Home > Uncategorized > More on Gore

More on Gore

The previous posting about Al Gore has drawn some pretty intense response, so check out this recent column by Paul Krugman in the N.Y. Times. Could it be that we, as a nation, feel some guilt over appointing the wrong man for President in 2000? Enjoy — and comment!

“In his new movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore suggests that there are
three reasons it’s hard to get action on global warming. The first is
boiled-frog syndrome: because the effects of greenhouse gases build up
gradually, at any given moment it’s easier to do nothing. The second is the
perception, nurtured by a careful disinformation campaign, that there’s
still a lot of uncertainty about whether man-made global warming is a
serious problem. The third is the belief, again fostered by disinformation,
that trying to curb global warming would have devastating economic effects.

I’d add a fourth reason, which I’ll talk about in a minute. But first, let’s
notice that Mr. Gore couldn’t have asked for a better illustration of
disinformation campaigns than the reaction of energy-industry lobbyists and
right-wing media organizations to his film.

The cover story in the current issue of National Review is titled “Scare of
the Century.” As evidence that global warming isn’t really happening, it
offers the fact that some Antarctic ice sheets are getting thicker — a point
also emphasized in a TV ad by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is
partly financed by large oil companies, whose interests it reliably
represents.

Curt Davis, a scientist whose work is cited both by the institute and by
National Review, has already protested. “These television ads,” he declared
in a press release, “are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the
public about the global warming debate.” He points out that an initial
increase in the thickness of Antarctica’s interior ice sheets is a predicted
consequence of a warming planet, so that his results actually support global
warming rather than refuting it.

Even as the usual suspects describe well-founded concerns about global
warming as hysteria, they issue hysterical warnings about the economic
consequences of environmentalism. “Al Gore’s global warming movie: could it
destroy the economy?” Fox News asked.

Well, no, it couldn’t. There’s some dispute among economists over how
forcefully we should act to curb greenhouse gases, but there’s broad
consensus that even a very strong program to reduce emissions would have
only modest effects on economic growth. At worst, G.D.P. growth might be,
say, one-tenth or two-tenths of a percentage point lower over the next 20
years. And while some industries would lose jobs, others would gain.

Actually, the right’s panicky response to Mr. Gore’s film is probably a good
thing, because it reveals for all to see the dishonesty and fear-mongering
on which the opposition to doing something about climate change rests.

But “An Inconvenient Truth” isn’t just about global warming, of course. It’s
also about Mr. Gore. And it is, implicitly, a cautionary tale about what’s
been wrong with our politics.

Why, after all, was Mr. Gore’s popular-vote margin in the 2000 election
narrow enough that he could be denied the White House? Any account that
neglects the determination of some journalists to make him a figure of
ridicule misses a key part of the story. Why were those journalists so
determined to jeer Mr. Gore? Because of the very qualities that allowed him
to realize the importance of global warming, many years before any other
major political figure: his earnestness, and his genuine interest in facts,
numbers and serious analysis.

And so the 2000 campaign ended up being about the candidates’ clothing,
their mannerisms, anything but the issues, on which Mr. Gore had a clear
advantage (and about which his opponent was clearly both ill informed and
dishonest).

I won’t join the sudden surge of speculation about whether “An Inconvenient
Truth” will make Mr. Gore a presidential contender. But the film does make a
powerful case that Mr. Gore is the sort of person who ought to be running
the country.

Since 2000, we’ve seen what happens when people who aren’t interested in the
facts, who believe what they want to believe, sit in the White House. Osama
bin Laden is still at large, Iraq is a mess, New Orleans is a wreck. And, of
course, we’ve done nothing about global warming.

But can the sort of person who would act on global warming get elected? Are
we — by which I mean both the public and the press — ready for political
leaders who don’t pander, who are willing to talk about complicated issues
and call for responsible policies? That’s a test of national character. I
wonder whether we’ll pass.”

Advertisements
  1. Rich from Paso
    May 31, 2006 at 5:49 pm

    Since Al Gore himself has said that he has no intention of running again for president (in the same interview he also said he never says never – whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean), the liberal democrat intelligencia has started the “Draft Gore” movement. I don’t think that America “elected the wrong guy” in Bush anymore than America elected the wrong guy with Jimmy Carter, a far better example of America in crisis than Bill Clinton’s eight years. All of the piece, albeit out of sequence, were there for Jimmy Carter: Iranian Hostage crisis, the invasion of Afghanistan, economic upheaval and new terms like “stagfaltion”. While Bush rose up to address the issues facing America in a post-9/11 world (whether you agree with them or not). Jimmy Carter did nothing and has become a laughing stock of ineffectual governance. Carter could have been a wartime president with an invasion of Iran to free our hostages or providing military support to Afghanistan against the Russians, but that was not in Carter’s character. As I stated in previous posts, I don’t think that is in Gore’s character either. Cheney, like him or hate him, has been more invovled, more proactive in defending America (again, agree or disagree with it) than Gore’s make-work “reinventing America” boondoggle. Honestly, can anyone think of one lasting “reinvention” that Gore’s group came up with, put into practice and still exists today? I didn’t think so. Gore was as ineffectual as Vice-president as Carter was as President. And Gore is your liberal champion to take back the White House with? I don’t think so, and apparently, neither does Gore.

  2. Rich from Paso
    May 31, 2006 at 6:23 pm

    More here about the “mini-ice age” that occured between 1400 and 1850. Point is that “global warming” may be cyclical, natural and certainly not permanent.

  3. shawn
    May 31, 2006 at 6:39 pm

    Cheney is active in “defending America” because he’s the one who is actually running the country. To say that Gore is a bad candidate for president because of his actions as vice-president doesn’t make any sense. Traditionally, the job of vice-president has always had an understated acceptance of unimportance. Was George Bush the father a great vice-president? What about Nixon when he was vice-president? And for that matter, what about Dan Quayle? None of these people (including Gore) did anything memorable as vice-president. A person’s role in that posoition has little bearing on that person’s ability to be an effective president.

  4. Rich from Paso
    May 31, 2006 at 7:13 pm

    You prove my point, Shawn. What credentials does Gore actually have to be President? If his tenure as vice-president is as worthless as you say, why should anyone ever vote for him?

  5. The New Tone of San Luis Obispo
    May 31, 2006 at 10:47 pm

    Forrest Gore would be a great President….of China so that he and his elite cronies could pillage the country, give lip service to democracy and capitolism, force us all into small apartments with energy saving common walls, and outlaw cars for all except for those that “need” them.

  6. JerryDinAZ
    June 1, 2006 at 12:38 am

    GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX USED BY SMALL MINDED DEMOCRATS TO TRY AND CONTROL THE NATION…GORE IS A HAS BEEN…NOTHING NEW?
    CONDI IN 2008!

  7. Rich from Paso
    June 1, 2006 at 1:13 am

    Finally!! A “here, here” for Jerry. I wouldn’t have any problem with Condi being the first woman who-happens-to-be-black vice-president right now. That would be an “in your eye, Hillary”, wouldn’t it?

  8. Anonymous
    June 1, 2006 at 11:13 pm

    Paul Krugman? Al Gore? two losers don’t eqaul a winner

  9. The New Tone of San Luis Obispo
    June 2, 2006 at 10:43 pm

    Oh Jerry D!

    HOW COULD YOU ATTACK A DEMOCRAT AS A SMALL MINDED PERSON? COME OFF OF YOURSELF, YOU MUST THINK YOU ARE BIG BRAINED OR SOMETHING. LET SOME OTHERS WRITE HERE.

    (The above attack was in response to the last time Jerry D. in AZ wrote in to attack me for stating my opinion, which apparently is much less valuable to the all knowing Jerry.

  10. Bob from San Luis
    June 3, 2006 at 5:01 pm

    Wow, okay I get it that the “conservatives” don’t like Al Gore and have a whole list of
    “misdeeds” and “quotes” from Mr. Gore that they use as ready ammunition to show how bad he is in their world view. I ask how much do you really know about those “facts” you like to continually dredge up? Here is a link to (gasp!) Media Matters (OMG, it’s liberal!) that throughly disects the role the so-called “Liberal Media” has played over the years at distorting and focusing on Democrats who are “different”, all the while ignoring Republicans who either do the same activities (usually in a worse manner), and when taken in as a whole, any reasonable person can see how unfairly the
    “media” has been treating national Democratic candidates and office holders. If anyone here has the backbone to read the article, follow the links provided and then still conclude that the Democrats featured in the article have not been systematically targeted, you haven’t only drank the Republican kool-aid, you must be main lining the stuff. Read the article, please; I dare you.

