Al Gore Blasts Obama On Climate Change For Failing To Take 'Bold Action'

[onehandle]

Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- Former Vice President Al Gore is going where few environmentalists – and fellow Democrats – have gone before: criticizing President Barack Obama's record on global warming.

In a 7,000-word essay for Rolling Stone magazine that will be published Friday, Gore says Obama has failed to stand up for "bold action" on global warming and has made little progress on the problem since the days of Republican President George W. Bush. Bush infuriated environmentalists for resisting mandatory controls on the pollution blamed for climate change, despite overwhelming scientific evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is responsible.

While Gore credits Obama's political appointees with making hundreds of changes that have helped move the country "forward slightly" on the climate issue, and acknowledges Obama has been dealing with many other problems, he says the president "has simply not made the case for action."

"President Obama has never presented to the American people the magnitude of the climate crisis," Gore says. "He has not defended the science against the ongoing withering and dishonest attacks. Nor has he provided a presidential venue for the scientific community ... to bring the reality of the science before the public."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/al-gore-obama-climate-change-rolling-stone_n_881947.html

---

It will be interesting to see if Keith talks about these comments from his boss.

[bigwillq]

1. K and R (nt)

[SleeplessinSoCal]

86. S O S. Attacks are rampant at HuffPost in comment thread. I added 2 cents all over the place.

[bjobotts]

120. Read the entire essay and you'll find Gore "praised" Obama's actions for most of it

[bjobotts]

121. You list only the parts that Gore claimed Obama didn't use his bully pulpit enough.

[bjobotts]

122. Further atempts to turn liberals against Obama by being disappointed he's not FDR.

[bjobotts]

123. Obama walked into the end of our economy and our democracy as a senate minority kneecapped his agend

[bjobotts]

124. The house did its job but the senate shows how the wealthy minority took control of our nation

[bjobotts]

125. Your title shows ur predjudice. Gore hardly "blasts" Obama. You cherry picked his essay

[ProSense]

2. Interesting. From the OP:

<...>

Regardless of views such as Gore's, environmental voters may see little choice in the 2012 election. Those in the Republican field so far either deny global warming is a man-made problem altogether or say actions to address it would harm the economy. For Obama, the biggest risk is that some environmental voters may not turn out.

In his essay, Gore notes his comments could weaken Obama at a time when he already is under attack from Republicans.

"Even writing an article like this one carries risks," Gore says. "Opponents of the president will excerpt the criticism and strip it of context."

Bowing to political resistance from Republicans and some in his own party, Obama abandoned an effort and a campaign pledge to enact legislation that would put the first-ever limit on greenhouse gases.

<...>

Gore's article sounds like it's going to be a fair assessment. Look forward to reading it in context.

[defendandprotect]

78. "Bowing to political resistance from Republicans and SOME in his own party" ... !!!

Bowing to political resistance from Republicans and some in his own party, Obama abandoned an effort and a campaign pledge to enact legislation that would put the first-ever limit on greenhouse gases.


:puke:

[wordpix]

82. +1 at the disgust toward Congress but O needs to bring his case to the people IF

he wants to fight against both global warming and air pollution that is sickening many.

Instead, I'm afraid he is too bogged down in three wars and isn't getting out fast enough...money is draining away and only the industrialists are winning.

[me b zola]

95. It wasn't congress nor the wars that pushed Obama

to handle the GoM crisis the way that he did. In fact, the forces that push for all of the wars were behind the push to screw the environment and people of the gulf.

[roguevalley]

101. he better do it soon. the ocean is going for an extinction event not

known in human history. fucked. we are.

[defendandprotect]

105. Silence is an answer -- and we've had silence from Obama on this and the homeless ...

and pretty much everything in between --

It is up to US to wake up now and take control --

Obama is a corporatist -- that couldn't be any clearer -- sadly!!

[elocs]

3. Not to disagree, but did Gore take 'Bold Action' after the 2001 election?

I think global warming is here and cannot be stopped, but we should work to stop the harm and prepare for the consequences of what has already been done, neither of which has been effectively done. They've been given lip service but climate change has certainly not been treated like the wolf is at the door.

Countries such as India and China have watched the U.S. suck the planet dry for years and although global warming is not all our fault the people of those nations and others want the piece of the pie that we've had for decades, and you can't blame them, but there simply is not enough pie.

[ProSense]

4. A climate change bill

doesn't stand a chance. Too many factions even among Democrats.

This is how close Congress came to passing a bill. The http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/us/politics/11protest.html">NYT

<...>

While most environmental groups formally supported the House bill, the road to passage proved unsettling for the movement. Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and Public Citizen opposed the bill; members of some other groups privately berated their leaders for going along with it. And some, like Ms. Miller, have shifted to open protest.

<...>

In a statement, Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and an architect of the bill, defended the legislation. “We worked hard to craft legislation that would achieve our environmental goals while addressing the regional concerns of members of Congress,” he said. Politicians are not the only targets of dejected environmentalists.

<...>

It passed the House, and then after killing Kerry-Boxer and Kerry-Lieberman, Congress ended up with nothing. They let major climate change legislation, that represented millions of jobs slip through the cracks of a dysfunctional Senate.

[Avant Guardian]

15. Always excuses

[ProSense]

18. Gore supported

Kerry-Boxer and Kerry-Lieberman. Did either of them pass?

[Avant Guardian]

24. "doesn't stand a chance"

So why try?

Always the same excuse for Obama's inaction, on every subject.

