Run Al run?

Al Gore is perhaps the biggest example of what is wrong with modern politics, and the current presidential candidates could learn a lot from him. During his eight years as vice president, he was largely thought of as a bore. He was an intelligent man with an unfortunate knack for putting people to sleep with every speech he gave. Unfortunately, he was so disliked that in 2000 he lost to George W. Bush, one of the most unimpressive candidates we have ever seen. That was Al Gore the politician, the man who followed every safety rule in the political book. \nNow look at him. Retired from politics, he’s no longer worried about winning elections and has become one of the most popular and respected political figures of our time – and deservedly so. He threw caution to the wind and did something almost unheard of in politics: He stopped worrying about what everyone thought of him and did what he thought was right. With a simple Powerpoint presentation and an undeniable amount of determination, he changed the way many Americans view global climate change – an accomplishment he sadly never achieved in office. \nBecause of his popularity, many Democrats are pleading with him to run for president in 2008. But not everyone on the left is for the idea. Some political pundits claim Gore has achieved a position where he has “transcended U.S. partisan politics,” as columnist David Roberts put it. If he runs, some argue, he will lose his place as a bipartisan figure for change and thus do more harm than good. But while Gore may want to transcend politics, he has not completely done so and the climate “debate” is a partisan issue just like any other. The reason, however, deals more with campaign contributions and less with political ideology. \nTake Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., for example. Inhofe is perhaps the lawmaker most critical of global warming, even calling it a “hoax” and describing Gore as “full of crap.” It just so happens that Inhofe receives massive amounts of campaign funding from oil and gas companies. In fact, when he was elected in 2002, he received the second greatest amount of oil and gas money of any candidate. He has even gone so far as to say the Weather Channel is fueling the global warming issue to get higher ratings. \nBut as much as I would love to believe that there is a massive Weather Channel conspiracy, I am more worried about the influence the energy lobby has on our politicians like Inhofe. I cannot think of a good political reason why Republicans would fight the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, but I can think of some funding reasons: The Top 20 political recipients of money from oil and gas companies are all Republicans.\nIf Gore does run, he is in the unique position to help do something about global warming, not because he is above partisan bickering on the issue, but because he may have the political power to end it. And I say good for him; let’s just hope he learned from his mistakes in 2000.