Redford vs. Gore-Tapper and ABC

Redford has some good points but the timing of this reaks.

Redford vs. Gore



http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/11/redford-vs-gore.html

"It was not a happy, easy time," Redford says of being an eco-warrior in 1969, "because those were the days that the oil and gas companies pretty much controlled the show on propaganda. Anyone speaking about solar energy would be smashed down as being a radical, a tree-hugger and granola-cruncher, or what have you."

The story says Redford is "notably cynical" about Gore's Nobel Peace Prize.

"He's making a lot of money, he's having a belle époque, a heroic moment," says Redford. "It must have been really hard for Gore to suffer all that , so he found another thing to come back with: the environment. He had a lot of money behind him, because in Clinton's administration there was a lot of money. With that he was able to build himself a new campaign and pick an issue. And he picked an issue that just happened to arrive at its moment in time."

Writes the author: "The less-than-subtle subtext is that Gore is an arriviste, while Redford has been out there, a grizzled loner, bearing the jibes and right-wing clobbering before the environmental cause was fashionable."

Read more HERE.

I await the Gore partisans explaining how Robert Redford is a tool of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

-- jpt

I suspect Redford was caught in a rather informal moment and probably would not intentionally sound quite so critical.

and he is voicing some. He's not a tool of the VRWC.

-signed a Gore partisan

and a smartassed comment to boot

Redford had one way and Gore had another.


As posted above Redford may feel this way or it could have just been a moment of venting or maybe it is what it is.

Was back in the 80'5 in an article in Mother Jones News that listed the politicians most concerned about the environment. It took a long, long time for it to become a viable issue so I doubt he picked it for any other purpose than that he cared.

:hi: if'n I haven't before

I'm sure they want to make it look like Redford resents Gore co-winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

who went after Kerry. When "The Note" was popular reading at ABC they regularly trashed John Kerry.

We all know how slant can distort and interview and sentences are picked out and given emphasis by leaving out a word or two...

I will look on this as more ABC Crap.

"The less-than-subtle subtext is that Gore is an arriviste, while Redford has been out there, a grizzled loner, bearing the jibes and right-wing clobbering before the environmental cause was fashionable. Asked why he thinks Gore is not going back into politics, he says: "What's most important - to be a hero to your country and go save it . . . or do you want to be happy and rich and be a hero and not get into the political scene?"

Redford dismisses the idea of going into politics himself: "I'm not good at compromise." Neither will he endorse a candidate for the forthcoming presidential election. "I don't get involved on the national stage . . . so far there's not anybody terribly inspiring." Nevertheless, with both his passion and his film-star smile undimmed, Redford seems destined to remain king of liberal Hollywood for years to come."

I like Al Gore and Robert Redford, and maybe I'm incorrect in my assumption, but I believe this is Redford's attempt to goad Al Gore in to running. In a way this reminds me of his movie "Lions for Lambs", although I haven't seen it yet, I understand his role in the movie as playing a professor encouraging a brilliant and yet cynical student to get involved in politics.


Thanks for the thread, underpants.

Kicked and recommended.