And Al Gore Helps John McCain into the White House

by: Matt Stoller

Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 14:10


So John McCain is moving towards a more moderate position so he can build himself up for the general election.  And the way he is doing it is quite fascinating if not surprising.

First, his advisers can read polls and recognize the daunting right track/wrong track polling headwind that is gusting in their face.

Differences between Bush and McCain will be "discussed at great length," promises one aide.

"He'll be direct about it. He's never gratuitous, never disrespectful, but there are going to be policy breaks where it couldn't be clearer." Two areas of difference McCain will highlight: global warming and spending.

And why would John McCain be trusted on climate change?  Perhaps because Al Gore is saying he should be trusted.

Gore's spokeswoman, Kalee Kreider, declined to comment on the Obama offer and was complimentary about the presidential candidates, including Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

"Former Vice President Gore thinks that both candidates are very strong. Both of them have offered plans to address the climate crisis ... as has Senator McCain," she said.

I asked Kreider why she is praising McCain, considering that Bush lied in 2000 about his intent to deal with climate change.  Here's her response.

The key threshold issue for most NGO's and people working on climate, ourselves included are: Does the policymaker, work, support, vote in favor of, introduce legislation for mandatory reductions in pollution or not.  McCain has, Bush has not.

And there we go.  If you want to know why John McCain is trusted, it's not just that he has a base in the media.  Democratic Party elders - including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton - just fall all over themselves to praise him.

Al Gore has tried extremely hard to build a movement without politics, and it just isn't working.  As a candidate, he tried to run without attacking Bush, and as a global icon, he has launched an apolitical TV channel and hosted a bunch of mega-concerts that didn't really advance the argument on climate change.  And now that Republicans are poised to use climate change as an excuse to siphon money off to industry, Gore is jumping on the McCain bandwagon.

Better party elders, please.
Matt Stoller :: And Al Gore Helps John McCain into the White House

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
And Al Gore Helps John McCain into the White House | 54 comments
Pretty Sad To Attack Gore (0.00 / 0)
If he doesn't want to play politics then he should be allowed to do that as his passion is much bigger that politics if we give that a bit of thought.

Also consider Obama says he is going to form a new less partisan kind of politics:

"It's absolutely vital we form a new political coalition in this country".

So on one hand Gore gets criticized for acknowledging that McCain has voted for pro-climate control policies...

And on the other hand Obama who has embraced Reagan and says he will bring Republicans into the fold, essentially watering down any Progressive measures with Republican ideology, gets endorsed on these pages!!!

Anyone see a disconnect there?

A little over the top (4.00 / 1)
You're being unfair to Obama.  You have to take his words way, way out of context to see him as someone who has "embraced Reagan."  (And I say this as an unrepentant Hillary voter.)

As for Gore (whom I love), he wants to hedge his bets so that he can have a constructive relationship with the next president, whoever that may be. Which makes sense -- if McCain is the next president, there's even more need to have a strong global warming messenger he might listen to.  But Gore also knows that McCain would be a disaster for the environment, and he should be cautious about making this a "non-political issue" when it's so obvious that one party is better than the other.  The best thing that could happen in the fight against global warming would be the election of either Democrat in November.

http://www.courtney5.us/drew

[ Parent ]
Re: Reagan (0.00 / 0)
Obama compared himself to Reagan by saying Reagan was  transformational which is what Obama is trying to say he will be. That is embracing him and comparing himself to Reagan. Sorry but read what he said.

As for Gore he is not hedging his bets. Gore has become apolitical - it's as simple as that. He has one passion now he is dedicating his life to and we are lucky for that.

And in dedicating his life to Climate Control he is at the same time trying to ensure that things poverty and famine and even war, which all could result from a climate crisis, do not take place as a result of a climate crisis.

[ Parent ]
re: Reagan (0.00 / 0)
He meant transformational insofar as he plans to forge a new coalition, analogous to the way that Reagan turned Southern white Dems into Republicans.  It was an analogy, not a comparison.

