Is It Too Late For Rehab?

Newt Gingich is sorry. He's admitted that he cheated on his wife while he was pushing impeachment on Bill Clinton for lying about an affair. So he told right-wing crackpot James Dobson that he "sought God's forgiveness" and has "gotten on my knees."

Of course, Gingrich is pushing a new book called Rediscovering God in America, and is saying he will run for the Republican presidential nomination "as a last resort." What he means is that if the front-runners for the GOP nomination aren't satisfactory to the hard-core right, he'll step in as their savior. Oh, and did he mention he's selling a book with "God" in the title? And that he's really, really sorry for that affair (and those three marriages)?

Meanwhile, Gingrich is pulling in $50,000 for every speaking appearance (he makes about 60 a year) and running a for-profit "think tank" on health care that promotes the business interests of its backers (yeah, that's a great academic exercise), according to a report in the Philadelphia Inquirer on Jan. 21. Also in January, Gingrich's new 527 group, "American Solutions for Winning the Future," got a $1 million donation from Sheldon Adelson, a casino CEO and prominent donor to the GOP. (Wow, a new group that includes the title of Gingrich's previous book! Quite a coincidence!) Fortune magazine, which disclosed Gingrich's speaking fees, said his post-Congressional career is "making him rich." He's also a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the same think tank funded by Exxon that is offering reward money to any scientists or economists who are willing to dispute the U.N's report on global warming.

Gingrich claims his "American Solutions" group is bipartisan (is there any 527 group that is?), but yet the group proposes private savings accounts for Social Security, "patriotic education" in public schools and appointment of judges that understand "the centrality of God in American history." It's amazing how much stock Gingrich is taking in God these days now that he might need the right-wing religious vote if he chooses to run for president (expect an obscene amount of religious rhetoric if he does).

Calling his bid for the presidency a "last resort" (gee, are we imposing?), Gingrich said he wants to influence the race by providing both parties with "solutions" to health care, energy, education, national security and immigration issues. Lucky for us that he's set up a for-profit company to do all that.

Has there ever been a bigger political phony that Newt Gingrich? His few years of prominence in the 1990s were highlighted by mean-spirited attacks on the poor, back-handed attempts to gut environmental regulation and legendary power-grabs. He's still at it, too: At last week's Conservative Political Action Conference, Gingrich alleged that the reason disaster hit New Orleans' Ninth Ward during Hurricane Katrina is "a failure of citizenship." He said the people were "so uneducated and so unprepared, they literally couldn't get out of the way of a hurricane." Never mind the ineptitude of those in charge at the federal level or the lack of response or the disdain for the role of government that conservatives have which he helped establish, it's the peoples' fault!

He has skillfully played the "family values" card throughout his political career, and yet he's an admitted adulterer. He's also a draft-dodger, having avoided service in Vietnam with a combination of student and family deferments, and marrying one of his teachers when he was 19 years old. His first wife - with whom he discussed the terms of divorce when she was hospitalized - sued him for child support when utilities were going to be cut off.

He's also bounced 22 checks during the House Banking scandal, and violated House ethics rules for using taxpayer donations for his personal and political purposes. (He had, at one point or another, 84 ethics charges filed against him while in the House.) He's appeared on Fox News quite a bit - and why not, since they're politically attuned to one another? - and has even hosted specials for them. But is that because Rupert Murdoch owns his ass? In 1995, one of Murdoch 's publishing companies offered Gingrich $4.5 million for a book, while Murdoch was having problems with a complaint from NBC that Fox is a foreign-owned network (which is against U.S. law). Gingrich and Murdoch had several meetings (one reportedly on a park bench) but said their purpose was politics, not contracts. (Gingrich eventually took a lucrative royalty-based deal in lieu of the $4.5 million.)

By the way, news of Gingrich's affair during the impeachment period isn't new. In 1998, it was reported that he told his (second) wife that he was leaving her for a woman 23 years younger than him. The news apparently came to her when Gingrich called his mother-in-law to give her birthday wishes, and then asked to speak to his wife, who was brought to tears by the news. By that point, Gingrich had allegedly been seeing the younger woman for at least three years (she eventually became his third wife). Meanwhile, in his professional capacity, Gingrich said those who didn't support the so-called morality of his allies in the Christian Coalition were "abnormal."

