Apparently, Jake Tapper is a man who does not respond well to criticism. Unlike Swampland or CBS's PublicEye, Tapper's blog, PoliticalPunch, is quite selective about what they'll allow to be posted. Here's the thing, though. He doesn't remove things because they're uncivil, but because they demonstrate factual problems with his journalism.
Back when Tapper was reporting non-stop on the Pelosi plane trip scandal that wasn't, I tried to post the press release from the Sergeant at Arms that declared the Sergeant -- not Pelosi -- requested the plane, in direct contradiction of Tapper's assertions to the contrary. He certainly knew this because, as recounted here, he removed numerous efforts by me to post the press release, even going so far as to edit the statement out of a snarky comment they actually posted. Snark was okay, facts weren't. Then, Mike Stark pursued the story and actually managed to get Tapper to respond.
Well, guess what? Tapper's done it again.
Having given up on Tapper allowing me to post comments, I didn't bother to make another go at it until today. What set me off was this post, GreenGore, in which Tapper paints Gore as a hypocrite for claiming to be an environmentalist. To my surprise, my comment was immediately posted. Being the cynic I am, I checked back a few minutes later, and sure enough, it was removed.
So, I tried again with this post:
Okay, you pulled the last comment off, even though it was pretty factually based, and I think a legitimate criticism. So let’s see if you’ll allow me to reprint the entire post, with the only change being I highlight what is a direct quote, and what is Jake’s subjective analysis. As you’ll notice, every objective fact (save the Friends of the Earth endorsement of Bradley) clearly demonstrates a consistent stance by the author of Earth in the Balance. Every subjective analysis by Jake paints a picture typical of the reporters who covered the Gore campaign, who made no bones about hating Gore (as documented so well by Bob Sommerby). From the clear imbalance of Tapper’s analysis and Gore’s actual words, I think it’s pretty clear how Tapper felt about Gore at the time.
JAKE: Yes, congrats and kudos and mazal tov to former Vice President Al Gore for his Nobel Peace Prize and his commitment.
But let us also recall that as he ran for president in 2000 he downplayed his environmentalism, his consultants thinking it not electorally sage to emphasize on the stump.
Such a stance allowed Green Party candidate Ralph Nader an opening, of course, likely taking thousands of key votes from Gore in key states such as Florida. (Ahem.)
I remember covering Gore in 2000, it wasn't until the end of October, when the threat of Nader was apparent to all, that Gore gave a big speech on being green in Davenport, Iowa.
How it all played out is fascinating in retrospect.
GORE: "Now, I want to talk about the environment here today," JAKE: Gore said standing on a fire truck with his jacket off.
"Now, look. Just today, we are seeing on television the new study that just comes out once ev'ry FAAAAHVE years where the scientific community around the world tells us what they've learned about this problem that these kids are gonna grow up with unless we do something and that's the problem of global warming."
JAKE: Gore was referring to a United Nations report on global warming, issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the same group that shared his Nobel with him this year -- that concluded it could get up to 11 degrees Fahrenheit hotter by the end of the century if greenhouse gases were not curtailed.
GORE: "We have a situation where the big polluters are supporting Gov. Bush and they are wanting to be in control of the environmental policy," JAKE: Gore said, tearing into Texas' environmental rankings.
JAKE: You may not be able to believe this, but at the time the Bush campaign responded by claiming that Bush was actually more of an environmentalist than Gore.
DAN BARTLET (BUSH SPOKESMAN): "There are only two candidates in this race who support a mandatory reduction of emissions from older power plants -- Gov. Bush and Ralph Nader.... Environmental groups have harshly criticized Al Gore's record on global warming and deforestation, while Gov. Bush has offered a plan that will help protect the endangered tropical forests of Latin and South America."
JAKE: Bartlett was able to cite a harsh critique of Gore from September 1999 by the Friends of the Earth PAC when the group endorsed Gore's then-opponent, former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley. Calling Gore a "big disappointment," the organization "graded Gore on 16 areas of his signature issue, protection of the ozone layer" and awarded Gore a "D."
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH (Note: Jake puts this in parentheses, as an aside): "While we have had significant differences with the Clinton-Gore administration on some issues, there's a Grand Canyon-sized gulf of leadership between Vice President Gore and Governor Bush on the environment. If Bush is elected it will do significant and irreversible harm to the global environment," JAKE: a spokesman told me.
JAKE: In Gore's speech he addressed global warming in the New Democrat shades that had aroused the wrath of Friends of the Earth.
He would perpetually describe a pending environmental apocalypse -- and then propose solutions that would be easy and fun and no big deal at all!
GORE: "let's pick the hard right over the easy wrong!" JAKE: But then he wouldn't describe anything hard at all.
GORE: "An' I know a lotta people say that it looks like [global warming] is off in the future... But lemme tell you what this new study said ... Unless we act, the average temperature is gonna go up 10 or 11 degrees. The storms will get stronger, the weather patterns will change. But it does not have to happen. And it won't happen if we put our minds to solving this problem ... Here is the good news. If we take the leadership role that these kids have a right to expect us to play, we can create millions of good, new, high-paying jobs by building the new cars and trucks ... and technology to STOP the pollution and lift standards of living at the same time! ARE YA WITH ME?!"
"I laid out a plan this past summer that will create partnerships with the car companies and with the utilities and with the factories that will give tax breaks to get the new kind of technologies going," Gore says. "And we'll lead the world in those technologies and all over the rest of the world, they're wanting to buy these new kinds of technologies, and we're the ones that ought to be making them and selling them to the rest of the world."
JAKE: Gore deserves credit for his work, for his passion. For his Nobel Peace Prize!
But in 2000 the Al Gore who talked about what to do about the environment was one who, environmentalists said at the time, didn’t rear his head enough during the campaign. Who allowed a climate where the Bush campaign could even try to out-flank him on the Left. Who didn’t really give straight talk about the kinds of sacrifices necessary.
One wonders what today’s Gore would say about that Gore.
Perhaps more importantly, one wonders how the millions of voters who pulled the lever for Nader would have responded to the Gore of today.
What do you think?
[itals mine]
Well, it was posted. Again. And guess what? It's not there now. But it was before:
Now, since I want to blow off some steam about this, and Tapper won't allow criticism, let me pick apart this glorious example of this mainstream "journalist"'s hackitude. First, we have Gore quoted saying, "[L]et's pick the hard right over the easy wrong." Then Jake says, without offering a shred of proof, "but then he wouldn't describe anything hard at all!" Says who? Why, Tapper, that's who!
Tapper's entire presmise of Gore's hypocrisy is built on the fact that the group Friends Of the Earth criticized Gore in 2000.But what did these critics, FOtE, have to say about Gore's Nobel Prize?:
"Al Gore and the IPCC have done a huge amount to bring global attention to climate change and have set out positive steps for how we can tackle it," the group said in a statement.
"We hope the signal sent by the Nobel foundation will be heard by politicians around the globe and that urgent action will be taken to address this threat before it's too late."
Hacktacular!
Tapper must have selectively chosen this quote to make Gore look bad, right? My friends, you're giving Tapper way too much credit. The only quote Tapper gives us from the group (in parentheses) is this:
"While we have had significant differences with the Clinton-Gore administration on some issues, there's a Grand Canyon-sized gulf of leadership between Vice President Gore and Governor Bush on the environment. If Bush is elected it will do significant and irreversible harm to the global environment"
Yes, the only thing Tapper can give us that the group actually said is that when it comes to the environment, there's no contest between Bush and Gore.
So how does he know FOtE criticized Gore? Because "Bartlett was able to cite a harsh critique of Gore from September 1999". Yes, Dan Bartlett, George Bush's spokesman, that's who Tapper went to for the feelings of the environmental organization.
Don't believe Gore is serious about global warming just because he won the Nobel Prize, Tapper tells us, because an environmental group thought his proposals were too easy. Don't take Tapper's word for it -- just ask Bush's spokesman!
But wait. Did Dan Bartlett say FOtE said Gore's policies were too easy? Well, no. According to Bartlett, FOtE called Gore a "big disappointment," and "graded Gore on 16 areas of his signature issue, protection of the ozone layer" and awarded Gore a "D." Nowhere did even Bartlett say the group said Gore didn't provide specifics. We must take Tapper's word to take Bartlett's word for that.
One might mistakenly give Tapper some credit for saying this:
You may not be able to believe this, but at the time the Bush campaign responded by claiming that Bush was actually more of an environmentalist than Gore.
Who does Tapper blame for Bush's bald-faced lies, and fake concern about global warming? Anyone who has followed the MSM will know the answer without me having to tell them: Why, Al Gore, of course!:
But in 2000 the Al Gore who talked about what to do about the environment was one who, environmentalists said at the time, didn’t rear his head enough during the campaign. Who allowed a climate where the Bush campaign could even try to out-flank him on the Left. Who didn’t really give straight talk about the kinds of sacrifices necessary. [Itals mine]
Awesome. Just freakin' awesome.
Any of you who read Bob Sommerby know the work he has done to expose the horrors of the MSM's covering of the Gore campaign, in particular this idea that Gore didn't discuss global warming and was beholden to his advisors. One of those critics, Joe Klein, had this to say on page 151 of his book Politics Lost:
Gore decided that what he really wanted to do was give a major speech on global warming. This elicited a chorus of groans from his political consultants, who pointed out that the environment was way down the list of issues people cared about, according to their polls. But Gore ignored them. The environment was the issue he cared more about than any other; he had written a best-selling book about it, Earth in the Balance. He wanted to tell the public, as precisely as possible, what he was going to do about it—and he wanted to do a lot: a $150 billion program over ten years, using the Clinton budget surplus to pay for it...
He delivered the speech on June 27, in Philadelphia.
And nothing happened. The New York Times got the story right, citing Gore’s "broad vision" in the lead, but buried it on page 24. The Washington Post played it inside as well and worse, emphasized that this was Gore’s attempt to deal with high gasoline prices. The television networks also played the gas-price angle. The speech caused barely a ripple. "What the fuck happened," the vice president asked his staff the next day. "What went wrong?"
You can find Bob Sommerby's discussion of this amazing anecdote here. I needn't tell you whom Klein blamed. Here's a hint: It wasn't the reporters who mock Gore now for not giving more speeches like the one they refused to cover then. If only Gore had listened to his advisors...
You know, I often say these guys are soulless shills, but I usually think I'm being unduly partisan, something I say in the heat of the moment, but upon reflection, will realize I let my emotions get away from me. But when it comes to the press corps, my knee-jerk, partisan biases turn out to be far more reliable than the objective little analyst in my head, warning me not to let my emotions get the better of me