If Gore Were to Run, Could We Trust Him?

The Nobel Peace Prize going to Al Gore has set off a new spasm of talk about the possibility that Gore might yet save us and run for president. Even hardcore progressive activists are hoping he joins the race.

In an AlterNet readers' poll last year (in which Noam Chomsky won the MVP for "Most Valuable Progressive"), Gore was far and away the preferred Democratic candidate.

But if Gore does jump into the race, a question will nag: Can we trust him?

Don't misunderstand me: I'd love to see Gore run.

Like many progressives, I've grown to appreciate the new Gore. Beginning in 2002 when leading Democrats had lost their voices, a reborn Gore spoke out loudly against Bush policies (and irritated mainstream pundits) through a series of speeches on Iraq, foreign policy, economics and the assault on our precious Constitutional freedoms.

Gore broke with former allies in the party establishment, worked closely with grassroots groups like MoveOn and endorsed the upstart Howard Dean in the primaries. He even spoke haltingly in favor of single-payer national health insurance.

His Inconvenient Truth documentary was not just a box office sensation. Gore turned it into a global organizing drive - earning supportive words from Ralph Nader. The movie showed Gore to be a serious and passionate advocate, whose plan of action begins from an understanding of facts and consequences. In other words, the opposite of the current White House resident.

If this new Gore were to run for president, I'd do everything I could to help him vanquish the Republicans.

But doubts still persist. Because I remember the old Gore.

I remember a politician whose words on the environment were not matched by later actions, a politician whose foreign policy views were often militarist and whose economic views were often corporatist.

I remember Vice President Gore -- despite having written the environmental manifesto "Earth in the Balance," which highlighted the impact of auto emissions -- as the Clinton administration's leader in a "partnership" with Detroit auto makers that failed to increase fuel efficiency standards one inch in eight years.

I remember a vice president who was the administration's go-to-guy in promoting corporate-oriented trade deals like NAFTA, with their obvious negative impacts on the global environment and on workers' rights. (Asked about NAFTA last year by Larry King, Gore's position seemed to have changed little.)

I remember a vice president who played a lead role in pushing through the Telecommunications "Reform" Act of 1996 that predictably led to the worst media conglomeration in our nation's history, and helped fortify the media empires of folks like Murdoch, Clear Channel and Sinclair.

And I remember a presidential candidate in 2000 emptied of progressive principles by Beltway consultants so afraid of the American people and democracy that they believe a Democrat must win largely through stealth. A candidate who chose as his campaign chair William Daley, the NAFTA campaign czar despised by labor unions. And as his running-mate Joe Lieberman, who aided Bush's side in the Florida fight.

In An Inconvenient Truth, Gore relishes a biting quote from the fearless progressive advocate, Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding." The Sinclair comment is pungently anti-corporate, anti-careerist. When I watched the movie, I felt I was seeing the new Gore critiquing the old Gore.

So the question remains: If Gore were to run for president again, which Gore would we get? And if he makes it to the White House (or gets close), could we be sure that the new Gore won't revert into the old?

In 2002, Gore parted with some old Beltway buddies. Today, the Netroots and online fundraising may be strong enough to allow the new Gore to flourish and win the White House without the backing of old-line media, timid consultants and corporate funders.

If Gore were to choose a grassroots/netroots path over the Beltway bandit approach, it could be an inspiring campaign that would infuriate the same pundit elite that went apoplectic over Dean's primary campaign.

Here's an inconvenient truth: Progressives are running out of options for 2008. A high priority for some is stopping Hillary Clinton -- the preferred candidate of many in the media, and the recipient of a recent campaign donation from Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch.

Many progressives have a message for Al: Please get into the presidential race. . .but free of the old corporatist baggage.

Comments

[Abo]

Do you remember the old Kucinich:

"One thing you won't find on Kucinich's website, though, is any mention of his opposition to abortion rights. In his two terms in Congress, he has quietly amassed an anti-choice voting record of Henry Hyde-like proportions. He supported Bush's reinstatement of the gag rule for recipients of US family planning funds abroad. He supported the Child Custody Protection Act, which prohibits anyone but a parent from taking a teenage girl across state lines for an abortion. He voted for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it a crime, distinct from assault on a pregnant woman, to cause the injury or death of a fetus. He voted against funding research on RU-486. He voted for a ban on dilation and extraction (so-called partial-birth) abortions without a maternal health exception. He even voted against contraception coverage in health insurance plans for federal workers--a huge work force of some 2.6 million people (and yes, for many of them, Viagra is covered). Where reasonable constitutional objections could be raised--the lack of a health exception in partial-birth bans clearly violates Roe v. Wade, as the Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart--Kucinich did not raise them; where competing principles could be invoked--freedom of speech for foreign health organizations--he did not bring them up. He was a co-sponsor of the House bill outlawing all forms of human cloning, even for research purposes, and he opposes embryonic stem cell research. His anti-choice dedication has earned him a 95 percent position rating from the National Right to Life Committee, versus 10 percent from Planned Parenthood and 0 percent from NARAL.



http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020527/pollitt

Can he be trusted?

I believe so and I believe Gore can be trusted while the Clintons don't even hide the fact that it will be the same-old, same-old that won't work anymore.

[Lisette]

Thank God Al Gore is not and will not run!

He is such a nowhere politican--what has he done?

His facts are so wrong on global warming, that I doubt the Nobel Prize committe's ability.

