Gore takes a swipe at Justice Scalia on 'Jay Leno'

[NYCGirl]

"In the arguments, Justice Scalia said, 'I'm not a scientist, I don't want to deal with global warming.' I just wish he felt that way about presidential elections," Gore joked on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno."

Responding to the audience's cheer, he quipped: "I think 51 percent of the audience clapped for it."

In his monologue, Leno made references to the Supreme Court's controversial vote to end ballot recounts in Florida that led to President Bush's victory in the close race. Scalia voted to stop the recount.

"Well you know there's talk that Vice President Gore could win an Oscar for his global warming movie, 'An Inconvenient Truth.' If he does get it, it would be his first win since the presidency in 2000," Leno said.


http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/state/16128484.htm

[ClassWarrior]

1. "It would be his first win since the presidency in 2000."

That surprises me, coming from little Jay...

NGU.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

3. Jay was pro-Clinton in 1992 - probably has to do with which way the wind blows

He may simply go with it.

[NYCGirl]

4. BTW, his wife Mavis, is very active in the Women's Rights movement, and

she's hardly a Republican.

[kskiska]

5. Mavis was crusading against the Taliban

before anyone had even heard of it.

[Martin Eden]

45. Or Monica -- Leno found a treasure tove in Clinton jokes. n/t

[NewYorkerfromMass]

19. Jay just repeating the conventional wisdom

everyone knows Gore won.

[Tellurian]

30. But Jay was wrong...he should have said,,It would be his second WIN..

I sent Jay Leno a scathing e-mail today. Something I've never done before.
I was just so irritated at how he trivialized what Al Gore is trying to do.

When he asked Gore if he was going to be an actor or a politician..I didn't
think it was very funny due to the subject matter Al was there to represent,
"An Inconvenient Truth"... So, I gave Leno a piece of my mind...

and included a link to DU in the e-mail..

[frankenforpres]

34. will you send scathing emails to colbert and stewart too? (n/t)

[Tellurian]

38. No..

Jay Leno is a powerhouse in his own right.
I don't believe he realizes the clout he carrys via his propensity for comedic ridicule.

He could do so much good, if he gave it a little more thought.

As far as colbert and stewart, I'm not a pundit junkie.

[LetsGoMurphys]

37. I'm not an avid watcher

but man I always thought Jay was a dem.

[Tellurian]

39. He may well be..

but we are way beyond giving equal time for comic relief to both partys.

we are in a hell of a crunch, thousands of our own dying for oil,
we're facing environmental disaster at every turn.

The bothersome thing is Republicans welcome Armageddon..
They really don't care about anyone but themselves.

Democrats believe we can live well and our children's children can live well.
We need all the help and support we can get to turn this tragedy around.
What I'm saying is, we need Jay Leno on our team.

I can only wish..

[LetsGoMurphys]

44. I agree w/ the dire situation we are in

but I mean I can find myself laughing at jabs at John Kerry's monotonous manner of speaking as well as Bubba's BJ among many others. I guess it just brings levity to a sick world. Is that wrong?

[Tellurian]

46. Levity to a sick world..

Is that wrong?

I enjoy levity...a sick world, no.

Not when innocents, who can do nothing to help themselves become affected, in plain language by
*human greed*. Do you think we would even be having this conversation if the Rockefeller's, VanBuren's, Vanderbilt's, Dupont's, Phipps, Bush's (and the like)..Trust Funds weren't going to vanish, if we stop using oil/gasoline for energy sources?

Bio-fuels are a simple fix that can cut carbon emissions and substantially reduce the warming threat. The innocents I speak of are every living thing on this planet besides us. Who can help and defend them, if we don't stand up for them? Do you really think the Rockefeller's, VanBuren's, Vanderbilt's, Dupont's, Phipps, & Bush's are interested in anyone's quality of life besides their own?

By and large they support the eradication of the middle class. The American Dream is a thorn in their sides and they are trying to roll us back to a time in the early 1900's when their were only 2 classes...The Rich and the Poor. The PNACers support Globalization...that is, in a nutshell, Bush and his cronys. They manipulate government to support raping the earth of all her resources while filling their pockets and those of their own for generations to come..

If as you say, levity at a sick world...poking fun at Kerry's and Clinton's foibles..bring it on..I'll laugh just as much as the next guy. But there are some things that on the surface seem superficial and insignificant to the casual observer. I've tried to point out a few underlying factors that most people would not ordinarily think about when we discuss why we are living in a "sick" world. The same bottom line pops up every time...it all revolves around one thing..*GREED*

a few excerpts if I haven't harangued you too much..


"If human beings follow a business-as-usual course, continuing to exploit fossil fuel resources without reducing carbon emissions or capturing and sequestering them before they warm the atmosphere, the eventual effects on climate and life may be comparable to those at the time of mass extinctions. Life will survive, but on a transformed planet. For foreseeable human generations, the world will be far more desolate than the one in which civilization flourished during the past several thousand years. "

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8305


"The Kyoto Protocol encouraged developed countries to decrease emissions slowly early in this century and extended help to the developing countries for adopting "clean" energy technologies that limit the growth of their emissions. Delays in that approach – especially US refusal to participate in Kyoto and improve vehicle and power-plant efficiencies – and the rapid growth in the use of dirty technologies resulted in an increase of 2 percent per year in global CO2 emissions during the past ten years. If such growth continues another decade, emissions in 2015 will be 35 percent greater than they were in 2000."