Sorry to stray from the post topic.

[ Parent ]
An Analogy Is A Comparison By Definition (4.00 / 1)
a·nal·o·gy   noun

1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.

2. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.

[ Parent ]
Okay, fine (0.00 / 0)
Obama was saying that he would form a new coalition, much like Reagan did.

He was not saying that he would form the SAME coalition, or that he would be the sort of President that Reagan was in any way.

Does that help?  Yeesh.

[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
Pasting in a dictionary definition was pretty funny.  Kudos for standing your ground.

I'm still right, though!

[ Parent ]
Dictionaries don't lie (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
What is the same? What is different? (0.00 / 0)
If you take Progressive ideas and then bring Bush Republicans into the process you are not going to come out with Progressive policies. They are going to be watered down middle of the road policies.

That is what just about everyone here has been bashing Bill Clinton about saying he gave into the Republicans too much and therefore was a Centrist.

And here we have Obama saying right up front that he is going to do exactly like Clinton did but yet people see him as the Second Coming?!!!

Why was it bad for Clinton to be a centrist but it is OK for Obama? Because Clinton was White and Obama is not?

I think we need to take back an awful lot of what Bush managed to take away. But that is not going to happen with watered down policies negotiated upfront with Republicans.

Did you know that Obama vote FOR 6 billion dollars in Big Oil subsidies? Did you know that Clinton voted NO on that same bill?

Did you know that Clinton is on record saying she will fight Republicans but yet Obama says he wants to include them?

[ Parent ]
Did you know (0.00 / 0)
That Clinton voted FOR the war?  That Clinton was ON the board of WAL-MART?  We could do that all day.

Look through Obama's issue page, and you don't see a Reaganite.  Period.

My point is that when you cite that specific comment of Obama's, you're misrepresenting his meaning.

[ Parent ]
Go Google his Reagan (0.00 / 0)
statement. There is nothing ambiguous about it. Go read what he has said about less partisanship and a new political coalition. The guy is a centrist and he doesn't hide it. Every sppech he says less partisanship and a new political coalition. What is it that people don't understand about that? He says is as clear as he can.

As for Clinton she didn't vote 'for the war' as most like to put it. She did vote for the AUMF but that was not a bill that sent us directly to war, nor was it supposed to. It's purpose was to get inspectors into Iraq which it did. It did it under threat should Saddam not let inspectors in. He did. That was a good thing. The problem was Bush gamed everyone and kicked the inspectors out before they could definitively say there were no weapons.

Go read Clinton's floor speech and you will see what you have read on these pages and elsewhere that she voted "for the war" is just not true in that simplistic form.

If you want to talk about supporting the war then why didn't Obama have the courage like other people did to not vote to fund the war that he said he was against? If he was REALLY  against it then he should have had the courage and conviction to back that up by not funding it. He didn't have that courage. And if he didn't have the courage to back up his words on that what will he not have the courage to do in the future? A man is measured not so much by his words but by his actions that either back up his words or not. Talk is cheap. When the real time came to vote his speech against the war were just hollow words. And besides voting to fund the war in his two years in the Senate he didn't speak out against the war much if at all. Why? Politics? Planning a run for President? He is not what people think he is. And the sad part is that when people discover things about him that they wouldn't like in another candidate they give Obama a pass. So one must ask those people are all the convictions they say they have real or convenient? Talk is cheap.

[ Parent ]
Sure thing (0.00 / 0)
Here it is:

"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure.  I think part of what's different are the times.  I do think that for example the 1980 was different.  I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.  He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.  I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating.  I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

This seems to me not to be an endorsement of Reagan's policies or tenure as President.  It is an analysis of how Reagan tapped into the dissatisfaction being felt by the electorate, rode that momentum, and steered the country in a new direction.  Not a "good" or "correct" direction, but a new one.  Which is objectively true.

