I was wondering why bring up Al. I see the tactic, but trying to make a case for a serial anything should consist of more than one dubious item. Maybe, ya think?

This isn't targeted at Al Gore per say this time, this is targeted at the democratic party. Another attempt by republicans to go "See how many out of touch people that party has?". Desperation knows no bounds...

MMFA is doing more to mislead than the WP by it's selective editing of the WP quote. I imagine most people reading this never even realized that the article wasn't about Al Gore. You have to go to the second to the last sentence above to find out the context in which Al was referred. Even then the sentence is parsed with bold to diminish the main idea which is the article was talking about Obama.

That being said, the line from the WP about Gore was simply a reference and not even the subject of the sentence. And yes, the sentence was accurate. Republicans did tar Gore as someone who claimed to have discovered the Love Canal. If you read Al's quote, even though the WP misquoted him, he was is indeed taking credit for starting it all by claiming that he had the first hearing. 

I can't wait to see Al claim he invented global warming. Maybe someone will give him a prize for that?  :-)

 

First of all, it's not bragging if it's true: but Gore wasn't taking credit for it, he was explaining that this was the first hearing on the subject. I grant it was no "Mission Accomplished" it was just the start.

Gore wasn't taking credit for it?  heheheheh

He's taking the bull by the horns and leading the charge and all that bully, AA. Not taking credit for it. Is this some republican phenomenon, when someone steps forward and says "I'll lead that effort", that you guys gotta start claiming he's taking credit or stealing your idea or something? Y'all really should see a shrink about those feelings of inferiority.

Do you really think if he was trying to take credit for it, he would do it in front of a group of High School students, instead of a podium on an aircraft carrier? That is why it is called an explanation, someone asks you a question and you try to explain the sequence of events, something we haven't seen in years.

He took credit for holding a hearing.  He held a hearing.  Your problem is what again?

MMFA is doing more to mislead than the WP by it's selective editing of the WP quote.

AA, I'm not exactly sure what straw you're grasping at here. Is your position that there can be no misinformation about Al Gore in the article because the article is primarily about Obama? Strange approach, but good luck with it.

Maybe I've missed it. How about posting the selectively edited quote, and then the complete version you think tells the whole story. That should make your point more clear.

AA

I do not get your point? Are you saying Al Gore is not being treated unfairly?

So when is Gore going to put his money where his mouth is?  Will he debate Klaus?

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/208338,czech-president-klaus-ready-to-debate-gore-on-climate-change.html 

Link didn't go through????  

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/208338,czech-president-klaus-ready-to-debate-gore-on-climate-change.html 

Well, why don't you ask Gore?

As for me, the answer is pretty clear, Klaus is not what he claims to be:

His vocal enthusiasm for the free market economy and as exemplified by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman and practised by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, together with his stated belief in Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand", soon became well-known and Klaus was the principal shaper of the Czechoslovak economic transformation. His critics later on pointed out that during his premiership he had neglected the importance of law (in particular battling corruption), largely ignored the enforcement of property rights on the stock market, and that his pet project, the voucher privatization, was poorly executed and didn't bring the economy responsible owners it needed. They claim that his record in government does not justify the picture of Klaus as a major free-market figure. His avowed aim of creating a nation which participated in the capitalist system as shareholders signally failed, with most of the privatisations of his tenure ending up in relatively few, and often opaque, hands.

Scandals

Klaus continued as Prime Minister after the 1996 election, but the ODS's win was much narrower and his government was plagued by instability, serious economic problems, and accusations of corruption. He was forced to resign[2] in November 1997 after a government crisis caused by an ODS funding scandal, an event later called "Sarajevo Assassination" (sarajevský atentát) by his sympathisers, in analogy with the assassination in Sarajevo that has started the First World War, because the calls for him to resign occurred during his visit of Sarajevo at that time. He has consistently refused to accept responsibility for or discuss any of the corruption scandals which arose within his party and under his government.[3]

Czech President Václav Havel publicly referred to Klaus' economic policies as "gangster capitalism" and blamed the prime minister for perceived corruption surrounding his policy of voucher privatization and his côterie of close allies such as the dentist, politician, and entrepreneur Miroslav Macek or StB honcho Václav Junek

My, he's got some great credentials there. No wonder you're asking that question!

Thanks, Snoop. I was going to look into Mr. Klaus a little bit. He was the darling of righty radio today, saying everything the Global Warming deniers want to hear.

