Is Al Gore a traitor or has he simply lost his mind?

[Charade]

You're posting on a thread that the OP is using to call a man either crazy or a traitor because she disagrees with him. Why aren't you lambasting the OP?

Because we are talking about Gore's actions, not the beliefs of those discussing his actions. There is a difference IMO.

 

[toto2]

No one is disputing that Al Gore has every right to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants. One however can question his judgement and his sanity, of which for sometime, has been very much in question. Its tantamount to throwing gasoline on the flames that have already ignited over CARTOONS! I have no doubt that Al Jazeera will be airing Al's speech. He is playing into their hands and for that, he should be ashamed.

You should maybe worry more about a president who says "BRING THEM ON " to the terrorist . He definitaly should be ashame about those words !

 

[toto2]

Why do I feel like I'm in the middle of a Three Bears fairy tale? Who knows, maybe his next speech will be "just right".

It will be right when he can make a speech with really , really simple words thathe can repaeat a lot to make sure you understand : terrorist , freedom , 9/11 , elquada , Irak WMD , repat , repaet , repeat. And he must be certain not to deviate from the written speach , other wise , he stops making sense ...oupsss, that the present president I just described !

 

[bcvillastwo]

I believe they [Winston Churchill's poll numbers] were quite good, believe it or not

Between 1940 and 1945 Winston Churchill was probably the most popular British prime minister of all time. In May 1945 his approval rating in the opinion polls, which had never fallen below 78 per cent, stood at 83 per cent.

Ok, you are correct. But, if his numbers were so good, then why was he removed from office. (I know there are lots of reasons the first being "politics".)

In my mind, this is further evidence that public opinion poll numbers don't mean very much at the end of the day. If they did mean a lot then how is it the Churchill with an 83% approval rating right after WWII was removed from office.

We should be careful how much weight we put on poll numbers.

 

[bcvillastwo]

The most important thing I have managed to discern over time is there are many people out there who don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. Sadly, it applies to almost all of us at one time or the other.

 

[wvrevy]

The problem with Dawn's argument is, she seems to think that the actions themselves aren't enough to inflame, only talking about them (and, in Al's case, saying that most Americans don't agree with those actions). To her and those that believe as she does, Abu Ghraib wasn't a problem...talking about it was. It's complete nonsense, of course, but it's the only way they can shift the blame onto those that dare to call this torturous (in all meanings of the word) administration to account for their actions.

 

[dcentity2000]

Ok, you are correct. But, if his numbers were so good, then why was he removed from office. (I know there are lots of reasons the first being "politics".)

In my mind, this is further evidence that public opinion poll numbers don't mean very much at the end of the day. If they did mean a lot then how is it the Churchill with an 83% approval rating right after WWII was removed from office.

We should be careful how much weight we put on poll numbers.

Simply put, he was a rubbish peace time Prime Minister and the people decided that they preferred the other candidate. I dunno, it always struck me as a strange way of saying thanks, but there y'are.

I like polls - they reflect the people who's opinions you are representing. I think they help restrain premiers from making wild decisions that only the like the sound of and reassure them whilst making a popular decision.

Of course, this is the rub - should a premier represent the will of the people or the morals for which they were elected? It's a toughie.



Rich::

 

[wvrevy]

Polls on who people will vote for are usually inaccurate, simply because they don't really measure the will of the people to vote at all. But opinion polls on sitting politicians are most definitely used, as you can see by the flip-flopping of many of the republican candidates for president in '08 since Bush's numbers have continued to plummet. Presidential approval ratings act almost like a political capital credit card. The higher the number, the higher your credit limit. But the converse works as well, as Bush saw to his detriment last year while trying to gut social security.

 

[CapeCodTenor]

I like polls - they reflect the people who's opinions you are representing. I think they help restrain premiers from making wild decisions that only the like the sound of and reassure them whilst making a popular decision.
Rich::

Polls are interesting to read, but I also think that depending on how the question is asked you could get two different answers.

 

[cardaway]

Because we are talking about Gore's actions, not the beliefs of those discussing his actions. There is a difference IMO.

What a crock of...

There is an example of what is wrong with the American political system in a nutshell. Both sides jump into the gutter and the people supporting them say nothing about the tactics.

It does serve a purpose. It will be interesting to see who says something about the choice of words in the OP and who doesn't. I would have liked to think the OP was more of a one off, maybe not.

 

[LuvDuke]

Because we are talking about Gore's actions, not the beliefs of those discussing his actions. There is a difference IMO.

Well, whattayanno, we got ourselves a regular "Solomon" here.

 

[Charade]

What a crock of...