[madcindy]

I worked for Clinton/Gore on both campaigns and supported Al Gore in 2000.I did so because I read long ago that Gore's interest in the environment began in his college years.
And I gave Gore credit for the decrease in smog in Denver in the 90's and of course for the Kyoto treaty.
I do agree with your concerns about Liberman.
But I would support Al Gore in a New York minute if he decides to run. I think he is going to do it on his own terms and when he said a year ago that a 600 day campaign was insane it just made me think he will do the right thing and run when he is ready.
He was in Albuquerque on Oct 3rd and I was able to attend his presentation of "An Inconvenient Truth".He was alone on the stage and spoke with conviction about Global Warming and challenged all present to speak out about our concern for the natural world.He spoke like the leader of the free world should.
I encourage you all to go to draftgore.com and join the movement.

[avergejoe]

He chose lie_berman - nuff said!

[INQUIRER]

If Gore runs for President, I will go back to believing in God.

[nippersdad]

Wow!

It is almost like you read my mind!

[Average]

Yeah, did you see him LYING in Saudia Arabia? The Republican's don't even need Karl Rove to put that one on TV.

Didn't trust him when he ran for Prez before, haven't seen anything to change my mind except to trust him LESS.

[Scarabus]

Yeah. Typical. Progressives are always willing to criticize other progressives. If Gore does run (and for his sake I hope he doesen't, though like multitudes of others I'd prefer him to any other current candidate), he will be savaged and your comments will be quoted by the likes of Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Hannity

But the larger issue.... Candidates driven by polls and consultants abandon honor and character. They cease to be their own authentic selves. Gore did that and lost. Kerry did that and lost. Kerry has yet to redeem himself, but Gore has done so in spades.

The knee-jerk accusation is that a candidate whose judgment and maturity have grown, and who acknowledges that, has "flip-flopped." The phrase has nice resonance. But the reality is total el toro caca. Would we prefer that persons in positions of public trust retain the judgment of a 12-year-old?

A person of honor, character, and intelligence is willing to learn, admit error, and take a new direction. The shame of our media and our public discourse is that such honest growth is dismissed as "flip-flopping."

Is it fair to ask whether candidate Gore would keep the cojones of citizen Gore? Sure. Track record matters. But I say that looking at Gore's *entire* track record inspires confidence.

Current frontrunners (according to the media, anyhow--caveat emptor!) are Clinton, total windvane; and Giulliani, total sleaze and deceit. I'll vote for any of the Democratic contenders over any of the Republican contenders, Edwards and Kucinich and Richardson being my first choices. But I'd be more enthusiastic about Gore than about any declared candidate of either party.

For our world's sake, I would like to see Gore in the Oval Office. For his sake, I would prefer he continue doing the good work to which he has committed himself. Want to know why? Re-read the post to which I'm responding. If we savage our own--a frigging Nobel Prize winner!--imagine what the wingnuts (and their complacent aiders and abettors in the MSM) would do!

[Rianna]

dadw5boys (See profile | I'm a fan of dadw5boys)
EVER WORNDER WHY THE PEOPLE STANDING OUTSIDE OF THE VICE PRESIDENTS HOUSE SHOUTING "GET OUT OF CHENY'S HOUSE" WERE NEVER ARRESTED?

Think those people are happy now?

I have a strong feeling that they were operatives organized by Rasputin Rove, or someone close to Darth Cheney himself. Remember there were another group of thugs who stormed into the office's where the votes were being counted in Florida, and stopped the counting. These thugs were later given good jobs in the WH. So we now know that this was organized by the rogue regime too. I don't think SOB's like these really care about the state of our nation, or the mess the Bush regime has put us into. They are selfish, rotten partisan thugs.

[Republicnotademocracy]

Hope Gore takes on the onerous challenge.

Drunk, but really do.

[Sundialsvc4]

Since Mr. Gore has expressed no interest whatever in running for President, let us assume that he will not do so. And so, let us preserve our speculations.

Let us not imagine also that even a man who has won the Nobel Peace Prize is running for the office of "savior of the world." More-or-less I think that's what people are looking for.

And let it also be said that, if this world is to be saved, it cannot wait 'til 2008 anyhow.

[KnoxBlues1]

It's too late. The whole government is now of, for, and by the corporate oligarchy, and they own the MSM, too. There's no way that one man, not even the super "New" Al, can overcome that.
Get ready for war with Iran, and when the USA finally gets toppled from this stupid game of "King of the Hill" we've been playing as the Lone Superpower, there will be no mercy. And we will deserve none.

[Possum]

Gee, with "support" like this, why on earth would he hesitate about getting into the race? /sarcasm
You're blaming him for doing his job in the Clinton admin - - implementing Bill Clinton's policies. (And since GM, Ford and Chrysler did all come up with working concept vehicles that got between 72-80 mpg under PNGV, is it really Gore's fault that Detroit decided to build SUVs instead of Priuses?) While you're huffing and puffing about whether Gore can be trusted, Hillary Clinton is waltzing away with the nomination. Have fun trying to get her to give two hoots about your agenda - - we already know she can't be trusted to fight for progressive values.

[gsuescum]

While I hope it would be the new Gore, I would prefer either Gore over any of the candidates we have now.

Also remember that Gore was acting for Clinton in all the cases you mentioned above.

[dadw5boys]

EVER WORNDER WHY THE PEOPLE STANDING OUTSIDE OF THE VICE PRESIDENTS HOUSE SHOUTING "GET OUT OF CHENY'S HOUSE" WERE NEVER ARRESTED?

Think those people are happy now?

[kingcityguru]

Maybe Gore could rent some cows and put them behind himself like he did the first time he declared he was running for President.

The guy is a total fraud pendling a fraud theory as a quasi-religion. He won't run because he is making tens of millions of dollars on his speaking tour and with his crazy carbon offset business he set up with Maurice Strong.

[ChucklingRepublican]

I agree wholeheartedly. Gore is making too much money to want to run for Prez

[gsuescum]

Troll go away

[TheLastPenguin]

Gore for President! Yah!
Put brains back in the Whitehouse!