He undoubtedly won the popular vote for President in 2000. He likely won the electoral college vote, too, but we'll never know, because the Supreme Court exceeded its authority and stopped the recount in Florida. He went on the galvanize a planet about the need to take global warming seriously.
Al Gore has had many finest hours. His endorsement of Barack Obama in Detroit tonight was surely among them. Gore hit all the right notes, including Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq before we went in (Gore expressed the same in September 2002), and the similarities in inspiration between Obama and JFK.
It was a special moment seeing Al Gore back in the political fray tonight. He couldn't have picked a better time. As Gore himself said, what's at stake has never been higher.
I would have liked to have seen Gore become President - there would have been a cosmic poetic justice in that. But I'll settle for Gore's endorsement of Obama tonight.
14 comments:
While perhaps Obama is the lesser of two evils, I will not be voting for him for the following reasons:
1. He will not take bombing Pakistan or Iran off the table
2. He supports the "patriot" act
3. He voted for the Real ID
4. Claims to not take money from lobbyists, but his coffers have expanded by millions of dollars from lobbyists.
5. Wife is a member of the CFR, whose main goal is to create global government.
6. Made millions of dollars in business deals with Chicago criminal Tony Resko.
7. His handler and foreign affairs advisor is Zbignew Brzezensky, the man responsible for the creation of the Trilateral Commission along with buddy David Rockefeller. Z.B. is known to hold a frightening hatred of and vendetta against Russia.
8. Says things like "There will be no lobbyists in MY Washington!" Then changes his tune after a correction by his advisor Brzezensky saying "Lobbyists won't run my Washington!"
9. Is owned by AIPAC. (American Israeli Political Action Committe)
10. Is a taxer and spender.
11. Will come down hard on gun ownership. The 2nd Amendment is very important to help keep a tyrannical government in check.
12. Is owned by the military-industrial complex.
13. Will not address the Federal Reserve Fraud.
14. Will not end the War on Drugs
15. Many more...
I feel like choosing between obama or mccain is like choosing to get hit by a truck or a bus.
Prof. Levinson, what is your opinion on constitution candidate Chuck Baldwin? I am considering voting for him if I do not write in Ron Paul.
Most of your points are rhetorical nonsense, Mark - "owned by the military industrial complex," "CFR main goal is to create global government" - and deserve no further response.
But even if every single incorrect point you listed were true, it would still not be even distantly the case that a vote for McCain or Obama would be akin to getting hit by a truck or a bus.
McCain wants to continue the war in Iraq, Obama does not; McCain would appoint Supremes who would overturn Roe v. Wade, Obama would appoint Justices who would respect it; McCain has no plan for Americans in need of catastrophic health insurance, Obama does; etc; etc.
Regarding Ron Paul: I could never vote for him, given that he allowed racist statements to go out under his name for decades (even though I admire his respect for the Constitution, and wish Obama had more of it - for example, committing to stop the FCC's unconstitutional attempt to regulate broadcasting).
Regarding Chuck Baldwin: his view that the U.S. government may have had some direct involvement in bringing down the Twin Towers on 9/11 is totally unproven (yes, I've looked at a lot of the videos that present so-called "evidence"). Until a dangerous allegation like that is supported by publicly available evidence, he is not a candidate who can be taken seriously.
Why does it matter if Al Gore supports Obama? I like to make my own decisions, not ones based on who is most popular at the moment.
So, who exactly is preventing you from making your own decisions?
Is the endorsement of a candidate so powerful to you that it disables your ability to think?
The importance of Gore's endorsement is that it shows that someone of Gore's intellect and accomplishment - and meaning to the US and the world - supports Obama.
You're free to take it or leave it as you see fit.
(By the way, is there a reason you choose to write under such a ridiculous name? Do you think it helps prove your point of view?)
"McCain wants to continue the war in Iraq, Obama does not; McCain would appoint Supremes who would overturn Roe v. Wade, Obama would appoint Justices who would respect it; McCain has no plan for Americans in need of catastrophic health insurance, Obama does; etc; etc"
I appreciate his opposition to the Iraq war, though he did vote to fund it. However, he wants more troops in Afghanistan - and will not take military action against Pakistan or Iran off the table. I do think his rhetoric is better than Mccain's though.
Roe v. Wade should be overturned, but life should not be defined as at conception at the federal level either - this is because abortion is a state issue.