There is an example of what is wrong with the American political system in a nutshell. Both sides jump into the gutter and the people supporting them say nothing about the tactics.

It does serve a purpose. It will be interesting to see who says something about the choice of words in the OP and who doesn't. I would have liked to think the OP was more of a one off, maybe not.

I rest my case.

But anyways...

We ARE talking about the actions of Gore, not the reactions of the people discussing them. Perhaps this is another form of diversion.

 

[eclectics]

They are reporting on the cartoons and the violence, because it's obviously "relevant" and newsworthy.

As for venturing a "quess" here are some of the major news outlets excuses...oops, I mean reasons, for not publishing the cartoons:

Thank you for posting the orgs quotes. I don't live in a cave and was aware most did not print it, however I did not know each of their specific reasons for doing so. Did I read anything shocking? No. To answer your question if I am ok with them not printing it? Yes. As I stated before, their main obligation and responsibility is to print the relevant news. Their editorial policy is secondary and if the reader doesn't agree with it, they can go elsewhere. Could they convey the story without actually showing the cartoon? Imo, yes. The reason some did not print it falls into the editorial policy column and if some readers did not agree, they could certainly find outlets that did show it. I saw it many times on network and cable TV news. Did some conservative news orgs also not print it? I would venture a guess and say yes. As to the comparison to the amputee cartoon, that cartoon quietly started it's life as it was intended to be, a political cartoon, just like the one the day before. Did all the editors gleefully rub their hands and hope for riots? Of course not. Some get attention and some (just as controversial) do not. My point is the prophet cartoon was already a major controversial story before it hit our shores. You can't compare the two. Are the editors guilty of pandering to a certain group or hypocrisy? That argument is timeless and will be in existance as long as there is a media.

 

[bcvillastwo]

With regard to using polls (the will of the people) to govern vs. an individuals standards (morals) dcentity2000 replied,

Of course, this is the rub - should a premier represent the will of the people or the morals for which they were elected? It's a toughie.

Yes, in many ways it seems like going with the will of the people is the best course of action doesn't it. On the other hand, there are plenty of instances where if politicians followed the will of the people, the result would be a bad one. I can think of one right off. It deals with the run up to WWII. Yes, I am talking about Neville Chamberlan and his belief that by appeasing Hitler he had achieved "peace in our time". But it wasn't just the Brits that were concerned about pissing off Hitler, there were plenty of Americans who wanted no part in what was going on in Europe.

No one can change what actually happened. But, we can look back in hindsight and discuss what might have been. More than a few historians have speculated on what might have been and one of the things they feel pretty strongly about is that had Hitler been stopped much earlier it would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

So, was Nevelle Chamberlan swayed by public opinion? I am fairly certain that Franklin Roosevelt allowed public opinion to shape many of his decisions. Yet, we know that behind the scenes he was working to get into the war.

On the other hand, there really is the issue of what the public wants, or at least thinks it wants. Oh, and as some have said, there is the whole issue swirlng around the polls themselves and whether the questions are designed to elicit a particular result. (I know for a fact that wording of questions affect outcome, or results. We have a whole section where I work that takes great pains to make sure our questionnaires don't result in a preordained outcome. Apparently, there is a whole field of study associated with this type of thing.)

 

[LakeAriel]

The problem with Dawn's argument is, she seems to think that the actions themselves aren't enough to inflame, only talking about them (and, in Al's case, saying that most Americans don't agree with those actions). To her and those that believe as she does, Abu Ghraib wasn't a problem...talking about it was. It's complete nonsense, of course, but it's the only way they can shift the blame onto those that dare to call this torturous (in all meanings of the word) administration to account for their actions.

Well said!

 

[sodaseller]

I for one have great difficulty figuring out how much a clash of civilizations there really is. The recent cartoon conflagration tells me it is deeper than I realized, and certainly the violent masses are full of preexisting hatred far out of proportion of any US provocation. But one is not being candid if they do not think that this Administration's actions and inactions have not been legitimate provocations as well, and that a moral person should feel some shame and certain of the things done in our name.

The real problem is tribalism on display in the violent mobs and in sentiments like the OP, two sides of the same coin, neither recognizing a morality beyond loyalty to the tribe or a larger value in objective truth. Truth is never a sign of weakness, even when it reveals flaws that your enemy repeats and exploits.

 

[yeartolate]

The problem with Dawn's argument is, she seems to think that the actions themselves aren't enough to inflame, only talking about them (and, in Al's case, saying that most Americans don't agree with those actions). To her and those that believe as she does, Abu Ghraib wasn't a problem...talking about it was. It's complete nonsense, of course, but it's the only way they can shift the blame onto those that dare to call this torturous (in all meanings of the word) administration to account for their actions.