  11. Rich from Paso
    June 3, 2006 at 10:35 pm

    I’ve never been afraid of any of your links, Bob. I read your “woe is us democrats” links bemoaning your treatment in the press. Here are my responses to the link and its sublinks:

    So when the press tells the truth about Democrats its all out of context and overblown, but when the press tells the truth (or perceived truth) about Republicans it’s the scandal of the century and 100% true. mapes and Rather still contend that Bush’s Air Guard service record story was not disproven therefore it’s true no matter how many documents supporting the original allegation have been determined to be forged. Defend that piece of “liberal media” work, Bob.

    Do you even know what Whitewater was? Here is your history lesson for the day: Waahitewater was a realestate development that targeted elderly retirees with a lovely piece of land on the White River in Arkansas. The land was sold as purchase agreements that stimpultated, and I quote, “in the event the default continues for 30 days… payments made by the purchaser shall be considered rent for the use fo teh of the premises.” In other words, if the buyer missed one payment the McDougals and the Clintons would forclose after the people, teachers, retirees, etc, missed one or two payments and then turn around and resell the land for another $30K and start the process all over again. All the while never giveing one cent back to the original purchaser. One individual, a retiree from Nevada, made 35 payments and lost his property after missing two payments. He fell ill and the Clintons didn’t care, they forced him off the land anyway. This happened to over half of the people doing business with the then Governor of Arkansas, the future Senator from New York and the McDougals. If you can defend that, Bob, you not only have no heart, you have no soul. So ends the history for the day.

    If Harry Reid was so maligned, how was McCain able to pay $1400 for the tickets? If Reid was so wrongly maligned, why did he apologize for not apologizing earlier and promised to never do his “perfectly legal” thing again?

    Here’s the truth you deny, Bob: The media kills when it smells blood, they would just rather kill Republican’s than Democrats. Are you going to post here the William Jefferson is innocent and the FBI raid illegal? I dare you. Are you going to tell us here that Al Gore didn’t lie when he said he was touring flood damage in Texas with the FEMA director when he wasn’t even in the state, as he said he was in the 2000 presidential debate? The truth is that for every 1 story about a Democrat there are 10 for Republicans. The other truth is that your beloved Democrat party can’t help but feast on each other. I offer the negative campaigns of Steve Westly and Phuil Angeleides, which is assuring the Governator’s reelection, as evidence. Your party just can’t help it.

  12. Rich from Paso
    June 3, 2006 at 11:13 pm

    Oh, by the way, Bob: Nice to see you all well-rested and so full of vim and vigor. You haven’t made a “kool-aid drinking” comment in months. Welcome back.

  13. JerryDinAZ
    June 5, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    Ya know…fishing for gulable democrats is more fun than one might imagine! I just landed “Newtone” in my boat…and will be frying it for dinner. Democrats always take the bait! It’s really hillarious! Try it…catch one for yourself!

