July 19, 2005


Gore: New TV Channel Won't Be Partisan (Lynn Elber, AP, 7/19/05)

Former Vice President Al Gore, co-founder of a new television channel launching next month, said he's shunning politics - and so is his media venture.
50,999,897 thought this man should be president of the United States.

Posted by David Cohen at July 19, 2005 7:37 AM

Al Gore is a bore. The only good thing about Al's public life is that he makes me look interesting.

Posted by: Huggy at July 19, 2005 7:58 AM

"He's shunning politics"? He exercised the "Peter Principle" in 2000. That's shunning politics

Posted by: Genecis at July 19, 2005 9:14 AM

Is he still fat?

Posted by: ratbert at July 19, 2005 9:20 AM

If Gore is such a bore, so fat and incompetent, it makes you wonder why he got more votes in 2000 than the great George W. Bush, doesn't it?

Posted by: Pug at July 19, 2005 9:51 AM

sure does.

Posted by: JonofAtlanta at July 19, 2005 10:08 AM

First of all, due to our disinterested high-mindedness, we here at BrothersJudd resolutely abjure ridicule of the gravity-challenged.

Second, Pug asks, "it makes you wonder why he got more votes in 2000 than the great George W. Bush, doesn't it?. I didn't realize that this was still an open question: Because more people wanted Gore to be president than Bush. If I can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to ask.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 19, 2005 10:19 AM

Not going to argue Pug's point about the vote totals. Best analogy I remember from that period was that Gore had more hits but Bush won because he scored more runs (electoral votes).
Gore was a sitting VP to a popular President in a time of peace and prosperity and lost to a Governor with 6 years of experience. Gore was a poor candidate and continues to show a tin ear for politics.

Posted by: AWW at July 19, 2005 10:49 AM

Fifty million more people thought he should be President than will watch his show.

Posted by: pj at July 19, 2005 11:26 AM

Correction: only 40,000,000 living, non-felon, U.S. citizens voted for Gore.

Posted by: Scott at July 19, 2005 11:38 AM

"50,999,897 thought this man should be president of the United States."

That he was not elected proves that Providence protects and guides the U.S.A.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 19, 2005 12:19 PM

I guess it will be another outlet for Captain Planet reruns.

Perhaps they could have a reality show, Who Wants to Be Like Al? Contestants could see how long they could remain perfectly stiff, or how many people they could literally bore to death during a speech, or creating the most obviously false and extreme lie.

They could have the Naomi Wolf makeover show, she can work that same magic that she did for Al in 2000.

Posted by: bart at July 19, 2005 12:49 PM

(with a lisp):

sounds like a risky scheme.

Posted by: JonofAtlanta at July 19, 2005 1:08 PM

I'm pretty ticked off about the new lies in the media today, so I'll reply to Pug who's repeating some of the media's old lies about Gore's vaunted total vote count.

a. The blogosphere wasn't up an running yet, and Fox News didn't reach very many homes, so voters had to rely on the msm and their negative spin on Bush 24/7, including a rumors about cocaine use and drunken driving; b. Clinton changed the way the military voted making many of their absentee ballots ineligible to be counted.; c. Downright voter fraud; and d. Davis and other governors stopped the absentee ballot counts when it was apparent they wouldn't affect the outcome of the Electoral College. Had all the votes been counted, the total might have gone the other way.

Pug, Are you serious? Would you really prefer a President Gore? Just the thought makes me shudder.

Posted by: erp at July 19, 2005 2:26 PM

The dirty little secret is that absentees are never counted unless they can possibly affect the result on an election. (Except in King County, where they count 'em even when they magically appear months later and it requires a call to a 900 number to divine the "voter intent".) So relying on the spread, especially, as pointed out , in the Electoral College, to make some sort of popularity point, is spin. Well, not spin, more like that rolling around that happens just before a spinning object finally flops on its side and stops.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at July 19, 2005 2:59 PM

AWW is right.

The nation didn't want Gore to be President, any more than they wanted G.H.W. Bush to be President.

What they wanted was a continuation of Reagan and Clinton.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at July 19, 2005 4:54 PM

Which is what they got.

Posted by: oj at July 19, 2005 5:59 PM

Actually, the current junta makes Reagan and Clinton both look like idealistic amateurs. These gangsters have taken Nixonian darkness and made it the law of the land.