This is a look back at history, and I find it to be accurate.  To take this quote and conclude that Obama will govern as Reagan governed is a poor reading.

[ Parent ]
Now you're being ridiculous (0.00 / 0)
Obama does want to be transformational.  Reagan was transformational.  Ergo, Obama, in one respect, wants to be like Reagan.

It's utterly foolish to draw from this that Obama wants to be like Reagan in every, or indeed any other, respect.

I would venture that you've drunk the Kool-Aid of your particular candidate and now are incapable of seeing anything good in anyone else's candidate.  But that's just a guess.

http://www.courtney5.us/drew

[ Parent ]
Kool-Aid (0.00 / 0)
Man am I sick of that metaphor.  Can we please all stop with the Kool-Aid?

I mean, obviously we agree on this Reagan thing, but it's kind of crappy to compare opponents in a debate to cult members.

[ Parent ]
Sorry (0.00 / 0)
I can't give up that metaphor.  It's too damn useful!

http://www.courtney5.us/drew
[ Parent ]
No you are ridiculous (0.00 / 0)
because I never said in every way. All I said was he embraced him being transformational and want to be like that. I also said in one of my posts that he says he will bring republicans to the table to form a less partisain kind of politics and "form a new political coalition in this country". those are his words. So in that respect he is worse than Reagan because at least Reagan was partisan and got for the republicans what it is they wanted. Obama is promising to water down what we want by compromising with the republicans. As a progressive I can't see what excites you about that.
[ Parent ]
Poor word choice on your part (0.00 / 0)
If you intend to say that Obama and Reagan share a single characteristic, and that Obama is comfortable saying that they share as single characteristic, embrace is the wrong word.  Perhaps you should look it up in your dictionary.

As for your assertion that Obama is "worse than Reagan" well, umm, how shall I put this?  Oh yes . . .  

At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

http://www.courtney5.us/drew

[ Parent ]
LOL (0.00 / 0)
Actually I did post the definition of embrace in this thread for another poster. There seems to be an abundance of English challenged people like you here.

My "worse that Reagan" was posted in context - something that you avoided in your hollow and meaningless remark.

As for rambling - You are the one rambling because you obviously have not even read the Obama quotes. In fact you said nothing to refute so why waste your time typing. Go play Game Boy or something.

The problem with posts like yours is that they don't debate what I said. Yours is the typical 'you are wrong' post with no substance to back it up. Hell you didn't even bother to look up the word embrace to find out it does apply as I used it. That is lazy which tells me a lot....

[ Parent ]
Climate change is a fundamentally political issue. (0.00 / 0)
Gore is a political advocate. He is well aware of this. For certain reasons, he has decided that it is better to play nice with McCain. Matt disagrees with that approach and quite rightly so. What's obviously inaccurate is to accuse Gore of "playing" politics; he is working politics; it is his job.  

An Obama administration with 55+ Senate Democrats would allow us to determine, finally, to what extent the Democrats get it on global warming. Those who support action on global warming should therefore support Obama, as it's clear as day that conservative Republicans like McCain either don't get it or don't want to... regardless of what McCain might say this year in front of a general election audience.  

[ Parent ]
I'm curious as to why (0.00 / 0)
you think Gore acknowledging that McCain has also offered plans to address the climate crisis is wrong. Why is it wrong for Gore to do so? Neither you or Matt discuss that in even minute detail.

I also disagree with matt on this styatement:

"Al Gore has tried extremely hard to build a movement without politics, and it just isn't working."

Now that is a pretty broad statement but I think it is fact that Gore has not only help bring global Warming to the forefront of our Presidential race but has also brought in more worldwide recognition. So one can't say that what he is doing is not working unless the bar is set at eliminating GW yesterday which would be an unrealistic goal.

As for you 55 Senators - exactly what are 55 supposed to accomplish when as we all know the number is 60 to override a filibuster? With 55 Dems we need to reach out to at least 5 Republicans and recognize their contribution in voting with us which is exactly what Gore is being criticized for in the case of his statement of McCain. Makes no sense.