[ProSense]

29. That

was rhetoric to emphasize the number of Democrats and others who fought against the best chance to pass a bill.

The articles linked to had nothing to do with Obama.

"Always the same excuse for Obama's inaction, on every subject."

Maybe the problem is making everything about Obama, even when it's not.

[jwirr]

33. I don't think this is about the bills. President Obama is the only one

who can lay this out for the people who are not following it on scientific sites. He has the "bully pulpit" or in other words he at least gets media attention. Hardly any other Democrats do. It is about that he is not laying out the facts about why we need action not that the he did not in some miraculous way unite the factions behind the bills. I do not think anyone can do that, not even the people.

This is going to be one of those issues that we will have to do from the bottom up but it would be nice if the voice of the President was there for us.

And yes, I am voting for him in 2012 along with any other Democrats I can get into the congress.

[Dept of Beer]

68. That's good. Regardless of where he stands on this issue the important

thing is that we have to stand behind him and make sure he is reelected.

[JDPriestly]

104. When Bush was president, everything was about Bush.

The president is the leader of the country. Everything is about the president.

If Obama doesn't want to be the leader of the country and take the political risks required to do the right things, then he should simply let another candidate run in his place in 2012. Obama is too cautious, too anxious to please his opponents on the right -- and too frightened to even state clearly and simply what he wants.

He is good at discovering and recognizing consensus. Unfortunately, that is only one rather minor aspect of the president's job.

I don't want to see Obama lose the presidency to one of the crazy Republican candidates, but unless he gets a stronger backbone and demonstrates the courage of Democratic convictions not only to Republicans but to the Blue Dog conservative Democrats in Congress, we will have a Palin if not a Romney in the White House in 2013.

Obama is a nice guy, but he is a weak personality. I fear that he polls high because of the bad and confusing choices on the other side. But the fact is, that voters' enthusiasm about him has declined to a dangerous point.

A presidential candidate has to have energy in expressing his views. He also has to inspire energy in others. Obama has lost the ability to do that because he has been too willing to compromise and has spent the good will of a lot of his supporters.

[karynnj]

30. There were MAJOR efforts to pass something last year

This year with a Republican House, it really is impossible to do it through legislating a comprehensive bill. That is why the focus is on doing it through the EPA> There were things - like the increase in CAFE standards (something that did not happen in the Clinton/Gore years, when they in a defacto sense decreased as SUVs were not included as cars.) and the various green energy incentives.

Is it enough - no, it isn't and there is a need to again educate people and make this REALLY a voting issue - which it never has been. Obama is well positioned to help on this - but he can't be the only one.

[No Elephants]

87. President Gore failed to use the Presidential bully pulpit effectively.

[JDPriestly]

106. No Elephants, I hope you are joking.

Gore wasn't president -- ever. That's why he did not use the bully pulpit effectively.

I'm not sure which post you are responding to if you are being ironic or pointing out an error in a post.

[Dept of Beer]

64. You can see it as an excuse, disguise or evasion, but I

[No Elephants]

72. Yep

Poor widdwle helpless Pwesident.

[chervilant]

8. AND,

there are far too many humans infesting this planet...

[karynnj]

13. It was the 2000 election and he conceded because the highest court in the land ruled Bush won

Other than calling for a revolution, there was no recourse. ( After that even if a Senator would have objected to the election, all that would have done was to lead to a vote that he would have lost. Think how many Democrats who would argue that it already had gone to the Supreme Court. )

As an outsider, he DID take bold action and he increased the public's knowledge and belief in climate change - enough that the Koch brothers had to spend millions touting the false "climategate" trying to discredit it.

[elocs]

16. You're right, 2000. Brain fart, but too late to edit it.

[bullpit]

57. A revolution...

Now there's an interesting idea. Our government would be just as bloody and brutal as any of those in the middle east they decry so fervently about, if the people who are so thoroughly disgusted with a broken and corrupt system, took to the streets.

[karynnj]

110. Remember back to 2000 - there was no energy at all that would have

formed behind Gore calling the SC action a coup and calling for people to go into the streets. He likely would not even have had Clinton behind him.

[trud]

22. oh, Gore was elected President? I didn't know that. n/t

[No Elephants]

66. Was Gore President after the 2000 election?

[defendandprotect]

79. Gore limited his populist speeches due to compalints by Koch Bros DLC .....

AFTER the election he resigned --

though unfortunately we have Clinton having introduced this monster

into the Dem Party -- and Gore as a co-founder!

Koch Bros FUNDED the DLC --

and was harbored within the Dem Party for 20 years --

Recall any Dem mentioning that to any of us?

[CreekDog]

80. yes he did, at the point we are now, as a private citizen, Gore boldly opposed the Iraq war

and had been working internationally to fight climate change.

we don't know what he would've done had he been president, Obama has gotten the chance that Gore never had.

[24601]

114. Self delete - already covered...n/t

[Viva_La_Revolution]

5. Climate of Denial by Al Gore (dated today)

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-of-denial-20110622

By Al Gore
June 22, 2011 7:45 AM ET

The first time I remember hearing the question "is it real?" was when I went as a young boy to see a traveling show put on by "professional wrestlers" one summer evening in the gym of the Forks River Elementary School in Elmwood, Tennessee.

The evidence that it was real was palpable: "They're really hurting each other! That's real blood! Look a'there! They can't fake that!" On the other hand, there was clearly a script (or in today's language, a "narrative"), with good guys to cheer and bad guys to boo.

