Al Gore is doing a book tour appearance tonight in DC @ 7PM and will be signing
several hundred copies of his books for folks afterwards...so...im not sure how
he can be on PBS and Olberman unless its a simulcast.

(Cindy is still first today)

..or if the interviews with AL are pre-recorded. shame on you Al.

ok..ive got to fix dinner.

i still think we should have a pool, on the day Gore announces.

chiimac wrote "i still think we should have a pool, on the day Gore announces."

chili, I thought you were all about how Gore had to answer for his NAFTA support and role in founding the DLC this weekend.   

Tom,

im just saying he *is* going to announce, im not in love with him. he's
got *much* to prove to me.

chilimac wrote "im just saying [Gore] *is* going to announce, im not in love with him."

That was my mistake.  I was definitely reading too much into your "Gore Watch."

20.

Joan* In*Florida
Joan, thank you for the welcome back and Gore TV :)

Great to hear your report on the book. I yelled at hubby for setting things down on the pristine cover (LOL)
----------------------
Audrey, I sure haven't forgotten Obama and Boxer campaigning for Lieberman, especially after his continued positions on the war and womens issues. Most disappointing indeed they chose to involve themself in the primary. But Obama was working very closely with Lieberman and McCain and Boxer had him on the Environmental Committee that they worked together for years. But what does he do, doesn't support Boxer's Global Warming Bill, instead comes out with a Nuke Bill that Obama supports instead.
--------------------------
Tom, Mr. Gore has mentioned on many occasions, including recently in an interview last week on Larry King and at the Senate Hearings, one of the reasons for him choosing Lieberman as a running mate was primarily because of his work on the environment. Of course, he is very candid that he is not happy with the direction Joe Lieberman has gone with the War and he opposes it.

Linda wrote "I sure haven't forgotten Obama and Boxer's campaigning for Lieberman, especially after his continued positions on the war and womens issues. Most disappointing indeed they chose to involve themself in the primary."

" . . . .

"Mr. Gore has mentioned on many occasions, including recently in an interview last week on Larry King and at the Senate Hearings, one of the reasons for him choosing Lieberman as a running mate was primarily because of his work on the environment. Of course, he is very candid that he is not happy with the direction Joe Lieberman has gone with the War and he opposes it."

This is one of example of exactly what I find so mystifying.  The knife never slices both ways.  I'll admit to not swooning over the positions of Gore, Lieberman or Obama all the time, but why should one be vilified, one be criticized, and one get a free pass?  They've all been cohorts or opponents to one extent or another at different times.  Obviously people see things differently on discrete issues, even if they're all Democrats and former Democrats.  Of the three, I see the least division between Gore and Obama.

AND WAY TO GO SHERI, thank you for additional Gore TV appearances.


Yes Chilimac, it would appear something has to be pre recorded. I'm sure Countdown is. He records his show, I believe about 3 to 4 hours before we see it. Jim Lehrer's is a surprise, so I dunno on that.


Direct video link for the Hour long interview Charlie Rose had with Al Gore on Friday night.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...+Rose+and+Gore&hl=en

8.

Tom Bearse

tom, I don't know what you're talking about.

I specifically responded to direct comments Audrey made about not commenting on the campaigning Obama and Boxer did for Lieberman.

And your guessing of Gore's choosing of Lieberman.


Now you wish to add something more in to the conversation that was initialized from the get go.

Don't bring a knife to a gun fight...uh er conversation?

should have been

Now you wish to add something more in to the conversation that was NOT initialized from the get go.

Don't bring a knife to a gun fight...uh er conversation?

Romney pledges salary to charity if elected President.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/29/romney.wealth.ap/index.html

Is this a way to get votes? 

Linda wrote "Mr. Gore has mentioned on many occasions, including recently in an interview last week on Larry King and at the Senate Hearings, one of the reasons for him choosing Lieberman as a running mate was primarily because of his work on the environment. Of course, he is very candid that he is not happy with the direction Joe Lieberman has gone with the War and he opposes it."

Then wrote "tom, I don't know what you're talking about."

Oh, sorry. Do you conclude, on some basis, that Obama didn't support Lieberman in the primary because of his work on the environment, and is happy with the direction Joe Lieberman has gone with the war, which he opposes?

Tom LOL man are you stretching this argument of yours.

We all can count. We know the war started after Al Gore had chosen Lieberman to be his running mate. As a matter of fact Joe Lieberman lost ALOT OF SUPPORT because of the his conduct during the campaign and since then.

But if you want to make the argument that Obama was supporting Lieberman, for his environmental work, (I'm really not getting your argument here ) great, it still STUNK. I don't care that what reasons they campaigned for Lieberman during the primary. They both did. And it was still wrong and he still was advocating for the war which made him an unattractive person to be campaigning for.

Do you feel better now?

Linda,

I'd appreciate it if you would do a post here at bfa explainging your
position/feelings on Richardson.

Linda, do I correctly understand everything you wrote in response to my question as meaning "no"?

12.

Lynn Worpenberg

LOL Apparently. It will probably help too, according to some minds.

16.

Tom Bearse
Tue, 05/29/07
5:35 pm



Linda, do I correctly understand everything you wrote in response to my question as meaning "no"?


---------------

where do you draw that from? Or are you delayed on response.

Linda and Tom, in not sure what the hell you two are saying to each other.
:)

and Lynn, i think Mitt is just trying too buy(ha!) himself some
'free' press for his campaign.
he's not coming across as a particularly bright guy to me.
some business man.

Linda wrote "where do you draw that from? Or are you delayed on response. "

I had asked "Do you conclude, on some basis, that Obama didn't support Lieberman in the primary because of his work on the environment, and is happy with the direction Joe Lieberman has gone with the war, which he opposes?"

Is the answer "no"?

Chilimac, are you serious or are yo teasing me? :)

I have written a few times some of reasons I'm not supportive of Governor Richardson, well, actually, not just nonsupportive, but bad for President. And I wouldn't want to bore folks unnecessarily.

Run Al run!

17, Linda, something tells me the the salary would be a drop in the bucket for him. 

But if he donates it to me I MIGHT be persuaded to vote for him  :-)    NOT!

Lynn in Cincinnati

I like Linda, Susan, and many others, am holding out for Gore!

OK, Tom, I'll repeat this s l o w e r

"But if you want to make the argument that Obama was supporting Lieberman, for his environmental work, (I'm really not getting your argument here ) g r e a t , i t s t i l l STUNK. I don't care that what reasons they campaigned for Lieberman during the primary. They both did. And it was still wrong and he still was advocating for the war which made him an unattractive person to be campaigning for.

yes, Linda i was serious.

i know about his pro-baseball career but certainly there is more...

23.

Lynn Worpenberg

LOL Yeah, he learned from Clinton. He can have one speaking engagement in a year after the presidency and rake in more than the years entire salary.

Boxer and Webb will be at the TBA conference along with Hillary and Pelosi.

Boy am I going to give them a piece of my mind. The twits.

I am loaded for bear. Truly

gonna stand up at the awards dinner and aske Boxer, who is getting an award, why did u endorse Lie berman? He is ruining this country.

Linda in NM is my hero cause she is just as pissed off as me.

Yep, I used to tell my mom that I should run for President, do something 'bad' but not too bad, be 'gracious' enough to resign, and then make money traveling around speaking to people.

should have done it!  LOL

 Lynn in Cincinnati

Linda b,

you can tell them that you are speaking for A LOT OF PEOPLE

If you look at Boxer's ties($$$$$$$) to Aipac, i think you'll see why she
supported Lieberman

Give 'em some hell Linda b

chilimac wrote "Linda and Tom, in not sure what the hell you two are saying to each other."

It's fairly simple.  Linda wrote to Audrey to commiserate with her about Obama and Boxer's support for Lieberman in the primary.  She then explained the reason Gore chose Lieberman as a running mate.

There is a trend with a history discernable in these comments.  Obama is a bastard for supporting Lieberman and, in turn the war.  Obama doesn't support the war, but you're to assume he does because he hasn't supported an immediate withdrawal bill, although he has sponsored a timetable and did not vote for the supplemental.  You're not to assume, for example, that he supports Lieberman for his environmental policies, but if you do, they stink anyway.

Gore is well regarded, although he chose Lieberman to be Vice President, because he doesn't support the war,  despite the fact that he's taken no public position on the supplemental.  He said he selected Lieberman for his environmental policies.  It is of no moment whether they stink.  You have to bring up Obama's name to extract that detail. 

When Joshua Frank pens an article on Gore (or Dean), it is a scurilous hit piece.  When he writes about Obama, it is a well reasoned analysis based on self-evident fact.  Supposedly, this is obvious to the reader.  That's the source of the reference to a knife cutting one way. 

24.

Lynn Worpenberg
Tue, 05/29/07
5:41 pm

I like Linda, Susan, and many others, am holding out for Gore!


-----

Linda,

You can count my hubby in too!

oops sorry Lynn.

Chilimac,

I did not appreciate Governor Richardson telling Howard Dean to get out of the race and make room for Kerry.

He doubled the cost of recounts after the state had numerous problems with their Es&S machines that are now sitting in the wharehouse collecting dust after spending the millions on them when there were wide spread reported problem before buying them. He then after having those ballots destroyed, bought paper ballot machines for the next election.

He didn't want the Governor to be Chair of the DNC and tried conspiring with Ed Rendell of PA to limit the Chair's job responsibilities. (funny how they both now ask for Gov Dean's help-Rendell in his re-election)Both are DLC's also.

Richardon is very Conservative, Corporatist. He dangerously plays to close the graft of tax dollars for private business for contributions. Numerous examples and he just explains away as "I didn't curry favors for those". It's just funny he gets 100k or 150 K contributions after making a deal that tax dollars will be helping bring this .....new business or build a new facility for....

He is synonymous with cronyism and has grow the government by the most incredible amount with this waste.

They don't have the money to hire State employees even. The money is not going towards the cities. Roads falling apart, let alone no new roads for the growing population.

He wastes so much. He has the state buy a totally new computer system so he can use his Blackberry.

He is a total control freak. He does not believe in open government. He's top down all the way. Very secretive...or tries to.

There is now a current audit that is going from State to Federal level for the computer system for the states Payroll that he also brought in that is a total sham. He TOLD his secretaries to buy it, cutting down the price for it to work, still costing millions and wouldn't allow testing first before bringing it on line and now there are employees that haven't collected pay from a year ago.


Does this help

See, tom you now just want to guess and insert other conversations in to a very current clear conversation.

Just trying to distort the my direct comment at the very beginning of this thread.

Just quote one piece and drag in guesses and past conversations, all of which have nothing to do with the current.

Scroll by

Thank you miss linda b,

BUT YOU ARE MY HERO!

Yes Linda, that helps.
:)

Thanks!

I knew he was DLC, but all in all he doesnt get the coverage back East
like the candidates in Congress do. I know he pulled some kind of sham
in the vote counting in 04 there in NM but i honestly didnt recall him
telling Dean to scram-but I believe you. I trust your judgement. I think
he could still land on the bottom half of the ticket-but i'm hoping not.

Tom , thanks for the explanation-i think.
;)

36.
Wasn't Richardson involved in scandals while he was head of the DOEnergy?
Wasn't a big stink raised with losing top secret information at LosAlimos?
If I remember correctly, his stint at DOE was lackluster at best.

Tom wrote:

21.

Tom Bearse
Tue, 05/29/07
4:05 pm

Reply to this


audrey wrote "What I wanna know is. of all the things that rile up the blog, why is it ignored that Obama and Boxer campaigned for and praised Lieberman?"


>>>LINDA WROTE: Audrey, I sure haven't forgotten Obama and Boxer campaigning for Lieberman, especially after his continued positions on the war and womens issues. Most disappointing indeed they chose to involve themself in the primary. But Obama was working very closely with Lieberman and McCain and Boxer had him on the Environmental Committee that they worked together for years. But what does he do, doesn't support Boxer's Global Warming Bill, instead comes out with a Nuke Bill that Obama supports instead.



AGAIN, TOM WROTE: Gore chose Lieberman as his vice-presidential nominee. He must have detected something worthwhile in his candidacy, presumably because Lieberman was an old time civil rights proponent, who does not have a partiuclarly conservative voting record. The exception is his war support, which presumably persuaded Gore to back Dean.

>>>LINDA WROTE in response to above: Tom, Mr. Gore has mentioned on many occasions, including recently in an interview last week on Larry King and at the Senate Hearings, one of the reasons for him choosing Lieberman as a running mate was primarily because of his work on the environment. Of course, he is very candid that he is not happy with the direction Joe Lieberman has gone with the War and he opposes it.


Pretty clear to me. But I guess you just didn't like my response, huh. That will teach me for not agreeing with you that Gore supported Lieberman for Civil Rights as he stated was for his Global Warming efforts.


Sheesh.

DONE!

41.

dog soldier

yes, but like so many are saying, "his resume reads well" :)

Coming to Nashville
Al Gore is Coming to Nashville!
Friday, June 1 at 12:00 Noon
AL GORE
signs
The Assault on Reason

Davis-Kidd Booksellers is proud to host former Vice President of the United States Al Gore for a booksigning of his new book, The Assault on Reason on Friday, June 1 at 12:00 noon. The former vice president presents a visionary analysis of how the politics of fear, secrecy, cronyism, and blind faith of the Bush-led radical Right has combined with the degradation of the public sphere to create an environment dangerously hostile to reason. Line numbers are required for the signing and are available with the purchase of The Assault on Reason.

This is hysterical. This Joe does great work!


video
current tv

http://www.current.tv/pods/issue/PD03611...

DESCRIPTION
What should they teach in sex ed class - abstinence, contraception or both? Joe gets to the bottom of things in his own educational video and snags a guest appearance by Bino White.

Just wanted to mention that Subway has a post up at HEP about caregiving. I'm a day late getting it posted after spending all day yesterday helping Son in Ohio get data for la project. Also, in case this hasn't been posted, below Subway's post is the message listener wrote in response to Cindy Sheehan last night. Clicky if you're interested.

Email Tax Coming

NY Times | May 28, 2007 
Brendan Carlin and John Steele

The era of tax-free e-mail, Internet shopping and broadband connections could end this fall, if recent proposals in the U.S. Congress prove successful. State and local governments this week resumed a push to lobby Congress for far-reaching changes on two different fronts: gaining the ability to impose sales taxes on Net shopping, and being able to levy new monthly taxes on DSL and other Internet-service connections. One senator is even predicting taxes on e-mail.

Pro-tax advocates this week advanced a flurry of proposals pushing in that direction. A bill was introduced that would usher in mandatory sales tax collection for Internet purchases. Then, during a House of Representatives hearing the same day, politicians weighed whether to let a temporary ban on Net access taxes lapse when it expires on November 1. A House backer of another pro-sales tax bill said to expect a final version by July.

The response to the moves in CNET News.com's TalkBack forum was overwhelmingly negative, mostly along antitax convictions. However, some readers took a bigger-picture approach to the situation.

"Half the reason the Internet has become so successful is because the government has had little involvement."
-- CNET News.com reader

"Half the reason the Internet has become so successful is because the government has had little involvement," wrote one reader to the forum.

The U.S. Congress is also poised to create a set of massive new government databases that all employers must use to investigate the immigration status of current and future employees or face stiff penalties. The so-called Employment Eligibility Verification System would be established as part of a bill that senators began debating on Monday. The procedure that is likely to continue through June and would represent the most extensive rewrite of immigration and visa laws in a generation.

Because anyone who fails a database check would be out of a job, the proposed database already has drawn comparisons with the "no-fly list" and is being criticized by civil libertarians and business groups.

All employers--at least 7 million, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--would be required to verify identity documents provided by both existing employees and potential hires, the legislation says. The data, including Social Security numbers, would be provided to Homeland Security, on penalty of perjury, and the government databases would provide a work authorization confirmation within three business days.

Charlie Sheen Responds To New York Post Hit Piece
Actor: "My views and convictions regarding 9/11 have not wavered"

Prison Planet | May 28, 2007
Charlie Sheen

COMMENT FROM ALEX JONES

More disgusting spin from Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. I awoke Memorial Day to see more than a dozen news stories trumpeting that Charlie Sheen was no longer involved in Loose Change Final Cut. Within hours, the distortions of Page Six (known for blackmailing people with real and manufactured dirt) had mutated into complete fairy tales in other publications alleging 9/11 truth was a dying fad, and that Rosie O'Donnell had also deserted the movement.

If the New World Order wants to hide their crimes of 9/11 they're going to have to do a better job than this.

Charlie Sheen courageously followed his conscience when he publicly questioned the official 9/11 fable - that angers the establishment and they desperately want to create the illusion that he has recanted - not just in an attempt to discredit Mr. Sheen, but to scare other prominent members of the community from going public as well.

Below are the cold hard facts directly from Charlie Sheen.

Charlie Sheen has issued a brief statement in response to a New York Post article that claimed he was having "second thoughts" about his involvement in Loose Change Final Cut and the 9/11 Truth Movement as a whole.

(Article continues below)

My views and convictions regarding the events of 9/11 have not wavered. I still firmly believe the citizens of this great country, especially the family members of those tragically lost, deserve a much more accurate and thorough investigation surrounding the horrific events.

The suspicious fact that certain relevant testimonies were not included in the Keen Commission's final report, discredits the majority of their findings. A bi-partisan, democratically selected panel needs to be established that would include (but not limited to), victim family members, firefighters, rescue workers as well as key eye witnesses to the various crime scenes. Not some tepid rehash of Bush-serving lap-dogs cherry picking evidence to support erroneous and fictional "Magic Bullet" explanations.

We will not tolerate any testimony behind closed doors from subjects not placed "Under Oath". We will not tolerate the real and hard questions being dismissed for reasons of "National Security". We will not tolerate our freedom of speech being dismantled and ignored as not to "Disrespect the deceased".

I'm baffled as well by the fact Bin Laden's crimes listed on the FBI's most wanted list DO NOT include those of 9/11. If you do not believe me, see for yourselves -

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

As far as "Loose Change- Final Cut" is concerned, I await the newest version to be presented to me, at which point I will make my decision to participate (or not) based on the film's content and merit.

I remain patriotically steadfast.

Charlie Sheen.

John Dean's book Conservatives Without Conscience, which came out last summer
is now down to $5.19 for the hardback @ Amazon. Ive been wanting to read this
since it came out so Ive ordered it and it should arrive the end of the week. Reviews
were good, but I havent personally read it yet so....

Anyway, IF you were thinking about getting this book and never got
around to it(like me), then this is your chance..

http://www.amazon.com/Conservatives-With...

The NYT's resident Conservative Idiot, David Brooks, did a hatchet job on Al in today's edition. Sample:

"Gore’s imperviousness to reality is not the most striking feature of the book. It’s the chilliness and sterility of his worldview. Gore is laying out a comprehensive theory of social development, but it allows almost no role for family, friendship, neighborhood or just face-to-face contact. He sees society the way you might see it from a speaking podium — as a public mass exercise with little allowance for intimacy or private life. He envisions a sort of Vulcan Utopia, in which dispassionate individuals exchange facts and arrive at logical conclusions.

This, in turn, grows out of a bizarre view of human nature. Gore seems to have come up with a theory that the upper, logical mind sits on top of, and should master, the primitive and more emotional mind below. He thinks this can be done through a technical process that minimizes information flow to the lower brain and maximizes information flow to the higher brain.

The reality, of course, is that there is no neat distinction between the “higher” and “lower” parts of the brain. There are no neat distinctions between the “rational” mind and the “visceral” body. The mind is a much more complex network of feedback loops than accounted for in Gore’s simplistic pseudoscience"

There's much more of thesame sort of drivel in his piece.

Love ya Cindy!!

New Video Compilation: 9/11 The Explosive Reality

9/11 Blogger | May 28, 2007 

This is truly an extraordinary compilation of news footage, much of which I've never seen before (and I've seen a LOT), that details beyond a doubt what happened that day in New York, with lots of previously unseen clips from the Pentagon, Shanksville, and suspicious statements by government officials.

