Al Gore Is Whining Again

Interesting article, madmax.

I'm not eager for Gore to run, but if he keeps up intelligent remarks like this I might be. We basically need someone prominent to point out the obvious.

B-bob said:

I can almost go with you on this. However, I think that it is a mistake to think that even billionaires like Murdoch ae only motivated by money. They like to push their political ideas like everyone who is commenting in this thread for instance. It is not a conspiracy theorist idea to think so.

In addition referring only to their motivation to make more and more money, you must understand that billionaires media moguls like Murdoch make or hold on to their money in many different ways. They don't make money soley by selling media advertising. It is important for Murdoch and other conservative corportate or rich types to push a never ending chant of 1) government regulation of any type, particuarly of media is bad 2) any tax on the wealthy above a low flat tax is bad for not just them but for everyone. 3) inheritance taxes on estates over $4 million is an evil "death tax".4) unions are bad etc.

It doesn't take a conspiracy nut or a very cynical person to believe that they would look after their self interest in the above fashion.

Perhaps Al Gore was thinking of how the Fox employee who was Bush's cousin improperly meddled in the election.

**********

CBS News' Dan Rather boldly told us late on election night, "Sip it, Savor it, cup it, Photostat it, underline it in red, press it in a book, put it in an album, hang it on the wall – George W. Bush is the next president of the United States." The networks anointed a President and no recount of actual votes will ever be able to undo that coronation.


The genesis of this call, and in particular the chronology of the ensuing echoes are telling. The story began on election night at 2:16 AM. Fox News projected George W. Bush as winner of the Florida primary and the Presidential election. In a classic case of pack journalism that college professors will no doubt cite for years to come, ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN all followed Fox's lead during the next four minutes, calling the election for Bush.


The telling part of this story is that the call was made by John Ellis, a freelance political advisor contracted by Fox News to head their election night "decision desk." Ellis is also first cousin to George W. Bush and Florida governor John Ellis "Jeb" Bush.


More than just a cousin in name, Ellis maintains close contact with the Bush brothers. A former colleague of his at The Boston Globe reports how he stays in regular email contact with his cousin Jeb. The Center for Public Inquiry reports that he has been a guest of his cousin George W. at the Texas governor's mansion. During the election, Ellis took to the editorial pages of The Globe, defending George W. against charges of cocaine abuse, writing that he personally knew Bush was not a "cocaine addict" since he has been close with his cousin for a very long time. Hence it was not surprise, recently, when Ellis proclaimed, "I am loyal to my cousin.... I put that loyalty ahead of my loyalty to anyone else."


By calling the election for his cousin when he did, Ellis proved instrumental in turning Bush's loss in the popular vote into an apparently righteous struggle to gain the presidency. With a constitutional crisis looming on the horizon, pundits called for Gore, and not Bush, to be a "patriot" and concede. In a fair count, without shenanigans or election irregularities, the Miami Herald estimated Gore would have won Florida by 23,000 votes. The Bush strategy all along was to prevent a recount and run out the clock – which he succeeded in doing, eventually winning the state and the presidency by a few hundred votes. The strategy only worked because Ellis coronated him the winner.


Weeks later, Ellis' former colleague, Bill Kovach, while defending Ellis' integrity as a journalist, reported that Ellis had been in telephone contact with both Jeb and George W. Bush on election night prior to his making the election call. Even Kovach admitted this was improper.


It's a clear a conflict of interest for a presidential candidate's close and loyal first cousin, the nephew of a former U.S. President, to end up in a position to call the election for the U.S. national media?


The puzzle comes together quickly. Ellis works for Roger Ailes, the director of Fox News. Ailes is the former Republican party media consultant who, according to Time Magazine, engineered Richard Nixon's 1968 political resurrection, scripted Ronald Reagan's 1984 debate comeback and was responsible for rescuing George Bush Senior's floundering presidential campaign in 1988. It was Ailes who coached then candidate Bush Senior's campaign performance, prepared him for debates, coordinated his television advertising, and cooked up the racially divisive Willie Horton campaign, eventually turning a double digit deficit in the polls into an election day upset for George Bush Senior. Ailes also served a stint as producer of the Rush Limbaugh radio show.


He moved over to Fox after being recruited by Rupert Murdoch, the Australian born founder and CEO of News Corporation, the owner of Fox News. Murdoch, whose media empire spans 52 countries with primary investments in Canada, the United States, Britain and Australia, is one of the largest contributors to the Republican party. In 1996 alone, he gave roughly $1 million to Republican party campaigns. In 1995 he attempted to give Republican House speaker Newt Gingrich a $4.5 million "advance" against royalties on a forthcoming Gingrich authored, Murdoch published book, "To Renew America." The House Ethics Committee, however, forced Gingrich to return the money.