Let's not forget that Gingrich recently said that free speech should be curtailed in the U.S. in order to fight terrorism. Since President Bush has told the nation that this is a war unlike any other and could last generations, Gingrich is proposing a fundamental - and for all intents and purposes, permanent - restriction of freedoms. Gingrich has - both in the past and in the present - advocated a second Constitutional Convention, at which the U.S. Constitution would be revised. This is a man who respects our national heritage? Anyone who doesn't believe in the Constitution shouldn't be running for an office where the job is to protect the Constitution.

The only thing that's new in Gingrich's "confession" to James Dobson is his penitence. All he has to do now is go to rehab and blame a bottle or a pill or bad sexual urges. Throughout his career and his personal life, Gingrich has been a hypocrite, using "family values" to motivate voters whose morality he doesn't share, while acting as an agent in the government for powerful corporate interests and enriching himself in the process. Don't dismiss him; he's as dangerous a political entity and a genuine threat to democracy and freedom as this country has ever seen.

There aren't many who could claim the title of "most despicable" from the likes of Tricky Dick Nixon (although there are several in the current Bush administration vying for the title), but Newt Gingrich qualifies for and has achieved his own grotesque stature.

More info: Newt Gingrich's Skeleton Closet

Newt World Order

Gingrich: House GOP Would Be Accused Of 'Gay Bashing' If Pursued Foley

Let's Impeach the President

How is it that the right wing portrays anyone who talks about impeaching George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as nutcases, yet acted as though the impeachment of Bill Clinton was the most important action of government since the signing of the Constitution? How is it that they equate Clinton's actions, which were of a personal nature, with Bush and Cheney's, which have resulted in the deaths of thousands, not to mention a shredded Constitution?

On Tuesday, more than 30 towns in Vermont passed resolutions calling for the impeachment of the president for misleading the nation on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and for engaging in illegal wiretapping, among other charges. Richard Nixon faced charges that were less severe, and he resigned when it became clear his impeachment was imminent. The political winds were against Nixon, and have been in Bush's favor, although that's changing.

Most now believe - finally - that Bush and Cheney misled the country into war, and as the Iraq situation gets worse with each passing day, more Americans see the mess they've gotten the country into, and the question arises: How do you hold them accountable?

Republicans won't even let the Senate debate a resolution that would simply criticize the president's decisions on the war, so how can we expect them to allow impeachment to come up? Well, we can't. The House of Representatives could bring up the issue of impeachment - even though Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she is not in favor of it - but the Senate would never convict Bush, and so, unlike Nixon, Bush would never feel impeachment was imminent and would never resign.

So why are the good people of Vermont (and other states as well) pushing it? It's because average citizens have been so helpless to stop the Bush administration's destructive policies that passing resolutions of impeachment is the best way to channel and express their outrage. This president and vice president have so threatened the rule of law - and placed themselves above it - that impeachment, however improbable, is the only option left. Add to the mix the administration's constant breaking of the law, and you've got a case for high crimes and misdemeanors, the standard the Constitution requires for removal.

It is indeed a topsy-turvy world when Bill Clinton could be impeached for not telling the truth about an affair, but George Bush cannot for starting a war under false pretenses and violating explicit laws about spying on U.S. citizens. People want to impeach Bush because of his policies and the substance of what he has done in office. Republicans impeached Bill Clinton because they didn't like him.

Clinton was villified by the right wing from the early days of his presidential campaign. Conservatives hated him for his baby-boomer background and intellectual openness. The cultural wars of the 1960s have never gone away, and they manifested in the 1990s battle between Clinton and the Republican-led Congress. (Right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan explicitly declared a "culture war" during the 1992 campaign. Newt Gingrich once called the Clintons "counter-culture McGoverniks." Sounds like a compliment where we're sitting.) They just didn't like him - or his wife - or approve of their lifestyle. So when they could embarass him publicly for having an affair, they did. Shut down the government! The president kissed a girl!

Today, there are plenty of people who don't like George Bush and Dick Cheney. Does that mean the president and vice president are bad people? We don't know. We'll never know if Bush cheats on his wife, is short-tempered with his children, or kicks his dog. To the extent that those things don't make him a hypocrite, they don't matter.

What matters is the ideas behind the administration. Experts say Bush administration policies have actually made the country less safe in the wake of 9/11. The wiretapping program clearly violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And lying to the people, massaging intelligence reports to say what you want them to say and commiting the country to war has got to be high on the list of high crimes for any president. (Neil Young wrote a song about it last year, "Let's Impeach the President," and the lyrics spell out the reasons.)

Conservatives will always say "don't put the country through it," referring to impeachment. But it was okay when Clinton was president? It's okay to put the country through a mangling of the Constitution, a redistribution of wealth to those who need it least and an illegal and seemingly never-ending war? How much longer do we have to hear this Republican hypocrisy?

If there was any justice, impeachment proceedings would begin tomorrow and Bush and Cheney would be packing their bags. But the political reality is very different, despite what the people of Vermont (and many of the rest of us) might think. There are certainly those who would say Bush and Cheney are patriots, but how is patriotism defined? They haven't been loyal to the ideas that the nation was founded upon, or which it has fought to protect. They've shown disdain for the very concept of government, and against all reason and logic, have pushed ahead with politics and policies that divide the country and harm its citizens. Greater disrespect has never been paid to the nation's laws and traditions, and - absent impeachment - a greater confounding of justice has never been seen.

More info: The Impeachment of George W. Bush

Impeachment: The Case In Favor

The Hippie Era Just Won't Die

Impeach07 Initiatives

Pardon Me? (Or: Why Bush Will Pardon Libby)

Scooter Libby's been found guilty and in the three months or so before his sentencing, the question will continue to be debated as to whether George W. Bush will pardon him. The answer is: Of course he will.

The only thing standing between Libby and many years of prison is his ability to cut a deal with prosecutors. What does Libby have that they would want? Information on the leak scandal and how far up the ladder of the Bush administration it goes. What could convince him to keep quiet? A presidential pardon.

It's hardly unprecedented. Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, and damned himself and his party as a result. The former President Bush pardoned former Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger and others who were set to go to trial in the Iran-Contra affair, thus assuring that the public would never receive an accounting of what transpired. Among those also pardoned was Elliott Abrams, who went on to be George W. Bush's Special Assistant and Senior Director on the National Security Council. The former President Bush issued the pardons after the 1992 election, when he had nothing left to lose politically. (Although, he stood to lose if the truth about Iran-Contra came out, since he was said to be a key player.)

The timing of the pardon depends on how much the current president is concerned with the reaction of his own party. The Republicans have to know that a Libby pardon will taint them even more than the Watergate scandal did more than 30 years ago. They should be joining Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's call for Bush to pledge not to pardon Libby. It's in their self-interest and their party's longevity to do so.

If Bush pardons Libby before the sentencing or before the end of his term, his legislative agenda is over. Nothing that the Bush administration prioritizes will gain any ground in the next year and a half, and his own party will turn on him. (It's amazing more of them haven't already. What has Bush done for them?) More likely, Bush will gamble that Libby knows a pardon is coming and will keep his mouth shut, and a pardon will come in time for Christmas 2008, after the election is over. Bush will leave office with a smirk and Republicans will wonder why they ever supported someone who so carelessly damaged their party.

It's been said that the CIA leak case is the loose thread which could unravel the entire ball of string of the Bush administration's false case for going to war and its general lawlessness. Bush and Cheney know that the only chance they have to stop that is to keep Scooter Libby out of jail. So Bush will pardon him, not because he's a patriot (the excuse his father used in pardoning the Iran-Contra figures), not because it's in the national interest (it's in the national interest for the truth to come out!), not because justice hasn't been served (Libby received a fair trial), but simply because their asses are on the line.

More info: Libby - The Fall Guy

The Case Against the War

Bush Pardons 6 in Iran Affair, Aborting a Weinberger Trial; Prosecutor Assails 'Cover-Up'

School-Yard Politics and Train-Wreck TV

Most people learn at a young age that one of the surest signs that someone has lost an argument is when they have no response, and resort to name-calling. The older you got, the nastier the names got, but the result was the same: Your opponent had nothing substantive to say and could not dispute your position.

Ann Coulter is the 13-year-old schoolyard bully on the national political scene. Her vicious name-calling in reference to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards last Friday underscored that not only is she not a woman of substance, but the same hateful, scared child that attacked everyone who ever thought differently than she did.

Coulter also, evidently, has a problem with homosexuality. It seems to be her epithet of choice, as she's used it to attempt to demean John Edwards, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. But why? What is it about that label she pins on people that makes her feel superior? (It is worth noting that she allegedly has a brother who is gay.) Is she inferring that homosexuals are weak, and therefore ineffective leaders? Does she think we could possibly have more ineffective leadership than George W. Bush? And if Coulter thinks Bush is ineffective, does that mean she thinks he's gay too?

The answer, of course, is that there is no answer. Coulter has no logic to her arguments. She's staked out a place on the extreme right-wing fringe (she's on record as saying Joe McCarthy was right in his witch hunts of the 1950s and that he was a "great American")and she's sticking to it, although all she seems to be doing to defend her beliefs is to engage in name-calling. What does she think of John Edwards' healthcare plan? Or Barack Obama's healthcare plan? Or Al Gore's environmental policy recommendations? We don't know because she hasn't bothered to say, although we're sure she'd simply dismiss the individuals without addressing their ideas.

Hey, maybe all this politics and policy is over her head. That's fine; it's not for everyone. But, what, then, makes her think she's qualified to talk about these people? There are probably some extremists who admire her for speaking her mind, however hate-filled it may be. Maybe there are those who admire her mean streak.

Coulter got her start in political commentary on MSNBC in the mid-90s, where she was a legal correspondent. She was fired from that station for the first time when she insulted the former U.S. ambassador to France during the woman's funeral. She was brought back, only to be dismissed again when interviewing Bobby Muller, a paralyzed Vietnam veteran who was campaigning against landmines. When Muller explained that many soldiers in Vietnam were killed or maimed by landmines the U.S. had laid, Coulter responded "No wonder you guys lost." The insensitivity of that statement is staggering enough - and insulting to all veterans - but to demean Muller, who founded Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation (now called Veterans of America) and has been a tireless spokesman for veterans affairs for 30 years, is inexcusable. This from a woman who has publicly declared herself a Christian and a follower of Jesus.

Of course, she later found opportunities at Fox News and CNN. NBC's Today Show has even hosted her from time to time. In 2006, she was featured on the cover of Time magazine. All of these entities bear some responsibility for her continued presence on the national scene.

There are two things that give Ann Coulter and people like her attention: The first is the Republican party, which caters to the extreme right-wing, and keeps inviting her to speak at functions like last week's Conservative Political Action Conference (although there have been calls in the days since Friday to keep her away from now on). The second thing, and by far, the most enabling, is the corporate media's attitude that "news is entertainment."

When people like Coulter, Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity spew their ill-informed, misguided and often hate-filled rhetoric on television, it's not because the news organizations are trying to bring audiences different sides to political issues. It's because they know the Coulters and O'Reillys and Hannitys will say outrageous things that are out-of-step with mainstream viewers. They want viewers to pause in front of the TV and ask "What did she just say?" and then sit down and observe every train-wreck minute of it. (I hesitate to add any left-wing names to the list of people saying outrageous things on television - not because left-wing folks don't say outrageous things, but because they are rarely, if ever, invited on the Crossfires and Hardballs. All of which has the effect of shifting the whole debate to right, but that's another matter.)

Coulter's an attention-seeker, like the bully in the schoolyard who has to get in everyone's face and say the most repugnant things he or she can say. But she's proven that she'll say anything to get attention and to peddle her books -- like when she took to the airwaves last year to promote her latest and knew she'd get everyone's attention by calling the 9/11 widows "self-obsessed women... who enjoy their husbands' deaths." Hurt entire families that lost a loved one? Pervert historical facts? Offend the national consensus? Who cares! She's got books to sell!

Having no shame and saying anything to get attention makes her a media whore. Not having anything substantive to say makes Ann Coulter a phony. She only offers hate and ignorance. Is this really who the Republicans and conservatives want representing them?

If not, the time to say so is now.

More info: News as Entertainment and Entertainment as News

Rightwing Nuthouse: Ann Coulter - Conservative Lout

Ann Coulter: Bitch Goddess

Bring 'Em Home, Joe

Forty years ago, it seemed the Vietnam War was the greatest malfeasance of government in America's history. Then Watergate happened. That was followed by Iran-Contra, which saw branches of government openly lying to pursue illegal policy objectives. Now comes what surely must be the heavyweight champion of government malfeasance: The war in Iraq.

Not surprisingly, a new poll shows a majority of Americans favor setting a deadline to bring troops home from Iraq, while an even larger majority oppose President Bush's plan to send more troops to the warzone. Meanwhile, another new survey of international relations scholars finds 89% in agreement that the war in Iraq will result in decreased national security for Americans. Polls taken during those previous debacles in American history showed similar sentiments. So why is public opinion so rarely heeded in decisions that affect not only the direction of the country and its relations with other nations, but the lives of America's sons and daughters, brothers and sisters? How representative is a government that doesn't represent the will of the people?

This time around, blame Joe Lieberman.

It's no secret that Lieberman is the lynchpin in the Democrats' control of the Senate and if Lieberman chooses to betray them, the Republicans regain control and hope of changing course in Iraq is lost. Therefore, the Democrats have one hand tied behind their back. They can't act on the popular support for bringing the troops home and ending U.S. involvement in the war, because they have to somehow appease Lieberman, who lost the Democratic nomination in his own state, due to his dedication to President Bush's alleged plan for Iraq.

In an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal on Monday, Lieberman mentioned that General Petraeus, new commander of the forces in Iraq, expects to be able to assess whether the escalated force is achieving its goals by the end of the summer. Lieberman wants a "truce" between the parties on Iraq until then. What he really means is that he wants Democrats - in defiance of public opinion and popular support - to stop pressuring him and other Senate leaders to come up with an alternative before September. In a profile this month in The New Yorker, Jeffrey Goldberg writes that Lieberman feels he owes the Democrats nothing, and suggests that a big reason why cutting off funds for the war is not on the table is because that would push Lieberman over the edge and make him switch parties.

What if autumn comes and no progress has been made? The Bush administration will certainly spin the situation to tell the public that some goals have been achieved. Will they, and General Petraeus, ask for more time and more patience (which means, undoubtedly, more lives lost)? Or will Joe Lieberman have the courage to step up and say "We gave this a chance and it didn't work. Now let's listen to the people and bring them home"?

If it turns out to be the case that Congress must wait another six months to effectively even make an attempt to turn things around because Lieberman is holding control of the Senate hostage, then the lives of everyone lost in that time are on his hands. Lieberman's excess of pride and feelings of personal vengeance come at the cost of delaying the democratic process and the irreparable harm that will likely come to many families on all sides of this war.

More info: Inside the Ivory Tower

Majority in Poll Favor Deadline For Iraq Pullout

Lieberman Carves Increasingly Isolated Path

Don't Believe the Right-Wing Media

Barack Obama has the right idea. According to The Sleuth, a Washington Post.com column, Senator Obama is "freezing out" reporters from Fox News, the network which unapologeticly aired the right-wing smear against him in the last week. Since the incident - which right-wingers have attempted to blame on Hillary Clinton's campaign, in an effort to smear two Democratic candidates at once - Obama has given interviews to nearly every other major broadcast news channel, except Fox.

Obama's not the only one being attacked. Former Senator John Edwards is fielding questions on the campaign trail about his residence in Chapel Hill, N.C., and whether it is "too nice" for someone who is talking about poverty issues. The absurdity of such an attack shows how ruthless - or desperate - the right-wing is to take the public's attention off the actual issues.

Even what were once thought of as traditional news sources are being overcome by the right-wing propagandists. ABC News, which is owned by the Walt Disney Company, recently hired right-wing talk-show personality Glenn Beck to be a regular commentor on Good Morning America. Several Muslim groups have complained to ABC that because Beck has demonstrated a bias against Arabs, he should not be included in their programming.

ABC's senior news correspondent Jake Tapper recently used quotes from the defender of the right-wing faith Rush Limbaugh to augment a story about the racial implications of Joe Biden's comments on his fellow Democratic presidential candidates. Limbaugh is someone who is known for making racially insensitive comments, so why would ABC choose to reference him? What could they have expected him to say?

Last week, Tapper questioned the authenticity of Democratic candidates, but not Republican candidates. The reporter has a history of favoring Republicans and questioning the integrity of Democrats in his reporting. It's sad to see the former home of a fine journalist like Peter Jennings become a forum for Republican propaganda.

On Fox News recently, smug right-wing poster boy Sean Hannity aired scenes that were cut from the ABC telefilm Path to 9/11 which were removed from the original broadcast because of complaints that they portrayed events that never happened. That didn't stop Hannity from telling viewers he was going to present "both sides." Presumably, he meant fact and fiction, along it remains to be seen how many actual facts were not obscured by Hannity.

Fox News was created by Roger Ailes, who was a paid political consultant for the Republicans in the 1970s, 1980s, and the early 1990s. Fox has had an unapologetic conservative emphasis from the beginning, despite its corporate slogan of being "fair and balanced." It was owner Rupert Murdoch's contention that the news media was "liberal" and he and Ailes intended Fox to offset that perceived imbalance. In fact, substantial research has investigated this, and concluded that there is no liberal bias in media. But conservatives persist in saying there is, which is a convenient way for right-wing extremists to get their opinions heard, and more dangerously, have their skew with the news.

Here is the definition of propaganda: "A type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda is often deliberately misleading, using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid."

In an up-to-the-minute and egregious example of the right-wing's attempt to inject propaganda into the culture, the American Enterprise Institute - a right wing think tank funded by the likes of companies like Exxon Mobil - is offering scientists and economists $10,000 to dispute the United Nations' climate change report (referenced below). The Institute is looking for articles that cast doubt on the U.N. report's findings. You can be sure that if anyone takes the bait, the right-wing media will report on it, since groups like AEI and the Heritage Foundation often place people in the editorial staffs of news organizations. Nothing less than life continuing on the planet is at stake, and the right-wing wants to cast doubt on the report -- so that companies like Exxon will not have to change their ways and stop polluting the atmosphere. It's insanity.

We won't even get into the absurdity of Fox's smugness incarnate, Bill O'Reilly, who spins more stories and twists more truths than anyone can keep track of. He'll tell you he's an "independent thinker" but then recite Republican talking points and disparage Democratic personalities. The goal of propagandists like O'Reilly and the people behind Fox is to keep telling viewers they are getting impartial news, when that's the last thing they are getting. The Nazi propagandists used the same trick back in their time.

In an op-ed piece in today's New York Times, columnist Paul Krugman paid tribute to Molly Ivins, who passed away this week, citing her 1995 column about Rush Limbaugh, in which she wrote ''Satire has historically been the weapon of powerless people aimed at the powerful. When you use satire against powerless people it is like kicking a cripple.''

It's also a powerful political tool. Be smart; don't believe the right-wing media. They exist to serve corporate and neoconservative political interests, not to serve truth.

More info: Propaganda Techniques

News Hounds: We Watch Fox So You Don't Have To

Room For One More?

Just when it seems like everyone who has ever held any public office is running for president, along comes Al Gore, who has said he has no plans to run, but according to a new article in Rolling Stone, may be quietly laying the groundwork to make off with the Democratic nomination and the presidency.

Gore, who seems the favorite to win the Oscar for Best Documentary later this month for his film An Inconvenient Truth, and has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, has newfound cultural clout and respect for not only his environmental work but also his straight-talking attitude that came out before the Iraq war (and in the years since it began). In September 2002 - six months before the war even began - Gore gave a speech in which he said "The chaos in the aftermath of a military victory in Iraq could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam."

With the release of the United Nations' report on global warming on Feb. 2, Gore's profile is likely to rise even more, as the report is scheduled to support the scientific conclusions that he backed years ago. Anyone who disagrees with the scope of the global warming problem at this point is either an apologist for industry or a fool. These matters have been discussed for more than 30 years. Any leader who doesn't use their role to help correct the environmental disaster that is happening (not coming, but happening) will surely be judged as ineffectual.

The article makes a compelling case for why Gore should run, and how he could win. He'd be an alternative to the cautious middle-of-the-road campaign of Hillary Clinton, and right-wing pandering that will surely come from John McCain and Rudy Guiliani. Only Barack Obama and John Edwards - both strong candidates - could challenge Gore on his turf, but Gore has an advantage with his experience in the Senate and as vice president.

That said, fans of robust political debate should be glad that there are so many talented candidates running. With the likes of Edwards, Obama, Gore, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, and even Clinton running, one of them ought to be able to make it to the finish line and use their time in the Oval Office to make a dent in correcting the course the country has been on under the Bush administration and the extreme right-wing idealouges it represents.

At the very least, Al Gore should run because his presence alone would steer the national debate to environmental concerns that are essential to the nation's well-being.

More info: Climate Crisis.org

White House Twists Global Warming Science