But the most unusual and in some ways most interesting character in these dramas was the referee: Whenever the bad guy committed a gross and obvious violation of the "rules" — such as they were — like using a metal folding chair to smack the good guy in the head, the referee always seemed to be preoccupied with one of the cornermen, or looking the other way. Yet whenever the good guy — after absorbing more abuse and unfairness than any reasonable person could tolerate — committed the slightest infraction, the referee was all over him. The answer to the question "Is it real?" seemed connected to the question of whether the referee was somehow confused about his role: Was he too an entertainer?

[ProSense]

6. Thanks. Good stuff:

<...>

First of all, anyone who honestly examines the incredible challenges confronting President Obama when he took office has to feel enormous empathy for him: the Great Recession, with the high unemployment and the enormous public and private indebtedness it produced; two seemingly interminable wars; an intractable political opposition whose true leaders — entertainers masquerading as pundits — openly declared that their objective was to ensure that the new president failed; a badly broken Senate that is almost completely paralyzed by the threat of filibuster and is controlled lock, stock and barrel by the oil and coal industries; a contingent of nominal supporters in Congress who are indentured servants of the same special interests that control most of the Republican Party; and a ferocious, well-financed and dishonest campaign poised to vilify anyone who dares offer leadership for the reduction of global-warming pollution.

In spite of these obstacles, President Obama included significant climate-friendly initiatives in the economic stimulus package he presented to Congress during his first month in office. With the skillful leadership of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and committee chairmen Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, he helped secure passage of a cap-and-trade measure in the House a few months later. He implemented historic improvements in fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles, and instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to move forward on the regulation of global-warming pollution under the Clean Air Act. He appointed many excellent men and women to key positions, and they, in turn, have made hundreds of changes in environmental and energy policy that have helped move the country forward slightly on the climate issue. During his first six months, he clearly articulated the link between environmental security, economic security and national security — making the case that a national commitment to renewable energy could simultaneously reduce unemployment, dependence on foreign oil and vulnerability to the disruption of oil markets dominated by the Persian Gulf reserves. And more recently, as the issue of long-term debt has forced discussion of new revenue, he proposed the elimination of unnecessary and expensive subsidies for oil and gas.

But in spite of these and other achievements, President Obama has thus far failed to use the bully pulpit to make the case for bold action on climate change. After successfully passing his green stimulus package, he did nothing to defend it when Congress decimated its funding. After the House passed cap and trade, he did little to make passage in the Senate a priority. Senate advocates — including one Republican — felt abandoned when the president made concessions to oil and coal companies without asking for anything in return. He has also called for a massive expansion of oil drilling in the United States, apparently in an effort to defuse criticism from those who argue speciously that "drill, baby, drill" is the answer to our growing dependence on foreign oil.

The failure to pass legislation to limit global-warming pollution ensured that the much-anticipated Copenhagen summit on a global treaty in 2009 would also end in failure. The president showed courage in attending the summit and securing a rhetorical agreement to prevent a complete collapse of the international process, but that's all it was — a rhetorical agreement. During the final years of the Bush-Cheney administration, the rest of the world was waiting for a new president who would aggressively tackle the climate crisis — and when it became clear that there would be no real change from the Bush era, the agenda at Copenhagen changed from "How do we complete this historic breakthrough?" to "How can we paper over this embarrassing disappointment?"

<...>

[Uncle Joe]

40. And the clincher paragraph.

The referee — in this analogy, the news media — seems confused about whether he is in the news business or the entertainment business. Is he responsible for ensuring a fair match? Or is he part of the show, selling tickets and building the audience? The referee certainly seems distracted: by Donald Trump, Charlie Sheen, the latest reality show — the list of serial obsessions is too long to enumerate here.

[jtrockville]

52. THANKS for the link.

[paparush]

7. Meanwhile the Rethug *cough* candidates have their heads

collectively buried in the sands of denial.

No leadership whatsoever.

[AlbertCat]

41. Rethug *cough* candidates have their heads collectively buried in the sands of denial.

Some. But I'll bet you most of them really don't think about it at all, except how it plays with the public. They don't begin to think about the science or ethics or any of the consequences except in terms of how it affects their chances for elections. It's not about science to them, and the only future they are worried about concerning the subject is their immediate, personal future.

IOW.... Climate Change is nothing to them but an election factor.

[paparush]

90. Yep. And they've decided to try and make it a non-issue.

Because all the work that needs to be done would somehow be bad for the economy.

Brings a tear to my eye to see how much these TeaPublicans care about the economy.

:sarcasm:

[OKNancy]

9. The title of the HuffPo piece doesn't match the actual article

It certainly isn't a "blast". I see the usual folks are taking the criticism and running with it.
He "blasts" Congress as well, but where is that headline.

If you think Gore knows what he is talking about ( and I do)then perhaps people need to read this part again


Those of us who support and admire President Obama understand how difficult the politics of this issue are in the context of the massive opposition to doing anything at all — or even to recognizing that there is a crisis. And assuming that the Republicans come to their senses and avoid nominating a clown, his re-election is likely to involve a hard-fought battle with high stakes for the country. All of his supporters understand that it would be self-defeating to weaken Obama and heighten the risk of another step backward. Even writing an article like this one carries risks; opponents of the president will excerpt the criticism and strip it of context.

[karynnj]

I understand his frustration, but has he ever said that Clinton/Gore did not not do what they should

have done?

