Al Gore To Live In San Fran?
What is it with Presidential losers becoming crazy? If this isn’t’ Algore becoming a caricature of himself I don’t know what is.
Al Gore Buys San Francisco Condo – The American Thinker
Buried at the end of a Matier & Ross column in the San Francisco Chronicle is the news that Al and Tipper Gore have purchased a luxury condo in San Francisco.
Gore is a businessman these days—sitting on the boards of Apple Computer Inc. and Current TV, the cable and satellite channel he started with investor Joel Hyatt—”and those take him (to the Bay Area) pretty regularly for board meetings and the like,” said his spokeswoman, Kalee Kreider.
It also helps explain why Al and Tipper Gore recently bought a luxury condo at San Francisco’s St. Regis tower at Third and Mission streets.
Now where shall I begin? Since when is sitting on a board of directors make Gore a “businessman”? But at least he is living up to the Limosine Liberal label by taking up house at a “luxury condo.
I am at least comforted to know that if I do visit San Fran, that Algore won’t be carrying a firearm. I mean we all know he can’t shoot straight….
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
43 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
BTW, our firearms and ammunition ban was struck down by the first court that saw it, so Algore can continue to pack heat as he roams the streets hunting for ManBearPig.
But really, this is old news; after all, it’s only Al Gore’s fourth home.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 24, 2006 @ 4:56 pm - August 24, 2006
I’m sure NDT will be thrilled with his new neighbors.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — August 24, 2006 @ 6:24 pm - August 24, 2006
so, only publicans can have money? sounds like a mad river horse to me.
Comment by blah — August 24, 2006 @ 8:09 pm - August 24, 2006
#3
Republicans support success and wealth accumulation for everyone. Democrats prefer the status quo. From this 2005 op ed:
Comment by John in IL — August 24, 2006 @ 9:56 pm - August 24, 2006
And all this despite the fact that Democrats are the party who claim that the rich are evil and don’t deserve their money.
You have to wonder why Gore, Pelosi, Kennedy, and other Democrats keep spending their money on buying lavish houses, instead of paying for “working people” to have health insurance, like they demand that the rest of us who don’t have four places to live do.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 24, 2006 @ 10:47 pm - August 24, 2006
“Since when is sitting on a board of directors make Gore a “businessman”?”
Perhaps when one of the boards he sits on is for the business that he started:
“Current TV, the cable and satellite channel he started with investor Joel Hyatt”
Comment by Ian — August 24, 2006 @ 11:18 pm - August 24, 2006
gay republicans. how sad . u must be very self loathing huh.
[GP Ed. Note - The IP address identifies "cam" as living in Canada. So his comment is quite ironic when most of his countrymen have permanent American-envy. Blame Canada!]
Comment by cam — August 25, 2006 @ 1:29 am - August 25, 2006
Hey, whatever. Maybe he should move to a semi-civilized metropole like Munich. And get away from the nutters over in the States.
Comment by raj — August 25, 2006 @ 3:15 am - August 25, 2006
Based on its history, I have no doubt that Gore would fit in well in Munich. There’s a track record of that city producing nutcases.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — August 25, 2006 @ 6:57 am - August 25, 2006
#4 the wingnut daily? give me a break. quote from a real news paper and maybe we’ll talk. otherwise, kiss off.
Comment by blah — August 25, 2006 @ 10:59 am - August 25, 2006
#9 – zinggggggg! LOL
#10 – Way to address your opponent (John) substantively, blah. Feel the pride!!!
Comment by Calarato — August 25, 2006 @ 11:16 am - August 25, 2006
Come on guys, this a cheap unfair shot at Al Gore. He is our Nation’s leading statesman on the Left, he’s our only moral compass in the War for the Environment and he’s married to a Hell of a Kisser, Tipper. Stop kicking the dog when he’s down. (By the way, what part of media mogul and Hollywood-styled producer denies him being thought of as a businessman? It can’t be for lack of business ethics.)
