| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Fifth Column | |
| Coming soon! GoreTV! | |
| 2003-06-18 | |
| Will We See Gore TV?The former Veep looks at creating a liberal alternative to conservative talk radio and television By KAREN TUMULTY - TIME EFL. I would encourage Al Gore, the Hollywood bloc and assorted liberal millionaires to throw their money into this project. It means less money going to Democratic candidates. And that is always a good thing. " ... former Vice President Al Gore has been devoting considerable time to another dream, one he shares with many Democrats these days — creating a media enterprise that could challenge the dominance of conservative voices in cable television and talk radio. Numerous sources in Hollywood and Washington tell TIME that Gore has been quietly sounding out potential financial backers for a cable television network that would feature "progressive" viewpoints. Lemme see ... Public Television, BBC, the 3 major networks, MTV .... Additionally, Gore has helped arrange meetings between key Hollywood figures and a wealthy Chicago couple who have publicly announced plans to invest $10 million in a liberal radio network." [Gore speaking in a dull monotone] "The media is kind of weird these days on politics, and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party," Gore said. "Fox News Network, The Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh — there’s a bunch of them, and some of them are financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires who make political deals with Republican administrations and the rest of the media." Is anyone going to call Gore on the carpet for evidence of a slanderous statement such as this? And while liberal commentators such as former Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower have made a stab at syndicated talk shows, they have by and large been unsuccessful. I would have used the phrase "wholly unsuccessful".
(disappointing? The guy was eviscerated and slaughtered in the ratings! That's like saying the British were disappointed by the Battle of New Orleans. Sounds like this writer is Tommy Daschle. ) six-month run against The O'Reilly Factor. However, some liberals point to the success of Hillary Clinton's just-released memoir as evidence that a marketplace exists for their viewpoint. Wow. The self-delusion is really quite breathtaking. Can you imagine basing a business plan on an unrelated product's track record which has been artifically produced by bogus sales? | |
| Posted by:ColoradoConservative |
| #11 I'm not sure that I want to bring this up, but.... #takes a deep breath# Al Gore DID NOT recieve more of the popular vote than George W. The initial figures which showed Gore recieving more of the popular vote excluded all absentee ballots gathered in the state of California - some 100,000 or more. When they were finally counted, it turned out the W actually won more of the popular vote. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2003-06-18 19:51:58 |
| #10 THANK GOD! I was having trouble sleeping and this is just the ticket. Although, I might want to just end it all after listening to that monotonic voice.ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz......Wow, just talking about it makes me fall ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC California Chapter) 2003-06-18 18:51:31 |
| #9 Re: Not Mike Moore's diatribe. More VRWC, eh? The left just can't let go. Fox is fair and balanced. You only think it overly conservative because you have been fed a steady diet of liberal pablum since birth. You are reacting to the mild spice called "fair and balanced" in your otherwise bland diet. Given that Nader got about 3% or so of the vote, a MAJORITY of Americans did not vote for Gore in 2000. In any event, the popular vote is irrelevant to who becomes president. Also, given that Redstone's Viacom and Disney (owners of ABC) are two of the conglomerates that will benefit from the recent FCC vote, I don't think NewsCorp. is going to be the only beneficiary of further concentration. |
| Posted by: ColoradoConservative 2003-06-18 18:19:00 |
| #8 Not Mike Moore So I suppose you protested when Clinton was elected despite a MAJORITY of Americans voting for Bush I? BTW Are you really sure you are not Mike Moore? |
| Posted by: JFM 2003-06-19 04:20:05 |
| #7 If Al wants to do something to benefit us all, why doesn't he go sit on one of the polar icecaps and keep us all posted on the melting due to that SUV, fossil fuel caused global warming. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-06-18 22:10:19 |
| #6 The Children of the Sixties, once known for their free and independent spirits, free love and their demonstrations for peace and freedom, have decided on a spokesperson to represent who they are and what they have become. "AL GORE is really hip" said one grey-haired grandma in tye dye. "Who better to bring the next generation on board with our dreams and ideals?" "Only Al can express to the generation of tomorrow the clarity and logic on which our generation was founded" said Bob. "We feel that the children of tomorrow will relate to Al, as we did to Lawrence Welk" said Frank, his long grey pony-tail in dire need of a shampoo. "He is the perfect icon for our legacy of rebellion, youthful spontaniety, diversity and multiculturalism." Not to be outdone by the move of strategic Democratic brilliance...Republicans decided to prove that it is they, not the Democrats, who can woo the next generation of voters. Responding with an announcement by Orin Hatch that they intend to support legislation to allow Big Business(TM) to implant a virus that can ruin the computers of college students sharing music files. Hatch said, "It is important for the young students of today to realize that it is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who want to uphold the American Values of Freedom and Liberty." |
| Posted by: Becky 2003-06-18 18:10:10 |
| #5 A new network would require charisma, personality, and edgyness to bring it to the forefront of the mainstream liberal pack. Al Gore is an obvious choice to run this thing. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-06-18 17:52:08 |
| #4 problem is most left-liberals dont like Gore and never did - they supported him over Nader only cause they liked Bush less. Thats the problem with any "liberal" or "dem" network - the dems are too divided for anything like this to work. Hilary like her husband, is able to run as a moderate and still get support from liberals, out of their gut reaction to the hatred the Clintons get from the right. (see the New Republics blog) Most other moderate dems cant pull that off. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-06-18 17:09:24 |
| #3 Considering the MAJORITY of American voters picked Gore (how soon we forget) and there is no other "liberal" network as rabidly partisan as Fox, I bet there would be a market for a |
| Posted by: Not Mike Moore 2003-06-18 16:48:52 |
| #2 I read somewhere just a couple of days ago that a fund-raiser for Gore, to encourage him to run for president in 2004, was cancelled because fewer than 100 people signed up. I think even I could convince 100 people to come hear me talk about strangling earthworms. Gore is politically dead, and only him and a few other idiots with argon in their heads instead of brains knows it. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-06-18 16:46:41 |
| #1 Of course there's a market. It's as large as the market for Al Sharpton Haircare© products |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-06-18 12:51:13 |