And let's say that McCain wins in November. Should we not recognize his votes so far and use that momentum to nudge McCain further in elimination the causes of global warming. I say yes we should.

You see what I don't get about Matt is that he criticizes Gore for recognizing McCain but yet Matt supports Obama who says he will bring Republicans into the fold, essentially watering down any Progressive measures with Republican ideology.

So why it is OK for Obama to embrace Republicans and it is not OK for Gore to even recognize what a Republican has done in regards to Global warming? It just does not add up and it is unfair to Gore.

[ Parent ]
No. (4.00 / 1)
My problem is with the statement that Gore thinks that "both candidates are very strong".

McCain is not "very strong" on global warming. He is not within a country mile of being "very strong" on global warming. It is an inaccurate statement. More importantly, it is an unhelpful statement. Obama is superior to McCain on global warming.  

[ Parent ]
Gore's spokeswoman (0.00 / 0)
did not say McCain was strong. She said:

"Former Vice President Gore thinks that both candidates are very strong."

BOTH - See that? She is talking about Clinton and Obama. Then she continues:

" Both of them have offered plans to address the climate crisis ... as has Senator McCain," she said.

So she says, both, Clinton and Obama have offered up plans...

as has McCain.

You better go back and read the main post again Tom.

And there is nothing wrong with Gore acknowledging that McCain has offered up a plan.

[ Parent ]
Obama has not embraced Reagan (0.00 / 0)
McCain has.
[ Parent ]
Obviously (0.00 / 0)
you don't know what you are talking about and haven't read Obama's statement regarding Reagan.

FYI the Obama controversy was much discussed on these pages beginning with a front page diary asking why he was embracing Reagan as he was.

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the vote of confidence (4.00 / 2)
I have, in fact, read Obama's statement.  Pointing out a few of Reagan's accomplishments -- such as how he was able to appeal to a certain swath of voters -- is different than "embracing" that person.  You can comment positively about one thing someone does without having embraced that person.

FYI ... This is what an embrace looks like.  Or this.

You're doing exactly what Matt is complaining about -- blurring the differences between McCain and Obama when in fact the differences are quite stark.  Obama is inviting Republican voters to join the progressive coalition.  McCain is a Republican conservative.

[ Parent ]
Earlier today (0.00 / 0)
a poster said an 'analogy' was not the same as 'comparing'. I then posted the definition of 'analogy' to show him by definition they are one in the same.

So here you go:

em·brace verb-verb (used with object)
1.to take or clasp in the arms; press to the bosom; hug.

2. to take or receive gladly or eagerly; accept willingly: to embrace an idea.

So you see I am correct. Obama embraced Reagan's accomplishments as I pointed out. And yes accomplishments first have to start with ideas.

The next time you want to play semantics I suggest you consult the dictionary before sticking you foot in your mouth.

And my thought on double standards regarding Gore and Obama still stand. Obama has openly said he will embrace Republican ideas and form a new less partisan kind of politics by forming forming a new political coalition.

To me and every honest person that is Centrisim not Progressivism. Obama by his own words is a Centrist not a Progressive.

And people complain about Bill Clinton being a centrist but yet embrace Obama who right up front says he will be a Centrist? Something is screwing in Blog Progressive Land.

[ Parent ]
You haven't convinced me (0.00 / 0)
That Obama has embraced McCain.  I'll leave it to others to decide whose foot is in whose mouth.
[ Parent ]
Sorry ... (0.00 / 0)
meant Reagan, not McCain.

oops

[ Parent ]
Oh OK (0.00 / 0)
Like you don't trust the dictionary!!! Incredible what one runs into on the blogs. Some people just can't be wrong even when the dictionary of the language they speak says they are. LOL

It's not me convincing you dude - It's Webster's.