I don't think Gore has never spoken of how low a priority the Clinton/Gore administration made climate change, when the economic environment would have made passing something far easier. I looked at pollingreport.com's long series on a question designed to trade off economic gains and environmental gains and, as would be expected, the stronger the economy, the more likely people are will to sacrifice a little for the environment. (I believe Kerry and others that this tradeoff might not really exist and, in fact, acting on climate change might be what is needed to improve the economy, but it is that perceived relationship that led the 14 Democratic Coal state Senators to write the letter they did. ) Gore was a Congressman and a Senator for long enough that he had to know how hard passing something comprehensive would be - and, having been VP, he likely knew the limits of the huge amount of power a President has.

I do realize that a VP does not have the power to set the agenda - the President does - and that he would be constrained while in office. I also have been annoyed that Gore has been a little dishonest on Kyoto and the Congress. The Byrd/Hagel vote was a few months before Kyoto ended and it laid out what the Congress thought should be required before the US signed on. It could have been used by Gore to develop something more like what was agreed to in Bali - and gotten agreement that they could impose tariffs on countries not complying. Instead the Congressional concerns were ignored and the Kyoto agreement was never brought up in the Senate. I suspect that Gore speaks of the Senate rejecting Kyoto because it is simpler to explain and because it ignores that he, like Obama, did not really do all he could to sell the issue to the Senate or, maybe more importantly, pushed the issues the Senate raised in the Kyoto negotiations.

That said, I can imagine Gore's (or Kerry's) frustration that this was not given higher priority than it was. Axelrod in his comments made it clear that he thought this to be less important than many other issues - suggesting that he does not really internalize his acceptance of the science. But, looking at the two years when Obama had the House and the Senate, it is not clear that he really could have done more. With the background of the wars and foreign policy troubles, there were 4 major domestic issues - climate change, healthcare, banking/finance reform, and immigration. He was able, though the Republicans fought everything tenaciously, to make serious strides in two of them. On climate change, it seems that all he can do now is whatever incentives for clean energy he can get and using the EPA to fight to end the worst pollution sources. Given the needs, I really don't know if a President Gore or a President Kerry, who really passionately cared about this - in a way Obama doesn't, could have gotten something passed. I also don't know what,if anything, they would have lost that Obama accomplished to do this.

[Uncle Joe]

38. They also faced a Republican controlled House and Senate after the first two years.

Clinton was under constant investigation almost from day one when Fiske was done, Starr took over, this weakened his Presidency and as you state Gore while influential was only a Vice President.

[karynnj]

51. Agree completely

I likely blame Clinton more than you do. In Sid Blumenthal's book, there was a story that early in the Presidency, Senators including Moynahan, Bradley, Kerry and others went to the White House and tried to convince the Clintons to proactively put out everything they had on Whitewater and to explain anything where an explanation was needed. This actually was good advice if as they were saying and which was found to be true, they had done nothing wrong. It might have prevented the endless drip of things that first looked suspicious, but never amounted to much. From his accounting, after they left the Clintons, especially Hillary were extremely angry.

Clinton also should have fought harder and made a better case to delay the Paula Jones trial until after he was out of office. (There was no real it needed immediate action) It was a real mistake no to contest that. Not to mention, he should not have lied under oath - which gave the RW what they didn't have - something that was enough to mount an inpeachment, knowing he would not be impeached.

At least in the Senate, there were more Republicans willing to sponsor bills on climate change or CAFE standard increases. It is not clear the current Senate is better on this issue. I suspect it is worse. (Remember the Republicans then included Jeffords, Spector, and Chaffee. McCain, Snowe and Collins were more willing to accept the science.)

[No Elephants]

70. I criticize Bubba as much or more than the next poster, but he did fight to

delay the Paula Jones case. The court ruled against him.

As far as his making a stronger case (assuming a stronger case could have been made when the issue had never arisen or been litigated before), that was up to his lawyers, as I am sure you are aware. He had a day job at the time and was not writing briefs himself, or making oral arguments.

[dennis4868]

96. Correct...

but the stats tells us that Clinton/Gore did not face 24/7 fillubusters like Obama has these past 2 1/2 years.....been more fillubusters the past 2 years than ever before....but folks here at DU and many on the left want to simply forget that and blame Obama for everything.

[Uncle Joe]

97. The Republicans didn't need to filibuster Clinton/Gore they controlled both houses of Congress

after the first two years.

Clinton was elected with less than a majority of the votes, because it was a three way race, Bush, Perot, and Clinton couple that with endless investigations by Republicans and witch hunt reporting by the corporate media made it difficult for him to strongly advocate for dramatic change.

Hell even when they attempted to take out Osama Bin Laden, missing him by a few minutes, the Republican controlled Congress and the corporate media promoted the tail wags dog scenario, and that it was all just a distraction away from Monica Lewinsky.

I certainly don't hold Clinton blameless, he brought much of it on him self, but Obama had/has political advantages that Clinton didn't, number one being elected by a clear majority mandating change.

Obama should be able to use the bully pulpit to great effect and the Democrats still control the Congress, although I recognize he faces challenges as well, mainly the disastrous legacy of Bush the Least.

[JDPriestly]

107. That was one of the reasons that I did not support Hillary Clinton in 2008.

Fair or not, she was a part of the Bill Clinton administration, and he just made so many mistakes -- including his mistakes on energy, but mostly his mistakes on the economy. He is responsible for keeping Greenspan on at the Fed just as Obama is responsible for keeping Bernanke on at the Fed.

[theaocp]

10. Gore is a whiner.

President Obama doesn't like fights. By now, Gore should know this. It's easier to go along to get along. The consequences be damned.

