Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:35, 22 February 2006

One problem I have with this article is that it presents only Gore contoversies that favor the man.

If you know of any Gore controversy that does not favor him, feel free to add it. --Chan-Ho Suh 03:15, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Occidental petroleum; AIDS drugs; Cockburn-St. Clair book; a few more notes

The connection between VP Gore and Occidental Petroleum was at least a minor controversy. The article mentions that Gore's father (Sen. Albert Gore, Sr.) was closely tied to Occidental, but the coverage in this article should probably be expanded to make clearer what the allegations were.

Especially during the 2000 campaign, AIDS activists caused considerable grief for Gore in demonstrations alleging that Gore was in league with pharmaceutical companies in preventing inexpensive life-saving drugs from helping AIDS victims in Africa and elsewhere.

The Cockburn-St. Clair book, Al Gore: A User's Manual (2000), is a rather nasty slamming of Gore on all sorts of grounds. Even though their work is exceptionally well documented, it is written from an intensely anti-Gore perspective, with pens dipped in clever venom. Some of their more awful stories about Gore (even though based in fact) seem too unpleasant to repeat in an encyclopedia, especially allegations that did not involve widespread controversy at the time. (For example, Cockburn and St. Clair report that, despite Gore's hypocritical posturing in a famous Convention speech against the evils of tobacco, where he spoke poignantly and tearfully before a national audience about having held the hand of his dying sister----a cancer victim----Gore had shortly before that speech been boasting publicly to tobacco associations that he himself was a tobacco farmer.)

The WTI incinerator episode (East Liverpool, Ohio) is probably an important enough controversy to be included within a separate sub-heading under the environmental rubric. Also, it was shortly after (and perhaps because of) the big WTI-float anti-Gore protest outside the White House that Pennsylvania Avenue was blocked off to vehicular traffic.

Willie Horton "murderer furlough issue" as originated by Al Gore

I don't want to initiate a reversion-deletion war, but I would respectfully suggest that it was entirely inappropriate to remove the section outlining the controversy concerning Al Gore's use of the issue of the Massachusetts convict-furlough ("Willie Horton") against Michael Dukakis in 1988. The report aimed for balance (making it clear that Gore was not at all directly responsible for the Bush-Quayle campaign's later use of Willie Horton); if the report wasn't balanced, the cure should be to strive to edit it to make it balanced, not to delete it with the unhelpful exclamation "bullshit!"

The URL the deleter cites (from Jesse Jackson, Jr.) as refuting the section actually substantiates the fact that Al Gore was the first to introduce the murderer-furlough issue into the 1988 presidential campaign. It is true (and an editor could accurately point out) that Sen. Gore did not use Willie Horton's name when he raised this accusation against Dukakis, but he clearly referred to the furlough-escape-rape incident and attempted to portray Gov. Dukakis as soft on crime.

Also inappropriate, it would seem, was the deletion of the section concerning the controversy surrounding the claim by supporters of Jesse Jackson in 1988, that Gore at that time was being supported by the anti-Jackson establishment, as the "Great White Hope" in the South. Ed Koch's anti-Jackson comments in particular were highly controversial and probably embarrassed Gore himself, even though Koch was attempting to support Gore. Denunciations by Wilkins (and other civil rights leaders) of the 1988 Gore campaign's tactics indicate that this was was a serious controversy. To balance this section, there was information that Jesse Jackson later supported Al Gore on the national ticket, three time.

Let's discuss this a bit, and then I would suggest restoring information about those controversies.

 65.223.141.108 19:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now I see that 68.6.82.11 has evidently also deleted any reference to Occidential Petroleum, which was certainly a controversy involving Al Gore. It would appear that the edits by 68.6.82.11 are aimed at protecting Al Gore from what I suppose 68.6.82.11 feels is unfair reportage of Al Gore controversies, but it strikes me that it is not at all neutral or fair simply to delete this information about controversies involving Al Gore (in an article devoted to "Al Gore controversies").

A) it is simply inaccurate to say there was a "controversy" over Al Gore introducing Willie Horton. There was no controversy at all over his remarks at the time on the furlough program, and in fact he never mentioned Willie Horton. There was a "controversy" later over ads run by George Bush, designed by Lee Atwater by his own admission to appeal to racist sentiment. That was the controversy. It is perfectly fine to mention in the Willie Horton article that Gore mentioned the program in a debate. It is, however, simply silly to say that it is therefore a "controversy" about Al Gore.