And this:

"You haven't convinced me that Obama has embraced McCain."

But yet once again Obama has openly said he will embrace Republican ideas and form a new less partisan kind of politics by forming a new political coalition.

Yeah man those are the words he has spoken. Cognitive dissonance, eh? Your non-Reagan embracing pretend Progressive Obama embraces Republicans and their ideas so he can form a new less partisan kind of politics and a new political coalition.

Do you even know who you are voting for other than a smile?

[ Parent ]
Obviously, obviously (0.00 / 0)
Funny how you jump into this forum a couple weeks ago, long after the Reagan quote was analyzed to death, and know what everyone "obviously" knows.  You'll find there are many legit takes on what Obama said.

But "embracing Reagan" is so broad as to have no meaning.  Did Obama brace all of Reaganism and his entire presidency?  Do you actually think Obama desires to run the government in just the same way Reagan did?  Do you expect union bashing and cuts in the capital gains tax from Obama?

There are many good reasons to criticize Obama for his comments on Reagan and many other reasons to point out they were justified.  But you aren't attempting any explanation, you are just throwing out the vague talking point about "embracing Reagan".

[ Parent ]
Man! (0.00 / 0)
Just because I started posting a few weeks ago does not mean i have not read this blog for quite some time does it?

One need not post in order to read and know what people have been saying. And even a newbie here can search through archives of every pixel posted. Nuff said?

Now I made clear in my post what it was precisely that Obama embraced regarding Reagan so don't try to rewrite my post so you can put words in my mouth Mark.

[ Parent ]
Newbie (4.00 / 1)
You are correct to bash me on the newbie thing.  But it has been very common over the past few months for someone to join Open Left and then start spouting the Clinton party line in a very unthoughtful way.  

Your first post claimed nothing.  When pushed, you claimed Obama used the comparison because he wanted to be transformational like Reagan, which is correct and doesn't seem particularly bad.  You never justified why you think it is bad or how it is relevant.  You just throw it out there as a random talking point.

What is really funny is how the Obama "cult" meme is still around but all the statics show it is Hillary supporters who are more likely to switch sides and more passionate on the choice.  Makes one wonder...

[ Parent ]
McCain does NOT vote in favour of climate legislation (0.00 / 0)
Does the policymaker, work, support, vote in favor of,

Check my link:

John McCain vetoes every Environmental Bill already.

[ Parent ]
As reporters you are aware (0.00 / 0)
 that dot dot dot (...) means something has been left out. With the state of the media these days, I doubt it was what you infer.
"Former Vice President Gore thinks that both candidates are very strong. Both of them have offered plans to address the climate crisis ... as has Senator McCain," she said.

my guess:

"Former Vice President Gore thinks that both candidates are very strong. Both of them have offered plans to address the climate crisis, and have also made speeches about it as has Senator McCain," she said.

because Senator McCain is Just Talk, on the environment.

Voting record shows President-elect McCain is already vetoing every bill.

John McCain vetoes every Environmental Bill already.

[ Parent ]
it's the politics, stupid (0.00 / 0)
Al Gore has tried extremely hard to build a movement without politics, and it just isn't working.

This is why the notion that he has bigger or more important things to do than be President is such a crock.  It's also the problem with Obama's desire to be above politics, and it's why the can's going to get kicked down to at least 2013.

It's important to remember (4.00 / 1)
that Gore is desperate to make dealing with climate change a non-partisan issue so it doesn't get bogged down in tribal rivalries and party infighting.  Although making it a partisan issue would be the quickest way to actually effect change, it would be gambling with the fate of humanity, since a political victory is far from assured.

Also, as a former DLC charter member, I can only imagine he still thinks there is some good left in the republican party that can be salvaged to make the world safe from and for human habitation.