The Secret Service generally frowns on former Veeps making themselves targets in their residence –unless there’s a strong reason for “being public” about the ownership. That’s the key here.
I’m guessing the real reason that there’s not a non-descript holding company as intervening owner of the condo is that: a) they have the condo because of a sweetheart deal the developer… or association… it’s a lure to get big-bucked but no-profile wanna-live-next-2-da-Veep residents buying into the development. Everyone benefits from some land specualtion… isn’t that what the various and prolonged WhiteWaterScandals taught Ms Clinton –Al Gore’s former boss as co-equal president).
Plus, it’s a lot easier to head back to your 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th home at the end of a day of business than stay in one of SF’s plastic hotels. That town sucks when it comes to hotels.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 25, 2006 @ 11:41 am - August 25, 2006
Matt,
I believe Gore has dismissed his Secret Service entourage.
Further, you are the first person in a long time to say that he is “down”
He had a successful political career, made a movie, and now is winning the fight to change people’s mind on the dangers of Carbon Dioxide.
If you want to talk about down and out ex-VP’s we could talk about Dan Quayle…what’s that guy doing now anyway?
Comment by keogh — August 25, 2006 @ 11:56 am - August 25, 2006
From Wik1pedia
“Dan Quayle is Chairman of the firm Cerberus Capital Management, a multi-billion dollar international hedge fund, and president of Quayle and Associates. He is an Honorary Trustee Emeritus of the Hudson Institute.
Quayle also authored his memoir, Standing Firm, which became a nationwide bestseller. His second book, The American Family: Discovering the Values that Make Us Strong, came out in the spring of 1996 and Worth Fighting For came out in 1999. The former vice president also writes a nationally syndicated newspaper column, serves on a number of corporate boards, chairs several business ventures, and was chairman of Campaign America, a national political action committee.”
So he is not in the limelight like your beloved Manbearpig, but I’d say he is doing quite well in his post political career.
Comment by Leah — August 25, 2006 @ 12:17 pm - August 25, 2006
#7
Oh, don’t make me repeat myself about the self-loathing of gay liberals. You have NO room to talk.
Comment by Dalebert — August 25, 2006 @ 12:27 pm - August 25, 2006
Yes, I am sure he does a lot for them, a poly sci major probably knows a lot about international finance or more likely he is cashing in on his connections. I don’t blame him. I tried to find his column but I could not. I would love a link as I need a laugh.
Further, I tried to be insulted by “Manbearpig” but then I realized that I had no idea who that could refer to…what it means…or even how it could apply to anything….
But it is an interesting word to think about…and its kind of fun to say out loud, try it, “manbearpig!!!”
Comment by keogh — August 25, 2006 @ 12:31 pm - August 25, 2006
#10
hmm, let’s see, he cut and pasted an opinion piece by someone else, someone who is just regurgitating talking points. come on, I’m supposted to respond to the substance. there isn’t any. the whole dems keep us on the plantation talking point is crap. the dixiecrats (you know, those southerners who owned plantations and other people) all became REPUBLICANS. Alors, mon ami, tu peux la sucer.
Comment by blah — August 25, 2006 @ 2:55 pm - August 25, 2006
#7: An illiterate Canadian. How sad. He must be completely incapable of thinking outside a tiny box of stereotypes.
Comment by Gaylord McGay — August 25, 2006 @ 4:40 pm - August 25, 2006
Next major post: What Amy Carter is reading on vacation?
Comment by jimmy — August 25, 2006 @ 9:13 pm - August 25, 2006
#17
I’m supposted to respond to the substance. there isn’t any.
Just because you don’t like the source doesn’t mean the author’s point isn’t valid. I’ve agreed with some of the liberal commentators here (begrudgingly, but still agreed). I don’t discount their opinions automatically.
The main point from the article which related to your snide comment in #3:
Agree? Disagree?
You don’t want to debate. You prefer to disparage.
Comment by John in IL — August 25, 2006 @ 9:21 pm - August 25, 2006
keogh at #13 writes: “Matt, I believe Gore has dismissed his Secret Service entourage.”
I see you still haven’t gotten serious about debating real issues, keogh. Gore doesn’t dismiss his protection detail, it expired. He still gets daily briefings on threat assessments, his staff still conduct liasions with Treasury, and –when requested– former Secret Service personnel are available for all former Veeps.
Further, keogh writes: “… the first person in a long time to say that he is “down” He had a successful political career….”
Is success defined as losing the election, losing your home state (when the people who know you best can’t support you, that’s real real bad), losing the support of your political mentor (Slick Willy), needing fashion consultants to gain credibility or gravitas… that’s a success to you?
Oh wait, you probably think TeddyK or HowieScreamingDean are successes.
LOL. I love the GayLeft. No wonder the GayLeft is loaded with crackheads, emotionally dysfunctional malcontents and free loading losers. To you keogh, moving up from a 1965 RV on blocks in front of your parents’ trailer to a 1980 doublewide with drapes is a success. LOL
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 25, 2006 @ 10:05 pm - August 25, 2006
I don’t get the point frankly. So what, Nancy has money. BFD. SS is very popular with the public, always was and always will be. We don’t like the thought of Grama eating cat food so she can afford her pills. “Personal” accounts, yeah they sound great, but you’re unlikely to get rich, and here’s the rub, their is NO GUARANTEE.
Now, I know you publicans love for hoi poloi to think that one day, they, too will be über wealthy. But that is highly unlikely. See, the difference between the right and left is that you guys love to spin tales that touch the heart or enflame resentments, and we ask what is true and what can be done that realistic and practicable. So, again, where is the substance of your argument John? Oh, yeah, I forgot it’s not your material, not your words, not your thoughts, and not your argument. When YOU have something to say to me, I will reply, but if you are just going to parrot the RNC at me, no thanks.
Comment by blah — August 25, 2006 @ 10:11 pm - August 25, 2006
And more of the fake liberal rhetoric to explain to people why they shouldn’t work and save their own money; the man is out to get you, you’ll never be able to save, etc.
of course, the reason libs like to preach that is because making people feel helpless and victimized is what keeps them dependent on the government. That’s why Dems like blah fought welfare reform; they realized that once their puppets had their strings cut and learned that they weren’t worthless and could earn a living, they wouldn’t buy into the Dems’ rhetoric that they were and they couldn’t.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 25, 2006 @ 10:25 pm - August 25, 2006
I’m more than happy to argue the merits of private accounts. Unfortunately, the argument you present is “will grandma be eating cat food or will grandma have a private SS account?”. Well done blah. Nancy would be proud.
Comment by John in IL — August 25, 2006 @ 10:56 pm - August 25, 2006
Ha ha ha ha
I may live in SF, like YOU ND30, but I am not a member of the Democratic Party, nor am I a member of the Republic Party. I am, however someone who knows that you can, and probably will work yourself to death and never strike it rich. That takes the blessings of Fortuna. Work alone won’t cut it. Also, it really helps to have rich parents or rich friends.
Anyway, I’m not interested in enslaving anyone. You seem to be. You seem to think you know best. You seem to think you can save us all from ourselves. Only the Republicans have your interest at heart, only the Republicans can keep you safe. You seem to think the Republicans are the Moshiach. Well, they aren’t. The Democrats have their problems, admittedly. But, I’m with Dean on this one, they genuinely seem to be nicer people. Certainly not as authoritarian as you all. But hey, I know that the theocrats are the enemy, do you?
I am a liberal and very proud of it. I live in a very liberal city and love it, despite its problems. But then I came here to be free to be me. And SF has allowed that. How about Dallas?
Comment by blah — August 25, 2006 @ 11:04 pm - August 25, 2006
SS is supposed to be a safety net, not a way to make money.
Comment by blah — August 25, 2006 @ 11:07 pm - August 25, 2006
rewrite
will grandma be eating cat food vs will grandma have a private SS account?”.
Comment by John in IL — August 25, 2006 @ 11:10 pm - August 25, 2006
SS is supposed to be a safety net, not a way to make money.
I don’t even know where to begin.
Comment by John in IL — August 25, 2006 @ 11:24 pm - August 25, 2006
Republicans tell grama she’s on her own, we (you know, the socialists, which I am more than a Democrat.) tell her we’re all in this together. Plus, the cat food is for the cat, and grama can get all the drugs she needs, and food and rent. But, I guess without all the suffering there’d be no raison d’être for the “Christians”, and then what would they do? Oh, yeah, that’s right, they’d be focused on taking away the rights of others. Rights that don’t even exist yet in most jurisdictions. Hmm…
Comment by blah — August 25, 2006 @ 11:34 pm - August 25, 2006
Priceless.
Comment by John in IL — August 26, 2006 @ 12:03 am - August 26, 2006
Democrats and Liberal promise SS will be there even when they know (or should know) that it is going bust soon. But that’s OK because “we’re all in this together”. SF has a big homeless problem. I would assume that a committed socialist like yourself has personally taken a drug addict into your home because he’s your brother and we’re all in this together.
Comment by BoBo — August 26, 2006 @ 1:31 am - August 26, 2006
#20 John in IL — August 25, 2006 @ 9:21 pm – August 25, 2006
Just because you don’t like the source doesn’t mean the author’s point isn’t valid.
Could be, but the problem is that the potential bias of the source is always a material question. That is one reason why multiple sources are desirable, but not always necessary.
I’ve agreed with some of the liberal commentators here (begrudgingly, but still agreed).
And that is why I have long held you in high regard here. You cite to sources, and you have always (as far as I can tell) been willing to engage in discussion over your sources–and your interpretation of what you have cited–and the sources of those who might disagree with you.
You really should consider starting your own blog.
Comment by raj — August 26, 2006 @ 2:07 am - August 26, 2006
So, will Algor also be bending over to smell his own farts, or does he do that already.
“C’mon guys! You’ve got to help me stop ManBearPig. I’m totally cereal.”
Comment by V the K — August 26, 2006 @ 12:11 pm - August 26, 2006
Not as long as you live in such an inflated area as SF and blow all that money on cute gay parties and drugs.
Comment by rightwingprof — August 26, 2006 @ 2:32 pm - August 26, 2006
Tiny box of stereotypes, q.v.
Comment by vaara — August 27, 2006 @ 8:49 am - August 27, 2006
It’s as good an explanation as any for the idiocy he spews. And only an idiot would choose to live in SF, then complain that he can never get rich there.
Hint: move to an area with lower property values.
Comment by rightwingprof — August 27, 2006 @ 10:40 am - August 27, 2006
#25. ND30 lives in SF? LOL!!! What happened to Dallas? And still uses ND? Sorta like NEasterner Bush pretending to be Texan, too. LOL
#34. Cute parties and drugs…sounds like you’re feeling a little left out.
#36. Live somewhere with lower property values? Right, because all the high-status creative jobs are there…as if salaries don’t pretty much match cost of living. More importantly, you should read the orginal statement again, since he didn’t say what you claim he is thinking. Comprehension: lacking, prof.
Comment by jimmy — August 27, 2006 @ 11:48 pm - August 27, 2006
jimmy offers: “Sorta like NEasterner Bush pretending to be Texan, too.”
Nawh, sort of like GayLeft sockpuppets pretending to be three different characters in the same thread (raj/Ian/blah).
How many sockpuppets do you control, jimmy?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 28, 2006 @ 9:35 am - August 28, 2006
#37 jimmy — August 27, 2006 @ 11:48 pm – August 27, 2006
(via #38 Matty from Michigan)
Sorta like NEasterner Bush pretending to be Texan, too. LOL
LOL, indeed.