B) Ed Koch's remarks may belong in an Ed Koch controversy article. they weren't remarks made by or endorsed by Al Gore. Again, it is silly to put them in an Al Gore controversy article. You claim that there were denunciations of Al Gore by civil rights leaders. Fine, then quote a few of them with sources and provide evidence it was treated as a controversy by the press. A criticism does not by itself make a controversy.

C) In fact, the environment write-up was generally in Gore's favor. Also, it mentioned not a controversy, but a criticism. To say that a second-hand interest in stock in a major international corporations is "controversial" distorts the definition of controversy beyond comprehension. Show me some evidence of a media circus around it; if you think it was a controversy, provide some sort evidence to that effect. If you feel there is no difference between a criticism and a controversy, we should move this article to Criticisms of Al Gore.

Some criticisms (perhaps all disputed criticisms) involve controversies, so I don't see the point of this distinction. A controversy is a disputed matter, usually a publicly disputed matter.

If you take a look at any of the contemporary newspaper accounts of Koch's role as Gore's main anti-Jackson hatchetman in 1988, you'll see that this was extremely controversial, and it was discussed as a controversy about Al Gore. Jackson's campaign was especially irritated that Al Gore made a statement to the effect of, "I haven't mentioned Jackson's statement about 'Hymietown.'" The Gore campaign's role in attacking Jackson was hugely controversial in 1988. For example, see Edward Walsh and Gwen Ifill, "3 Democrats Await New York's Verdict; Koch Keeps Up Assaults on Jackson" The Washington Post, Apr 19, 1988, p. a14: Koch, who has upstaged Gore at their personal appearances and in news coverage since he endorsed the Tennessee senator last Thursday, heaped new fuel on the fire today by saying Jackson had shown "arrogance and contempt" by declining to join Gore and Dukakis in Sunday's "Salute to Israel" parade on Fifth Avenue. Koch, who previously had accused Jackson of "lying" about his past, was in turn labeled "a lunatic" by Jackson's campaign manager, Gerald Austin. Jackson said he had received "more death threats in this campaign than all the others combined, because the climate . . . has been so divisive." Before his final round of rallies in Chinatown and Harlem, Jackson told a civic group that "leaders must not shout `fire' in the darkness . . . . Hysteria will not create hope." Or look at Edward Walsh and Thomas B. Edsall, "Campaign's Legacy to Gore: Experience and Hard Feelings?: N.Y. Tactics, Koch Alliance May Be Future Liabilities," Washington Post Apr 21, 1988, p. a17: Gore's alliance with the outspoken Koch, who spent most of the campaign denouncing Jackson, could damage Gore with black voters, according to some Democrats. Although Gore insisted that Koch helped him in New York, a campaign aide said the mayor's performance in the final days of the race "unpleasantly astonished us." Some of Gore's friends yesterday acknowledged these potential problems, but said they would not last and were far outweighed by the national campaign experience and contacts that Gore acquired in the race. "There is some negative, but it is very short-term," said Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.). "Intermediate and long-term, it will be very helpful." "There may be some short-term animosity in the black community in Tennessee, but I think he'll rebound from that very quickly," said Sen. Jim Sasser (D-Tenn.). Rep. Thomas J. Downey (D-N.Y.), Gore's New York campaign chairman, said Gore "has some fence-mending to do with some people" but overall the campaign was a "net positive" for his long-term ambitions. Downey said Koch "overdid it at the end. Some of it will rub off on Al and he knows it. He'll just have to work a little harder."

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/democracy/gore/stories/gore/index2.html "He put himself in the hands of Ed Koch, who, as mayor, had clearly staked out a position on the right wing of the Democratic Party and in opposition to the aspirations of black people in the city of New York," says Roger Wilkins, a history professor at George Mason University and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist. "Al Gore had to know that."

The above citations are only the first few that came up. This is not difficult to research.

That will make a wonderful addition to the Ed Koch article, or to [[Al Gore presidential campaigns which ought to be started. Since it is not difficult to research, I trust you will do so in the future Misplaced Pages:Cite your sources. Now, where exactly is the "controversy" about Gore? I see a little about Koch, and none about Gore. I do see a pretty standard political spat, not a "controversy".

Also, as you don't see any difference between controversy and criticism, I move that we rename this article Criticisms of Al Gore; presumably you have no objection.

(1) Ed Koch was speaking on behalf of Al Gore. Ed Koch was the featured speaker at Al Gore campaign rallies when he unleashed his harshest attacks against Jesse Jackson in 1988.

