Hardball panelist Murdock revived "invented the Internet" falsehood to smear Gore
On the June 5 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, during a discussion of New York Times columnist Bob Herbert's June 5 column (subscription required) about former Vice President Al Gore, National Review columnist Deroy Murdock asserted, "I wonder if he's gotten over the big drawback that I think essentially kept him out of the White House in 2000, which is sort of the stiffness, the woodenness, and also his, sort of, playing fast and loose with the truth, you know, saying that he was the inventor of the Internet and that sort of thing." But Gore never claimed to be "the inventor of the Internet."
In the wake of the Academy Award nomination and subsequent victory for Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Classics, May 2006) and his congressional testimony on global warming, Media Matters documented the media's revival of old smears and falsehoods that may have been decisive in the 2000 presidential campaign, including the common characterization of Gore as a "liar" or "exaggerator." Specifically, as Media Matters has noted previously, the assertion that Gore claimed to have "invent[ed] the Internet" has been thoroughly debunked.
The program was guest-hosted by MSNBC contributor and columnist Mike Barnicle, and the panel also included former Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend (D-MD) and Human Events editor at large Terence P. Jeffrey.
From the June 5 edition of MSNBC's Hardball:
BARNICLE: Al Gore was in The New York Times today, in Bob Herbert's column, claiming he's not good at politics. So the question is -- he told Bob Herbert, "I don't think I'm really good at politics, to tell you the truth." He also said that "what politics has become requires a level of tolerance for triviality and artifice and nonsense that I find I have in short supply." Stark honesty, sour grapes, or pure politics, Terry?
JEFFREY: I think it's politics. I think he's sort of toying with running for president still. He obviously is pretty good at politics. The guy got elected to the House of Representatives, Senate, vice president, almost got elected president of the United States.
I thought, actually, in that piece, he made a very excellent point about Iraq that I wish some of the other Democrats would listen to. He said the problem is, even if you want to get out of there, the job of a president is to deal with what is now a very complex situation and not make it worse with what you do. And I think I -- I'd like to see other Democrats answer the dilemma that Al Gore put forward, because I think it's an honest one.
MURDOCK: I think Al Gore's -- I wonder if he's gotten over the big drawback that I think essentially kept him out of the White House in 2000, which is sort of the stiffness, the woodenness, and also his, sort of, playing fast and loose with the truth, you know, saying that he was the inventor of the Internet and that sort of thing.
One positive for him is that he is obviously the most eloquent advocate for the global-warming theory. I happen to not agree with it, but that is a pretty coherent viewpoint, and it's one that he could use to advance a whole number of issues. So it at least gives him a coherent philosophy or coherent set of policy positions to put forward, for better or for worse.
And we all know (at least the 70%ers) that Gore was instrumental in getting the internet started.
Why do the die-hard Repubs hate intellect so much? Why must they make fun of intelligent people, or make them out to be stiff? I want a smart president, not some clown 30% of the pubic would like to have a beer with.
Let me be on record as saying that Bush is a dry drunk. Like Raygun, most of us knew something was wrong when he couldn't even read the teleprompters correctly. Now we have Bush, who cannot string a coherent sentence together. That is what we should be concerned about.
They hate intellect because of its ability to point out the obvious, which is that their world view is wrong. Also, it has the ability to point out their illegal activity. This is why they have worked to create an electorate that is easily distracted, preferably by something shiny.
Also why conservative load-mouths (thanks, Lynn) spend so much time denigrating education.
Reversing cause and effect, they've spent years convincing the zombies that colleges are stocked with free-loading tenured pinkos indoctrinating students with liberal propaganda.
How else to explain the tendency of educated people to lean to the liberal side? Sure, it may seem apparent that if people who have learned and studied more tend one way, that side might be more reality based, but isn't it easier to say that knowledge is biased?
See, that would be asking the right to do something that makes sense ... you know, like research a citing sources.
If they would actually ask those who have gone through the education process, and I give myself as an example, they would find that the majority of professors do not advertise their political beliefs. The majority tend to be liberal though.
And I hate it how they always belittle any student who complains of a conservative teacher or prof preaching their beliefs as the only truth and belittling students who don't agree with them, but then lionize as a martyr a conservative student who was unhappy about a required course because the curriculum did not fit into his belief system.
This was an ultra-conservative poster's serious (Yes. He was actually serious) response to my pointing out a blatant logical fallacy in his argument on another thread. Of course it was no surprise to me that his logical errors had been pointed out to him many times before as his errors of logic were profound and obvious.
It appears to me that the more moderate and fair-minded the poster (conservative or liberal) the fewer their instances of easily identifiable logical errors.
It is ALSO why Republicans put so much effort into disinfranchising, discouraging, and preventing the American people's VOTES.