Creepiest moment -- Dennis Prager saying (and I'm quoting as closely as I can from memory); "I want to hug Klaus. I would hug him so hard, he would wonder about my sexual orientation. I would kiss him".

Prager would totally switch teams if a guy just lied to him enough. If somebody can find the audio,it's hot hot hot!

I'm ready to debate Bush on tax policy.  But he's chicken.

 

From reading the three sentences cited in the Washington Post, I'd have guessed the citation to be something like...

Washington Post Repeats Hear-Say: "label Barack Obama as a serial exaggerator and heir to Al Gore"

...but instead, it's about something with the erotic name of "the love canal"

And about something said about Al Gore, 8 or 9 years ago... isn't it a little late to be closing the barn door on this one?

Isn't this a little like closing the barn door after the horse has got out, and after he ran down the street, and ran for President, but was so dumb he watched television and allowed them to tell him he lost the election, and he believed it, and he called up GWB to say congrats, but then Dan Rather said oops the AP says this election hasn't been decided yet, and then Al Gore calls GWB and says never mind, and then he stands by while Florida gets stolen from him (and from millions of Floridians), and while the election gets stolen by Bush Baker Scalia et al, and then he Presides as VP over the opening of the Certificates and over counting of the Electoral Votes in the House of Representatives, and Presides over the theft of the election from him and from millions and millions of Americans who voted for him... isn't it a little late to be closing the barn door?

That race is over: throw those losing tickets away: it's a new race, and a new field of horses...

Washington Post Repeats Hear-Say: "label Barack Obama as a serial exaggerator and heir to Al Gore"

"Serial exaggerator": That sounds like something you make up, to call someone, when you wish you could call them a liar, but you can't because they don't and didn't tell a lie... "serial exaggerator": boy, I bet American politics has never ever seen anything like that.

 

Was excited to see MMFA finally try to kill the persistent scurilous rumor that Al Gore once claimed that he "invented the Internet"    But all you did was state that he denied saying it.   You went to great lengths of bytes and words and quotes to put it to rest, but unfortunately your email today [5/29/08] focussed almost exclusively on the Love Canal canard with any specific quotes or citations, apparently trying to label the Internet rumor only with implication and inference.   Won't you please try again? 

Bill Shaw, Dallas TX

Uh, Gore did claim to have created the Internet.

You say "invented, he says "created."

The idiot wanted to take credit for the creating the Internet, and even his most stauch suckups in the liberal media had to call him on it.

Even Snopes.com acknowledges this, although they do spin it nicely in favor of the guy who would have lost the popular vote in Florida had that mainstream liberal media not called the state Gore's an hour before the polls closed. Yes, thanks to that liberal media, tens of thousands of mostly Republicans in the panhandle didn't bother to vote after work. Please check out Bill Sammon's excellent book, At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election. Seems whenever a state was anywhere near an Algore win, that liberal media proclaimed it for him. Any state leaning red by the same margin was deemed "too close call," code for "hurry up, Democrats, or the Republican will win!" 

So go ahead and delude yourself, a la Eric Alterman and the rest of the George Sorostitutes. Nitpick over a few dangling chads, the intent of a few more people who very well may have voted straight Democrat, but didn't like either candidate for president, who you think must have really want to vote for Gore. Recount only in counties where you might be able to pick up a piddly 537 votes. And try to rely on the Florida Supreme Court, most of whom are Democrat appointees, to hand the election to the guy who says he created the Internet, was the inspiriation for Love Story, and implied that the world knew nothing about Love Canal until he, Al Gore, "discovered" it. Or whatever verbage he used.

*****************************

Oh, and the reason he's not running for president, even though he would've creamed HRC (and that goofy guy who's campaigned in all 57 states, and who recognized many dead veterans at his campaign rally)...Gore is scared sh*tless about having to debate climate. He won't do it."

 

 

At some point in the near future, this issue will become basiclly settled and the contrairians and deniers will be relegated to the fringes.  (I can dreamc an't I?)  Once that happnens, however, watch how the right will start to attack Gore by accusing him of exagerating his importance in bringing the Global Warming issue to the forefront.  Watch them accuse of saying things like "[he] discovered global warming" or some other such nonsense.  ANYTHING to avoid giving credit where it's due and avoiding responsibility for standing in the way opf progress.

Just to clarify - by "This Issue" I mean Global Warming.