Posted on 08/15/2011 8:09:32 PM PDT by RED SOUTH
In an interview with an Iowa radio station on Monday, the Republican presidential contender explained his role as the Gore campaign’s Texas chairman by saying that “this was Al Gore before he invented the Internet and got to be Mr. Global Warming.”
But in fact, global warming was already a significant theme for Gore in 1987 and 1988 — long before his activism led to several books, a Nobel Prize and a part in an Academy Award-winning film. It was also well before the right gave him the "Mr. Ozone" nickname and talk radio heaped endless mockery on the future vice president.
That is a silly argument. Bill clinton clearly had sexual relations with Monica. He confessed to it. There was his semen on a dress. She told us about it. He was claiming something didn't happen that clearly happened.
Perry told the truth. The Al Gore of 1988 was not known as the Al Gore of 2011. Perry should not be judged for his support of Al Gore in 1988 based on our views of Al Gore in 2011. To suggest that everybody in 1988 treated Al Gore like we do today is the falsehood.
Rush Limbaugh had a radio show by 1988, right? Did he regularly mock Al Gore for being an eco-nutcase? Were people making fun of Al Gore claiming to have invented the internet in 1988? Why don't you dig up that evidence, if you think Al Gore of 1988 was the same as Al Gore today.
You won't find it; we all know that Al Gore in 1988 was seen differently than he is today, that is what Perry was saying, and it was the truth.
Again Trollboy....”But in fact, global warming was already a significant theme for Gore in 1987 and 1988 — long before his activism led to several books, a Nobel Prize and a part in an Academy Award-winning film. It was also well before the right gave him the “Mr. Ozone” nickname and talk radio heaped endless mockery on the future vice president.
Read it again and try to understand what “But in fact, global warming was already a significant theme for Gore in 1987 and 1988” actually means.
Perry said no, history said yes. Ergo Perry lied.
One more time...
“already a significant theme for Gore in 1987 and 1988”
Again...
“already a significant theme for Gore in 1987 and 1988”
That means as a well known politician, a ‘significant issue” is one that you care about PUBLICLY.
It was not some hidden thing. He WAS associated with it whether someone called him “Mr. Global Warming” or Mr. Chakra sex poodle.
There--we are not so far apart. My heart is with Palin or Cain. My head suspects they could be (or already have been) destroyed by the media that is seen by way too many voters. And reality says we must select from among those running. If Palin really does run, our disagreement may boil down to one about electability.
Consider that any ‘damage’ predates the havok Obama has since wrought. Also that the average American has a political attention span measured in days. It’s quite possible that in light of recent events, people will give her another listen, especially since she has 15 months to make her case.
You’re equivocating about this Charles, there is nothing complex about this.
Perry knew Gore.
Gore had an ACU rating of 9%.
Perry trying to pass off Gore not being into GLobal Warming as proof that Gore wasn’t a left-wing Liberal is a lie because Global Warming wasn’t even an issue then.
That isn't what the sound bite said, but rather than repeat myself to you, just read what I posted to other freepers. You are twisting the clear meaning of his speech soundbite to imply he was making a claim he was not making.
You want to make it about "Rick's lying" because you see that as a better argument than the one that has been made here for weeks about him being a democrat in the 1980s. That had the advantage of being a truthful and serious argument, but it hasn't kept people from supporting Perry, so now you want to claim he's a liar, but the evidence doesn't support your claim.
My point about judging Perry for Al Gore's global warming stance was in fact meant to illustrate what you have said -- that it isn't really about Al Gore's views on global warming in the 80s, despite those who keep bringing up those views to suggest Rick Perry lied. That tactic has his supporters arguing over how conservative or liberal Al Gore is -- it's a clever tactic, but a frivolous argument.
Rick Perry has said Gore was into global warming at the time, and that he didn't support Gore's view on that when he was his campaign chair. Since he is on record saying that, it is absurd for you to say that Perry is trying to make a "false case that Al wasn't into Global Warming".
Because if I'm trying to claim Al Gore wasn't into global warming, I wouldn't be saying Al Gore was into global warming and I disagreed with him. See, that pretty much is the OPPOSITE of claiming he wasn't into global warming.
That is pretty funny, but I don't think I'll tell you why, because it isn't important right now.
Rick Perry said Al Gore believed in Global Warming, and that Perry at the time disagreed with Gore's views on that subject. So clearly PErry isn't trying to pretend Gore wasn't into global warming. That is a canard.