(2) I would like to understand the gist of your proposed distinction between controversy and criticism. I'm not yet able to see how it would accomplish anything to redirect from a "controversy" page to a "criticism" page. Is there a Misplaced Pages article-naming convention that prefers "criticism" pages? I didn't name this article, so maybe those who created it in the first place should be consulted, in case there was a good reason for article's title. (3) I would also like to understand what criteria you might propose using, to distinguish a "standard political spat" from a "controversy." It seems to me that you may be aiming to dismiss certain controversies as either "mere criticism" or "mere political spat." What are the salient differences, if any? If criteria are difficult to articulate, can you explain by example? Do you consider Gary Hart's dalliance with Donna Rice a "criticism" of Hart, rather than a controversy? Were the accusations and counter-accusations in the campaign concerning Joe Biden's alleged plagiarism a "political spat" and not a "controversy"? (4) You suggest a new article to be named Al Gore campaign 2004, but Gore chose not to run in 2004 (he made this announcement in December 2002). I suppose you meant 1988, but some of the relevant controversies concerning Al Gore remained topics of dispute when Al Gore ran in 1992, 1996, and 2000, also, so I don't think the controversial aspects can be limited to the 1988 campaign alone. (5) The quote above from Roger Wilkins makes it clear that Mayor Koch's controversial statements----made expressly on Gore's behalf----were treated by African-American leaders at the time as an "Al Gore controversy." Wilkins pointed out that Gore knew that Koch was perceived as anti-Black and yet Gore embraced Koch and hit the campaign trail with Koch as Gore's featured speaker, with Koch's anti-Jackson message at full tilt; Gore not only did not repudiate Koch or his anti-Jackson statements, he instead applauded Koch for his support. As controversy erupted, Gore at some point began to distance himself a bit from the extremism of Koch's anti-Jackson vitriol, but during the campaign Gore gave every appearance of endorsing Koch's statements. Much of the anti-Palestinian rhetoric that highlighted Gore's 1988 campaign (including Gore's controversial publication of an "open letter" criticizing Senate Democratics for allegedly being too critical of Israeli policies) were in part aimed directly against Jesse Jackson, who was openly sympathetic to Palestinian human rights concerns and critical of various Israeli policies. Gore made it part of his standard stump speech to slam Jackson (and others) for not supporting Israel. It is actually rather remarkable that Al Gore was, some years later, able sufficiently to overcome the controversy of what the Jackson campaign alleged was "subtle racism and not-so-subtle racism" to get Jesse Jackson to support him later on. (6) It wasn't just Ed Koch who was perceived as anti-Jackson. The thrust of Gore's campaign in 1988 was widely viewed as an effort to undermine Jackson (and to pick up the anti-Jackson mantle in case Dukakis should falter); senior members of Jackson's campaign repeatedly complained about Gore's campaign as racially tinged. Regardless of whether those complaints were justified, they were part of a major political controversy surrounding Al Gore and his campaign. (7) You are correct in pointing out that the controversy regarding Gore's introduction of the Massachusetts furlough-escape-rape-story ("Willie Horton") against Dukakis in the primary debate was different in some important ways from the later controversy regarding Bush-Quayle supporters' use of the Willie Horton story. It is true that in the debate before the New York primary Al Gore did not use Willie Horton's name when he referred to Willie Horton. It is also true that Al Gore did not create the ugly television ads that the Republicans later used. But this doesn't negate the fact that Gore initiated this controversial issue about furloughs for convicts in Massachusetts, nor does it negate the later controversy that emerged during 1999 (as the 2000 campaign was getting underway) when Kristol and other right-wingers had the audacity to try (unfarily) to pin the full ugliness of "Willie Hortonism" on Gore. Standing alone, Gore's use of the Willie Horton anecdote against Dukakis seems considerably less noteworthy than when it is seen in the context of the 1988 Gore campaign's overall strategy. (8) I'm not sure what you want, in the way of citing more sources. Do you have access to a national newspaper backfile database like ProQuest? Would you be interested in a citation to sources for the widely disseminated news reports in 1988 (about which Jackson's campaign became very angry) that Al Gore made statements to the press, to the effect of, "I haven't mentioned Jackson's statement about 'Hymietown.'"? Or will the response be simply to say that this wasn't really part of a controversy but was instead only a criticism, or perhaps that it was a Jesse Jackson controversy and not an Al Gore controversy, or perhaps that it was only a mere political spat? (9) Do you consider "controversial" (or a mere "criticism") the big deal that was made of the AIDS Act Up group's repeated confrontations (covered in the press) of Al Gore, including the group's interruption of Gore's campaign kickoff ceremony during the 2000 campaign, to protest what they argued was Vice-President Gore's role, as co-chair the U.S.-South Africa Binational Commission, in protecting the profits of Pfizer, Merck, and other drug companies, to the detriment of the 5 million or so HIV-positive individuals in Africa? (10) Have you read the section in the 2000 Cockburn-St.Clair Al Gore book concerning Occidental Petroleum? I'm no fan of the meanness of their muck-raking style, but they build a case concerning Al Gore and oil that goes beyond guilt by family association; if you really are eager to see source citations, feel free to check Cockburn's extensive bibliography. (11) By the way, what did you believe your citation to the Jesse Jackson Jr. website proved? To me, it might prove that supporters of Jesse Jackson's son have since forgiven Gore for his allusion to Willie Horton against Dukakis, but does this negate the fact that there was a controversy? Respectfully, looking forward to your clarifications, so we can keep working together for a better encyclopedia. 151.200.152.6 03:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. if you put each point on a separate line, starting with a #, you will get a readable numbered list.
2. so put the Koch stuff in the campaign article like I suggested. (i went ahead and did it Al Gore presidential campaigns). that's a campaign spat, not a controversy. a controversy is someone calling you a liar, or alleging a crime, or catching you shoving a cigar up an intern's twat, or giving no-bid contracts to your buddies, or taking laundered donations, or skipping the draft, or using daddy to get you into TANG, or god-help-us lying your ass off to get us into a war. yes, there is a useful distinction between garden variety criticisms and "controversies".
3. there was no willie horton controversy about gore. just because some right-wingers tried unsuccessfully to pin it on gore does not make it a controversy. no one bought that; the meme never caught on. it did manage to make some right-wingers look like smarmy f*cks though. put it in horton article. if you look at the Willie Horton article, you'll see the information is already there.
4. the aids thing, i don't know anything about. maybe that was a controversy. but i sort of doubt it. was it controversial to the public at large, or just to the aids-activists community?
5. i don't have cockburn's book. but if ownership of stock in a major company is controversial, then everyone who's got a pension plan is the subject of controversy. but whatever, i stuck it back in because there's no other obvious place to put the info.
6. i am not trying to supress or censor information. i just want it to be properly sourced, and go in the appropriate places. in my view, the things i deleted should go elsewhere. my objection is that years later, readers will thing these things were big deals at the time. in truth, they weren't. now the "no controlling authority" was. the buddhist nuns thing was. someone ought to throw in the pot-smoking which was at least a semi-big deal. but owning some stock was not, and neither was gore's role in willie horton.
7. if you must, include a subsection of the article on "protests directed at gore" so we can get stuff like the ActUp thing without giving the false impression that the general public got worked up over it.

