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.
Mired in Gore
Comments to "Mired in Gore":
Al Gore is quite possibly the only big name Democrat who could hand the Presidency to McRomliompson.
SIV | September 25, 2007, 9:33pm | #
Given the right circumstances they all could lose to a Republican.Al Gore would make it a lead-pipe cinch.joe | September 25, 2007, 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 | September 25, 2007, 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 | September 25, 2007, 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.
joe | September 25, 2007, 9:45pm | #
Threadjack!Christopher Hitchens is objectively-pro-___________.
Go!
SIV | September 25, 2007, 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. | September 25, 2007, 9:53pm | #
I like Hitchens better when he writes about religion..K. | September 25, 2007, 9:57pm | #
Off-Topic:With Brian give a response to this:
http://www.mises.org/story/2720
Ashish George | September 25, 2007, 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 | September 25, 2007, 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.
BakedPenguin | September 25, 2007, 10:30pm | #
I like Hitchens better when he writes about religion.K. , I agree. BTW, I thought you were great in The Castle.
iih | September 25, 2007, 10:35pm | #
corrections: "two key words" instead of "three key words".And he defends the Iraq war for God's (pun intended) sake.
Happy Jack | September 25, 2007, 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.
Tommy_Grand | September 25, 2007, 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.
Warty | September 25, 2007, 11:17pm | #
Christopher Hitchens is objectively-pro-___________.Hitchens?
Jack | September 25, 2007, 11:20pm | #
joe wrote: "Christopher Hitchens is objectively-pro-___________."Scotch?
The Libertarian Guy | September 25, 2007, 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?NP | September 25, 2007, 11:30pm | #
BakedPenguin,That was the lamest allusion I've seen in a while.
Lamar | September 25, 2007, 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 Lose His Job | September 25, 2007, 11:54pm | #
joe wrote: "Christopher Hitchens is objectively-pro-___________."-fessional wrestling?
P | September 26, 2007, 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 | September 26, 2007, 12:19am | #
Christopher Hitchens is objectively-pro-___________.temperance, peace and spirituality
....now subjectively.......
nathan | September 26, 2007, 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 | September 26, 2007, 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.
Hitchens lets his pathological hatred of the Clintons overwhelm him.
smartass sob | September 26, 2007, 4:11am | #
Gore is getting the Nobel Peace Prize? What...did he end or prevent a war, or something?BakedPenguin | September 26, 2007, 6:09am | #
That was the lamest allusion I've seen in a while.Thanks. I do my best.
Guy Montag | September 26, 2007, 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 | September 26, 2007, 7:54am | #
Is there any bigger proof that neoconservatism is a left wing position than the fact that Hitchens is one?Finkelstein | September 26, 2007, 8:09am | #
ABG. Anyone but Gore.Rattlesnake Jake | September 26, 2007, 8:59am | #
My enemy's enemy is my friend. If Al Gore can defeat the witch, more power to him.Rattlesnake Jake | September 26, 2007, 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.Rattlesnake Jake | September 26, 2007, 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.
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 | September 26, 2007, 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)
Shrub was a good campaigner, and Rove/Hughes ran a very effective campaign. He was no pushover in 2000.
Rattlesnake Jake | September 26, 2007, 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.
If Gore becomes president, we'll still be getting the first female president.
robc | September 26, 2007, 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.
joe | September 26, 2007, 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. | September 26, 2007, 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 | September 26, 2007, 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.
Tim | September 26, 2007, 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.
joe | September 26, 2007, 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 | September 26, 2007, 11:26am | #
"*You know damn well why there's an asterisk there."steroids and bad media relations?
[ducks]
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.
AC | September 26, 2007, 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 | September 26, 2007, 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. | September 26, 2007, 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. | September 26, 2007, 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.ChrisO | September 26, 2007, 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.
CFisher | September 26, 2007, 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.
Morat20 | September 26, 2007, 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.
CFisher | September 26, 2007, 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.
Rattlesnake Jake | September 26, 2007, 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.
Lamar | September 26, 2007, 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
Rattlesnake Jake | September 26, 2007, 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 | September 26, 2007, 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.
Brian Doherty | September 27, 2007, 11:26am | #
For those asking about the Salerno piece, I do strictly Rads related blogging of little conceivable wider interest at:radicalsforcapitalism.com