"The world needs politicians with courage to explain what is needed. Indeed, Al Gore, with his movie and book of the same name, “Inconvenient Truth,” was prescient. For decades he maintained that the Earth teeters in the balance, even when doing so subjected him to ridicule. By telling the story of climate change with striking clarity, Gore may have done for global warming what “Silent Spring” did for pesticides. He is under attack, but the public now has the information needed to distinguish our long-term well-being from short-term special interests.
Perhaps the country came close to having the leadership it needed to deal with a grave threat to the planet, but did not realize it. "

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8319

This article's compilation written by:

Jim Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and adjunct professor of earth and environmental sciences at Columbia University's Earth Institute.

[question everything]

2. I think that the problem was not so much of recounting

as of keeping so many voters from the ballots.

I think that several media outlets did the recount and found that Bush won by some 400 votes. But there were many minority voters who were not listed, or just were blocked - by whatever means Harris concocted - from voting.

[Beausoleil]

11. "Bush won by some 400 votes"

Actually, no. By any full recount of the Florida 2000 vote, Gore won. That's what the consortium found out.

[Raster]

13. Actually by ANY standard Gore won. Except, of course, the Cruella de Harris standard.

Gore won and I WILL NEVER GET OVER IT!

[hughee99]

16. This consortium?

"The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN.

Florida Supreme Court recount ruling

On December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Florida Supreme Court ruling ordering a full statewide hand recount of all undervotes not yet tallied. The U.S. Supreme Court action effectively ratified Florida election officials' determination that Bush won by a few hundred votes out of more than 6 million cast.

Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.

Gore's four-county strategy

Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-vote margin statewide."

They also found a few scenarios under which Gore would have won.



http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

[Katzenjammer]

17. Yes, that one--because the FSC was going to order a FULL recount

thus saving Gore from another mistake by his boat-anch...er, advisors.

If all ballots had been counted, Gore would have won.

Had Cruella not been allowed to purge the 90K "felons", most of whom were Black and non-felons, Gore would have won big.

Had that DINO clerk not been allowed to produce the infamous "butterfly ballot" with the consequent "Jews For Buchanan", Gore would have won handily.

Had the "paid riot" been met with handcuffs such that the counters had to continue counting, Gore would have won.

In other words, in any scenario except the stupid count-4-counties one, Gore would have won.

[hughee99]

18. According to this Article,

This is what would have been result if the U.S Supreme Court had not intervened.

"Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore."

So in any senario except the count-4-counties one, OR the USSC doesn't get involved one, Gore would have won.

[Katzenjammer]

41. Well, maybe I'm wrong then. I was under the impression that the FSC

was going to order a full recount, to include both unders and overs. If they were only intending to order that unders, not overs too, be counted, then maybe all we can say is that we (the USA and democracy) lost.

It was my impression that that circuit court judge who'd been placed in charge had intended to look at the overs because of the number of people whose "overvote" really consisted of both checking off AND writing in Gore's name.

[hughee99]

42. I remember reading reports of this when it came out...

and (based on the articles I read) was surprised to hear DUers cite it as evidence that Gore would have won under any standard. Gore would have clearly won if the goal of the recount was to actually recount every vote, over and under, to determine the voters intent, but this wasn't necessary the most likely way the recount was going to be handled (though it was the way it should have been handled). I agree, the US, the World and Democracy all lost on that day.

[TankLV]

22. Wrong.

The only way bunkerboy would have "won" was if standards that were applied and given to bunkerboy were at the same time not applied to President Gore.

Such as counting questionable absentee ballots for bunkerboy while not allowing them for President Gore.

Under ALL scenerios where the standards were the same, President Gore would have won by all but the most limited SINGLE scenerio.

Period.

[hughee99]

25. Link please?

I was responding to the claim that "Actually, no. By any full recount of the Florida 2000 vote, Gore won. That's what the consortium found out."

According to the article, this is not the case. Did CNN misreport the consortium's findings (which wouldn't necessarily surprise me)? If so, where can I find an accurate reporting of this?

[petgoat]

20. The preliminary recount reports of 5/01 said Bush won.

The final report was due for release in early September, and
the NLG was preparing an initiative to impeach the felonious five,
when history intervened.

When the study was released in November, nobody cared about hanging chads
anymore. All the news reports on it spun the story heavily, emphasizing
that Bush would have won the recounts that Gore had asked for. Somehow
they made the fact that Gore got more legal votes seem irrelevant.

[Samantha]

29. The announcement that pursuit of impeachment of the 5 Supreme Court

judges was scheduled to be held at 5:00 on September 11, 2001.

The so-called analysis of the recount had the Supreme Court not intervened did not include all 67 counties. 3 were missing.