Posted by: lonbud at July 19, 2005 7:13 PM


Has it occurred to you that if you hate the three most successful presidents of your lifetime you might be in the wrong country?

Posted by: oj at July 19, 2005 7:29 PM

I always like asking people like lonbud, "Well who *was* your favorite president?" because they usally hate Washington (slave owner) Jefferson (slave humper) Lincoln (closeted Republican gayboy) and all the other usual favorites for all the usual reasons. The answer I invariably get is, "Carter!" Wrong country? Wrong alternate universe!

Posted by: Governor Breck at July 19, 2005 7:53 PM

Governor Breck, and my esteemed host, OJ:

Ought it not be clear by now that I don't *hate* Nixon, Reagan, either Poppy or Lil' George, OR Clinton for that matter? I just recognize them for the criminals they are (or were, in the case of the former two) and deride them for the damage they did to our great country and our system of governance.

IMHO Kennedy would have been a great and "successful" president if he'd have been allowed to live; LBJ made heroic strides to overcome his own gargantuan ego and the competing forces that ultimately doomed him. I have no problem with Washington or Jefferson or Lincoln, who all seemed to have the big-picture interests of the Republic at heart, despite being men of their times.

Posted by: lonbud at July 19, 2005 8:35 PM

They were criminals and JFK and LBJ weren't? Have you ever read a book?

Posted by: oj at July 19, 2005 9:11 PM

I'll bite. lonbud, what is it about Kennedy that you admire.

Posted by: erp at July 19, 2005 10:00 PM

LBJ made great strides to overcome his ego? Exactly how?

Posted by: jim hamlen at July 19, 2005 11:31 PM

whatever "crimes" JFK & LBJ may have been guilty of, neither of them ran shadow governments from the white house basement, engaged in activities expressly prohibited by congress to further partisan political ends, used the FBI as a personal police force, employed the CIA to bring drugs into America's cities, made clandestine arms deals with Islamic terrorists to affect the outcome of a federal election, or went to war against another nation just because they felt like it.

kennedy was a powerful man who understood the corrupting nature of power, and had begun to take steps to see that the powerless in our society had more of a voice in the formation of policy, and in the sharing of the nation's vast wealth. he valued youth and innovation and education and he saw America's leadership role in the world as one by which we could inspire other nations to freedom and greatness, as opposed to one by which we claim authority to ram it down their throats with the barrel of a gun.

LBJ was more of a complex figure; for him to have shepherded the Civil Rights Act to passage required a momentous victory over his ego.

Posted by: lonbud at July 19, 2005 11:57 PM

Tell us about Viet Nam and the resulting metacenter of the Democratic party as it heeled beyond liberalism and through the tipping point of progressivism to the far, far left. Find a life jacket before ending up "better dead than red," metaphorically speaking of course.

Posted by: Genecis at July 20, 2005 1:01 AM

Kennedy 'understood' the corrupting nature of power? Are you claiming he knew his father and brother that well? Or are you addressing the WV primary? Or his creation of the 'missile' gap?

Or are you referring to his connections with Mafia women? Or his avoidance of Martin Luther King, Jr.? Or what exactly?

LBJ thought he could run the Vietnam War and the entire US government from his telephone. Sure, he won big in 1964, but the 1966 elections were horrible and he ducked out in 1968 because he was afraid of Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy. He had an ego, to be sure, but he was also a coward, because he did not do what was necessary for the nation, either at home or abroad. His main concern was 'being tough'; in the end, he wasn't. Kind of like Churchill's statement (when Chamberlain returned home from Munich) about seeking peace and honor.

With respect to the CIA, are you claiming it is a private army for Republican Presidents? Better read some books, like OJ suggests. The CIA resists Republicans and swoons for Democrats.

Posted by: jim hamlen at July 20, 2005 2:16 AM

He had an ego, to be sure, but he was also a coward, because he did not do what was necessary for the nation, either at home or abroad. His main concern was 'being tough'; in the end, he wasn't.

sounds like someone else i know...

Posted by: lonbud at July 20, 2005 11:55 AM

Robert MacNamara? John Kerry? Jimmy Carter?

Posted by: ratbert at July 20, 2005 3:55 PM