This story is archived
Gore Derangement Syndrome »
Posted by: Beau7890 2 years, 2 months agoAt National Review Online, Iain Murray suggested that the prize should have been shared with "that well-known peace campaigner Osama bin Laden, who implicitly endorsed Gore's stance." You see, bin Laden once said something about climate change Ã;¢ââ;;¬" therefore, anyone
Read Full Story at nytimes.com »
Submitted By:
Beau7890
A chicken walks into a bar holding a violin case. He’s wearing a chrysanthemum in his lapel. He sits down at the mahogany bar ...
Who Also Submitted:
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 348
-
Beau7890
Oct. 15, 2007, 7:18 a.m.As Krugman asks, "What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?"
-
better-make-friends-with-americans
Oct. 18, 2007, 12:45 a.m.Funny how liberals always ascribe "hate' to conservatives whenever conservatives disagree with the looney left.
Since global warming has not been proven and is only agreed upon by a minority of scientists, I believe conservatives have not only a right, but a responsibility to point out this wakko crazy theory's lies. (And Al Gore's lies)
Mr. Gore does not make me angry, he does not drive me insane. I do however find it interesting that all of you so-called 'thinking' liberals jump on the bandwagon of some unproven feel-good issue. (Well actually that's pretty much every issue you have)
-
quicksilver0602
Oct. 15, 2007, 9:16 a.m.I love Krugman's following observation;...ahhhhh, politics CAN be fun ;P
"And now that Mr. Bush has proved himself utterly the wrong man for the job; to be, in fact, the best president Al Qaeda's recruiters could have hoped for; the symptoms of Gore derangement syndrome have grown even more extreme."
-
Bkumm
Oct. 15, 2007, 11:03 a.m.I don't know what drives the climate change deniers. This is as good a reason as any I've heard.
-
Dobes_Rule
Oct. 15, 2007, 11:05 a.m.So at least now we know where the denial, animosity and outright fear/hatred comes from.....sorry losers....
"...the smear campaign has failed. He's taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy."
Which makes my day! :)
-
not2needy
Oct. 15, 2007, 11:15 a.m.They certainly hate intelligent Liberals! They may as well get over it, the majority of them have Bush mentality, which is insulting at best.
-
AnteUp
Oct. 15, 2007, 11:17 a.m.On Sunday - ABC's "This Week", during their Roundtable
with Sam Donaldson,Cokie Roberts and George Will -
George Stephanopolous stated that Will can't stand Gore
or the Nobel Prize. Will, of course, affirms this and
starts dissing the whole concept of Global Warming once again.
I remember he called those concerned about it "Climate Cassandra's" several weeks ago - I was astonished!
Donaldson say's he, himself, probably won't be around long
enough for the full effects of Global Warming to harm him
BUT he certainly has concerns for his children and grandchildren! At that point, Cokie (whom I thought I liked
but realize I must have misunderstood her for years!)
say's what they really need to be discussing is the impact
that the award will have on the presidential race!!
-
AnteUp
Oct. 15, 2007, 11:31 a.m.Get this from ABC News online after the headline about
Gore winning the Nobel Prize:
Former vice president goes from political pariah to "Gore-acle."
ALSO - From ABC News Oct.12th article:
"For the former vice president's legion of grassroots supporters, the suspense has been agony as they wait for the "Gore-acle" to divine, what they deem to be, an infallible political future."
THIS NOT NEWS! Gore is a hot-button issue for the right
and the tool they use to undermine his accomplishments
is ridicule.
Check out this link:
http://www.political.com/analysis-arc/0342.html
It is a true revelation. The media in some cases defamed
Gore for their own ideological purposes and others - including the Left - couldn't pass up the opportunity
to write libelous tabloid-type pieces and sell more copy.
-
dandt1612
Oct. 15, 2007, 11:45 a.m.This is my favorite part. To me this say's it all.
"Partly it's a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the STAIN of ILLEGITIMACY from the Bush administration."
-
tehranchik
Oct. 15, 2007, 11:48 a.m.I've always wondered what the attitude on the right would have been if.....say, Cheney or Rice would have been chosen to represent the scientific community on climate change.
-
AnteUp
Oct. 15, 2007, 11:51 a.m.Whoo-Hoo!
I found it! I knew that I had read an article about the
mainstream press taking part in undermining Gore.
During the 2000 election they had boosted outright lies
about what Gore supposedly said to the status of guaranteed laugh lines!
It was in The Nation - here's the link:
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070...
The article gave the context of "things Gore said"
that even I had believed were true - We are talking a
total trash job by organizations who's duty is to inform.
If there is an upside, it's that he won the popular vote
inspite of the "Here Comes The Clown" circus that the
media set up.
-
Beau7890
Oct. 15, 2007, 12:35 p.m.You're welcome, Tessylo--thanks for the support!
Let's invite those from the Cold Shoulder thread over here. Might as well have an exchange, right?
-
bubba2
Oct. 15, 2007, 12:10 p.m.The 'Right' smears Al Gore because, yes, they are sore losers.
In addition, they also cannot stand it when any Democrat is SUCCESSFUL.
Gore has OUT-FLANKED George W Bush pretty consistently for the last six years - more popular, more respected, more successful than W will EVER be.
