The Republicans' Petty, Hate-filled, Envy-Driven Attack on Al Gore

http://www.progressivedailybeacon.com/more.php?id=1705

by A. Alexander


Republicans are hateful, small and petty people by nature. Based seemingly upon some dysfunctional and bizarre principle, Republicans reflexively despise anything, everything and anybody that could somehow benefit humanity.

Hatred and pettiness fuel today's Republican ... oh, and let's not forget envy.

Considering the true nature of a Republican, it is little wonder then that they are rabidly and viciously attacking Al Gore and the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. Republicans worship George W. Bush, failed Neoconservative policies and their Party's bankrupted ideology more than they pretend to revere Jesus Christ and more than they adore having others die for their wars. While their Messiah Bush is wholly despised by most Americans and nearly every person on the planet, Al Gore, Mister Messiah's onetime nemesis, is respected and admired by nearly all. What circumstance could possibly more inflame the hatred and pettiness of today's Republican?

All the while Mister Bush busied himself igniting wars and torturing human beings, in general degrading and denigrating the onetime lofty reputation of the United States; Al Gore, the man who had received more votes than Bush and lost an election by judicial thievery, spent his years in exile saving the planet and saving humanity from the Republicans' greed-driven policies and practices that have fueled global warming.

In the final analysis, George W. Bush "won" the presidency and lost all else, while Al Gore "lost" an election and won everything ... including the adoration, admiration and respect of all humanity. It must be killing Republicans to realize that, though they used to ceaselessly mock Al Gore, in the end the joke was on them. Understanding that they have become a laughing stock, it is little wonder that Al Gore's winning of the Nobel Prize is fueling the typical petty and hate-filled Republican reaction.

How does that go? "You reap what you sow" ... or is it, "He who laughs last, laughs the loudest"? Then again, maybe the lesson is that small, petty, hate-filled, and envy-driven people can cheat themselves into power, but they'll never get respect because that has to be earned.

But they are the ones who are making this political. Perhaps they are a bit frightened...

Al Gore is proof that we still can put our best foot forward, it is just a shame that we keep putting it forward to step on the flaming paper bag some republican left for us.

All Al Gore has ever asked of anyone is to be reasonable.

won such a prestigious award, but the only reference I found on the official White House website was a question that was asked of Tony Fratto during the October 12, 2007, press gaggle:


Q Tony, does the President have any reaction to Al Gore's winning the Nobel Prize?

MR. FRATTO: Yes, the President learned about it this morning. Of course, he's happy for Vice President Gore, happy for the International Panel on Climate Change scientists, who also shared the Peace Prize. Obviously it's an important recognition and we're sure the Vice President is thrilled.

Q Is he going to call him?

MR. FRATTO: I don't know of any plans to make calls to any of the winners at this point.

Q (Inaudible.)

MR. FRATTO: Well, obviously Vice President Gore has helped to bring attention to climate change. The IPCC scientists have done remarkable work to bring scientific rigor to the questions surrounding climate change. And obviously the next step for -- and really the most difficult step is implementing climate change strategies that are effective and practical, and that allow for continued economic development and for countries to do the work that they need to do to lift people out of poverty.

And that's a challenging task. That's why the President brought together the major economies -- the announcement he had prior to the G8 and then the summit meeting last week -- I guess it was two weeks ago now -- to discuss a strategy for climate change. And that's the next step and that's an important step.

Q Given that his approach on climate is so different from Al Gore's, does he feel that this award is in any way sending a message about his own policies?

MR. FRATTO: I'm not sure what -- no, I don't see it that way at all. No.

Q Does he think, though, that the award will place pressure on him and on the Bush administration to do more quickly, and to maybe fall into line with what other countries want, which are mandatory caps on emissions?

MR. FRATTO: No.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071012.html

I don't know if it's jealousy or if they are all that mean spirited. Probably both.

too bad, nobody taught Bush the Least, that critical lesson.

Thanks for the thread, Demeter:thumbsup:

why did the nominate bush and rush limbaugh...wonder if they would have turned it down as the republicans say they would.

they sat around and made disparaging remarks that bordered on insane.
Sean Hannity took umbrage at the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Al Gore,
insisting that it should have gone to some "REAL heroes, like the military."

Hey, Hannity - it's called the "Nobel Peace Prize." Uhhh, so... the military?? Mmm, not so much.

He then went on to say that, if HE were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, he would NOT accept it, because
he'd want no part of an award that was given to Arafat.

I can say, with 100% certainty, that that is one eventuality that he need not worry about, at all.
What
a
mega-jackass.

Their reactions were/are entirely predictable. They're ideologues, and everything they think and say is ideologically driven. The core principle of Republican/conservative ideology is that "Democrats R Bad." What does anyone expect them to say when a Democrat--especially an iconic progressive like Al Gore--wins a big prize? Hey, I've got an idea--let's nominate Al's most recent book for a Pulitzer in non-fiction. I'm pretty sure anyone can nominate any book. Shall we?

The Pulitzer Prize Board distinguishes between "entrants" and "nominated finalists": An "entrant" is simply someone whose publisher has formally entered his or her work for consideration according to the Boards "Plan of Award"<4>. As such, it is not a very significant distinction. "Nominated finalists" are those selected by the juries and (since 1980) announced along with the winner for each category.<5>


Besides, which category would we pick? :shrug:

Explanatory Reporting—for a distinguished example of explanatory reporting that illuminates a significant and complex subject, demonstrating mastery of the subject, lucid writing, and clear presentation.
Commentary—for distinguished commentary.
Criticism—for distinguished criticism.
General Non-Fiction—for a distinguished book of non-fiction by an American author that is not eligible for consideration in any other category.

:kick:

or else they would need to explain the sheer idiocy they wrote about him five years ago.

It astonishes me still how so many in the media were turned into idiots by 9/11 and George Bush. In any other job they would have been fired for such gullibility and cowardice.