[rurallib]

19. Gore is a whiner?

[theaocp]

23. Used in the same fashion as, "FREE BEER! Now that I have your attention..."

As I said, President Obama doesn't like fights. By now, Gore should know this. It's easier to go along to get along. The consequences be damned.

[No Elephants]

75. Obama fights. Just not with the RW of either Party.

[tinrobot]

92. Whiners don't take action.

Al Gore has done a lot with regards to this issue.

[OwnedByFerrets]

11. OMG what a traitor to his party

:sarcasm:

[chervilant]

46. Yes,

Take a minute to peruse the comments on RS. The cacophony of denial, and the sheer volume of poorly written, indefensible slams on Gore--and 'lefties' in general--is disheartening. Our species is pure dee ate up with the dumb ass. Embarrassing to see it in such grandiose detail...

[OwnedByFerrets]

112. I need to make a bumper sticker. "Dumbass Runs Rampant Here"

except that most of the idiots here wont know what rampant means.:silly:

[OnyxCollie]

12. Obama saves "bold action" for liberals and whistleblowers. nt

[JJW]

14. Doesn't Gore know?

That Obama's administration told the professional left to F off. Vote for me while I lie, then shut the F up.

[bdamomma]

17. Obama has tried to come forth with initiatives

its the damn repigs and outside factions who don't want any changes.

[Doctor_J]

36. That' why bold action was needed

instead of half-measures, trial balloons, and appeasement.

[wordpix]

84. agreed but once he runs up against obstacles, O folds & doesn't bring his case to the people

He needs to get fired up and make those great speeches, like he did in '08. He needs to have people like Robert Reich out there making the admin's case for the economy or Al Gore making it for global warming and the environment. Instead, O just backs off and issues more deepwater permits.

[skyounkin]

20. Yeah...

"failure to take bold action" will be epitaph for the Obama presidency in the end.

So many things that need to be done, but this president will only make sure not to hurt rethug feelings.

[bhikkhu]

21. Easy for Gore to say

I continue to admire Gore, and to hope that his work flourishes, but an Obama-bashing piece over climate change leads to nothing.

[liberation]

26. When any criticism is framed as "bashing"...

it starts to get creepy after a while.

[No Elephants]

89. Yes, Gore should praise Obama for all Obama's bold moves on the issue.

Cause when Greenland melts, the only important thing will be that no one had eever pointed out any of Obama's shortcomings.

[Democat]

25. If only Obama was as bold as Gore was during the 2000 recount!

When we needed someone to be bold, Gore wasn't ready.

[No Elephants]

88. He sued and took it as far as he could take it. What else could he have done without breaking laws?

[SHRED]

91. +100!

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[karynnj]

28. So few words, so many RW smears

Do you really know what type of car Gore drives? Do you know how often or if he uses private jets? As to building mansions, his main residence is a house that has been in the Gore family for decades - and he spoke of improving its carbon footprint.

There is NO denying that Gore, through his movie and his many, many speeches - often to small groups, greatly increased the country's awareness on this.

[avaistheone1]

35. ^5

[DissedByBush]

37. Don't forget the need to have fewer children

While he himself has four.

Population control is only for the poorer, darker people, not the elite.

[Deep13]

31. Agreed. Obama has been negligent in most things and especially this. nt

[FirstLight]

32. Well, I for one am glad he is saying this

and the phrase "he failed to use the bully pulpit" goes for all kinds of things we expected to see handled.

The BP oil spill and it's continued cover ups, with no real accountability, shows us alot about our president's priorities...

[craigmatic]

34. It's funny how Gore is all for bold action on something now when he was so meek in office

and on the campaign trail in 2000.

[Uncle Joe]

39. Gore was never President, he wasn't meek and he pushed Kyoto even though

it stood no chance with a Republican controlled Congress, on top of that he was only the Vice-President so he had to support Clinton's agenda first and foremost while Clinton was consumed with defending him self against constant investigations to push for major change.

[Democat]

44. Gore wasn't meek?

You must have seen a different 2000 election campaign than I did.

[Uncle Joe]

53. Yes I watched the one which broke the historical record for dispute,

the one in which the corporate media as an institution slandered and libeled for the better part of two years the leading political champion behind opening up the Internet to the people.

I also had the good sense to know why the corporate media waged their near two year "War Against Gore" because Gore did in fact champion the Internet and they saw this as a growing threat against their "professional wrestling referee" business model and because they knew Gore would aggressively promote change and use the bully pulpit to do it.

So I guess we did watch two different campaigns.

[karynnj]

45. It was never even sent to Congress

The Byrd/Hagel amendment that some have construed as a vote on Kyoto, it took place 4 months before. It advised the administration of what a treaty needed to include to be acceptable to enough Senators. Some of these objections were fixed in the Bali agreement that preceded Copenhagen.

I completely agree that the PRESIDENT sets the objective and the VP cannot freelance. As you say, Bill Clinton had a huge amount of his time consumed by investigations - especially in the second term, where his lying under oath created a problem that was partly his fault.

[Uncle Joe]

55. That was Clinton's choice. n/t

[karynnj]

56. Exactly

But there were interviews in the past that confused me, where Gore spoke of the Byrd/Hagel vote as if it were the vote on Kyoto - even though it happened 4 months earlier.

[tinrobot]

93. Thanks for buying in to the RW narrative.

Have a nice day.

