Al Gore and Dick Morris turn the spotlight on: The Nader Voters

Al Gore and Dick Morris turn the spotlight on: The Nader Voters

Written by summer -- a form Dem, now an independent and a FL certified teacher

Immediately after Election Day 2000,
the Nader backlash hit the streets.

To no one's surprise, there has been backlash against Nader voters beginning the moment polls closed in the November 2000 election.

But, I was surprised when Al Gore, at the recent FL Dem Convention broadcast on C-SPAN, delivered a speech laying out three major principles for what sounds like his upcoming presidential run, with the first principle being: his salvation of the environment.

Hello, Nader voters, anyone home?
(Al Gore wants to know if you remember him.)

I was surprised because the environment, as some people do believe, is in fact the real reason Al Gore lost 96,000 votes here in FL in Nov. 2000. And, losing these votes -- from environmental voters who voted for Nader, after they realize Al Gore remained stubbornly on the wrong side of an important local environmental issue - clearly cost Al Gore the White House in 2000.

These events have been documented by an award winning local journalist here in FL, Jim Defede, in The New Miami Times, in a Nov 2000 article entitled: "Collision Course." Such events were later documented again by National Public Radio. And, both of these sources were mentioned on a subsequent thread where I posted my own FR editorial about Nov. 2000.

Now, fast forward, and enter: Dick Morris, the political analyst whose new book,Power Plays again highlights the real story of Election 2000, but informs a much wider mainstream audience: Gore lost Election 2000 because he failed to stand up for the FL environment.

Morris' new book is currently #33 on the amazon.com sales list. (And, it is offered at a special price if you also purchase the book "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes…" - well, you know. Buying these two books together from amazon, the price is only $34.94, instead of $53.90.)

Within seven days of Dick Morris' book being released and heavily promoted, we find Al Gore, in the NYT, reiterating the principle point he made in this month's speech at the FL Dem Party convention. Suddenly, Al has found his voice - again - as in his NYT editorial, published Sunday, April 21, 2002, the day before Earth Day 2002, Gore claims, loudly, that he, Al Gore, is the one and only true leader for environmental issues.

But, what will the majority of the public buy? Al Gore's newly found voice? Or Dick Morris' book?

Whatever the answer, it seems to me that such events, occurring in the span of one week, marks the end of the backlash against Nader voters.

Morris is not taking these voters to task - rather, he is saying, just as the local journalist Jim Defede documented, and NPR documented, and I said, that Nader voters in FL had good reason not to vote for Gore. And, consequently, Gore lostthis state -- and he lost it on: environmental issues.

Losing an election is exactly what should happen when voters ditch one candidate for another over a candidate's failure to support the cause of said voters.

Gore is likewise not criticizing these voters. Nor ignoring these voters. Dem web sites may continue to treat Nader voters with disgust, but clearly, Gore is now reaching out to these voters in ways he never did during campaign 2000.

Environmental web sites have a long list of grievances against Gore. It's easy to find a slew of information about the damaged relationship between Gore and environmental voters, in articles with titles such as: "What Happened to You, Al Gore?," "Gore in the Balance - It's Time to Renew Your Enviro Vows, Al," and Help Me, I'm Melting! - Industry is talking about climate change. Why aren't the presidential candidates?"

Yet, is Gore's current courting of these voters really too little, too late?

I would say it's too little from Gore.

Despite this new spotlight on Nader voters from Gore and Morris, what I found most interesting is the following excerpt from the 2nd article above -- which made me conclude Gore's NYT editorial (posted below, in my reply #1), and Gore's recent speech, both actually failed to address key points Gore prefers to ignore:

The problem, of course, is that Gore has his own skeletons in the campaign finance closet. Among other dubious entanglements, Gore has had a long, mutually beneficial relationship with one of the most environmentally destructive corporations on the planet, Occidental Petroleum. Occidental, whose Hooker Chemical subsidiary was responsible for the contamination of Love Canal in the 1970s and whose oil pipeline in Colombia is now threatening the survival of the indigenous U'wa people, has been subsidizing Gore's political career since he first entered Congress in 1978. Gore's father was on Occidental boss Armand Hammer's payroll as far back as the 1940s and took a $500,000-a-year job with the company upon leaving the Senate in 1970. Occidental has given Vice President Gore himself $35,550 in campaign funds since he entered the White House in 1992, plus another $470,000 to various Democratic Party causes, according to The Buying of the President 2000, by Charles Lewis and the Center for Public Integrity.