The specter of the Ellis, Ailes, Murdoch team bearing responsibility for the miscall that set in motion a Bush team victory script with George W. as heir apparent to the White House, is, in it's own right, quite frightening. It is not, however, out of place, given recent events in Florida.


Let's not forget that Florida, the key state in deciding the presidential contest, is run by George W. Bush's brother, Governor Jeb Bush. The Florida election is held under the supervision of Florida Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, a co-chair of the Bush campaign. It was Harris who used her position to stifle a hand recount and who eventually certified an allegedly incomplete vote count. Add to this the specter of bizarre "butterfly" ballots and imprecise 19th century vote tabulating technology (with older counting machines amassed in minority communities), allegations of police officers harassing Black voters, and the fact that, under Florida law one third of the adult African-American male population is barred from voting because of felony convictions resulting from previous run-ins with the aforementioned police, and what we see is an electoral system more reminiscent of a corrupt third world fiefdom, than a supposed industrial democracy. If such an election transpired in any other country, the world would condemn it.


An earlier article by Dr. Niman concerning the 206,400 African American males disenfranchised from voting in the Florida presidential election is available on-line at mediastudy.com/articles.

« Home « Top Stories
Bush's Cousin and Fox News

 

I think if Gore can continue along these lines he will increase his chances of becoming president or at the very least a man of respect in US political history.

On a a more immediate level it will help him with the problem he has of appearing as a stupid ,wooden figure. To me this is the believable Al Gore. It is easier for nearly everyone to appear more interesting and also more believable when you are speaking honestly about things you care about. If he keeps it up, conservatives will not suport him, but the public will know that he is being honest and sincere. a big plus for any politician.

An example of this was Geroge Bush II. After the election he floundered and looked lost until 911. Routine economic and dometic issues bored him. So did most foreign affairs. Once he could respond to something that was interesting to him, fighting Al Qaeda and then finsihing what he viewed as his father's mistake in failing to remove Sadam Hussein, he suddenly started looking more believable in his speechs on TV, which had not been to kind to him before. Even supporters have commented on the great change in Bush once this happened.

 

I believe that was MadMax.

 

Saw Gore on Leno last night. Seems like he hired a "comedy" writer cause he was funny yet lame. It's like he's trying to change his image from the stiff he came off as 2 years ago. I heard him tell Walters that he has always been funny with his family but he appears different in the public. He's trying to open up now...

 

Al Gore - more whine and cheese.

The Republicans should pay him to be the 2004 Democratic candidate

Dallas Rocket

 

Don't worry --

Gen. Tommy Franks has made it clear that he's a democrat, and he's intrested in running for President. It's recently become clear to me that many of GW's 'men' are scary criminals.

Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfleld were advisors of then newly elected president Gerald Ford who, in spite of the clear evidence brought forth by the watergate scandal, urged Ford not to sign the Freedom of Information Act. Both, of course, were also closely tied with the culture of Nixon's administration.

At every chance, Bush has pushed for both greater autonomy for the executive branch from congress and reduced requirements of disclosure for governement entities under the agis of 'security', even when it may not clearly apply. These were (suprise, suprise) the two main reforms that were brought about from the Watergate scandal.

Now he's made the internationaly wanted violator of human rights, liar, and subverter of the constitution Henry Kissinger in charge of finding and disclosing the truth about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. This is a man, who in the words of Stephen Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists,

If you need more information about Kissinger's nomination, read this.

The bottom line is that Bush is returning the country to the same type of place that, in the 50's and 60's supported secret wars and violations of human rights while hiding it from the public, and the same type of thought that led to the conviction of Ollie North and John Poindexter for selling arms to Iran in order to finance a secret war in central america that was implicitly declared illegal by congress. (Poindexter, btw, is back working for the government for something called 'Total Information Awareness' which is basically the modern realization of george orwell's 1984. Read about it here.

Gore, on the other hand, is a whiner and an idiot. He has no personallity, is stiff, has a way of speech that makes him seem effininate, and he's a classic career politician. These are all surface flaws.

Franks doesn't have these weakensses. He also respects the checks and balances of the constitution, and has enough real-world experience and toughness to support pragmantic and realistic international policy.

Tommy Franks for President.

 

...

Was Franks the guy who fired that million dollar missle into a 10 dollar tent to hit a cammel in the butt? Remember during the Monica stuff when Clinton "attacked" a milk factory an empty tent? This was done supposedly as a retaliation against Osama Bin Laden but most people seemed to think it was a "wag the dog" thing to distract the public away from Bill's personal indescretions.

I never believed (as much as I wanted to) that Clinton sent those missles to distract attention because that would imply that the military would allow this to happen ("Sure, Prez... we'll bomb a tent for you, just say the word!").