[craigmatic]

117. It's not right wing narrative. People forget that back in the day Gore was DLC.

He might have become a full fledged liberal now but let's not forget the past and what really happened. The thing I remember most from Gore's time in office as senator was the cd stickers that said parental advisory.

[tinrobot]

126. I remember that meme - Gore was the same as Bush

It caused a lot of people to vote for Nader.

Looking back, was Gore really the same as Bush?

[chervilant]

42. ...durn

We humans are our own 'worst enemy.' We've grossly overpopulated this planet, fouling our water, air, and soil almost beyond redemption. Now, we arrogantly presume that we have the ability to influence whatever climate change we're facing. When this ecosystem--which tends toward a delicate balance--rolls over to scrape us off her backside, we'll just have to go along for the ride.

(BTW, I don't doubt we've had an impact on the global climate change we're experiencing--I simply doubt our species is capable of overcoming our narcissism, hedonism, denial, and externalization of responsibility. I think we're witnessing the inception of our own extinction event, and I doubt we have the wherewithall to stop it now.)

[peace4ever]

43. OMG!!! Does he have a hamster in his pocket, too?!

He must be taking money from the reTHUGs :argh:

[SomeGuyInEagan]

47. Interesting NPR story yesterday ... scientists more sure than ever that climate change is real ...

... and that we (human activities) are causing it. Meanwhile, the American public is less likely to believe in global warming than it was just five years ago.

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309964/climate-change-public-skeptical-scientists-sure

[panzerfaust]

130. "Climate of Denial," Gore, Rolling Stone

I am sure that a link to this article has already been posted - though I did not find it in a quick search of LBN or GD - it is certainly worth reading ...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-of-denial-20110622

My favorite quote from the article:

Maybe it's just easier, psychologically, to swallow the lie that these scientists who devote their lives to their work are actually greedy deceivers and left-wing extremists — and that we should instead put our faith in the pseudoscientists financed by large carbon polluters whose business plans depend on their continued use of the atmospheric commons as a place to dump their gaseous, heat-trapping waste without limit or constraint, free of charge.

I do think that clearly puts the choice we non-climate scientists have to make: Trust climate scientists, or trust the extractive energy industry.

After another generation or two, any choice will be moot.

[Joey Liberal]

48. I'm disappointed in Al Gore

Perhaps he should shut the hell up.

[polichick]

50. The last thing we need is ANYONE shutting up about this - get a grip!

That said, I hope you're just kidding.

[Dept of Beer]

71. He does live in a Democracy, right?

You know the old saying: "I may not agree with you, but I will defend your right to say it?"

[Bluebear]

109. Perhaps you should shut the hell up?

Just sayin'.

[Joey Liberal]

129. Deal with it

Just sayin..

[polichick]

49. As a lifelong environmentalist I so wish the prez would really LEAD on this...

And I wish the media wouldn't present those who don't believe in global warming as credible parties who should be equally heard - what crap!

President Obama could put an end to this ridiculous situation - if he really wanted to.

[wordpix]

85. totally agree

[BlueIris]

54. You tell 'em, Mr. President-Elect.

It is a very sad situation overall.

[HillWilliam]

58. Oh, Al, Al, Al. You're the last to get the memo.

Fierce Advocate doesn't do "bold action".

[Politicalboi]

59. Gee if only Al had a chance to make a great change

Yes why hasn't Obama stopped global warming yet? And why did Al Gore allow them to stop the vote count? Maybe if Al could spend more money and get a station that is shown on the regular tier of channels he could spend hours talking about climate change. TV on the internet just ain't a gonna do it.

[SoapBox]

60. K & R!

nt

[Maven]

61. Obama is the wrong leader for this time.

He's better than a Republican, but he's far from the kind of Democrat we needed.

[ClarkUSA]

62. "Al Gore correctly predicts that Obama's opponents will take his criticism out of context."

From Gore's article in Rolling Stone ...

First of all, anyone who honestly examines the incredible challenges confronting President Obama when he took office has to feel enormous empathy for him: the Great Recession, with the high unemployment and the enormous public and private indebtedness it produced; two seemingly interminable wars; an intractable political opposition whose true leaders — entertainers masquerading as pundits — openly declared that their objective was to ensure that the new president failed; a badly broken Senate that is almost completely paralyzed by the threat of filibuster and is controlled lock, stock and barrel by the oil and coal industries; a contingent of nominal supporters in Congress who are indentured servants of the same special interests that control most of the Republican Party; and a ferocious, well-financed and dishonest campaign poised to vilify anyone who dares offer leadership for the reduction of global-warming pollution.

In spite of these obstacles, President Obama included significant climate-friendly initiatives in the economic stimulus package he presented to Congress during his first month in office. With the skillful leadership of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and committee chairmen Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, he helped secure passage of a cap-and-trade measure in the House a few months later. He implemented historic improvements in fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles, and instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to move forward on the regulation of global-warming pollution under the Clean Air Act. He appointed many excellent men and women to key positions, and they, in turn, have made hundreds of changes in environmental and energy policy that have helped move the country forward slightly on the climate issue. During his first six months, he clearly articulated the link between environmental security, economic security and national security — making the case that a national commitment to renewable energy could simultaneously reduce unemployment, dependence on foreign oil and vulnerability to the disruption of oil markets dominated by the Persian Gulf reserves. And more recently, as the issue of long-term debt has forced discussion of new revenue, he proposed the elimination of unnecessary and expensive subsidies for oil and gas.