The analysis posted by the New York Times, if read closely, despite the headline announcing that Bush* won under almost all analysis, was erroneous. A meticulous reading of that article revealed that Gore would have won under most scenarios. One had to look at the fine print.

You are correct. But the inference above that Gore's selection of just four counties to recount was a "mistake" is grossly wrong. There was no recourse for Gore to seek a statewide recount under Florida law. The State Constitution had been amended just two years prior to election 2000 and it was the articulated steps in that re-written law that Gore followed to the letter.

The ONLY way a statewide recount could be achieved was by COURT ORDER or through permission of the Governor of the State (and we remember who that was).

[petgoat]

31. Right, Gore couldn't ask for a statewide recount until after the

vote was certified, and then he would have had to allege some
specific error to get it.

My recollection from my reading is that Gore had proposed early
on to Bush that they jointly seek a statewide recount and Bush
had rejected this idea. I'd thought I'd read it in the Vanity Fair
article but I couldn't find it there last time I looked.

I remembered reading the 11-11-01 article in the NYT myself, reading
the spin that Bush would have won the recounts anyway, and missing
the significance of the NORC study.

So when Michael Moore claimed in F911 that Gore won by any fair count
I thought it had to be a lie. I investigated for myself, found it
wasn't a lie, read Bugliosi's "None Dare Call it Treason," read
Dershowitz's "Supreme Injustice," found out about the electronic voting
machines, woke up from a 20-year apathetic slumber, joined the election
integrity movement, then switched to the 9/11 Truth movement.

[Beaverhausen]

6. I thought Gore was great last night

he was funny and relaxed. God, I wish...

[NYCGirl]

7. Sure was. NT

[ClassWarrior]

8. I wonder if it's online.

I seldom watch Jay. I'll never forgive Scalia for awarding the Tonight Show to him over David Letterman. :evilgrin:

NGU.

[NYCGirl]

10. I've been checking YouTube, etc., and so far I've only found this clip:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/30/gore-planning-to-release-_n_35227.html

[lildreamer316]

21. I think they tend to repeat arount 2-3 AM

I'm gonna check the repeats for the next few nights.

[NYCGirl]

27. It's usually about 10 days later — my TiVo will let me know. NT

[aaronbees]

33. Heh, great clip

I love his sense of humor there. He's got such a great approach to raising these issues in the public forum, and he's so relaxed, assured and wise when doing so.

[walk softly]

9. God, I wish ,,,,,,

It was 2008 and Gore just won the Iowa caucus!

[SoFlaJet]

12. That's gonna be a tough one

and Iowa is going to be skewed by Tom Vilsack and all the work John Edwards has been doing out there.I think he'll come in late to the race-and save us from a bitter and ugly defeat of Hillary Clinton,which by the way is who the GOP is drooling for.Obama too...

[NYCGirl]

15. Honestly, I'm not sure Vilsack will make it much farther. NT

[TankLV]

23. Why do I always hear "ballsack" when someone mentions his name?!?!

Just what we need - a president scrotum...

[calimary]

35. We already have one of those now.

AND a vice president dick.

[Hailtothechimp]

40. Curling up with a nice leathery Balzack

from a Saturday Night Live routine a few years back....

[Pirate Smile]

26. I don't think Vilsack will even win Iowa. I'll be interested to see another

poll. This is the results from the last one - Gore wasn't included.

2008 PRESIDENT - IOWA DEM CAUCUS
John Edwards 30%
Hillary 26%
John Kerry 12%
Tom Vilsack 10%
Tom Daschle 3%
Russ Feingold 3%
Mark Warner 3%
Evan Bayh 2%
Wesley Clark 2%
None of the Above 3%
Undecided 6%

edit to add - I'm in Iowa and was polled on the Dem. caucus a couple of months ago. It wanted to know how likely I was to go to the caucus in Jan 2008 (I think I qualified as a likely caucus-goer since I did it last time and said 100% that I would be going in 2008). It was very focused on Gore. Asked many environmental questions, if I had seen An Inconvenient Truth, etc.

[corkhead]

28. the repukes want Hillary like I wanted Frist.

[CrispyQ]

24. I stayed up past my bedtime to watch President Gore.

And he was fantastic! When he said he was vying for "sexiest man on C-Span. I beat out Tom Delay" I howled. :rofl:

Damn! He was great!

[otohara]

14. I Love This Man

we need him to save the world from what Bush did.

[Tellurian]

32. Yep, we need him desperately..

He is a TRUE environmentalist and knows the seriousness of the planets problems.
AL Gore is our last chance to preserve the planet for future generations.

[in_cog_ni_to]

36. Al Gore was just wonderful last night! He seemed to be very comfortable

and relaxed on the show. I really enjoyed him. He has changed so much since he left office. Changed for the better. He always seemed so stiff to me. Not anymore. I like the new Al Gore immensely.

[Marie26]

43. He's comfortable now w/who he is

It's such a contrast to Bush. It's really stricking to see how much both of them have changed since 2000 - Gore is relaxed, self-assured, & at peace; while Bush has become a anxious incoherent mess.