If Franks is the guy that authorized that missle strike and he's a Democrat then maybe it was a "wag the dog" thing after all...

 

Was Franks the guy who fired that million dollar missle into a 10 dollar tent to hit a cammel in the butt? Remember during the Monica stuff when Clinton "attacked" a milk factory an empty tent? This was done supposedly as a retaliation against Osama Bin Laden but most people seemed to think it was a "wag the dog" thing to distract the public away from Bill's personal indescretions.

After 9/11 (during the Bush Admin), it came out that the missile strike missed hitting OBL by about 10 minutes or so, if I remember correctly.

 

Anyone else remember hearing this? Can anyone point me to an article that claims this? If this is true, it's the first I've heard of it.

 

chase, I hadn't heard what Major has written... however, the bombing (Sept 98??) was a pretty cut and dry retaliation to the bombings of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

The American media was able to spin it as a wag-the-dog type incident, because that seems juicy; noone really cares about the deaths of a bunch of Africans.

So since we'll probably respond to yesterday's terrorists acts in Kenya, and since Rush, Roxran and MadMax don't know where Kenya is... I think that I can probably convince the three of them that we're only retaliating so that Bush can... gloss over his horrible economic record, yeah that's it. Who cares about Africa? Yeah, yeah... it has to be a coverup of some sort.

 

How can presidents affect the economy? Nominate a Fed Chairman? Wait, it's the same guy since Bush, Sr.

Or how about put more money into the economy...wait..that's what tax cuts and increased spending do... but then Congress really does that...

I really don't see how presidents affect the economy. No one has given me one good example.

Actually blame Europe on the sad shape of Africa...

Certainly the terrorists don't care. In many of thier bombings they kill more Muslams then Americans but for some reason Musloms just don't see that. Strange.

 

Omigosh, I have found the best Al Gore reference on the entire internet, which is saying something, since he invented it ( ).

Go to this site, which is all about warped numerology, and scroll to near the bottom with a great Gore reference:

Gore: the Antichrist?

an excerpt:
"Here is his name in the ASCII code:
al gore = 97 + 108 + 32 + 103 + 111 + 114 + 101 = 666"

Enjoy!

 

You know B-Bob, I've been telling everyone Al Gore is really the Devil for months or years now,...glad you gave reference to this.

 

Since you need help. In general presidents can:

1. Work to increase/cut taxes
2. Have direct relation to market/biz confidence
3. Have a direct relation to consumer confidence - which is more important than market confidence (things such as telling the country for about 5 months that the economy will bust at any minute generally causes consumer confidence to decrease).
4. Work to increase/decreae spending (defecit or other)
5. Can indirectly be the cause of any Fed adjustments (interest rates, dollar circulation, etc.)

Anyway, these are just a few before dinner. I hope they helped you with your question.

 

Anyone else remember hearing this? Can anyone point me to an article that claims this? If this is true, it's the first I've heard of it.

I can't find anything on it online offhand (I read it in a newsmagazine, I think), but here's some stuff from when it happened. It didn't seem relevant then since terrorism wasn't a big issue to us, but it all fits after the fact.

http://www.ishipress.com/attackrd.htm

<font size=1>WASHINGTON -- President Clinton vowed Saturday that the United States would use "all the tools at our disposal" to fight the terrorist network of Osama bin Laden, as the administration outlined efforts to squeeze him financially following the U.S. cruise-missile strikes Thursday in Afghanistan and Sudan.

"Our efforts against terrorism cannot and will not end with this strike," Clinton declared in his weekly radio address.

As he vacationed with his family in Martha's Vineyard, Clinton announced that he had signed an executive order, effective a day earlier, that asks the Treasury Department to block any financial transactions with U.S. companies by bin Laden, two of his lieutenants and what the U.S. says is his principal terrorist organization, the Islamic Army.

Nearly 48 hours after the United States attacked a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan and a training camp in Afghanistan with roughly 75 cruise missiles, the administration also provided more detail on the damage it said was done to bin Laden's network.

A day after cloudy weather partly obscured the extent of the damage in Afghanistan, presidential spokesman Mike McCurry said Saturday that satellite photographs showed the strike hit all six separate sites within the sprawling training camp, located in a remote, mountainous area about 90 miles south of the capital, Kabul.

A full assessment could take more time, but McCurry, sticking to the measured claims of the day after the attack, said the strike had caused "moderate to severe" damage to the site's barracks, ammunition depots and other facilities. <B>Bin Laden has used the camp in the past, but his whereabouts remained unclear on Saturday. </B>

"We have severely damaged the ability of the Osama bin Laden network to operate from these camps," McCurry said, speaking to reporters on Martha's Vineyard.