Let’s understand something. Shrub claims to be a rancher. I suppose that it has something to do with the fact that somebody bought him a faux-photo-op ranch in Crawford TX in 1999. You know, the ranch that he’s perennially clearing brush from.
Um, it seems to me that, for someone to be a real rancher, he should be seen on a horse. Has anyone seen him being on a horse? Has anyone seen him being anywhere near a horse? I haven’t.
Let’s get something straight. When I was a Boy Sprout of 13 years old, at camp I had a horse literally eating out of my hand. And he and I got to be good buddies.
So, the question regarding Shrub is, if he’s really a “rancher”, why the shrub (the brush), but no horse on the faux-photo-op ranch? The answer should be obvious.
Comment by raj — August 29, 2006 @ 6:38 am - August 29, 2006
raj sounds like he’s been watching too many tapes of John McCain’s Straight Talk bus… “Let’s understand something”, “Let’s get something straight”… it’s as hollow on him as is it on John McCain.
As anyone knows who takes 15 seconds to research the matter, the 1600 acre ranch was used to raise hogs and sheep before the Bushes bought the place with his earnings from baseball.
Before becoming President, the Bushes had 240-255 beef cattle and 27 mixed use horses on site, they rented out about 65 acres near the waterfall to other ranchers for livestock watering, and now the Bushes have built a large pond stocked with bass — domestic fish operations count as “ranching” too. LOL.
Despite the sneering nonsense of raj, horses are a part of Prairie Chapel Ranch. There are 11 on the ranch. The Secret Service required the cattle operations and livestock leases to be voided because it brought a transit of people onto the ranch that lowered security.
What a shuttered life for raj/Ian/blah. To count as their last friend of any length an unnamed horse in Boy Scouts that they “befriended” with food.
(“When I was a Boy Sprout of 13 years old, at camp I had a horse literally eating out of my hand. And he and I got to be good buddies.”)
I doubt the sockpuppets were Boy Scouts or even had a friend because everyone knows you don’t forget the name of a horse if it’s a good buddy –unless you’re JohnFKerry and just making up stories as you go. No name offered means no horse; sorry.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 29, 2006 @ 8:50 am - August 29, 2006
#40 Michigan-Matt — August 29, 2006 @ 8:50 am – August 29, 2006
Despite the sneering nonsense of raj, horses are a part of Prairie Chapel Ranch. There are 11 on the ranch.
That’s nice. And the reason that we haven’t seen Shrub photo-opped near any of the 11 horses on his photo-op ranch is, what?
The rest of your bloviation isn’t worth the time to deal with.
Comment by raj — August 29, 2006 @ 1:15 pm - August 29, 2006
Actually, that (“The rest of your bloviation isn’t worth the time to deal with.”) is not quite correct.
As anyone knows who takes 15 seconds to research the matter, the 1600 acre ranch was used to raise hogs and sheep before the Bushes bought the place with his earnings from baseball.
For the moment, I will put aside the fact that you failed to provide any substantiation for the facts stated in your comment, but it is indeed the fact that Shrub’s “earnings from baseball” came at the expense of the taxpayers in and around Arlington TX, who very generously voted to tax themselves to build a baseball stadium in Arlington TX. (I’ll ignore for the moment how Shrub got to be a principal in the TX Rangers baseball team–that’s another corrupt deal.) The taxpayers’ financing of the Rangers’ stadium was nothing more than to benefit Shrub and his neo-con-men: if it hadn’t been for the taxpayers’ financing, the team would have been worthless.
It’s amusing how many Republicans feed at the public teat.
Comment by raj — August 29, 2006 @ 1:27 pm - August 29, 2006
raj/Ian/blah… you keep going Counselor. You’ve got more things wrong in the last two weeks and lied more often than Clinton in a deposition… that’s any Clinton, any deposition.
LOL
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 30, 2006 @ 8:38 am - August 30, 2006