SNIP


All that might be completely understandable and make perfect sense in a world where the climate crisis wasn't "real." Those of us who support and admire President Obama understand how difficult the politics of this issue are in the context of the massive opposition to doing anything at all — or even to recognizing that there is a crisis. And assuming that the Republicans come to their senses and avoid nominating a clown, his re-election is likely to involve a hard-fought battle with high stakes for the country. All of his supporters understand that it would be self-defeating to weaken Obama and heighten the risk of another step backward. Even writing an article like this one carries risks; opponents of the president will excerpt the criticism and strip it of context.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x693243

Hat Tip: JoePhilly, who actually read Gore's entire article instead of cherrypicking sentences to create OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!

Haters got to hate. Al Gore knows the score. :rofl:

[roomfullofmirrors]

63. The last time I listened to Al Gore, he tried to sell me on NAFTA.

So I don't care to listen to much of anything that he has to say anymore.

[Hubert Flottz]

65. Al I wish you'd won in 2000!

And I wish you'd ran in 2004!

[ImNotTed]

67. Gee, Al--

--maybe you could've done something about it yourself if you hadn't run such a lousy campaign in 2000. (He should have gotten 340+ against Incurious George, making Florida moot.)

[Hawkowl]

69. Bold Action and Obama--an oxy moron?

Sort of like Jumbo shrimp?

[ClarkUSA]

73. Bullshit HuffPo/right-wing AOL headline. Gore actually compliments Pres. Obama in his op-ed.

From Gore's article in Rolling Stone ...

First of all, anyone who honestly examines the incredible challenges confronting President Obama when he took office has to feel enormous empathy for him: the Great Recession, with the high unemployment and the enormous public and private indebtedness it produced; two seemingly interminable wars; an intractable political opposition whose true leaders — entertainers masquerading as pundits — openly declared that their objective was to ensure that the new president failed; a badly broken Senate that is almost completely paralyzed by the threat of filibuster and is controlled lock, stock and barrel by the oil and coal industries; a contingent of nominal supporters in Congress who are indentured servants of the same special interests that control most of the Republican Party; and a ferocious, well-financed and dishonest campaign poised to vilify anyone who dares offer leadership for the reduction of global-warming pollution.

In spite of these obstacles, President Obama included significant climate-friendly initiatives in the economic stimulus package he presented to Congress during his first month in office. With the skillful leadership of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and committee chairmen Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, he helped secure passage of a cap-and-trade measure in the House a few months later. He implemented historic improvements in fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles, and instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to move forward on the regulation of global-warming pollution under the Clean Air Act. He appointed many excellent men and women to key positions, and they, in turn, have made hundreds of changes in environmental and energy policy that have helped move the country forward slightly on the climate issue. During his first six months, he clearly articulated the link between environmental security, economic security and national security — making the case that a national commitment to renewable energy could simultaneously reduce unemployment, dependence on foreign oil and vulnerability to the disruption of oil markets dominated by the Persian Gulf reserves. And more recently, as the issue of long-term debt has forced discussion of new revenue, he proposed the elimination of unnecessary and expensive subsidies for oil and gas.

Furthermore, Gore adds:

Those of us who support and admire President Obama understand how difficult the politics of this issue are in the context of the massive opposition to doing anything at all — or even to recognizing that there is a crisis. And assuming that the Republicans come to their senses and avoid nominating a clown, his re-election is likely to involve a hard-fought battle with high stakes for the country. All of his supporters understand that it would be self-defeating to weaken Obama and heighten the risk of another step backward. Even writing an article like this one carries risks; opponents of the president will excerpt the criticism and strip it of context.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x693243

To Gore, who is a self-professed Obama supporter and admirer, it is predictable how intellectually dishonest Obama's opponents are on both sides of the aisle. Haters got to hate.

[politicasista]

77. +1 n/t

[savalez]

111. Provocative title gets knee-jerk reaction! Film at eleven.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_06/climate_change_gore_and_politi030439.php

[ClarkUSA]

113. Works every time, doesn't it? FDL PUMAs get a hard-on over this type of bullshit.

I'm sure we'll be reading links to Jane Hamsher and her acolytes' caterwauling over this soon.

Thanks for the link to intelligent discourse from a credible source. :hi:

[cottonseed]

74. Al Gore correctly predicts that Obama's opponents will take his criticism out of context.

Al Gore correctly predicts that Obama's opponents will take his criticism out of context.

Should have known...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x693243

[JoePhilly]

76. Al Gore correctly predicts that Obama's opponents will take his criticism out of context

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=693243&mesg_id=693243

[defendandprotect]

81. What the public has to understand is that the planet is in peril ....

certainly our ability to survive on the planet --

and this has nothing to do with 50 or 30 or 20 years from now --

And, no -- neither Kyoto or new light bulbs is going to help this --


The first thing that has to be understood is that we had a 50 year delay in our

feeling the effects of Global Warming -- this gave the oil industry the opportunity

to spend tens of billions of dollars on a campaign of lies to confuse and fool the

public about Global Warming.

Currently, we are now only experiencing the effects of the burning of fossil fuels

up to about 1960. THINK ABOUT THAT --


Global Warming is about HEATING up the atmosphere which brings chaotic weather --

droughts/floods, storms, hurricanes, cyclones, tornados -- and earthquakes.

Earthquakes in turn generate more volcanic activity.


The melting of the glaciers, the removal of pressure on the tectonic plates and the

new water weight on other technoic plates is increasing the number of earthquakes

and the severity of earthquakes.