As the modern GOP has no qualms about torturing people, I have my doubts.

i'm with you (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Am I thed only one that was a little annoyed by (4.00 / 1)
the reference to 'dangerous nuclear power'?  Nuclear isn't great as a source of power, and obviously is inferior to renewable energy, but the technology has advanced vastly since the 70s, and in terms of cost/benefit, is probably better than coal and oil right now.

Any path to energy independence will probably rely upon increased nuclear as a short term fix.  

Oh man, no way (0.00 / 0)
Nuclear isn't safe, efficient, or viable.  "Better than coal" doesn't mean too much.

And let's not forget than building a nuclear plant takes, oh, maybe a decade.  Short-term fix?

[ Parent ]
I was going to make the same comment (0.00 / 0)
All energy has a price.  When I was a kid most of the talk about renewable energy focussed hydro-electric, but today we have a better understanding of the damage dams can create.  Today we talk about wind power, but as larger wind farms are being built we are beginning to notice their effects, including some species of birds that don't seem to have the ability to avoid them.  I fully support these wind farms, but nothing is free of consequence.

I personally think modern nuclear power very much belongs back on the table and re-introduced to the overall energy equation.

[ Parent ]
Cost-benefit (0.00 / 0)
Nothing is free of consequence, that's true.  But the minor problems with birds related to wind pale in comparison to the scourge of nuclear waste and the possibility of nuclear accident.  Also, the issues with bird migration are being mitigated by industry improvements (coloring the tips orange, for example) but the issue of nuclear waste is as insoluable now as it was 50 years ago.
[ Parent ]
Also just cost (0.00 / 0)
Nuclear reactors haven't been built in the U.S. in 20 years and Wall Street won't finance them because they're so expensive and economically risky.  The only way they're going to be built is with massive subsidies (which is what McCain's after) -- and even then we're looking at 10 years or more per reactor.  That money could much more wisely be spent on things like efficiency gains and wind power, which can be put to work reducing emissions in a much shorter time span.  It can also be used for R&D for solar and other necessary technologies.  "Not as bad as coal" doesn't equal wise investment.
[ Parent ]
It's not either/or (0.00 / 0)
and energy diversity is key.  We all collectively decided that hydroelectric was the ideal form of power, and that where hydro couldn't be implemented, we should supplement that with oil, which was clearly cheap and relatively clean.  Now we have learned about the effects that hydro has on river streams and oil has had all of its myriad problems revealed.  So we are screwed.

Rather than settling on what we consider the 'best' solution right now, we should be developing several different forms of geting power in an integrated approach, that won't fail when one option loses viability.

[ Parent ]
None of that is an argument for nuclear (4.00 / 1)
Agree that we should not rely on one "best" solution. Disagree that nuclear falls into the list of "solutions."

Wind, solar, geothermal, maybe tidal are all good forms of energy.  Of course we'll also need better ways of transmitting and storing energy (because you're right, it isn't windy everywhere).  And more than anything we need less consumption, which can partially be achieved via efficiency.

So there are lots of solutions.  But nuclear isn't one of them.

[ Parent ]
Yes, I agree 100% (4.00 / 1)
But recognize that many are concerned about bargaining away too much and winding up with nuclear + crappy policy rather than a genuinely progressive approach that includes a nuclear power element in it.

The few who are dead-set against any future nuclear power development are not a threat to get what they want. The real villains are the many and powerful who will attempt to force-feed us nuclear (done unsafely and carelessly) along with a big dose of cap-and-trade, mealy-mouthed half-solutions-at-best.  

[ Parent ]
the issue of nuclear waste is as insoluable now as it was 50 years ago. (0.00 / 0)
Not true.  Improved enrichment and breeder reactors have lessened the issue of nuclear waste pretty significantly.  Obviously it is still there, but wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal are only practical in limited parts of the country.  And they each have their own problems.

Also, the safety issue has been vastly improved.  France and Japan get a majority of their power from nuclear, and have done so disaster-free.  As of right now, the two realistic options that can be implemented immediately everywhere are more coal and more nuclear.  Of course we should be developing better options, and improving those options we have, but of those two, nuclear is a better option, with an increased focus on geothermal and wind and solar where viable.