  14. Bob from San Luis
    June 6, 2006 at 8:08 am

    Hi Rich: The link I posted had assertions that not all of the reporting about Democrats was factual; of course I didn’t expect you to actually make that connection “…so when the press tells the truth about Democrats…”. You once again tow the Republican party line “The liberal media is out to get the Republicans!”, while once again ignoring the omission of sources on stories about Dems, the asumption of guilt or lack of integrity. One thing I will give you Rich, you are consistant.
    The record of George W. Bush’s Air National Guard service: Here is a link to Airforcetimes.com with a reporting of Bush’s service and it also mentions the CBS report. Go about half way down the page (paragraphs 17 & 18) and you can read their (Airforcetimes) take on the reports. Read it and weep, Rich; this is not some liberal rag but the Airforcetimes.
    Whitewater: As I mentioned before, I thought Bill Clinton was smarmy, I held my nose and voted for him over George H W Bush in ’92 because I didn’t want Bush(41) to be reelected; with inflation starting to run away, pardons given to traitors to the US, I thought we needed a change. I will not defend what the Clintons did or didn’t do in the Whitewater affair, but since you brought it up, how many people lost their homes, savings, investments and life savings due to Whitewater as compared to the Billions the federal government doled out covering all of the Bush family misdeeds like the Siverado Savings & Loan collapse, or the fact that Prescott Bush Sr. was convicted of crimes during WWII with the financing of Nazi Germany’s steel production. You do not want to try and compare the “morality” of the Bush family and any Democrat you can name. Here is a link outlining some of the accomplishments of the Bushes.
    As for Harry Reid and John McCain; I am not a real fan of Senator Reid, what he or any other Congressperson does should be measured like any other citizen. Free $1400 boxing match tickets? Nice if you can get them if you want, but still wrong for a Senator to accept, legal or not.
    William Jefferson: I am not going to defend his “innocence” or guilt; that is for a court of law, if the prosecutor can make a case. What I do take offense to is the FBI raiding his congressional office without notifing the Capitol Police or allowing his lawyer to witness what was happening. With all of the possible criminal investigations going on (or should be going on) in Congress, why is a Democrat the first person in office in history to have his office searched? Is this the White House’s way of sending a message to Congress that they(Congress) had better not try to assert their rightful oversight role of the Administration? What is the Administration going to do with the computor and files contained on it that was confiscated from Jefferson’s office? Will there be emails and memos with Democratic election stratigy that the White House can access?
    As for Gore, getting back to the content of this thread; no one is a perfect person, candidate or office holder. Does it bother me that Gore either lied or mis-spoke about the FEMA tour of Texas? Yes, it does. The question that most don’t ask about our leaders (at least not out loud), what does the balance work out for a person’s character, be they private citizens, political leaders or public figures. Someone who makes repeated poor decisions has a negative balance when viewed as to their “balance”. A political leader who repeatedly makes decisions that benefit a select few who make large campaign donations at the expense of the very many in this country certainly would not seem to judged as “putting the good of the country” ahead of paying back those who have directly helped them get into office. Once again I ask the question: What has President Bush and/or the Republican leadership in Congress done to directly benefit the greater number of Americans (you know, the majority)? Is the average income up? Are more people getting health care? Is our environment getting cleaner, or worse? Rich, you say these are “liberal” ideals; if these topics were addressed in a positive way, there would be a huge improvement in the quality of life for all Americans, Republicans and Democrats alike. Take care.

  15. Rich from Paso
    June 6, 2006 at 5:15 pm

    Bob, come on, man!! pardons given to traitors to the US!! You cannot be mentioning Poindexter, can you? Of course, you are. Typical of a liberal to call an Admiral trying to do what is in the best interest of our kidnapped American citizens in Lebanon “traitorous”. Your myopia is all to evident with your omission of Marki Rich. You remember Mark Rich, the man who violated US law to help sell oil for the Iranians while our citizens were held for 444 days during the liberal salad days of the Jimmy Carter (Mis)Administration. Read more about it here Here is a complete list of all of the pardons Clinton handed out in the wee hours of the morning before he turned over the office to Bush. I would like to point out here that Clinton was busy handing out midnight pardons to criminals and not at all concerned about the terrorism problem he was leaving to Bush to handled. That’s for you Bob; just being consistent.

    Last time I checked it was George W. Bush in the White House, not Neil or George Jr.. And at least they were smuggling cocaine like Roger Clinton was.

    Why is it that Democrats are only worried about global warming and the environment when a Republican is in office anyway? Clinton had 8 years and all he did was fail to get gays in the military and fail to get his socialized medicine passed and fail to even offer a middle-class tax cut (“hardest I’ve worked in my life, but I couldn’t do it” he said), and failed to get bin Laden twice and failed bring Middle East peace, failed to unseat Saddam, et cetera et cetera. So I put the question back to you: What has any Democrat directly done for for the country these past 25 years?