Does the name Elk Hills mean anything to you? Unfortunately for Gore, it probably will before this presidential campaign is over. In 1995, as part of his crusade to "reinvent government," Gore urged President Clinton to open the Elk Hills oil reserve in California to drilling, a favor to Big Oil that neither Richard Nixon nor Ronald Reagan achieved, despite years of effort. When the Department of Energy announced in 1997 that Occidental had won bidding rights to the land, the company's domestic oil reserves tripled overnight, greatly enriching shareholders, including Gore's father, who held at least $500,000 worth of stock. When Gore, Sr., died in 1998, his son became executor of his estate. Rainforest activists have been pressing Gore to divest the stock, but earlier this month Gore refused, declaring "there certainly is not" anything wrong with owning such stock.

While there may be nothing wrong Al Gore owning such oil stock, Al Gore's current criticism of GOP leaders -- on the basis of them being "oil men" -- seems disingenuous, to say the least.

From The NYT:

April 21, 2002

The Selling of an Energy Policy

By AL GORE

NASHVILLE - Under the presidency of George W. Bush, the environmental and energy policies of our government are completely dominated by a group of current and former oil and chemical company executives who are trying to dismantle America's ability to force them to reduce the extremely dangerous levels of pollution in the earth's atmosphere.

The first step was to withdraw from the agreement reached in Kyoto to begin limiting worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases. Then the administration cancelled an agreement requiring automobile companies to make the leap to more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Other acts of sabotage are taking place behind the scenes. Just as Enron executives were allowed to interview candidates for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission - and to veto those they didn't think would approve of Enron's agenda - ExxonMobil has been allowed to veto the United States government's selection of who will head the prestigious scientific panel that monitors global warming. Dr. Robert Watson, the highly respected leader of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, was blackballed in a memo to the White House from the nation's largest oil company. The memo had its effect last Friday, when Dr. Watson lost his bid for re-election after the administration threw its weight behind the "let's drag our feet" candidate, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri of New Delhi, who is known for his virulent anti-American statements.

Why is this happening?

Because the largest polluters know their only hope for escaping restrictions lies in promoting confusion about global warming.

Just as Enron needed auditors who wouldn't blow the whistle when the company lied about the magnitude of its future liabilities, the administration needs scientific reviews that won't sound the alarm on the destruction of the earth's climate balance.

How long they get away with it depends on how long they can sow confusion and doubt. But with folks wearing bikinis in Boston in the middle of April and with the massive melting of ice at both poles and in nearly every mountain glacier on earth, public awareness and concern are growing rapidly.

At a time when the world needs enduring leadership from the United States to rally all nations to join in a concerted effort to stop global warming, the administration is working overtime to block any progress whatsoever.

So tomorrow, on this Earth Day, more than ever before, we need real, forward-thinking leadership and a renewed focus on the environment. True leadership means ensuring that we take the necessary steps to leave a cleaner environment for generations to come - and that means strengthening environmental protections.

Instead, this administration's so-called Clean Skies initiative actually increases air pollution levels by allowing more toxic mercury, nitrogen oxide and sulfur emissions than does current law. Put simply, on the environment, this administration has consistently sold out America's future in return for short-term political gains.

True leadership means guaranteeing our national security and role as a world leader - and one of the best ways to do this is by decreasing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, so that America cannot be held hostage to oil imports and tinhorn tyrants like Saddam Hussein. But instead this administration is now investing less in energy innovation and conservation and more in corporate subsidies for oil exploration and extraction and nuclear power.