Because the 'Right' has nothing valid to criticize, they ridicule him in the style of O'Reilly and Coulter.
It is the SAME for Gore as it has been for Bill Clinton. They CANNOT stand it that Clinton has been VERY successful since his Presidency and is also still VERY popular.
The popularity and the admiration for both Gore and Clinton is so galling to the neo-cons that they continue to publicly ridicule them whenever they have the opportunity.
Also - all this attention on Gore or on whoever they attack takes attention away from the debacle in Iraq and from the Bush and the White House cr*p.
-
scott4261
Oct. 15, 2007, 12:11 p.m.Paul Krugman has hit the nail on the head with this piece. I have been saying all these things for years!
And if there is any doubt, one only has to look around: We see Gore Derangement Syndrome EVERY DAY on these threads.
-
texangelwings
Oct. 15, 2007, 12:22 p.m.Other than being a political distraction, Gore is the kid that the bullies use to pick on in school, because Gore is different and does not follow the crowd.
Thanks quicksilver for the headsup on this article.
Thanks Beau, interesting article.
-
RedstateLib
Oct. 15, 2007, 1:18 p.m.Gore has been championing environmental causes for decades. I know he wrote at least 1 book before he became VP. Those righties screaming about him jumping on a bandwagon because he lost in 2000 don't even know enough about him to make a comment. I like the phrase "Gore derangement syndrome".
-
RedstateLib
Oct. 15, 2007, 1:24 p.m.Is there a cure for "Gore Derangement Syndrome? Or is it like stupidity incurable?
-
Dorothyalmon
Oct. 15, 2007, 2:36 p.m.It's the 'Swift Boat'syndrome. Republicans have one boob after another they call leaders. BushCheney... so all they can do is attack people of established credentials and proven merit - who happen to be Democrats. It's pathetic. Just pathetic. Pathetic.
-
-
-
sumptuousdigs
Oct. 15, 2007, 3 p.m.Drives 'em crazy?! Hain't nuthin' more funnern a crazy neocon! I likes to poke 'em with a stick!!
-
Poulenc
Oct. 15, 2007, 3:31 p.m.As yet, I've failed to see in print the following reasons for Gore-hate on the right, the repository of all things traditional and absolutist:
He's not butch enough; that is, he cares too much about "nurture"--concerns that real men leave for the gals.
He thinks too much. Which of course is always a problem, in as much as it opens the field of conjecture UP, rather than shutting it down to a single black or white proposition.
-
BravoSierra
Oct. 15, 2007, 5:10 p.m.In social psychology it's pretty well studied that if an antagonist runs out of logical arguments..he resorts to name calling. Of course we all knew that from having gone through the second grade. The Republicans haven't quite made it out of the second grade yet...lol.
-
kedirian
Oct. 15, 2007, 5:12 p.m.As some thoughtful (?) Republican hangers-on on this thread are saying, "It will take time to clean things up...."
As in THE TIME IT TAKES DETROIT TO COME UP WITH CLEANER CARS THAT GIVE BETTER MILEAGE.....?
Apparently, Republicans (mostly well-to-do and richer) and their trailer-trash, Bible-thumping, NRA-addicted "patriots" have only one prefrontal lobe - and it is mostly activated around and by $$$! What a poor, timorous, and uninspiring crowd...
-
Klarissa
Oct. 15, 2007, 6:18 p.m.He writes for the New York Times. When Bill Clinton came into office in 1992, it was expected that Krugman would be given a leading post, but he was passed over in favor of Laura Tyson primarily due to the administration's early flirtation with industrial policy.
Krugman is an outspoken critic of the George W. Bush administration and its foreign and domestic policy. Unlike many economic pundits, he is also regarded as an important scholarly contributor by his peers.
Princeton economist Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times that Greenspan is a "three-card maestro" with a "lack of sincerity" who, "by repeatedly shilling for whatever the Bush administration wants, has betrayed the trust placed in the Fed chairmanâ;¦."
-
Klarissa
Oct. 15, 2007, 6:21 p.m.A November 13, 2003 article in The Economist [8] reads: "A glance through his past columns reveals a growing tendency to attribute all the world's ills to George Bushâ;¦Even his economics is sometimes stretchedâ;¦Overall, the effect is to give lay readers the illusion that Mr Krugman's perfectly respectable personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory." In his May 22, 2005 farewell column, New York Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent conceded, "Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults."[9]
-
getreal1
Oct. 15, 2007, 6:44 p.m.Mr. Gore's global warming issues are actually true. Every year when I was a girl the beach where I spent a couple of weeks for summer fun would be changed it seemed that the water was trying to take the beech away. The earth is going to reshape itself. You can't stop it and Osama is hip to as well as those that were noticing it a few decades ago. Osama used a lot of issues that were upsetting his side of the earth such as world trade, which swapping a person livelihood from one continent to another has only created more poverty or should I say shifted the poverty around. In a way Osama is a man of peace and concern, only he met what he considers bullies such as the Bush Administration with bully tactics which violence on violence creates more violence. Therefore we cannot call him a true man of peace. A lot of Osama's views of this world seem to be no different from some of those in the US.
The first 308 comments are shown. Show all 348 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
