Gore Bashes Dems? Says "No Single Candidate" Is Addressing Climate Change
Al Gore seemed to fault his fellow Dems while speaking to reporters at a forum in Singapore, asserting that not one of the Presidential candidates is addressing his pet issue of climate change:
"There is no single candidate that is putting forward a comprehensive argument about the environment or making climate change a priority," Gore said.
Intriguingly, Gore also said that he may not be finished with politics. "I may re-enter politics at some point in the future because I'm only 59 years old," he said. But before you get too excited, he also repeated his frequent asserion that he has no intention to run in 2008.
Advertisement
He probably thinks that Hillary will win the primary and lose to the repugs because she has too high of negatives, and the repugs have too much stuff to use against her. I think he sees the writing on the wall and he will run for president in 2012. I am a democrat, but I don't see Hillary winning. This is the reason all the repugs act like they love her. They know she is the weakest link.
August 8, 2007 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read the polls.
August 8, 2007 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
if you think Hillary carries much baggages, wait til Rudy gets the nod.
August 8, 2007 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Gore should run in 2012; however, for different reasons.
There's no way we're getting out of the mess in Iraq before 2009. Which means, most - if not all - of the next president's term will be focused on that, as well as the economy.
It's unfortunate, but I don't think Gore would have much time or political energy to really push against climate change in 2009-2012.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.
August 8, 2007 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gore is right (in more ways than one) that the Democratic candidate's environmental policies are anemic at best but then Al is not so hot, so to speak, himself on environmental issues.
Hillary backs "clean coal," an obvious oxymoron. Obama has abandoned clean coal but thinks nuclear power is just swell. The others have "wind and solar" memorized and little more.
The Republicans? Need anyone ask? Hell is in no danger of freezing over if any of them are elected.
Best, Terry
August 8, 2007 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
For God's sake, are you kidding? I can't believe anyone would seriously suggest we "throw" the 2008 election because things are just going to get worse. Ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is the same mindset that argues against impeachment because it might make Bush sympathetic or make the Democrats look bad. Truly frightening.
This isn't about winning and losing, people, it's about our survival -- and I'm not just talking about the environment.
New motto: "When impeachment is off the table, the centerpiece is a cornucopia of corruption."
August 8, 2007 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about tough fuel economy standards which could be implemented pretty quickly. Our Prius gets 50 mpg when we're not even trying, 60 mpg with a little effort. Still, there's no shortage of giant hummers bearing down on my family and me...I can practically see the fins of their radiators in the rearview mirror.
Or mass ground transit, which will take time and shouldn't be delayed.
A four day work week would reduce commuting by 20% and staggered workday schedules would reduce congestion and fuel consumption.
CFL bulbs.
There's a hell of a lot that could be done right now. Some pretty simple things could make a big difference.
Clean coal my ass.
August 8, 2007 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
All that's grand for those who can afford to save money.
I am not against efforts to reduce waste but some of this is like dietitians advising welfare recipients on how to shop wisely. Something like a priest giving advice on good sex to married couples.
I guess it had to be the wingnuts at Fox News who carried a report on the MIT study claiming that if the U.S. exploited a fraction of its geothermal resources it could meet electricity demand 56,000 times over. Of course I don't suppose Fox stressed that MIT has the hots for hot dry rock technology that has a problem or two. Still geothermal is just one resource that could supply massive energy. Your fine president has decided to zero out all geothermal funding, which was in a steep decline in any case. A bill to step up funding instead has been authored by Jerry McNerney, the wind energy entrepreneur. As you might have guessed, the moron in the White House is threatening a veto.
There are even technologies proposed that would use atmospheric carbon for a feedstock.
I am kind of attached to a pilot project being built on a California landfill. It would utilize methane, a greenhouse gas far more potent than tailpipe or smokestack emissions, to produce ethanol from trash like used pizza boxes. Such a plant has been operating in Osaka, Japan, for a couple years or so.
What does Al Gore think about these projects? Al Gore think? You have to be joshing. Al is more into making movies and looking down on commoners.
Best, Terry
August 8, 2007 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is Gore posturing. There is almost universal consensus that we need to start tackling global warming. The political debate is pretty much over. That's why it's not the most prominent issue being discussed by Dems. There won't be a change until a Dem or moderate GOP president takes over. If you truly don't think the Dems will do anything significant then you should probably vote for Nader because the two parties are identical, right?
August 8, 2007 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you can find a quote for this absurdity.
Bet you can't.
In fact individual Democrats are quite capable of being anti-environmentalists just like the Republicans. Hillary proves it by supporting "clean coal." That is an obvious oxymoron. I would note Obama has dropped his support of same.
Make of it what you want but "the Democrats" continue to vote with The Decider, though he is a dead man walking. Most recently, many thought it just fine to give Gonzales expanded powers to look after the civil liberties of Americans. Democrats continue to "support the troops" by giving Bush a blank check to kill them.
Those who don't agree with such policies are being quite logical in casting a protest vote.
BTW why are you an anti-environmentalist supporting Hillary's determination to continue the occupation of Iraq with its enormous cost in lives, money and resources as well as running a training school for terrorists? Do you really think that is a great idea?
Best, Terry
August 8, 2007 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink