By Request: Al Gore

Tinisoli asks: "What it means, if anything, that Gore is finally endorsing Obama."

Not much! You saw throughout the primary season that Gore was committed not to getting involved in the primary battle. And I think that even with the endorsement speech he delivered yesterday, Gore is continuing to savor his post-political somewhat above-the-fray status. At this point, there's no issue Gore is more associated with than climate change. And climate change plays a key role in John McCain's political strategy -- he's trying to establish a position that's sufficiently contentless to let him continue to vacuum up vast sums of money from polluting interests, while also getting the press to report that he's broke with Bush on a major issue. But while Gore did mention the climate change issue, he really didn't go after McCain on it.

Photo Courtesy of the World Economic Forum used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Next question: What does it mean, if anything, that Bono is wearing a Rachael Ray terrorist scarf?

Posted by tinisoli | June 17, 2008 10:42 AM

Wouldn't it be news if Gore refused to endorse BO? Where's the story here?

This is a ManBearPig bites man story.

Anyone calculate the carbon footprint of these two jet-setting carbon-belching disgraces? They've probably got MY beat.

Posted by Big Fat Al Gore | June 17, 2008 10:48 AM

Anyone calculate the carbon footprint of these two jet-setting carbon-belching disgraces?

Net zero. They buy offsets.

I really wish people would do their homework before they tried to label people as eco-hypocrites. And realize that personal action is essentially irrelevant to global warming.

Posted by Chet | June 17, 2008 10:56 AM

Please don't tell me that Obama's strategy is going to be to bad-mouth McCain at every opportunity and "go on the attack". Wasn't Obama the "post-partisan" politician that was going to say "goodbye to all of that"? If old school politics is all we're going to get then the Democrats nominated the wrong candidate. This is not Obama's strength and play's right into McCain's. You better find a new track to ride your train on Mr Yglesias or get ready for Bush's third term.

Posted by Nathan | June 17, 2008 11:01 AM

The idea, Nathan, is to attack McCain's ideas (or lack thereof) and his nonsensical policies rather than the man himself. The old politics that the "post-partisan" Obama wants to get beyond is the Rovian kind wherein someone like Kerry gets accused of being a liar and a coward and someone like McCain gets accused of having lost his mind and given away state secrets to The Enemy. Obama is going after McCain for having bad policies. If a candidate doesn't attack his opponent on anything, then the argument for being elected over that opponent kind of goes out the window, don't you think?

Partisan attack: badmouthing McCain for having an illegitimate black child and being crazy and old

Post-partisan attack: badmouthing McCain for having terrible policies and not being the straight-talker that he claims he is

Get it?

Posted by tinisoli | June 17, 2008 11:11 AM

I agree with you that climate remains Gore's priority. My prediction is that Gore will test McCain on climate and if McCain is being as cynical as you say then he will go after him on it.

Posted by Chris Dornan | June 17, 2008 11:11 AM

But while Gore did mention the climate change issue, he really didn't go after McCain on it.

This really ought to change. It doesn't force Gore to compromise on his new 'principles', but it's an important issue that McCain needs to be hammered on.

Please don't tell me that Obama's strategy is going to be to bad-mouth McCain at every opportunity and "go on the attack". Wasn't Obama the "post-partisan" politician that was going to say "goodbye to all of that"? If old school politics is all we're going to get then the Democrats nominated the wrong candidate. This is not Obama's strength and play's right into McCain's. You better find a new track to ride your train on Mr Yglesias or get ready for Bush's third term.

Not sure how this is relevant. But if you think Obama is going to pass up opportunities to point out that McCain flagrantly lies on a regular basis about important stuff, I don't know what to tell you. I'd like to think Obama will pass up on all the borderline and gotcha game criticism of normal politics. But calling your opponent out for what he actually says on real issues lies at the heart of genuine democratic debate.

Posted by mpowell | June 17, 2008 11:13 AM

Chet,

I offer you these indulgences to wash away your sins. Now go and sin some more, as your soul is cleansed. But come back soon, cause I got more to sell.

Don't you see the hypocricy? Some fat rich fuck telling the rest of us how to live while belching out more carbon from his pie hole and a-hole than entire small countries.

But he "offsets" and credulous morons believe that makes it OK. Because it's the new religion, and Obama is the Savior.

Posted by Big Fat Al Gore | June 17, 2008 11:28 AM

Do y'all smell some "ad hominem" burning?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 17, 2008 11:38 AM

Chet,

I offer you these indulgences to wash away your sins. Now go and sin some more, as your soul is cleansed. But come back soon, cause I got more to sell.

Don't you see the hypocricy? Some fat rich fuck telling the rest of us how to live while belching out more carbon from his pie hole and a-hole than entire small countries.

But he "offsets" and credulous morons believe that makes it OK. Because it's the new religion, and Obama is the Savior.

Dude, you are seriously off your rocker. Is it entirely unacceptable for wealthy people to live differently than monks? Try reading less TMQ, if you can't handle it. Gore spends money to neutralize the impact from carbon emissions. He actually lives at a higher standard than he is currently asking from the rest of the world as he contributes zero net carbon to the atmosphere. Yeah, Al Gore controls a lot more capital than you. So he can fly around in jets all the time and still afford to offset those emissions. But he's not advocating that people take vows of poverty. He's just pointing out the negative externalities caused by your carbon emissions.

Posted by mpowell | June 17, 2008 11:57 AM

"And realize that personal action is essentially irrelevant to global warming."

