The fact that former Vice President Al Gore, author of the unreadable book, "Earth in the Balance," and narrator of the flawed documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is a surprise to no one. What is surprising is what Gore apparently does not intend to do with it: run for president again.
The irony is that the very issue that could propel Gore to win the Democrat presidential nomination is also the issue that could prevent him from winning the presidency, because the left-wing loons who control the Dems' nominating process would nominate him in a heartbeat but the American people as a whole would run from him like the plague.
In recent years, the Nobel Committee has become a political organization that has awarded its "Peace Prize" to the person or group that best furthers the goals of the Left, especially if the recipient makes a point of belittling or embarrassing the United States of America and/or the Bush Administration. Past recipients have included terrorist Yasser Arafat; United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who presided over the U.N.'s oil for food scandal; and the 20th Century's worst American president, Jimmy Carter. Add Gore to that mix and there is simply no escaping the committee's clear political agenda.
Liberals everywhere have been worshiping at the altar of global warming "science" for years, with Gore as their high priest. Hollywood even anointed his film last spring by giving it their highest honor, the Academy Award.
Gore's sycophants, who still believe their hero won the 2000 presidential election, are trying to draft him to run in 2008. And even though it is late in the primary season, it must be tempting for a man who actually received more popular votes than his opponent, yet lost the election. Still, Gore, who continues to move further to the political left as the years roll on, seems content with his current role as a modern-day prophet of doom. But what if he did run?
As radical as Hillary Clinton will be portrayed in a general election, Al Gore would be a GOP consultant's dream to run against.
Before the age of terror, the economy was the issue that determined the outcome of presidential elections, and Al Gore's solutions for global warming would destroy the American economy. As concerned as the American people may be about the environment, they will not tolerate the radical taxes and lifestyle changes that Gore and other liberals believe are necessary to "combat global warming." Already, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., is proposing a 50-cent per gallon increase in the federal gasoline tax and the elimination of many home mortgage deductions. Gore's ideas would be worse, and any Republican campaign worth its salt will have a field day with it.
Already, in response to Gore's award, scientific evidence is surfacing declaring his claims "ridiculous." Dr. William Gray, one of the world's foremost meteorologists and a pioneer in the field of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a lecture hall filled with meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.
"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr. Gray, a professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie and being fed all this. It's ridiculous.
"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realize how foolish it was," Dr. Gray continued. "It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong, but they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out."
A "Wall Street Journal" article from last year quotes a United Nations study that estimates Gore's solutions for supposed manmade climate change would cost a staggering $553 trillion over the next century, making every man, woman and child on planet earth 30 percent poorer in the year 2100. In reality, that statistic translates into every American being approximately 70 percent poorer, because we will be asked to pay for it.
All of which makes Al Gore the candidate Republicans should most want to run against.