ITA.

 

[bsnyder]

Thank you for posting the orgs quotes. I don't live in a cave and was aware most did not print it, however I did not know each of their specific reasons for doing so. Did I read anything shocking? No. To answer your question if I am ok with them not printing it? Yes. As I stated before, their main obligation and responsibility is to print the relevant news. Their editorial policy is secondary and if the reader doesn't agree with it, they can go elsewhere. Could they convey the story without actually showing the cartoon? Imo, yes. The reason some did not print it falls into the editorial policy column and if some readers did not agree, they could certainly find outlets that did show it. I saw it many times on network and cable TV news. Did some conservative news orgs also not print it? I would venture a guess and say yes. As to the comparison to the amputee cartoon, that cartoon quietly started it's life as it was intended to be, a political cartoon, just like the one the day before. Did all the editors gleefully rub their hands and hope for riots? Of course not. Some get attention and some (just as controversial) do not. My point is the prophet cartoon was already a major controversial story before it hit our shores. You can't compare the two. Are the editors guilty of pandering to a certain group or hypocrisy? That argument is timeless and will be in existance as long as there is a media.

Just for the record, I never complained about the amputee cartoon. IMO, it was in extremely poor taste, but I agree that it was political satire, and not really analogous to the Denmark cartoons.

Bill Bennett made a more apt analogy on the hypocrisy of CNN and the like and the danger it poses:

On CNN today, Bill Bennett hit back at the American media, especially CNN, for refusing to show the Danish cartoons that sparked the current controversy. During the lead-in, CNN showed a number of anti-Semitic cartoons from Middle Eastern newspapers as part of a feature story on double standards in the Arab world. But when the segment turned to a debate between Bennett and Arab American Institute president James Zogby, Bennett criticized CNN for its own double standard — showing the anti-Semitic cartoons as part of a news story, but refusing to show the Danish cartoons:

BLITZER: You can understand, Bill, that feeling among many Muslims that this is beyond the pale when you insult the Prophet Mohammad.

BENNETT: Well, sure. And if I was a Jew watching what CNN just led in with, I might be a little upset too. But CNN doesn't have the solicitude for Jews it has for Muslims. Your policy is not to show these cartoons that were shown in Denmark, but to show one after another of the most anti-Semitic cartoons they could come forward with. CNN — I don't mean to pick on CNN just because I work for you. But NBC, New York Times, other media — the Virgin Mary in cow dung, that was fine, we can show that everywhere. Now, the Islamists have won, in that they have intimidated the major news media from showing these cartoons. They have lost, however, in the wider world, because people see that this is just totally nutty behavior — that these cartoons are shown and that people as a result want to kill people, behead people, burn buildings down.
Blitzer answered, "On the showing of these anti-Semitic cartoons, I think you'll find that most Israelis, certainly most Jews, want the world to see some of these caricatures, in order to shed some light on the images that have been portrayed in a lot of these publications."

Blitzer didn't seem to realize that he had just illustrated why showing the Danish cartoons in the American media is so important. Jewish groups want the world to see cartoons like these because they know that such propaganda says more about the Arab governments that create it. Muslim groups don't want the world to see cartoons like these because these cartoons are about the use of radical Islam to justify violence. That's why CNN's decision not to show the Danish cartoons is disgraceful. They are giving into the demands of a faction that wants to censor the political content of those cartoons, and there's no excuse for that.

 

[bsnyder]

I for one have great difficulty figuring out how much a clash of civilizations there really is. The recent cartoon conflagration tells me it is deeper than I realized, and certainly the violent masses are full of preexisting hatred far out of proportion of any US provocation. But one is not being candid if they do not think that this Administration's actions and inactions have not been legitimate provocations as well, and that a moral person should feel some shame and certain of the things done in our name.

The real problem is tribalism on display in the violent mobs and in sentiments like the OP, two sides of the same coin, neither recognizing a morality beyond loyalty to the tribe or a larger value in objective truth. Truth is never a sign of weakness, even when it reveals flaws that your enemy repeats and exploits.

What was Denmark's provocation? I'm still trying to figure that one out. As far as I can tell, they and many other European countries have been bending over backwards for decades to appease moderate Muslims and radical Islamofascists alike. Yet they're targeted with the same virulent hatred and violence as us "shameful" Americans.

 

[sodaseller]

What was Denmark's provocation?

When did Al Gore discuss Denmark? Linear isn't everything, but it ain't nothing either.