Thank Goodness. I'm not planning on changing a thing.

Sk

Posted by Sk | June 17, 2008 11:59 AM

Credulous morons, mpowell. Credulous morons.

You see people like Gore and Kerry as your betters. I see frauds. It's why they are failed presidental candidates.

Obama will fail as well, unless he can hide his sneering elitism through set piece speeches.

Posted by Big Fat Al Gore | June 17, 2008 12:25 PM

Okay, man. I guess you think that the only people who we should listen to are ones who have taken vows of poverty. I guess that's why the Republican party is full of monks. They're definitely not hypocritical at all. I'm mean they all love NASCAR and hanging out at the ranch. It's not as if the Bush family is actually an old blue blood family from Connecticut.

Gore's position on global warming is that if we don't change now, things will get worse for us later. I can see how this comes as a shock to your childlike mind, but things may not be as rosy as you want them to be. Unfortunately, just because someone is telling you bad news, doesn't mean they're frauds, or even wrong. But just keep on listening to Bush. He'll tell you how great things are going to be when he cuts your taxes a few hundred bucks a year and then funnels vast sums of government revenue to his richest pals. That which is not stolen will just be spent conducting war in the middle east and 'securing' oil reserves.

Pretty hilarious for a global warming denialist to be calling others credulous morons. It's a pretty sad spectacle, really.

Posted by mpowell | June 17, 2008 12:38 PM

Am I the only one who rolled his eyes at the sight of Bono?

How times have changed. Twenty-five years ago I was so jealous of my friends whose parents let them go downtown to the all ages U2 show.... Cabaret Metro? Can't remember now. I'm old, they're older.

Posted by Jim | June 17, 2008 12:43 PM

You see people like Gore and Kerry as your betters.

Not really.

I see them as your betters.

Posted by Brautigan | June 17, 2008 12:50 PM

Tally Ho Brautigan! A fine retort, jolly fellow!

Preening elitists coming to the defense of preening elitists! A fine day at the MY club.

No, mpowell, I don't accept your religion. It would be harmless superstition but for the fact that, like all organized monotheistic religions, you can't abide dissent and seek to control the lives of all others. You want to believe that the seas will rise 23 feet by sundown--go ahead. If it happens, fine. There are too damn many people living on the coasts anyway. Fewer people = fewer emissions. Isn't that what you want?

Perhaps, just perhaps, you all really aren't as smart as you think you are. But that would deny you the rationale for why you are better than the rest. Prevent you from taking what you believe to be your rightful place as the masters of others, controlling the way others live.

And I don't like Bush, don't watch NASCAR.

I am, after all, Big Fat Al Gore

Posted by Gig Fat Al Gore | June 17, 2008 1:24 PM

Phony Al Gore:
elitism

No! The unforgiveable sin! Please, o voters of America, send me a President who is not elite!

Posted by Adam Villani | June 17, 2008 2:00 PM

Yes, science is merely harmless superstition. You do more to justify the existence of an elite class than anything I could say.

I am trying to understand your viewpoint. I guess one possibility is that people like Gore just enjoy forcing others to suffer. They don't really believe in global warming either, but they just like to be preachy. I'm not sure how plausible you expect that to sound, but it's one option. The other one is that this is a 'religious faith'. Not sure how this is supposed to work. What's the motivation here? Who is defining the message? Is this basically the theory that global warming is a hoax perpetuated by civilization hating greens on all of us? That they have used their mysterious control of scientific discourse to persuade so many of us that global warming is a real problem? But then, where would Gore fit in? He's not really a green, even if he is a self-identified environmentalist and he doesn't really control the scientific discourse on the issue at all. But ultimately I guess this reflects a gross misunderstanding of the scientific community. So that you are persuaded that all the cranks who try to publish discredited work have the 'real' story. Perhaps you would care to enlighten us with more specifics as to how exactly, the scientific discourse has been manipulated to get this result and what, exactly, are the motivations and methods of these mysterious manipulative actors?

Posted by mpowell | June 17, 2008 2:13 PM

I offer you these indulgences to wash away your sins.

Sins are theology. Carbon dioxide is an actual substance in the atmosphere.

As a living, breathing human being, you can't help but produce some. And as a human being in the West, you can't help but make a whole lot more. And as Al Gore, who can't really do much about global warming unless he leaves the home occasionally, you can't help but produce a bunch.

But it's an actual substance in the atmosphere, not a theological idea, like "sin." The shell game of indulgences was that it was the Church who decided you had sinned in the first place, so naturally - and for the right price - they could sell you absolution.

But carbon dioxide is an actual substance in the atmosphere, and it's all the same. (It doesn't come in flavors.) If you put some in over here, that's bad; but if you pay to have some taken out over there, your net contribution is zero. Ask an accountant if you don't get how that works.

I don't see the hypocrisy. I see a lot of manufactured outrage, though.

Posted by Chet | June 17, 2008 5:22 PM

Chet- Good observation, but I think you're missing the point. The point is that if a democrat tries to tell you that something you're doing is really harmful, than he must be lying. And everyone who believes him are credulous morons.

Posted by mpowell | June 17, 2008 6:06 PM

Obligatory Corrs post.

"Am I the only one who rolled his eyes at the sight of Bono?"

Well, Andrea Corr still likes him. He was executive producer on her solo album last year.

And I think he likes her, despite being married to Ali for twenty years. See here:

The Corrs & Bono - When the Stars Go Blue (Live 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XV_dbCF1jOA

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 17, 2008 7:46 PM