Gore the movie star - candidate or ideologue?

Paul  Weyrich
|
Posted: Jun 07, 2006 12:01 AM

The last we heard from former Vice President Al Gore he was denouncing the Bush Administration in a shrill voice and using angry language. Gore went so far as to say that President Bush betrayed this country.

That was about the fourth version of Albert Arthur, Jr. Gore to surface in the political process. You will recall that Gore had three debates with then candidate George W. Bush in the 2000 election. In each debate Gore demonstrated a different personality, which unnerved some of the voters who ended up supporting Bush.

Now comes the fifth version of Gore (of which we are aware): Gore the movie star. Playing across the nation at a movie house near you is a scare film on global warming starring Al Gore, who claims he is divulging AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH.

The truth is that Gore has been pushing some version of global warming for more than a decade. As the great Senator James M. Inhofe (R-OK) has pointed out, the premise of global warming is based upon junk science.

While I believe we should take conservation seriously, the notion that we as a nation could return to the energy levels of 1990 is absurd. Just think of the number of cell phones, computers, laptops, IPODS, Blackberries and so on which have sprung on the scene since 1990, the year I learned to use a computer. Two of my grandchildren, one age nine and the other age seven, each have e mail addresses of their own, quite apart from Mommy and Daddy. I have five children. All five have computers. Four of the five have cell phones. Three are married. Each of the spouses have both cell phones and computers. As does Mrs. Paul.

All of this takes energy. The biggest thing on the road these days is the hybrid automobile. One of my sons just bought a brand new car. It is a hybrid, using electricity for part of the trip. Tell all of them to give up their computers or lap tops and cell phones and IPODS just so we could meet the standards of the Kyoto Treaty, which is basically designed to transfer wealth from the have-nations to the have-not nations.

So now Al Gore the movie star is pushing the phony idea which would absolutely collapse the United States economy. I am completely in support of becoming independent of oil from not only the Middle East but from those dictators all over the world who are continually figuring ways to blackmail this country. We can do that if we can drill in the Outer Continental Shelves, drill at ANWR, convert oil shale to oil big-time and convert more corn and other products to oil.

In addition, we must permit more nuclear power and invest heavily in alternative sources of fuel, such has the hydrogen cell.

That, however, is a far different strategy than that which would force everyone into semi-poverty by rationing the quantity of oil each family could use. The advocates of rationing are not really in favor of limiting what people in the USA could use by way of energy. Rather they believe that our prosperity is shameless and we must turn the prosperity clock backwards. Rather than teaching other nations how to be prosperous by dropping their socialist ways they want the United States to drop our capitalism. They want to see an end to free enterprise. They want to so regulate business in this country that the initiative which has made this country the best in the world will be killed and then this nation will be on a par with poorer nations. They can do so by regulating energy. Of course, these same globalists want to make an exception for China and India and other nations which are fast catching up with the USA.

Meanwhile speculation is rampant as to why Al Gore has become a movie star. Some political analysts believe that he really believes the Kyoto nonsense and is trying to make energy the hottest issue on the political scene by 2008.

When movie-goers pay $12 per person without popcorn they don't want to be preached at by an ideologue. Michael Moore found that out in 2004. Moore's vicious attacks on President George W. Bush attracted only those who already hated Bush. The Gore people counter that the Gore movie is about an issue, not a personality. Thus, they believe, it is possible for people of all political views to be attracted to the ideas which the movie highlights. Maybe so, but most people do not pay $12, plus whatever they pay for food, drink and possibly parking, to get lectured about how much of the world's resources they waste.

Other political analysts think this movie represents an attempted Gore comeback in 2008. The idea that the election was stolen from him in 2000 still has much appeal in the Gore Base. Some in the Democratic Party believe that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, of New York, just can't make it in 2008 and that voters need a viable alternative. They point to other potential candidates such as Sen. Russell D. Feingold, of Wisconsin, or the former Governor of Virginia, Mark Warner, as being either too left or too right to excite the electorate. Gore, these political thinkers reason, is just right. If the Clinton impeachment and other Clinton problems had not dragged him down in 2000 he would have been President. Moreover, maybe he was elected our President but was cheated out of a win by the United States Supreme Court. He would be in the White House, finishing his second term.

We shall learn soon enough if Al Gore the movie star wants to run one more time (despite his denials) or if he has just become an ideologue who will sacrifice his credibility to push for a certain idea. I am betting on the former.