Skip to main content

Al Gore. Not Guilty. Damn!

With apologies to my Democrat friends, Al Gore is just not one of my favorite people. The Clinton-Gore ticket was the first time Sleezy Al caught my eye. The pair won the election and went on to administer a fairly good political term. Clinton, to this day, is a brilliant, charismatic scoundrel, but Al Gore has not aged as well.  When in office, Al was a reliable supporter for the President. Granted, he didn't initiate much, but he wasn't supposed to. He simply did his job as the second banana. The glory years finally ended and Big Al ran for President on the Democratic ticket against the Republican, George W. Bush. We began to see a very different Al Gore.

The campaign was  nasty (as most Presidential bids are), particularly at the end. The vote tabulation was not handled right and the outcome could have gone either way, depending on the election officials. They and the courts administered the voting rules, and determined which ballots counted and which did not. After bitter debate, George Bush was declared the winner because most of the state delegates voted for him. Al Gore lost even though he won the most actual balloted votes.

Big Al did not take the loss well. He behaved like a spoiled child and his stature as a viable politician was reduced to dust. He dropped out of sight for a while, then rose like the phoenix on the back of a distorted scientific theory. Global Warming had arrived. Big Al has written books about it, lectured and promoted disaster misinformation, and made himself very rich. The guy is no dummy. Al is now a champion of the ecology movement, he's won the Nobel Prize, and he founded (and now owns) the "Current" TV channel.

In his personal life the former Vice President has put on about 200 extra pounds and travelled the world. At home, Al and his wife purchased (and own) 14 multi-million dollar estate homes . . . while they live in only one?  That's interesting isn't it. And even more important, they have "grown apart" and after several decades of marriage they have decided to separate.

NOW, IN 2010,  A GREEDY FEMALE HAS ACCUSED
AL GORE OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT. . . . . . FOUR YEARS AGO!

It never happened. Her "story' is that he requested a massage while staying in a hotel, and she went to his room, gave him the massage, and he attacked her. There is no proof and no reason to believe her. She, the accuser, wants a few of Big Al's millions and that is that.  Al Gore may be a total jerk, a disgraced politician and a snake oil salesman, but he is certainly NOT GUILTY as charged.

Damn It.

Comments

Maggie Thornton said…
Hi Bump, this is a great line: He dropped out of sight for a while, then rose like the phoenix on the back of a distorted scientific theory.

I had no idea the Gores owned 14 estates! His carbon footprint is 13 times as big as I thought. I wonder if all of the properties are owned by their trust?

I'm beginning to think Molly Hagerty might have some truth to her story. Even if she has DNA on her slacks, though, I don't think any lab will be allowed to confirm it.

We'll never really know, I guess, but his attorneys have been trying to keep this quiet for most of the four years. In the end, if he is forced to make a statement, he will simply claim that global warming made his hot, hot, hot that night, and he couldn't stop himself.
July 1, 2010 at 2:33 PM
Rain Trueax said…
I think the courts should determine who is telling the truth. What I read is he requested a massage and the hotel contacted the masseuse which means she's not a fly by night but an authorized therapist. I have written about this in more depth but she claims she has DNA proof. I do not think important men should get off the hook when an ordinary guy would have to answer to the law in such a case. This evidently happens to many masseuses.
July 7, 2010 at 9:53 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gloves Off

. OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS BETRAYED OUR TRUST AGAIN. Whether we are Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, makes no difference at all. Our legislators voted according to "what's best for them". It was clear that the people want to reduce the costs and improve access to our overall health care system. It was also VERY CLEAR that they did not want the 2000 page legislative monstrosity that was produced by a small number of far left liberal Democrats, who worked behind closed doors to fashion a pork filled blunderbuss that virtually no one has been able to read, or discuss, or debate, or offer alternatives to specific unreasoned clauses. It is (now) a BAD BILL , passed by BAD POLITICIANS, that compose a BAD MINORITY segment of America's out-of-control government. AND WE HAVE NO LOGICAL WAY TO PAY FOR IT EITHER. The far left liberals like to point at  SOCIAL SECURITY   as a text book success. They are wrong and will not admit it despite the concrete evide
20 comments
Read more

Why Blackwater Mercenaries

Over some years the name Blackwater shows  up in the news. It is, by their own estimation, the largest mercenary group in the world. I think I first noticed it when reports from Iraq mentioned they were employed (by whom?) to escort and protect members of the Iraqi government from place to place. Then I became aware that they had joined several of the firefights between our marines and Iraqi enemies. I wondered just how these mercenaries (that supposedly came from the United States) were  hired by someone (who?) to fight? That led to the question of just who would be responsible if a situation involved the accidental killing of an innocent bystander? It  might be a little sticky for an unauthorised mercenary contracted by the United States but not a member of our military forces.  Or suppose a Blackwater type killed a military Iraqi combatant and was then captured by the enemy. Would he be treated as a spy, or as a American combatant, or whatelse?  And would the Geneva Convention
18 comments
Read more

Sarah-palin-itus

. Am I the only one that watches the liberal roar caused by the soccer mom . . . and laughs?   I suspect Sarah is a nice and decent person who will eventually prove to be a better political critic than elected official. But who knows. She projects an effervescent personality, a better than average intelligence, and solid conservative values. Still,  as a political leader of consequence I suspect she is a female Peter. You do remember THE PETER PRINCIPLE don't you. Dixon
10 comments
Read more