As for health insurance. The constitution doesn't expressly authorize federal socialism. Thus, federal socialism is unconstitutional. I think universal health care is an impossibility for the foreseeable future anyway. Health care in the US is a 2 TRILLION dollar a year industry. How can the US even begin to transition into something like that? There just isn't money to even start it, and if they tried to raise money for it in advance by raising taxes, people would revolt against it. If they tried to just print the money to start it, that would trigger a depression of sorts.
Pofessor Levinson,
You dismiss most of Mark's comments as rhetorical nonsense, and many of them are, but a few in particular are legitimate point of great concern. In particular:
1. He will not take bombing Pakistan or Iran off the table
2. He supports the "patriot" act
3. He voted for the Real ID
14. Will not end the War on Drugs
Let's address each of these in turn.
1. He will not take bombing Pakistan or Iran off the table
The problem here is not that he won't take bombing Pakistan or Iran off the table. Obviously, retaliatory use of for is legitimate in many cases. However, the problem is that he won't take bombing Pakistan or Iran in a first strike as a form of "military action" off the table. If we are to take military action against a country, it should be as part of a war with a concurrent declaration of war passed by congress. Mr.Obama, as far as can be inferred by his statements, supports the concept that executive military action is legitimate, and that congress should be able to cede the right to take such military to the executive branch.
2. He supports the "patriot" act
3. He voted for the Real ID
Let's take these two points together. How can this be justified? There are portions of the patriot which grant unwarranted and arguably unconstitutional powers to the federal government. Further, the Real ID act provides the federal government with a controversial means of monitoring and tracking American citizens. These types of acts should be a priori rejected, not supported, by responsible legislators. In my view, Mr. Obama's support of theses acts shows either a clear lapse or lack of judgement.
14. Will not end the War on Drugs
The war on drugs has had detrimental effects on our society, beyond the billions wasted on ineffective government action to eliminate illegal drug trafficking. In particular, the war on drugs has had an unbalanced and punitive effect on those of lower socioeconomic status. Many of the federal programs which operate under the umbrella of the "war on drugs" target minorities and lower income citizens inequitably. However, the larger issue is that there should be no "war on drugs" in the first place. Much of the rhetoric and "research" which led to drugs being made illegal in the first place have since been discredited. Moreover, from a natural rights perspective, the government has no legitimate authority to instruct a sovereign citizen which chemicals he may put in his body. Any criminal behavior which may result from drug abuse should be dealt with like any other crime, but not by criminalizing a substance whose mere use infringes upon the equal rights or liberties of nobody else.
Cheers,
Rob
Also, I apologize for the typos in my post above. I'm still getting used to my new "ergonomic" keyboard.
Thanks for the comment, Mark.
I think we see the Constitution a little differently on these issues. Here's how I see the Constitution relating to health care, and to abortion:
1. Health care: The Constitution expressly reserves some rights to the Federal government (e.g., declaration of war) and forbids it from doing certain other things (e.g.., abridging freedom of speech or press). All other rights remain with the states. But nothing in the Constitution forbids the Fed government from helping states, cities, individuals, corporations, etc on whatever issues Congress may please, the President may sign into law, and the Supreme Court does not strike down as unconstitutional. I see health care as such an issue. Calling it "socialist" does not change the issue one bit.
2. Abortion: the 14th Amendment says states cannot deny rights guaranteed to citizens under Fed law. Outlawing abortion violates equal treatment under the law (women are given less control of their bodies than do men). Hence, Roe v. Wade was a correct decision, and should not be overturned. (I do think that abortion is probably the most difficult issue of our time, because there is indeed another developing life to be considered. But the mother's life is 100%, and the government should not be allowed on any level to give mothers unfair treatment under the law.)
Thanks for your comment, Rob - and no need to apologize about typos here on Infinite Regress - I'm the typo king!
First, about Obama in general: I by no means support him on every issue. I've criticized his off-handed swipes against watching television and playing video games (look here in the index under Obama), I'd like him to be more enthusiastic about getting humans further into space, I'd like him to condemn the FCC for its unconstitutional fining of broadcasters, I like him to fully support gay marriage, etc.
But I don't expect perfection in a President. It's more than enough for me that Obama is superb on many issues - including opposing the Iraq war before we started it, having a progressive tax policy that takes more money from billionaires and less from everyone earning under $250,000 per year, etc. Most of all, I think Obama has inspired people here and around the world who had given up on America - that's crucially important.