Bin Laden, a Saudi exile accused of underwriting attacks by terrorist groups around the world, is believed to have an inherited fortune exceeding $200 million invested in a network of argricultural, construction and financial companies that, officials say, helps pay for and conceal terrorist activities.

The president's order, which he signed only hours after the U.S. strikes, places bin Laden and his associates on a list of terrorists monitored by the Treasury Department. The order prohibits all Americans and U.S. companies from having any financial transactions with them, including business and fund-raising. The order also requires banks to freeze any assets found to belong to them.

The effort is not likely to have a significant impact on bin Laden's financial empire because, a senior administration official said, he does not appear to have many assets that would fall under the scope of the law.

"We would not expect this single step to cripple this network any more than we would expect a single military action in Khost, in Afghanistan, to cripple this network," the official said. But the official said the administration hoped the formal legal step would prompt other countries to help freeze bin Laden's assets. In his address, the president called for precisely that.

"It takes money -- lots of it -- to build the network bin Laden has," Clinton said. "We'll do our best to see that he has less of it."

Around the world, the fallout from the bombing continued. The Arab League announced Saturday that it would hold a meeting in Cairo on Monday to coordinate support for Sudan. In Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, another day of protests began on Saturday. President Omar Hassan al-Bashir pledged to retaliate for the destruction of a pharmaceutical factory that, U.S. officials maintained, produced material for chemical weapons.

In Afghanistan, an Italian military officer working for the United Nations died Saturday, a day after he was shot in Kabul, though it was still not clear whether the shooting was related to Thursday's strikes.

Here in Washington, lawmakers rallied around the president.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., expressed strong support for Clinton's efforts. "The president deserves our support for acting swiftly and decisively," <B>McCain said in the Republican Party's weekly radio address. "The military strikes he ordered against targets in Afghanistan and Sudan were appropriate. America's armed forces carried out their mission with skill and professionalism." </B>

The president's senior national security advisers -- Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Secretary of Defense William Cohen -- went to Capitol Hill to build support for the strikes. In a classified briefing on Friday, they also laid out the evidence the administration says links Bin Laden to terrorist attacks, including the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on Aug. 7, which killed 263 people, including 12 Americans.



<B>Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., who had sharply questioned the timing of the strikes given the controversy over Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, emerged from Friday's meeting softening his remarks. "There does appear to be credible evidence to suggest that targeting an Osama bin Laden terrorist training site was necessary," Coats said. </B>

However, he went on to say that Clinton's behavior had made skepticism about motives and timing of the missile strikes inevitable.

"It is the president's private scandal that is leading to the public's skepticism," he said.

In his radio address, Clinton thanked congressional leaders for offering bipartisan support for the attacks. He said the United States had "compelling evidence" that bin Laden's network "was poised to strike at us again -- and soon."

Clinton emphasized that Islam and its adherents were not the threat, trying to draw distinctions between the Islamic world in general and what he called "a callous, criminal organization."

"Hundreds of millions of Muslims all over the world -- including millions right here in the United States -- oppose terrorism and deplore the twisting of their religious teachings into justification of inhumane, indeed, ungodly acts," he said.

Although he vowed to press the fight, Clinton, echoing similar remarks by Albright and other aides, grimly suggested that Thursday's strikes, however effective, were not likely to put an end to bin Laden's self-proclaimed war on the United States and U.S. interests. "We should have realistic expectations about what a single action can achieve," he said. "And we must be prepared for a long battle."
</font>

Best I could find, unfortunately.

 

But do these thing actually work? Or are they just things politicians talk about to make you think they actually work? Is there any evidence that anything a politician has done has had a direct, positive effect on the economy. How often do you hear politicians go on and on about what the guy in office is doing wrong or right. After all, hasn't the economy risen and fallen in cycles with remarkable regularity? It seems to me that if politicians could actually do something to help the economy it would never be bad.

Also, with regard to the tax cuts and spending, those thing are actually done by congress, aren't they?

 

After all, hasn't the economy risen and fallen in cycles with remarkable regularity?

Yes they go up and down. With regularity? Not really. Do you think it's a coincidence that the two Presidents who most talked about opportunity and how great things could be -- and had the personality to have people believe it -- happened to have the two long economic booms (Reagan & Clinton)?

Also, with regard to the tax cuts and spending, those thing are actually done by congress, aren't they?

So you don't think Bush had anything to do with the tax cut last year? Was it just a coincidence that it matched almost exactly the tax cut structure he proposed? Do you think it was the Democratic Congress of the 1980's that wanted to raise military spending by massive amounts? Congress takes their cues from the President - he ultimately sets the agenda.

 

Except that the economic recovery began during the Bush administration and the decline started during the Clinton administration... oh, never mind!