Is he or isn't he?
As I have already stated, I have no idea whether Al Gore is guilty or innocent of the charge an Oregon woman has leveled at him of sexual assault back in 2006. With the evidence we have seen, you couldn't put a dog in the pound. Yet, Gore, being a public figure, needs to make a personal statement. It is not enough that his lawyers and spokesholes deny the accusation. Gore needs to do it. Yes, the story was broken by the National Enquirer, a tabloid. Unfortunately for Gore, he can't just dismiss the story as coming from a trashy tabloid (that in recent years has been pretty accurate-just ask John Edwards).
Now that the police in Oregon are re-opening the case, if I were Gore, and the charges were false, I would get on that private jet of mine and fly to Portland to make himself available for an interview. I wouldn't make the police fly to Tennessee.
Secondly, I would appear before the press and answer their questions publicly. If he sincerely intends to continue his global warming crusade, then he needs to lift this veil of suspicion which could conceivably haunt him the rest of his life.
There are some legitimate questions that he would have to answer. For example, why was he registered in a hotel as Mr Stone? A reasonable answer would be that due to his celebrity, he always asks the hotel to register him under another name. I would accept that-as long as that is his normal practice. Another question that must be asked of a famous man like Gore is this: Some famous men who rely on a spotless personal reputation have made it a practice to never allow themselves to be alone in a room with a woman they are not married to. (Billy Graham comes to mind.) Now, here again, it may be that this incident never took place, and the accuser never even was in Gore's room. Yet, if she was there to perform a legitimate massage, didn't Gore have enough sense not to have a strange woman come to his room? And why would a famous guy like Gore be lying there naked under a towel? Didn't he think that maybe, just maybe, this strange woman might take advantage of the situation and her famous client. Let's say the woman was there to give Al Gore a legitimate massage. Doesn't that still show lousy judgment on Gore's part?
Again, I am not trying to try Gore here. I don't know what happened. Furthermore, even if his DNA is found on this woman's pants and it matches Gore, all that suggests is some form of sexual contact. The issue of whether it was forced or not is not addressed. But these are questions that millions of people are thinking they would love to ask the former vice-president. If he really wants to vindicate himself, he should answer those questions to the public's satisfaction. If he can't or won't, his credibility is suspect.
So Mr. Gore, did you request a massage in the hotel room that night? Did this woman come to your room? If the answer to both those questions is No, then there is nothing more you need to say. If the answer is Yes, then more questions are in order.
What happened or didn't happen? What were you thinking as a world famous crusader against global warming and former vice president putting yourself alone in a hotel room with a strange woman and being naked under a towel? Did it ever occur to you that you could be exploited with a false charge of sexual assault?
In addition, if she does have DNA that matches yours, is there any possible (innocent) explanation for that? Was there consensual sex?
Of course, Mr Gore can refuse to answer any questions from the police or press as is his right. If he does that, it is still a long stretch that there is a prosecutable case against him. However, even if he is never charged, if he wants to continue as a public figure, he needs to set the public's mind to rest. Of course, most of the tree-huggers will believe him no matter what. His accuser is already saying that her tree-hugger friends were telling her to "suck it up" because if Gore were taken down, the world would be destroyed by global warming. (Of course, that too is unconfirmed).
"Only Al Gore can save the world from Global Warming."
(Where's my towel?)
To sum it all up, this charge probably will never be proved, but if Gore wants to clear his name and continue as a serious public figure, he needs to stand up himself and tell the world it is false.
21 comments:
I love how you use quotes around things that nobody has actually said.
I'll give Gore the benefit of doubt on this. Unless some physical proof arises (soiled dress, ie...), it is basically he said/she said.r
Lance,
Glad you liked it cuz I just added another.
As stated, the accuser has attributed that statement to some of her tree-hugger friends. Also as stated, that statement is unknown as to veracity. It could be that everything the accuser is saying is a lie.
"Gee, why are people always trashing Sarah Palin? What's their problem with her?!? Oh wait hold on, let me write another post about Al Gore... Anyways, back to Palin. Why do they keep harping on her???"
Anonymous,
Was I bashing Gore? I was giving him advice. As for Palin, I think I addressed this before. Sarah Palin isn't flying around the world telling us how we need to live to "save the planet".
No she's just flying around telling people that only certain consenting adults can marry and others can't, or telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies. You know, telling people how to live.
But God forbid someone suggest to you that you switch to a different kind of lightbulb.
Was I bashing Gore?
You're like a kid with his hand in the cookie jar insisting that he wasn't taking a cookie! Did you really just write that whole post and then wonder why somebody accused you of bashing Gore? Did you see the picture you put there?
If I were Al Gore, I would issue a brief written statement via email:
Gary Fouse, the noted conservative blogger, and a man of above average intelligence, who has served our country for many years as a capable and distinguished agent of the DEA, has observed:
"With the evidence we have seen, you couldn't put a dog in the pound."
I couldn't have said that better myself Gary, and I will not lend any credibility or honor to this spurious allegation by saying anything further about it. The evidence speaks for itself.
Joseph Stalin once said "Paper will put up with anything you print on it." That is true squared and cubed when it comes to any old allegation anyone cares to post on the internet, with or without reckless disregard for the truth.
To Lance and Siarlys,
The picture says, "Is he or isn't he?"
I would be shocked if enough evidence surfaces to send him to jail or even indict him, but as a public figure, if he is innocent, he needs to come out publicly and give his side of the story. Otherwise, those pictures will continue .
Anonymous,
She is not making those decisions and enforcing those laws. She is pro-life and against gay marriage. Does that make her Hitler?
She is not making those decisions and enforcing those laws. She is pro-life and against gay marriage. Does that make her Hitler?
The sound you just heard was my head exploding.
Pro-life generally means that you would tell a woman that she cannot have an abortion. Being against gay marriage means that you would tell two people, no matter how committed to one another they are, that they can't get married.
She may not be enforcing those laws, but she's advocating for them, and she's an influential figure. Does this make her Hitler? No, but then again, nobody even said that it did!
Lance,
So if those are the opinions you hold, does that give you the power to enforce those beliefs? I hold those beliefs but I can't enforce it on anyone. I have a feeling we are going into another one of those round and around arguments again.
The point, Gary, (and I think Lance will agree) is that you want Al Gore to sit down and shut up while having absolutely no problem with Palin doing the exact same thing as Gore, in that she uses her political celebrity to promote her views and influence the powers that be to make them the law. It's yet another one of your hypocrisies.
Not to mention that you whine about liberals harping on Palin yet have absolutely no trouble harping on the likes of Gore and others. Double hypocrisy.
She has as much power to enforce her beliefs as Al Gore has power to enforce his. That's the point, which you will continue to not get.
Lance and Anonymous.
Let's look at it from another perspective. Both Gore and Palin have a degree of influence because of who they are though they have no decision-making power. They also have a right to express their point of view.
Gore believes in Global Warming and Palin is against abortion and gay marriage. If Gore wants to continue to be a serious voice for his cause, he needs to convince the public that the accusation is not true. If Palin wants to be a voice for her beliefs, she needs to avoid personal scandals as well.
I think that is closer to the original thesis of this article, which was about Gore -not Palin.
Palin is vaguely analagous to Hitler in the sense that she is a calculating, unscrupulous power-mad politician who will seize any issue, make any statement, take any position, in order to advance her own grasp on high office. However, I think she is a little less dangerous, because she knows what she's doing, whereas Hitler actually believed his own line of rhetoric.
I could say similar things about Al Gore. Remember when he was a pro-life congressman from Tennessee? Remember when he was the conservative Democrat running for president in 1988, and first introduced the world to Willie Horton?
The photo, however, is an incoherent work of abstract art, which essentially conveys "I can't tell the difference between a poodle and a human being, or maybe I watched 'The Fly' too many times as a child."
Why should Gore respond to such nonsense? Sometimes the best response to innuendo is to pointedly ignore it.
Siarlys,
I remind you that this story about Gore has nothing to do with Palin. I think this is what Lance would refer to as a straw man.
It may be nonsense in that he does not stand to be charged based on "the evidence". But as a public figure, it is still out there-especially now that the cops have re-opened the investigation.
I think this is what Lance would refer to as a straw man.
Not quite. I like how you refer to the straw man fallacy as something I made up. Remember all your posts about Fousesquawk University? How you'd emphasize critical thinking? Understanding a straw man is part of a course in critical thinking.
Lance,
Unfortunately, a lot of that critical thinking throws out something called common sense.
I didn't bring up Palin, I responded to some discussion about your allegedly disparate treatment of her and Gore, and your response in defense of Palin.
What makes you proclaim as axiomatic that because he is a public figure, Gore has to respond to this trash? He doesn't. He is perfectly free to ignore it. I saw a scandal sheet in the check-out stand at a local supermarket saying Laura Bush is about to divorce George over his multiple infidelities. Does he, or she, have to respond to this headline? I wouldn't bother, if I were them. The one thing I'm certain of about George is that Laura is deeply devoted to her man, and I have no reason to doubt that he has been faithful to her.
Unfortunately, a lot of that critical thinking throws out something called common sense.
Sometimes "common sense" isn't sense at all. That's why we have critical thinking.
Post a Comment