On the issues you raise: I agree with you on #s2, 3, and 14: I oppose parts of the Patriot Act, and Real ID, and I think drugs should be decriminalized. After Obama is elected, I'll keep speaking out about these important issues.
About bombing Pakistan, etc - it's just rhetoric. I'm on record as opposing any military action without a full declaration of war.
Bottom line for me: the only person whose views I would agree with 100% were he or she President would be ... me (and even then, who knows...) In the absence of that, I support the best candidate, without giving in on any of my views.
I think Americans have lost their minds after reading the comments. First of all I see Gore's endorsement as hugh also. The Roe vs Wade thing- I can't believe in this day and age there is still an issue in the country. If you are a Democrat you should vote how your party vote and not throw your vote away. this is my opinion , I think Paul will agree
Prof, I realize that some of my original points were reaching conspiracy territory, but some of the other points, as brought up by Rob, should be cause for concern. I see we disagree about the constitutionality of socialized healthcare, but could you address my concerns about the practicality of turning an industry over to a government that has failed in the areas it already has control over?
And Dawn, the idea that democrats should blindly vote with their party, or that republicans should do the same is faulty logic. I am a registered republican - but of the goldwater, taft, perhaps reagan, and paul brand. I am anti-war, fiscally conservative, and against government intrusion in personal matters. I can't, on principle, vote for Obama or Mccain. I disagree with the idea that voting anything other than D or R is throwing your vote away.
Sure, Mark, happy to address your concerns about "the practicality of turning an industry [health care] over to a government that has failed in the areas it already has control over."
1. First, I don't accept your premise that our government has "failed in the areas it already has control over."
For example, Teddy Roosevelt's efforts on behalf of conservation at the start of the 20th century certainly did not fail.
And for all the damage done by the FCC, our government's policy of not making radio and television literally appendages of the government has not failed. In fact, it has kept these media by and large free. (In contrast to the BBC, which in the Falkland Wars was literally censored by the Thatcher government - see my The Soft Edge for more.)
In sum: our government has succeeded at some things and failed at others. Your generalization about failing is easily refuted.
2. Have you actually read Obama's plans for health care? He is talking about working with insurance companies and pre-existing structures, as well as offering new options supported by government money. His plan is optional for everyone over 25 - meaning, they will be free to continue their own health care relationships, if they wish. That's not exactly "turning an industry over to a government," is it?
=========
And I do agree completely with Dawn.
You say you agree with Obama on Iraq, Mark, and disagree with McCain on that issue. Which means that if you vote for anyone other than Obama, who is the only candidate who can beat McCain, that you're voting for a continuation of the war. Does that really make sense to you? Who do you truly think Goldwater would have voted for in this election?
I think that is faulty logic perpetuated by the two-party system to keep it in power - that you should only vote for someone who has a "chance" of winning. When I spoke to republicans about voting for Ron Paul, many said that they like what he stands for, but would prefer to vote for someone who has a better chance. The irony: if all of them had voted for him, instead of someone who seemingly had a better shot, he could have been a front-runner. I agree with leaving Iraq, but some of Obama's words have made me skeptical about his ideas for foreign policy - he is talking about ending this war, but he hasn't talked about withdrawing our presence from the middle-east and elsewhere to defend our own country first, or about only starting wars with a declaration of war.
Voting for a 3rd-party is not voting for the continuation of the war. I disagree with Obama on many other issues, so by not voting for Mccain, am I voting for Obama's positions? No - I am voting for one person, out of a field of candidates, whose platform best represents my own beliefs, regardless of whether or not this person is seen as a frontrunner.
Fair enough, Mark - that's your right, and I can respect that.
But you should still bear in mind that votes for Nader in 2000 made that election close enough for the Supreme Court to do its damage.
And although Gore would have been far from perfect as President, Bush is now generally and I think correctly regarded as one of the worst Presidents in American history.
I don't want the country to make the same mistake with McCain - who, in addition to his positions on the issues, has a razor-thin temper, I wouldn't want to see in the White House for that reason alone.
About Ron Paul: for most of his candidacy, as you probably know, I was urging that Republicans vote for him, and Democrats for Obama. I wanted an election with the best candidates from each of the major parties.
Although I stopped supporting Ron Paul when the racist newsletters became public (I hadn't really known about them before), I still regret that he didn't get the Republican nomination - he would have been a far better standard bearer for the Republican party and traditional conservatism and constitutional government than John McCain.
Post a Comment