[ Parent ]
Key threshold issue (4.00 / 1)
I'd like to see a general redefinition of that idea.  The key threshold shouldn't be if a politician "supports" the right legislation.  It should be - will the continued re-election of this politician, taking into consideration the nature of the coalition they are a part of, actually result in the correct policy being implemented?
Agreed (0.00 / 0)
The criterion should also be whether the candidate has a real stake because he will be living through the consequences of his policies.  Obama has said that as soon as he has the nomination he will contact heads of state to try to get woreking on a new consensus.  he gets global warming and really wants to do something about it.  McCain is just running out the clock on this as well as Iraq.  Gore may not want to endorse Obama over Hillary, but thinking he can work with McCain is like thinking he can work with Bush.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
"be living through consequences" (0.00 / 0)
Well, if you're implying McCain doesn't care about climate change because he's old, I'm not going to get behind that.  Lots of old people care deeply about climate change.

I'm saying the criterion should be the result - will these actions result in the correct policy being implemented?

[ Parent ]
Gore's movement is working. (4.00 / 2)
Al Gore has tried extremely hard to build a movement without politics, and it just isn't working.

I call bullshit on that one. Gore has done more for climate change than the entire progressive blogosphere has done for any progressive issue except net neutrality.

Where's the evidence that it isn't working? If it was working how would things be different? Should he have solved the climate crisis yesterday?  

The truth about John McCain.

Al Gore Will Not Help John McCain Into the White House (4.00 / 1)
Al Gore is interested in making sure that we as a nation take concrete steps to stop the destruction of our environment.
He is a realist and recognizes that either McCain or Obama will be President.  He will be respectful of McCain because he is a respectful man.  He has not been interviewed for this headline and he does not deserve to be attacked because his spokesperson made a statement that seems balanced.

Please talk to Gore directly.  It would be interesting to hear what he thinks of the Democratic Election so far.  He's an elder statesman and he is the last Democratic to win the people's vote.  Don't forget that the 2000 election was stolen from him. He went on to do something truly worthwhile with his life and I for one applaud him.

I am sure he must be watching the nomination process right now and has withheld his opinion for later.  Any sensible person watching Hilary run a campaign more like a Republican can only see that there is only one Democratic candidate in this race.  Al will do the right thing.  Don't worry.

Matt is wrong on this one (0.00 / 0)
I couldn't disagree with Matt more on his post. What's the reason for this rant? Gore and the Alliance for Climate Protection are rasining and spending $300 million on an ad campaign to change public opinion about global warming. This is a direct action that will lead toward building a movement.

Some issues are more important than partisan bickering. This issue happens to be life or death. I have no idea about where the statement from his spokesman comes from but, have you considered the fact that we may need support from McCain to actually get something done. This issue may actually require support from both sides. Politicians have been arguing for years about health care, energy policy, the economy, and just about everything else. It's time for action. We don't have time to argue about global warming. Now is the time to move forward.

Is McCain the best person on this issue? No! But something is better than nothing considering he's a Republican.

Also, to say that "Gore is jumping on the McCain bandwagon" disgusts me. It reminds me way too much of the people in 2000 who said there was no difference between Gore and Bush. Clearly they were wrong then, and you are wrong now.
 

"This issue happens to be life or death" (0.00 / 0)
Unlike war, health care and the economy?

There are no apolitical issues. We will not move forward until we have a movement that will force this country to. If that movement avoids "politics" it will not succeed.

You're right that we haven't accomplished a lot on the war, economy, etc.. But that is because the conservative movement has won, and they will win on Global Warming to, unless we confront them directly. And confronting them directly means actually confronting them, not telling reporters that Johnny's joke of a plan is a real solution.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
post partisan ponies (0.00 / 0)
And Al Gore Helps John McCain into the White House | 54 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox