher Hitchens is
objectively-pro-___________."
-fessional wrestling?
P|9.26.07 @ 12:17AM|#
Gore is living the nerd's dream.
Get beaten by good-natured jock in popularity poll. Then bring
worldwide attention to some arcane scientific phenomenon using the
dazzling medium of Powerpoint. Get filthy rich, win Oscar, and most
likely Nobel Prize. Rock stars and celebrities flock to him.
When everyone is sorry for electing the jock and many just want the
nerd back: he can simply reject them, saying he is no longer that
interested in being president.
All he needs to do is lose weight and maybe learn some dance moves
to really rub it in at the reunion.
12345678910|9.26.07 @ 12:19AM|#
Christopher Hitchens is objectively-pro-___________.
temperance, peace and spirituality
....now subjectively.......
|9.26.07 @ 12:38AM|#
Seconded off-topicry:
I'm with K. in that I would also like to see a response to the
mises.org critique of
Radicals for Capitalism.
(I, for one, think "You Get Involved in It and You're Like in the
X-Files of Academics" is a pretty apt title for a section on the
Austrians...)
thoreau|9.26.07 @ 1:35AM|#
But Gore was right too soon on global warming! And Chirac and
Schroeder were right too soon on Iraq!
You have to be wrong until it's no longer possible to keep up the
pretense, or even longer. Otherwise you aren't a serious
person.
|9.26.07 @ 4:11AM|#
Gore is getting the Nobel Peace Prize? What...did he end or prevent a war, or something?
Guy Montag|9.26.07 @ 6:59AM|#
Gore is getting the Nobel Peace Prize? What...did he end or
prevent a war, or something?
He was involved at the highest levels in bombing and invading other
countries during the brief moments it is acceptable, by the
mainstream Left, to do so, i.e., when their candidate is in
office.
He is trying to destroy the free market and the entire industrial
revolution, which scores big with the hard Left.
Seems like he has the Arafat/Carter prize all locked up.
robc|9.26.07 @ 7:54AM|#
Is there any bigger proof that neoconservatism is a left wing position than the fact that Hitchens is one?
|9.26.07 @ 8:59AM|#
My enemy's enemy is my friend. If Al Gore can defeat the witch, more power to him.
|9.26.07 @ 9:23AM|#
In a new Democrat sponsored poll, it has been found that Hillary is running an average of 10 points behind 30 marginal Congressional districts that are currently in Democrats' hands. Obama is running an average of 1 point behind Giuliani in these same districts. I believe it is time for Democrats to start looking for somebody else besides Hillary like Obama, Edwards, or Gore. If the Democrats run Hillary, they will lose the Presidency for the third time in a row and lose Congressional seats as well.
|9.26.07 @ 9:27AM|#
"But Gore was right too soon on global warming!"
He may have been right about man's contribution to global warming,
but his position is too exaggerted and sensational.
|9.26.07 @ 9:36AM|#
I found Hitchen's claim that Al Gore secretly dispises Bill Clinton interesting. Has anybody ever heard that one before, or know what it's all about?
VM|9.26.07 @ 9:39AM|#
there was some story about the 2000 campaign where they were
yelling at each other, but AG only has AG to blame for that
year...
(c'mon - he couldn't fucking beat shrub!!! although, to be fair,
shrub promised a foreign policy that was humble, wasn't gonna go on
elaborate nation building exercises, etc)
|9.26.07 @ 9:47AM|#
Shrub was a good campaigner, and Rove/Hughes ran a very effective campaign. He was no pushover in 2000.
|9.26.07 @ 9:55AM|#
"I found Hitchen's claim that Al Gore secretly dispises Bill
Clinton interesting. Has anybody ever heard that one before, or
know what it's all about?"
The only thing I've ever read along those lines is that Al Gore
blames Clinton's sleezy lifestyle for his loss.
robc|9.26.07 @ 10:33AM|#
The only thing I've ever read along those lines is that Al
Gore blames Clinton's sleezy lifestyle for his loss.
From what I remember (I have killed a lot of brain cells in the
last 7 years) Gore ran away from Clinton because of his sleazy
lifestyle and that (in part - but it doesnt take much in an
election that close) got him beat. If he had run on the
Clinton/Gore record, instead of separating himself from it, he
would have won. In theory.
|9.26.07 @ 10:42AM|#
I hear that theory a lot - that a vice president gets the sort
of incumbent benefit that a president seeking re-election enjoys.
But is it true?
Clinton's VP lost in 2000.*
Reagan's VP won in 1988.
Johnson's lost in 1968.
Ike's lost in 1960.
I don't think the incumbency advantage really translates.
*You know damn well why there's an asterisk there.
K.|9.26.07 @ 10:54AM|#
If Gore becomes president, we'll still be getting the first
female president.
Not really. The first geek president. That's probably where the
confusion comes from, geeks are not very macho men..
SIV|9.26.07 @ 10:56AM|#
*You know damn well why there's an asterisk there
For an especially humiliating loss that included not winning his
"home state" followed by a pathetic attempt to subvert election law
and steal a win.
|9.26.07 @ 11:05AM|#
"Horses forced to pull wheeled carts!Next thing you know people
will be forcing them to fight!", or worse, forced to race one
another.