    Finally, as for Whitewater, FSLIC paid out to individuals to recoup some of the losses, but the S and L scandal was in by no means isolated to just the Bush family. To paint the entire Bush family with the same brush is irresponsible. However, it is not irresponsible to say that Bill and Hillary targeted individuals, retirees and working class people, put in place predatory language in their purchase agreements and then stole the money and property from individuals deliberately and purposefully. That is the true crime of Whitewater is that they knew the names and circumstances of every single individual they screwed and they did it anyway. That is pure evil and that is your hero you refuse to criticize and for whom you had to hold your nose and vote for anyway. Way to show true courage to vote for the piece of crap while holding your nose. What a guy you are.

  16. Rich from Paso
    June 6, 2006 at 5:30 pm

    Bob, come on, man!! pardons given to traitors to the US.!! You cannot be mentioning John Poindexter, can you? Of course, you are. Typical of a liberal to call an Admiral trying to do what is in the best interest of our kidnapped American citizens in Lebanon “traitorous”. The only place Poindexter and the rest of the Iran-Contra guys ran afoul of the law was when they discovered that they had a profit from the sale of weapons to the Iranians (8 years after the fall of the embassy; our hostages were freed alive shortly thereafter) so they used that money to buy guns for the Contras who had been cut off from funds by a Democrat named Boland from MA who got an amendment attched to an appropriations bill. Did Reagan know? Who cares anymore, certainly not me.

    Now to this century… Your myopia is all to evident with your omission of Mark Rich. You remember Mark Rich, the man who violated US law to help sell oil for the Iranians while our citizens were held for 444 days during the liberal salad days of the Jimmy Carter (Mis)Administration. Read more about it here. Here is a complete list of all of the pardons Clinton handed out in the wee hours of the morning before he turned over the office to Bush. It is quite possible that Clinton nad Gore accepted campaign contributions from a real traitor, funneled by his ex-wife, in exchange for a pardon. Still the piece of crap Rich never showed his face back in America. I would like to point out here that Clinton was busy handing out midnight pardons to criminals and not at all concerned about the terrorism problem he was leaving to Bush to handled. That’s for you Bob; just being consistent.

    Last time I checked it was George W. Bush in the White House, not Neil or George Jr.. And at least they weren’t smuggling cocaine like Roger Clinton was.

    Why is it that Democrats are only worried about global warming and the environment when a Republican is in office anyway? Clinton had 8 years and all he did was fail to get gays in the military and fail to get his socialized medicine passed and fail to even offer a middle-class tax cut (“hardest I’ve worked in my life, but I couldn’t do it” he said), and failed to get bin Laden twice and failed bring Middle East peace, failed to unseat Saddam, left al Qaeda to attack America on 9/11 even after WTC 93, the African Embassies and the USS Cole, et cetera et cetera. In short: his presidency was a failure. So I put the question back to you: What has any Democrat directly done for for the country these past 25 years?

    Finally, as for Whitewater, FSLIC paid out to individuals to recoup some of the losses, but the S and L scandal was in by no means isolated to just the Bush family. To paint the entire Bush family with the same brush is irresponsible. However, it is not irresponsible to say that Bill and Hillary targeted individuals, retirees and working class people, put in place predatory language in their purchase agreements and then stole the money and property from individuals deliberately and purposefully. That is the true crime of Whitewater is that they knew the names and circumstances of every single individual they screwed and they did it anyway. That’s just evil, perpetrated by your hero who you refuse to criticize and for whom you had to hold your nose and vote for anyway. Way to show true courage to vote for the piece of crap while holding your nose. What a guy you are.

  17. Rich from Paso
    June 6, 2006 at 7:06 pm

    Oh, Bob, before you accuse me of agreeing with you for not responding, I have no problem with the FBI executing a Federal judge approved search warrant on Rep. William Jefferson (Democrat -LA)’s office. His office had refused to turn over the requested documents, as was the case since the beginnign of the country. His was the first office to be searched because he refused to cooperate before hand. He brought it on himself and I have no sympathy for him. Were the precedent to be established that Congressional offices were off-limits to searches, then it would green light every Congressional member to avoid prosecution by hiding the incriminating evidence in their offices. Don’t tell me that wouldn’t happen because you know it would. The only message being sent is “crime does not pay” and “you will not hide evidence in your office”. I think the search of Jefferson (D-LA)’s office is an example of the checks and balances (judiciary and executive on the legislative) at work and proof that no one is above the law. I’m sure you see it otherwise.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: