Bush/Gore, Bore/Gush, they were both the same, remember? It didn’t matter whether you voted Democrat or Republican, you were just getting the same ol’ thing.
Look how true that is: Bush sounds just like Al Gore. Of course, there were a few minor differences, like that Gore was 14 years ahead of Bush, really meant it (rather than having his lackeys issue retractions the day after), and I suspect, had the competence to actually follow through.
As you point out, Bush was spraying hogwash for the public. Everyone who matters (oil company execs, right-wing talk show hosts, the usual suspects) knew what he was really saying: “This sounds good for Moms and other environmental kooks, but you know I won’t really do anything.”
Wampum’s assessment is correct. But I would even take it a step further. Simply offering an alternative idea to a problem in today’s political climate might as well be insulting someone’s mother to their face and slapping them with a leather glove. Democrats can be faulted for being kneejerkers too on certain issues, though they are less inclined overall to whip out a prepared inflammatory statement and tout it as gospel.
The fact is, Democrats have always been better on the environment. I remember hearing an interview of Theo Roosevelt IV a while back on NPR. It was so enlightening to hear a true progressive conservative talk about how the environment is being trashed as a terrible rate. Contrast that with the sad mania that is now an instinctual response in the current Republican party, and the problem looks ever dire. As the bumper sticker says, I never thought I’d miss Nixon.
It’s too bad that Democrats didn’t jump on Gore’s idea back then. They may have had just enough time to put regulations in place before Gingrich’s now-void “Contract with America” had a chance to wreak its havoc. I always supported Clinton’s tightening of MPG standards, since it was placing the burden on the monopoloistic companies to improve and sustain. We can see now that all the crap GM, Ford and Chrysler gave Clinton about his regs was heartily taken up by the Japanese, who’ve been roundly beating the Big 3 over the head in fuel efficiency for years now.
With oil men running this country, I have exactly ZERO confidence that they’ll think twice when they take their wallet out to hand B. Franklins to their pet lobbyists.
Gore “really meant it”?
The same Al Gore who in 2000 as Vice President wrote an official letter to the Turkish government urging them to build a nuclear reactor in an earthquake zone, said letter of course having nothing to do with a major donation to the Democratic Party by the proposed contractor, Westinghouse, within a few days of that letter’s writing?
(Numerous other examples of Gorean eco-perfidy could be offered, of course – I just cited the first one that came to mind…)
You may recall that Gore, and the Clinton administration started something called the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles:
“In return for federal funding and access to the research efforts of 7 federal agencies and 20 federal laboratories, industry participants have pledged to create production prototype vehicles of a “supercar” that would be, according to the Department of Commerce, “an environmentally friendly car with up to triple the fuel efficiency of today’s midsize cars � without sacrificing affordability, performance, or safety.”
You can read Ralph Nader dissing it as corporate welfare here. The goals of that effort sound very similar to what Amory Lovins has been pushing recently. It might have yielded solutions in the fairly short term, whereas Bush’s touting of futuristic hydrogen vehicles is another way of saying “let’s not do anything today to break the stranglehold the big oil companies have us in”. And by the way, where is all that hydrogen going to come from, and why aren’t we as a nation making efforts at conservation today? (If you are making individual efforts, I applaud you, but that was not the question)
Uh, yeah…hydrogen is an energy storage technique, not an energy generation tool.
And point taken, Pierce. Gore could waffle, too.
Gore did a lot of election-year pandering in 2000: There was the Elian Gonzalez pseudo-issue, and he also advocated opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in response to a transient price spike. Still, I can’t believe that as President he wouldn’t have been more competent, honest, informed, and foresightful than the current gang of criminals. At a minimum, he wouldn’t have made a career of gratuitously breaking things, which Bush started on well before September 11 saved his sorry political ass.
I also doubt that Gore would so cavalierly propose that the President does not have to obey laws that he considers outmoded. That’s one of the defenses offered by Bush’s attorney general for the President’s clear and admitted violation of the law and the Constitution.
PZ, I beg you, remove that superfluous apostrophe before I lose all faith in the internet as a medium of communication.
Mark Paris said …”offered by Bush’s attorney general for the President’s clear and admitted violation of the law and the Constitution”
Erm .. I’m English – what were these? The spying on US citizens without a warrant? etc?
BUt I’m reminded of the behaviour of the suppliant German parliament in AUgust 1914 – (paraphrase): “We admit the wrong, and the breaking of international law, but the higher law binds us.” (Bethmann-Hollweg)
This, of course, was the previously spoken of (Boxer rising?) “higher law” referred to by Kipling as “lesser breed without mthe law” – NOT African or non-European countries – it was a direct reference to Kaiser WIlhelm II.
One of the things that frightens me is that the UK may become Austria-Hungary to Shrub’s Prussia…..
Between that and the islamic nazis, the future is NOT looking good.
You may recall that Gore, and the Clinton administration started something called the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles:
Still, under Clinton average fuel economy of American cars fell, as did fuel economy requirements for American vehicles.
It might have yielded solutions in the fairly short term, whereas Bush’s touting of futuristic hydrogen vehicles is another way of saying “let’s not do anything today to break the stranglehold the big oil companies have us in”.
Big oil is invested in energy; whatever form of alternative energy is available, you can be sure that big oil will control – for example, the biggest two manufacturers of photovoltaic cells are Shell and BP. Alternative energy won’t break up big oil; it will just turn it into big solar, or big geothermal, or big uranium.
G. Tingey, I was referring to the Bush administration’s admitted spying on electronic communications within the US without first obtaining warrants. There is a law that actually allows a wiretap first, and then obtaining a warrant after the fact from a special, secret court that virtually always grants such warrants. But the Bush administration decided to forgo even that provision and simply wiretap at their own discretion. As reported by PBS here, Atty General Alberto Gonzales defended the wiretapping by saying it was legal within the President’s war authority, and even if it did violate the law, the law is outmoded. I have seen speculation that apparently Bush is not listening to selected electronic conversations or individuals, for which he could easily get warrants, but to every single tappable electronic communication, from which they winnow language and words to identify “terrorists.” It’s Echelon all over again. Obviously the administration cannot get a warrant to tap everyone’s phone, so they just did it. The only other possible explanation is that they simply decided to ignore the law and the Constitution and illegally wiretap.