True leadership means assuring an economy that rewards innovation and productivity. We can do so by leading the world in investments in technological innovations that will result in environment-friendly products like more efficient cars and renewable energy sources. Such investments would open up the door for new economic growth. But this administration is taking only those steps that increase our addiction to fossil fuels and outdated and inefficient technologies.

On all these fronts, this administration has walked away from the tough choices and has instead chosen to subsidize the solutions of the past. Instead of leading, it has attempted to mislead. Instead of sharing a vision with the people, the administration has given access to special interests.

We can return to the path of progress, on which we value economic growth that rewards innovation and productivity and meets the needs of our families and of national security. We can return to the days of record growth coupled with record improvement in the air we breathe. We can return to true leadership on the environment.

We ought to look at the environment as a critical piece of the nation we will be. I urge Americans to re-engage in a forward-looking discussion of how to secure our nation's energy needs while pursuing environmental policies that will make us safer, more efficient and more respectful stewards of our planet and our nation's great potential.

Al Gore, vice president from 1993 to 2001, is a professor at Fisk University and Middle Tennessee State University.

[PS: Al Gore -- former VP, college instructor, and: current stockholder of large amounts of oil stock.]

This is an excellent analysis, summer. Gore is, after all, the biggest phoney of many in the democrat ranks. His environmental duplicity is a weak spot, which you have pointed out with clarity.

Thanks, Miss Marple, and I must say: I have to agree with you. Dick Morris may think your assessment and mine is too harsh, but I don't think so.

When seeing Morris on interviews promoting his book, he went right for the jugular, stating flat out that Gore lost FL due to the environment. This led me to believe his book would get more into the nitty gritty of what happened in FL, as Defede's article did, NPR did, and I did. But, Morris didn't.

I just now read Morris' section on Gore, and Morris paints the picture with a much broader brush, focusing on Gore's inability to run on principle (the environment), but really praising Gore as being an environmentalist on principle. And, this is where I part ways with Morris, based on what I know actually happened here in FL.

The question here was very black and white: Is Gore for or against the people opposing a new airport to be built in the Everglades? Gore could not figure out what stand to take. This seems difficult for me to believe that a person with so much background in environmental matters, who claims to recognize the unique ecosystem that is the Everglades, could NOT decide to support and lead a community that was legally battling this issue for six years prior to Election 2000, fighting with the county and the developers -- and, as Jim Defede pointed out, fighting with DEM leaders who SUPPORTED the AIRPORT proposal.

Whose side were these Dem leaders on, anyway? Not the people who wanted to preserve the Everglades. Those voters had to look elsewhere.

When money is involved, and there is money to be made, as there was in this instance, their principles seem to fly out the window. This what I feel the environmentalists on their web sites are pointing out -- Gore was FOR drilling in CA, and oh, BTW, guess which company drilled and made a fortune? Yes, the one Gore holds stock in. Is this a coincidence? I think not. Based on his past, and on the FL 2000 situation with the proposed airport in the Everglades, Gore seems to be "for" something -- and against the environment -- if it will financially benefit him.

But Morris is very soft on Gore in this respect. Morris seems content to claim that Gore's miscalculations about how to effectively run for office were his biggest problems. But such a position by this author is undercut by the author's own premise, which is:

If you stand for principles, then, you run on your principles.

Fine. And, to me, seeing things through my eyes as a FL voter, I am no longer convinced Gore really stands on those principles -- and not only because he failed to run on those principles.

The bottom line that I see is that the reason we do not now have a new lucrative commercial airport polluting the Everglades is thanks to two brothers, named Bush -- whether the NYT approves of that FACT or not. No thanks to the FL Dem leaders, as Jim Defede's article and FL voters know. And, no thanks to Gore and Gore's silence on this issue.

So, while people may pick up Morris' book and gain some insight into Nov 2000, to get the WHOLE story, people will have to go back and read Jim Defede's article, the NPR documentary transcripts, and other info. Because what happened in FL demonstrated that not only is it too little from Gore, but, in fact, it may also be too late for him with voters like me.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.