Many Rightwingers are on record as stating that there should NOT be a system whereby every citizen GETS TO or SHOULD vote. Most Americans, they say, are just TOO STUPID to vote, and so SHOULDN'T.
This elitist attitude is of course a throwback to aristocratic times when only the "chosen" propertied and monied individuals were thought to have the right stuff to determine rules, laws, and how people should live. Voluntary "noblesse oblige" was the only nod towards addressing the problems of the poor, or the ill, or the uneducated.
The elitists (Republicans, NeoCons, Fundamentalist "christian" leaders, captains of industry, CEO's, billionaires) are the ones who should be running things, and the average American having a VOTE just messes everything up. That's why Jeb Bush and Kat Harris spent millions of taxpayer dollars devising a system that would make it possible to disinfranchise tens of thousands of Florida Voters.
The more Americans who vote, the worse the GOP does. This is a FACT, and so the obvious solution is to do everything possible to keep voters from the polls. Republicans nationwide work tirelessly at this task, the voting machines themselves have been compromised, and the rightwing MEDIA does their part by NOT reporting the real news, taking sides in the campaign battles, and mostly by emphasizing stories about Blonde Girls to distract interest from "uninteresting" political stories. The message: Politics is boring, there is no reason to vote ... now more about Paris Hilton.
From 1994 to 2006, their strategies WORKED. Everything was fine, except for one nagging problem: Once in office, their GOPers have to GOVERN. And they SUCK at it. They are terrible, they are corrupt, and their every action (or inaction) harms America. This kind of incompetence and indifference reencourages Americans to try to vote, and that is the downfall of the Rightwing.
The Rightwing is a small minority in America. Their only path to POWER is to keep the majority of Americans from voting. That, and cheat like hell, and control the propaganda -- that's stuff that money CAN buy.
"Once in office, their GOPers have to GOVERN. And they SUCK at it. They are terrible, they are corrupt, and their every action (or inaction) harms America."
It's been said many times before, but this seems like a good time to bring it up again:
One of the tenets of conservative ideology is that government is the least competent organization to provide services for American citizens, and conservatives apparently seek to prove it whenever given the opportunity.
This latest batch of failures is their most persuasive argument yet.
Your comment that "the more Americans vote, the worse the GOP does" is not supported by the facts.
A record number of voters went to the polls in 2004 and GWB won. On a percentage basis of eligible voting adults it was the highest percentage turnout since 1968. So you might want to rethink that "fact".
Here's the data link.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
And since there is very much evidence that Democratic voters were suppressed and many many Bush votes were counted twice (by his campaign supporters at Diebold), your argument that Bush "won" 2004 simply does not hold water.
Another story that our "liberal media" should have covered for the good of America. Why is it that the MSM is referred to as liberal, but when all the corruption of the 2000/2002/2004 elections occur, the MSM just can't be bothered with it?
Sorry Bruce, even your own guys disagree with you...
Link:
http://tinyurl.com/2yhg86
"A record number of voters went to the polls in 2004 and GWB won." --bruce
Although I agree with you that your data does backup your assertion that there is no correlation based on voter turnout as a percentage, I do have a tiny quibble. Your mention of the "record number" of voters is not very relevant IMO.
Nine out of Eleven of the presidential elections had "record turnout[s]" (I didn't count 1960 because I couldn't tell if it was a record turnout or not). It is likely the next election will be a "record turnout" or close to it as well if not only due to constant positive population growth.
I only quibble because you "had me at hello" and I thought the mention of "record turnout" unnecessarily cheapened your otherwise excellent debunking.
: )
"And we all know (at least the 70%ers) that Gore was instrumental in getting the internet started.
Why do the die-hard Repubs hate intellect so much? Why must they make fun of intelligent people, or make them out to be stiff? I want a smart president, not some clown 30% of the pubic would like to have a beer with." - SCOOTER
Yeah, yeah, well, Bush is way smarter than you give him credit for, so there!
Gore may have "invented the internet", but Bush invented "the internets"! Now tell me who is smarter, Mr. Scooter!! Certainly, more internets is clearly better.
And those internets? Made up of tubes, man. That's how you get to The Google.
The reason the media is so obsessed with this already debunked spin about Gore claiming to have invented the internet is because the media was the one that sold us on Bush the rabbit without batteries.
The media is desperate in their attempt to show us that Bush semi, sort of, maybe, could, not to sure, but possibly, has our interest at heart compared to Gore. But it fails everytime Gore is out there doing something that is in our interest.
When Bush leaves office, if we are lucky that he does before he sets off armagaddon, when Bush leaves office what are the chances that he'll carry on life like Jimmy Carter or Gore. Will Bush just cash in like Reagan with big dollars a plate speeches, or like his dad work for a military contracter. Will Cheney be Bush's boss in the private sector just has Cheney is his boss now.
The odds of Bush being of any use or value to the public when he leaves is zero zip nada. He will be hopefully forgotten but none of his disasters will be forgotten. We might once in a while see a clip of him strumming a guitar while people are drowning.
Likely he'll be to busy focused on working with conservative authors to whitewash his legacy to be of any use to a cause that would advance this country and its people.
You are correct. Chomsky said that the best presidents were sought for their opinions after their terms. The worst are left alone. Carter is, of course, sought. So is Clinton (probably the most intelligent president in my lifetime... have you seen this guy work on a crossword puzzle?). But Raygun was never sought, only partially because dementia had already set in.
Bush the elder was marginally sought, but Bush the Child will never be asked anything by anybody because he knows nothing, and even the Repubs know this.
I'm sure Dan Quayle will be calling GWBush daily for golf tips.
Harlequin, my bet is on Armageddon. You know why Georgie has given the Cold War a jump-start (re. the missile defense in Europe)? It's because Christian Fundies believe (and I was taught when I was one of them) that the army which comes down from the north to attack Israel in the book of Revelation is the Russian army. This may be considered a viable strategy for keeping the James Dobsons and Pat Robertsons of the world on board with the neocon agenda, but one is compelled to stop viewing Revelation as "prophecy" when the Bush administration uses it as a playbook! [snort].
Put down the crack pipe... Christians don't think this crap about the Russian army. The US is putting a missile DEFENSE system over there because of problems in the Middle East, NOT problems with Russia (although Putin is an old-school anti-US leader that we should be concerned about).
Bush is a dolt... he has pi$$ed off so many conservatives that he has almost guaranteed a Democratic White House in '08. However, the kryptonite the Dems have is Pelosi and her selfish, power-hungry leadership style that will turnmany middle of the road Americans away from the left.
Christians don't think this crap about the Russian army.
The reference wasn't to "Christians" but to "Christian Fundies." Most Christians don't "think this crap." But some Christians do. I have seen exactly that interpretation of Revelation.
cannon i believe although i couldbe wrong skye meant the end of days christians the ones that want to rush armageddon on us there is a rather large group of them the spend there time in isreal interfering in affairs trying to rush things along for example they believe that when the balance of world power swings to isreal that will bring on the "end of days" so there is a texan oil baron in isreal trying to drill diagonally into saudi arabias oil fields he believes the "balance of power means oil" i cant remember the name for the group
they are called ENDTIMERS lunatics one and all
Gee, where have all the troglodytes gone? No one is here telling us that "invent" and "create" are the same thing.
Does it strike anyone else as odd that the Flying Propaganda Monkeys are so feverishly recycling all the old stuff about Gore "inventing" the internet, along with all the Whitewater and Vince Foster nonsense? Is Karl Rove so busy keeping his soft hiney out of jail that he doesn't have time to write fresh lies for them to peddle? Dare we hope that the Right Wing Propaganda monster will devour its own tail and collapse under the weight of it's own lies? Naaaaaah. Too much money in it for that to happen....
Likely the Bush Crime Family will be enjoying their share of Bandar's kickbacks. Do I have proof? of course not. Just a gut feeling that's been gnawing at me for years.
You may be right. Have you read "Armed Madhouse"?
I have not but it looks very interesting. Thanks, I'll check it out.
You can all blame the Republicans, but I think it the American people fault. They want someone they can chat with to be president. If your "too smart" you aren't going to win. Bush try to show the American people that Gore was "too smart".
That was another example of their pattern of attacking an opponent's strength. One of Gore's strengths was that he was intelligent and thoughtful. They tried to turn that into an obstacle and a disadvantage. They mocked his foresight by alleging that he claimed much more credit than he was due. He claimed the exact credit he was due.
They continue to mock him over global warming, alternatively alleging that he himself is claiming all kinds of things and that he has no knowledge of any of this stuff because he's not a climatologist himself! It's ridiculous. They misrepresent what he said because they cannot fairly debunk what he's said, and they misrepresent what he has said by claiming that he is pretending to be an authority on climate. He's learned a lot about it, but he consistently quotes scientists and scientific findings. He's not pulling stuff from his butt like many other faux climatologists from the right.
"what politics has become requires a level of tolerance for triviality and artifice and nonsense"
In a time when Fred Thompson is a serious contender for a presidential nomination based on nothing more than a manufactured image and absolutely NO platform, policies or ideas, how can anyone argue that Gore is right with this statement?
A REPUBLICAN with "absolutely NO platform, policies or ideas" is far superior to our current President. When every platform, policy, and idea turns out to be a bloody disaster, the ABSENCE of such destructive activity can be a blessing. Thompson may be onto something. A presidency about NOTHING. Hmmm. Alert Seinfeld.