Global Warming has the power to change weather systems -- and it is happening.


We have know about Global for more than 50 years -- in fact, scientists saw more than

100 years ago the negative effects of the industrial revolution on nature.


We have long known that we have to stop burning fossil fuels --

The only way that can be done is to NATIONALIZE OIL and our natural resources which

should have been done decades ago -- no private company should have control of over our

natural resources.

Additionally, the MIC uses 80% of our oil -- which makes oil a national security issue.

So behind "Drill now - think later!" is the MIC -- and that might make a bit clearer

just why Obama was so protective of BP during the Gulf disaster.

No oil/no war --


It is impossible to say how all of this will compound and how rapidly Global Warming will

move now --

But, certainly, unless we are unable to hear and have lost all our sense we must begin

to convert every car to electric -- solar batteries are available --- much new technology

has been suppressed. The government can subsidize the manufacture of electric cars --

it can subsidize the purchase prices -- but most of all we have to stop burning fossil fuels!


Meanwhile, also notice the news from Australia last week that their own Global Warming scientists

are under threat of their lives. Not difficult to think that the same thing has been happening

in America and everywhere -- as scientific information is suppressed and oil industry propaganda

is pushed.

For those who have never seen it before, here is the 1992 Wrold Scientists Warning to Humanity -- *


Dollar bills are meaningless -- always have been - but most especially when this much reality

hits us -- we need a complete culture change.

We are all threatened by capitalism because we are all labor.

Those who have gained control of our people's government think only in fascist terms.


Global Warming is becoming more severe now -- it should be a topic of conversation for every

American - every day --



http://www.ucsusa.org/about/1992-world-scientists.html

[truebrit71]

83. The Rolling Stone essay is definitely worth the read..

...

[dennis4868]

94. I think Gore should also blasts...

Clinton/Gore from 1992 through 2001.....they did not do much either.

[Uncle Joe]

98. See post #97. n/t

[dennis4868]

116. I understand that...

Clinton had to deal with alot of crap but so has Obama! Did Clinton have to spend time proving his citizenship? And like I said, Clinton did not deal with a 24/7 fillubuster and Blue Dogs....they both had to deal with alot of crap...

[JI7]

99. This is misleading, people are taking things out of context , Gore's piece is pretty fair

but people don't like to read the whole thing. especially the media whores who report on these things. even if they did theyw ill try to make it into something it's not.

[Uncle Joe]

100. The irony of it all, is that Gore's strongest criticism is against the corporate media comparing

them to "professional wrestling referees."

There is no equivocation or qualifying his criticism of the corporate media of it being taken out of context either.

[JDPriestly]

102. From the beginning, Obama's idea was to support nuclear energy.

He isn't saying a whole lot about that now. And it would be politically very stupid to do so.

But he has always been "open to nuclear."

During a Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works hearing in 2005, Obama, who serves on the committee, asserted that since Congress was debating the negative impact of CO2 emissions "on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable -- and realistic -- for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration." Shortly thereafter, Nuclear Notes, the industry's top trade publication, praised the senator. "Back during his campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2004, said that he rejected both liberal and conservative labels in favor of 'common sense solutions.' And when it comes to nuclear energy, it seems like the Senator is keeping an open mind."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/10/396402/-Update-I-Nuclear-Power:-Clinton,-Edwards,-and-ObamaWhere-they-stand-

In contrast, here were John Edwards' stated views on energy:

Q: What about nuclear power as an alternative energy source?

A: Wind, solar, cellulose-based biofuels are the way we need to go. I do not favor nuclear power. We haven't built a nuclear power plant in decades in this country. There is a reason for that. The reason is it is extremely costly. It takes an enormous amount of time to get one planned, developed and built. And we still don't have a safe way to dispose of the nuclear waste. It is a huge problem for America over the long term.

Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007

John Edwards on nuclear:

RUSSERT: Would you be in favor of developing more nuclear power here in the United States?

EDWARDS: No.

RUSSERT: Period?

EDWARDS: No. So that was less than 30 seconds.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/10/396402/-Update-I-Nuclear-Power:-Clinton,-Edwards,-and-ObamaWhere-they-stand-

DUers sometimes question why I have a John Edwards avatar after his scandalous behavior. Yes, his behavior was scandalous, but he took stands during the campaign that I liked and still do like.

That is why the John Edwards avatar. I was paying attention to what the candidates were saying. A lot of people, even a lot of DUers weren't.

[ProgressIn2008]

103. By presenting elections as "no choice," this is what we get - no way to influence "left" politicians

Not that Obama is left; he's just another a corporatist. However, when "elections" become threats ("what do you want, Sarah Palin the White House? where else you gonna go?"), there's not even the possibility for influence towards a progressive agenda. Dems are by and large the status quo, and they're not going to do anything to threaten their own aristocratic power. Why would Obama lift a finger to support bold action on the environment? There's no need to do so, no need at all.

[Corruption Winz]

108. Sadly, I'd have to agree..

Anytime you hear something about plans for safer and cleaner cars or what have you, it's in small doses and will take years to get under way. More needs to be done.

[bertman]

115. Too little, too late, but I'll take it Al. REC. nt

[WillyT]

118. K & R !!!

:kick:

[lonestarnot]

119. I'm sure everything about Count Down will be interesting.

[deacon]

127. Al's a cowardly asshole. Why isn't he taking on the GOP? The real perps? Idiot.

[sendero]

128. Obama couldn't take "bold action".

... on ANYTHING, it's just not in him.