Editing Clean up

Is is possible to wait until one is acutally done editing until they click the "Save page" button? Editing is fine, but 10 edits in a row with the difference of only a few new commas or wikilinks is ridiculous.--63.167.255.30 17:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re recent Wolfman purges -- If you read NPOV you will see that text being POV is not usually an reason for a purge. If an entry is POV it should be made NPOV, if it lacks a reference, a reference should be found. Text should be deleted only in the most extreme circumstances. Robneild 18:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By all means edit it yourself if you disagree with me. For the most part, I kept the neutral essence by condensing out the pov phrasing. I think it's a rather dramatic improvement in neutrality, you may not. As far as purging text, I believe I cut only two items, for being plainly silly. (1) that gore made a statement that he would fire liars. how in the hell can that possibly be controversial? (2) that gore said he'd want to think about it when asked a question regarding the death penalty. again, how is a desire to think about a question controversial? If that's the standard for controversy, i've got all sorts of controversies to add here: like how he loves his mother, and goes to church, and pays his taxes. Wolfman 00:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Al Gore and the media coverage

I think this section should be removed. It's nothing but an excuse to insert the opinions of Paul Begala, a Democratic Partisan. Unless there's an unbiased source that makes the same claim it should be removed.

Al Gore and the internet

I find it interesting that discussions of Al Gore often stess his huge contributions to the internet, but articals on the history of the Internet never make any mention of him. I suspect his contributions are being over-emphasized to make his "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" claim to seem less inaccurate. Personally, I think the Al Gore and the Internet section needs to be rewritten to be more NPOV. I left it alone however except to remove the statement that "Al Gore did invent in the internet in the United State Congress." No matter what his contributions to it, Gore did not invent the internet and adding the phrase "in the US Congress" doesn't make it true.

GORE DID NOT CREATE THE INTERNET!