At this point I can only hope for someone that doesn't actually
believe in anything. Al believes in way too much for my liking. I'm
trying to hard to be passionately disinterested in 2008. Al Gore an
only make that easier.
|9.26.07 @ 11:11AM|#
Funny stuff, SIV.
You know, if your boy hadn't blundered into Iraq, he probably would
have been able to shed that "Illegitimate President" thing once and
for all after 9/11. Good one, Mr. Resident!
Water under the bridge.
VM|9.26.07 @ 11:26AM|#
"*You know damn well why there's an asterisk there."
steroids and bad media relations?
[ducks]
|9.26.07 @ 11:29AM|#
K., Geek would imply he knows something about science and engineering. A flunked out theologin and barely attorney doesn't qualify as a geek in my book.
|9.26.07 @ 11:54AM|#
K., Geek would imply he knows something about science and engineering. A flunked out theologin and barely attorney doesn't qualify as a geek in my book.
I believe you are thinking of nerds. K. is probably correct in
using geek.
Guy Montag|9.26.07 @ 11:58AM|#
K., Geek would imply he knows something about science and
engineering. A flunked out theologin and barely attorney doesn't
qualify as a geek in my book.
Not sure what you meant by "barely" in the last part, but I thought
he flunked out of Georgetown Law also.
For those who do not know (and for those who will pretend not to
already know), Gore flunked out of the Vanderbilt Divinity School*
before flunking out of law school. Very important when you are
labeled the Left's "smartest man on earth."
*AKA, Vanderbilt School of Beauty
K.|9.26.07 @ 12:18PM|#
K., Geek would imply he knows something about science and
engineering. A flunked out theologin and barely attorney doesn't
qualify as a geek in my book.
There are many kinds of geeks.
And please don't make the classic mistake of looking at someone's
degrees and assuming that's all he knows. School isn't everything.
Heck, school is very overrated in my book; almost nothing I know I
learned in school, and I certainly consider myself a geek.
K.|9.26.07 @ 12:19PM|#
I probably made a mistake saying Gore would be the first geek president, though. Adjusted for the historical context, Jefferson was very certainly a geek.
|9.26.07 @ 12:30PM|#
I found Hitchen's claim that Al Gore secretly dispises Bill
Clinton interesting. Has anybody ever heard that one before, or
know what it's all about?
I've read a few rumors to that effect over the years, and not all
to do with Gore's aversion to the Clintonian bimbo eruptions,
either. Really, the two men could hardly be more different. Gore
was considered a rising star in the late '80s and early '90s, and
he is one of the many Democrats who made a big mistake by not
running for prez in '92.
That said, I refuse to get drawn into trying to figure out which of
the various statist Democrats and Republicans would be the "least
worst." Apart from Ron Paul, they all suck.
|9.26.07 @ 12:36PM|#
I like Hitchens better when he writes about
religion.
When he writes about foreign policy, he largely is writing about
religion, since that seems to be his basis for blindly following
the Decider off the cliff.
Hell, in his less sober moments, he would probably support
depopulating the Middle East, Israel, most of the Mid-West, parts
of the South, and some West-coast cities if it meant the end of
religion.
And then the world could get into a massive war over what to call
the Atheist leagues that sprang up afterwards.
Beware the talking otters.
|9.26.07 @ 1:18PM|#
Someone mentioned above "He's not a man I'd want to have a beer
with, but I'd prefer him to X, Y, and Z".
Which prompts me to add this: The entire "Is he a guy you'd like to
have a beer with" concept it wholy unsuited to the
Presidency.
I don't WANT the President to be someone I want to have a beer
with. In fact, I'd probably vote the opposite way -- anyone I'd
like to have a beer with would make a shitty President.
|9.26.07 @ 1:45PM|#
Meh. Personally, I think all political offices should be filled
via a Jury Duty system.
Or a reality show.
Our leaders are already tragic jokes. This would just
institutionalize the process.
|9.26.07 @ 2:19PM|#
"*You know damn well why there's an asterisk there."
Nixon also deserves an asterisk for 1960. Some people have said he
would have won the election if it hadn't been for vote fraud in
Cook County, IL and Duval County, TX.
|9.26.07 @ 2:52PM|#
"For an especially humiliating loss that included not
winning his "home state" followed by a pathetic attempt to subvert
election law and steal a win."
I thought it was the "got more votes than the other guy" thing.
Surely we can admit that winning the popular vote but losing the
election is a rare occurrence (I don't care about what people
said about fraud in 1960, I do care about objective
indicators like winning the popular vote). Given the disaster of
the last 7 years, I'd have to say:
American people: 1
Electoral College: 0
|9.26.07 @ 3:28PM|#
"Given the disaster of the last 7 years, I'd have to say:"
"American people: 1
Electoral College: 0"
That's not to say we wouldn't have had disasters maybe of a
different type if Gore had won. Who knows?
Guy Montag|9.26.07 @ 7:14PM|#
Nixon also deserves an asterisk for 1960. Some people have said he
would have won the election if it hadn't been for vote fraud in
Cook County, IL and Duval County, TX.
Don't forget about the President of the Senate tossing out the
Hawaii slate of ballots that was for Nixon and accepting the slate
for Kennedy.
|9.27.07 @ 11:26AM|#
For those asking about the Salerno piece, I do strictly Rads
related blogging of little conceivable wider interest at:
radicalsforcapitalism.com
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245