26 March 2007

Albert

--by Mike Murray

When he was considering a second run for the presidency in 1992 (his first attempt was back in the 1980s, remember?), Al Gore primped to the strains of the Paul Simon song:  You Can Call Me Al.  It was a nice touch.  Being called Al was hipper than going by his nerdier given name:  Albert.  Friendlier, too.

Gore eventually ditched his drive for the top public-sector job in ’92 (no doubt believing George Herbert  Walker Bush to be unbeatable) and settled for joining the Bill Clinton campaign as a vice presidential hopeful.  Perhaps he figured that it would cost him less to lose in a supporting role, and that it might even give him valuable exposure and a push toward ’96 (when Bush would surely be winding up his final term).

If that’s what he thought, he thought wrong.  With nearly all of the major Democratic candidates scared away by “George Bush the First” and his post-Gulf War afterglow (the modest goal of driving Sadam Hussein’s troops from Kuwait having been handily accomplished), Clinton alone resolved to see the ’92 race through to its conclusion.

His perseverance and Ross Perot’s entrance into the race (Perot siphoned away more votes from Republicans than Ralph Nader ever did from Democrats) resulted in victory; Gore was relegated to second-banana status for eight long years.

And when the time came for Gore to capitalize on the first multi-term presidency of a Democrat since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, he again came up short.  Instead of inviting the assistance of a politically savvy (and popular-within-his-party) predecessor with whom he’d served (as had Bush with Ronald Reagan), Gore opted to snub Clinton and go it alone.

Certain as always that the knew better than anyone else, Gore kept his own counsel (and perhaps that of a family member or two).  And as always before in matters presidential, he shot himself in the foot.  Not only did he lose in 2000, he lost to the son of the man Clinton had vanquished eight years previous.  Ouch.

Yes, I know.  Gore narrowly won the popular vote.  At least, he did as far as we can tell.  With all the hanky panky that goes on in large, Democrat-friendly – and Democrat-controlled – county election strongholds around the country, who really knows?  (Voter fraud is much harder to pull off in Republican mainstays, ones primarily comprised of small, rural towns.  The fewer the voters per jurisdiction, the less organized – and the more noticeable – is impropriety.)

Moreover, the electoral system that America employs guides campaign strategy.  With the winner-take-all method used by most states, candidates unlikely to snag victory in a given state move their efforts to more fertile ground.  If you’re behind by 10 percentage points and unlikely to catch up, why bother wasting time and money to gain not a single electoral vote?

If, on the other hand, the popular-vote tallies actually determined general-election outcomes, candidates would make strong pushes in every state.  That’s because if each vote gained (even in losing state efforts) contributed to the overall chance of success, each would be sought.

But such is not the case.  And the “forget the popular vote; the electoral count is all that matters” rationale was one championed by no less a liberal than Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter on NBC’s 2000 election-night coverage.  At least, it was while he supposed that Gore would likely lose the popular vote (yet achieve electoral victory).

When it became obvious that the opposite would probably occur, Alter shamelessly shifted gears and attempted to reverse his argument.  He began to strenuously advocate for the merit of – and the supreme legitimacy of – the popular-vote tally.

To his credit, NBC’s Tom Brokaw called Alter on his transparent ploy.

In any event, no one who loses at home – as Gore lost Tennessee in 2000 – deserves the presidency.  If the people who knew him best didn’t think him worthy, why should anyone else?   Adding insult to injury, Gore failed to carry Arkansas.  Had he accepted Clinton’s help, such would surely not have been the case.

But, what do you expect from the man who once claimed to have “invented the Internet?”

Gore’s lack of wisdom and his inability to sustain effort in pursuit of goals consistently costs him.  After a decidedly lackluster undergraduate career, for example, he twice failed to reach the finish line in quest of a master’s degree – in two separate fields of study.  (His academic shortcomings haven’t kept a fawning media from portraying him as an intellectual, however.)

His loss in 2000 having left his life-long Oval Office ambition in tatters, Gore licked his wounds for an extended period of time.  He porked out.  He grew a beard.  He sat idly by as first Howard Dean and then John Kerry flailed ineffectually away at “George Bush the Second” in 2004.

Now Gore has finally emerged from his wanderings in the desert.  He has, yet again, injected himself into the presidential conversation.  If all the times (over a span of decades) that he has officially and unofficially given the presidency serious consideration were toted up, this would make his umpteenth flirtation.

Fresh from his narration of the Oscar-winning “documentary” An Inconvenient Truth, he’s baaack.  (Was there ever any doubt that Democrat-friendly Hollywood would concede the left-leaning politician the statuette?  The other contenders were left to rehearse the time-honored mantra, “Really, it’s an honor just to be nominated.”)

Gore is currently riding high.  He’s shaved.  He’s rested.  He’s lean.  (Okay, he’s still chubby.  But two out of three ain’t bad.)  He’s hopeful that Barak Obama and Clinton (Hillary this time around) will both stumble, and that Democrats will come calling, begging him to save the party.  He’s dreaming the dream again.

He hopes to ride the global-warming issue all the way to the White House.  He presents dire warnings for the future of our planet.  He provides examples of environmental crimes committed by our culpable species.  We must change our ways, he warns.  Or else.

Gore offers himself as hope for our salvation.  No, no:  not by virtue of his personal lifestyle (his primary residence consumes 20 times the energy as does the average American household).  Nor will he be giving up any of his other comforts anytime soon.

He’ll continue to take private jet rides, travel by limousine and big-boat SUV, heat his outdoor swimming pool (year round) to bathtub temperature, and light the natural-gas lamps that line the long driveway to his mansion.

But he will keep on buying those infamous “carbon offsets.”  They’re kind of like get-out-jail cards for the rich.  If the well-heeled like him only donate some cash to tree-planting groups, they can go on living guilt-free, lavish lifestyles.  (If slavery were still legal, they no doubt could rationalize away ownership by virtue of generous contributions to the NAACP.)

As for us, Gore says that it’s our duty to cut consumption.  No less than our moral obligation.  He challenges us to change our lifestyles for the good of Mother Earth, for the sake of generations of humans and animals who will follow us.

But he just can’t shake the notion in the minds of many that he’s a hypocrite.  That he’s little more than a pandering opportunist.  (Some people – you know, the ones who can’t afford them – just don’t get the whole “offset” thing.)

Perhaps Gore should consider a name change.  Perhaps going by “Albert” would enhance his image.  Maybe it would connote deep thinking.  There was, after all, a person a few years back who did right well with that moniker.  You know the guy.  The German-speaking patent clerk who got himself into encyclopedias and science textbooks by commingling letters and numbers.  (Something about an “E,” an “m,” and a “c.”  Oh, yeah:  and a square.  Right up the suddenly owlish Al’s alley.)

Going by the name Albert worked out well for Einstein.  Perhaps it would similarly enhance Gore’s image as an innovator.  Maybe it would keep folks from noticing that he’s a retread many times over.  That he’s as stale as warm beer.

And maybe it would help divert attention from the fact that not all scientists believe – for all our environmental sins – that we humans are the greatest perpetrators of undesirable climate change.

It seems that our livestock could be most to blame.  Specifically, cattle flatulence could be the primary culprits.  Gassy cows and bulls produce, it turns out, prodigious amounts of methane.  Fact is, when all the Bessies out there get the collective “wind,” very bad things happen to our atmosphere.

How ironic that an obviously well-fed Gore is currently perceived as an environmental champion.  Heck, if he really wanted to reduce global warming, he could take PETA’s advice and take a pass on a few of those steak dinners.  (You don’t think he grew to his present size by scarfing veggies, do you?).

Reduce the demand for beef, reduce livestock.  Reduce livestock, reduce global warming.  “Gentleman’s C” Albert doesn’t need to be capable of explaining Einstein’s E = mc²   to figure that one out.

Come to think of it, maybe he should just stick with Al.  It wouldn’t do for the electorate to conclude that Gore is less similar to the brilliant unlocker of physics mysteries than he is to a Bill Cosby cartoon character:  Fat Albert.

 

Copyright © 2007 Michael F. Murray       All rights reserved.