I don't why this is so hard to grasp. Al Gore did not create the internet. It's not bias or POV to say this. It's simply a fact. His statement that he took the initiative in the creation of the internet was a stupid blunder and perhaps even an example of him simply misspeaking, but it was a blunder none-the-less. Gore caught a lot of flack because it was a stupid thing to say. People need to quit trying to rationalize his statement into something other than what it is and quit pretending that Gore did in some sense create the internet.--198.93.113.49 16:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No one is claiming that Al Gore created the internet. The disagreement is over whether he ever said he had. He didn't. It's complete nonsense and always has been. When George Bush says that he built new roads in Texas, created new jobs, and captured Saddam Hussein nobody thinks he is saying he did those things PERSONALLY and single-handedly. That would be stupid. Yet that is >precisely< what people go to absurd lengths to PRETEND Al Gore MUST have meant on the internet quote... even though he used TWO qualifying phrases, "took the initiative" and "in Congress". It's pathetic. If what Gore said was such a heinous 'blunder' then why aren't you mocking George Bush for having claimed to have dug Saddam Hussein out of his foxhole? Because it's nonsense. That's why. CBDunkerson 13:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

fuel-efficient vehicles

I am reverting the addition on fuel-efficient vehicles for the following reasons:

• References don't show that this is a controversy -- just the opinion of someone named Thomas.
• References don't show that Gore has called for using fuel-efficient vehicles as a personal choice; they only refer to policy initiatives.
• References don't specify the model of the car Gore was driving.
• Wording of addition is POV.

--Allen 04:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually the National Review has an article about this as well, however I agree it may not be a controvery as cited, I will look around a bit more though

my changes re Saudi speech

I'm removing that second quote because the ABC source given didn't report it as a direct quote. I'm also making clear who made the point about the 9/11 commission, and I'm removing the FOX News link because it didn't contain that point. I'm removing the GOP link because it's the same info as the Malkin link, and the Malkin link has a quote from Jeffrey. Finally, I'm removing the sentece about expired visas because it isn't sourced. --Allen 02:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact that Atta was in the US on an expired visa, so I dont really get why it was removed--David Foster 10:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

why I'm moving Gore on Iraq section to here

I've edited this section before myself, but in taking a second look at it, I see no source given that any of this was actually a controversy. The quotes are sourced and accurate, but the idea that the quotes contradict each other is not sourced. Following is the section I'm talking about. --Allen 02:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Al Gore on the War in Iraq

Al Gore is well known for recently giving speeches that are against the War in Iraq, as well as speeches that are against the reasons the Bush Administraion choose to go to war. However, some critics claim that his current views contradict his views from 2002. On 2003-08-07, Gore gave a prepared speech on Moveon.org at New York University saying;

"What we now know to have been false impressions (for the war) that includes Saddam was about to give the terrorists poison gas and deadly germs that he had made into weapons which they could use to kill millions of Americans…Saddam was on the verge of building nuclear bombs and giving them to the terrorists. And since the only thing preventing Saddam from acquiring a nuclear arsenal was access to enriched uranium, once our spies found out that he had bought the enrichment technology he needed and was actively trying to buy uranium from Africa, we had very little time left…Now, of course, everybody knows that every single one of these impressions was just dead wrong”

Gore also gave a speech on 2004-02-09, on the eve of the Tennessee primary;

" betrayed this country!" Mr. Gore shouted into the microphone. "He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!”

On 2002-09-23 Gore spoke in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club. In this speech, he attacks Saddam Hussein and his government:

"What makes Saddam dangerous is his effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction...What if the Al Qaeda members infiltrated across the borders of Iraq the way they are in Afghanistan? Then the question wouldn't be, Is Saddam Hussein going to share these weapons with the terrorist group? The terrorist groups would have an enhanced ability to just walk in there and get them"

"We know that has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power...We have a goal of regime change in Iraq, we have had for a number of years. We also have a clear goal of victory in the war against terror. In the case of Iraq, it would be difficult to go it alone, but it's theoretically possible to achieve our goals in Iraq unilaterally."

Some critics have taken this as evidence that Gore supported the Iraq invasion at the time of this speech, which would contradict his later opposition to the invasion. However, though Gore supported regime change in Iraq, his speech to the Commonwealth Club also detailed his opposition to the Bush administration's planned invasion:

"I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century."

Gore as yet has not responded to assertions that he changed his stance on the Iraq invasion.

I have moved the above section to the talk page for the reasons given above. I'm moving it, rather than deleting it, to make it easier for anyone who wants to provide sources for it. --Allen 02:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)