Al Gore of 1988 was NOT the Al Gore we know today. All of your repetitions can't refute that simple fact. What you need is actual evidence, and you have none, to show that Al Gore in 1988 was seen the same as he is today.
I'm not even donating to Rick Perry yet; nor is he my candidate yet. I have never figured out how to make money in politics, I don't really care what I look like to anonymous posters on the internet, and I doubt what I am saying is on anybody's talking points.
Oops—You are right. I should check the map. But Texas A&M is by damn in east Texas, and a fine bunch of conservatives, I might add. It is a joy to visit there just to read the bumper stickers on the pickup trucks. Perry was an Aggie yell leader there, another objection the Austin liberals have against him.
What he said.
That's a red flag for me too, I'm being consistent on this one. I had a similar problem in 2010 when some tea party groups were rallying around Adam Andrzejewski for Governor and he had this applause line on the campaign trail about how his dad was the "conservative reformer who took on George Ryan" (implying his dad ran to the right of Ryan). Adam got big kudos for that because George Ryan in 2010 was an ultra-liberal RINO/DIABLO ex-Governor behind bars for corruption.
The problem with the story is it didn't hold up to scrutiny. If you researched what he was talking about, his dad ran for the state legislature as a Democrat in 1978 in Kankakee Co. He didn't file against "George Ryan" but against any and all Republicans on the ballot, since 3 state legislators were elected per district back then. The most damning part is that George Ryan back in 1978 was Speaker of the Illinois House and a conservative icon. He had put his butt on the line to defeat the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) in Illinois at the behest of Phyllis Schlafly and had a rock solid pro-life, pro-family, tough-on-crime record in those days, and was seen as squeaky clean in his pre-Secretary of State days. Nobody would have attempted to run as a "conservative reformer" against him in the 70s, and certainly not as a RAT.
Now we have Rick Perry and his fans trying to do the same history revisionism in reverse, claiming Al Gore was a staunch right-winger in 1988 and the Texas Democrats were "the conservative party" in the 80s. Again, once you research Gore's record, the record of the RATs in the Texas legislature, and Reagan's appeal in Texas during the late 80s, these claims are not merely misleading but flat out false.
I have a real problem with politicians that try to rewrite history to make themselves look good.
If it were an isolated incident, I'd be more willing to cut Perry slack, but he has a long history of saying one thing and doing another. He's to the right of Romney, but I have a hunch if Perry had been running for office in Massachusetts he would have done exactly what Romney did. They both seem to adjust their "principles" to whatever is popular at that given moment in time.
You keep missing the basic fact that Perry did NOT say no, you are wrong on your premise, and therefore your conclusion is false. Perry has SAID Al gore was into global warming. What Perry said was that Al Gore in 1988 wasn't the same as Al Gore today. That is clearly the truth, and it's another truth you keep ignoring.
I see you are getting frustrated, as you are beginning to use personal insults as part of your "debate tactics". As I doubt you will provide any evidence for your claims, and you've already proven my point and you keep repeating the things that prove my point, and it's like 2:30 in the morning here, I'll let you rant on with the last word. I believe the record will be sufficient for those who bother to read this thread. I certainly never expected to convince you of your error, although that would have been a pleasant bonus.
Please don't tell me electability isn't important. Talk about looking silly!
Charles,
You know how you know someone is a liberal by an 9% ACU Score?
When Fienstein has a rating of 8% in 2010.
It’s as simple as that.
Charles, would you consider Senator Herb Kohl to be a "conservative Democrat" if he announced a run for President tomorrow? How about even a "moderate Democrat" or a "centrist"? He has a similar ACU rating now as Al Gore had in 1988. Kohl earned a 8% rating from the American Conservative Union in 2010 and 2009. Would you be concerned about a Republican Governor who was a proud Democrat that chaired Kohl's campaign in 2010 during the height of the tea party revolution, only to become a Republican in 2011 and claim he was a good conservative when he was chairing Kohl's campaign?
I'm pretty sure Gore having a similar "conservative" record in 1988 as Herb Kohl has today means he was a liberal in 1988. Gore back then was arrogant, condescending, Bush-bashing, global warming alarmist and so is the Al Gore of today. Rick Perry's views changed, NOT Al Gore's. Why is it so hard for Perry's fan club to admit that?
Exactly. It’s that opportunism that just reeks. And the knee-jerk response of those rationalizing it with, “Don’t hate the player, hate the game,” doesn’t cut it with me, either. Time to change the players AND the game. That’s why I’m backing Palin. She’s working on a whole new level and pissing off all the right people.
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.