A YouTube user named poliunsaturated has posted 9 parts, plus a trailer, as of this writing, but part 9 ends rather suddenly, so there may be more to come. It is also downloadable as a 1 GB AVI file torrent if you just do a google search on 9/11 The Explosive Reality.

There is no narration, just sub-titles and the odd full screen text, but someone has gone to an awful lot of work here combing through hours upon hours of news archives, and the way the clips tell the story is quite compelling.

Check it out!

Link to all 9 parts: http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=poliunsaturated&p=r

http://www.counterpunch.org/swanson05292007.html

A clear and growing majority of Americans wants to end the occupation. Yet many people are opposed to defunding it. So, not enough of us have learned that you cannot end this occupation without defunding it. Because we haven't faced up to a choice between continuing the occupation and defunding it, we allow Congress Members to make anti-occupation gestures and then fund the occupation, not in order to prolong the occupation and fund its profiteers, but "for the troops."

As long as we allow the pretense to continue that wars are fought on behalf of the young men and women sent to fight them, we will never see a serious effort on the part of the Democratic leadership in Congress to end the occupation of Iraq. One thing many people have gradually come to realize is that we have not seen such an effort yet, only pretenses of it. Certainly, some who now disapprove of what the Congress just passed still think they were right to support what it was doing two months ago, and it's less important to return to that debate than to get our act together from here on out. But we are more likely to make wise decisions in the future if we learn the right lessons from our mistakes.

By May 23rd, Congress Members Pelosi and David Obey had turned against their own bill. They were going to make sure it came up for a vote and passed, but they were going to vote against it.

While Pelosi was "opposing" the bill, she was also beginning to take heat from all sides for having brought the bill up for a vote and assured its passage. She voted No, but she did not whip, cajole, threaten, or bribe her colleagues to join her against the occupation as she had done to get them to join her for it. During the debate on the floor prior to the vote, Pelosi, Obey, and others made clear that they wanted the bill to pass and considered it necessary "for the troops."

No one mentioned that not a single troop gets a single dollar because the occupation continues, or that the Congressional Research Service said in April that the occupation was already funded through July, or that polls of troops in Iraq last year found that a strong majority wanted to end the occupation last year, or that most of the money goes to occupation-profiteers.

51.

Huron John

It's almost funny, because the ramblings of nonsense.

Someone had a good diary on it over on kos earlier pointing out his own redundant statements.

Brooks Column shows Fear of Gore [Updated]
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/29/...

Be well and play nice .

bbl

5000 signatures in a week.

Signatures | Total: 85,015

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/algor...

His interview with Larry King was brilliant. Unfortunately, he will not be running for president. One thing he did say was that we need to get out of Iraq but ensure that the things don't fall apart as we do withdraw. I completely agree and it is one of the reasons I have been against the troop withdrawal votes in recent months. Democrats and Congress need to find a viable way to leave Iraq without it being in ruins. Simply leaving without planning would be a disaster, another Afghanistan. The US needs to join together with the rest of the world leaders in figuring out a multilateral way of ending terrorism and Mid-East tensions without engaging in war.

To really get at the root of terrorism, global poverty needs to be addressed. Our leaders need to not abandon Iraq, but support its growth and the growth of other undeveloped countries by funding the UN Millennium Development Goals. According to the Borgen Project, just 0.16% of out federal budget is spent on poverty reduction while $340 billion has been spent on the war. We need to redirect our funds to programs that will work to combat the conditions that enable extremism to exist. We can’t fight terror with terror in a country we are espousing peace to; there needs to be an alternative.

In 2000, I had no problems with Lieberman being part of the Presidential ticket. I knew of Joe as a heavy lifter for the environment and civil rights movements. I thought he was needed to add new england balance to a midsoutherner. Iraq hadn't happened yet.

He voted for the Iraq authorization as did many. My thoughts are mixed as I followed Kerry's lead as something he would want and all hoped Bush would really work at diplomacy because no logical person wants war. I was not happy with Congress giving up their constitutional authority.
We whatdoyouthinkhappenednext?