So what did Al Gore actually say about Obama that was so harsh?
"Obama has never presented to the American people the magnitude of the climate crisis"
He hasn't made the case? Not even when he spoke at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen?
Today we've made meaningful and unprecedented -- made a meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough here in Copenhagen. For the first time in history all major economies have come together to accept their responsibility to take action to confront the threat of climate change.[...]
That effort at home serves as a foundation for our leadership around the world. Because of the actions we're taking we came here to Copenhagen with an ambitious target to reduce our emissions. We agreed to join an international effort to provide financing to help developing countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, adapt to climate change. And we reaffirmed the necessity of listing our national actions and commitments in a transparent way.
Ok, he didn't mention the possible melting of
Iceland Greenland but he certainly has address the issue as being significant and serious.
Isn't he doing the same thing here while speaking at a Hybrid Transmisision Plant in Indiana?
Hi. Iâm speaking with you today from the Allison Transmissions plant in Indianapolis, Indiana. I came here because this is a place where American workers are doing some big and impressive things.
The hybrid technology they manufacture here already powers nearly 4,000 buses all over the world â buses that have already saved 15 million gallons of fuel. Soon, theyâll expand this new technology to trucks as well. That means more vehicles using less oil, and that means jobs â more than 200 new workers at this plant alone.
The clean energy jobs at this plant are the jobs of the future â jobs that pay well right here in America. And in the years ahead, it's clean energy companies like this one that will keep our economy growing, create new jobs, and make sure America remains the most prosperous nation in the world.
And maybe he should have mentioned something about Climate Change in the State of the Union - where he only said this:
In his State of the Union address, President Obama proposed an ambitious but achievable goal of generating 80 percent of the Nation’s electricity from clean energy sources by 2035. All clean sources – including renewables, nuclear power, efficient natural gas, and coal with carbon capture and sequestration – would count toward the goal.
I'll admit Obama hasn't put this issue into the type of dire terms that Gore himself has, but that's rather a difference of style rather than substance IMO.
More of Media quoting Gore:
"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."
Well I suppose that's true. He hasn't personally got into the Bogus Climate Gate Scandal argument, yet. Let's just see if someone like Rick "Climate Change is a Liberal Plot" Santorum gets anywhere near a direct debate with Obama and see what happens then, ok?
But "No venue for the Scientific community"? How about this one?
Through the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), U.S. government scientists are conducting world-class research on global climate change. The USGCRP is a collaborative effort involving 13 Federal agencies to evaluate the current and future impacts of climate change, inform policy-makers and the public about scientific findings, and investigate effective ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and deploy cost-effective clean energy technology.
Y'know if I was someone say - in the Media - I might have bothered to look that up or something, it was just hidden on the WhiteHouse.gov Site under Climate Change. Yeah, I know - why do that when you just copy and paste from the AP without doing any independent analysis or fact-checking that might undercut the Narrative?
Even Gore realized the danger of his criticisms.
"Even writing an article like this one carries risks," Gore says. "Opponents of the president will excerpt the criticism and strip it of context."
Hmm.. ya think?
Oh by the way, what context would that be?
To sell their false narrative, the Polluters and Ideologues have found it essential to undermine the public's respect for Science and Reason by attacking the integrity of the climate scientists. That is why the scientists are regularly accused of falsifying evidence and exaggerating its implications in a greedy effort to win more research grants, or secretly pursuing a hidden political agenda to expand the power of government. Such slanderous insults are deeply ironic: extremist ideologues — many financed or employed by carbon polluters — accusing scientists of being greedy extremist ideologues.
Yeah, that's ironic all right.
Would that we had a impartial and relentless media dedicated to Truth that could sort out all the accusation and cross accusation and make sense of it? I know, I know - I'm a such a Dreamer!
Unlike access to the "public square" of early America, access to television requires large amounts of money. Thomas Paine could walk out of his front door in Philadelphia and find a dozen competing, low-cost print shops within blocks of his home. Today, if he traveled to the nearest TV station, or to the headquarters of nearby Comcast — the dominant television provider in America — and tried to deliver his new ideas to the American people, he would be laughed off the premises. The public square that used to be a commons has been refeudalized, and the gatekeepers charge large rents for the privilege of communicating to the American people over the only medium that really affects their thinking. "Citizens" are now referred to more commonly as "consumers" or "the audience."
I happen to think people don't have to walk out their front door to find the nearest print shop - now all they have to do is Tweet. Especially if they happen to be tweeting a picture of part of their naked body, or be named Sarah Palin!
Interesting that the media completely omitted the context that Gore was far more harsh in his criticism of the Media than he was specifically of Obama. Who could have anticipated that, besides - uh - Gore himself that is?
And what other context might there be?
In the new ecology of political discourse, special-interest contributors of the large sums of money now required for the privilege of addressing voters on a wholesale basis are not squeamish about asking for the quo they expect in return for their quid. Politicians who don't acquiesce don't get the money they need to be elected and re-elected. And the impact is doubled when special interests make clear — usually bluntly — that the money they are withholding will go instead to opponents who are more than happy to pledge the desired quo. Politicians have been racing to the bottom for some time, and are presently tunneling to new depths. It is now commonplace for congressmen and senators first elected decades ago — as I was — to comment in private that the whole process has become unbelievably crass, degrading and horribly destructive to the core values of American democracy.
Ouch! Now, That is a SLAM of our entire political process and how it's become currupted by money used to pay for - Access to the Media!. But then who cares about any of that stuff when you can highlight an issue as as juicy as "Gore Slams Obama!"?
Yeah, who cares about stuff like rabid corruption and lies in the public sphere anyway?
Besides the problem isn't being able to speak, it's getting people to Listen in between all the sensationalism and gossip coming through their BoobTube.
It's a bit like what someone else had cut out of their Media Interview last Week.
I wonder, might Vice President Gore have possibly said something else about President Obama that might have been just a tad bit less critical? Might he have also said something nice?
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.
Whew... seems to me there was a whole lot of "Slamming" going on, and not all that much of it was directed at Obama. In fact...
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.
So if you break it down, these articles seem to be burying the lede and actually hiding the scathing criticism or Congress and the Media that Al Gore handed down to highlight his criticism that while Obama has been the most aggressive President to pursue Climate Change and Green Technologies IN HISTORY what he really needs to do - is Make More Speeches About It.
Uh, yeah...ok. Now I see. Liberals should be furious with Obama because he's been too busy Doing Great Stuff to constantly talk about it all the time. Wow, isn't that exactly the Opposite of everyone predicted that a Presidency by an "inexperienced leader who just makes great speeches" would be like?
Man, does the Media Suck. Isn't it great that we have a brand new Media Outlet called CurrentTV headed up by Keith Olbermann and this really great progressive anti-Climate Change guy by the name of - AL GORE!
Maybe they should do a story or something about it, ya think?
Sun Jun 26, 2011 at 8:39 AM PT: Ok, I've read some of the various comments both pro and con and I'd like to address the issue of whether "The Media Made (some of us) Hate Obama" or not.
No, clearly for many of us they didn't.
What I would say is they don't help much because they are more interested in the fight and conflict than the solution and resolution. Peace and Harmony doesn't make great news copy. Nor do I think they have a specific "agenda" to drive a wedge between elected Dems and their constituents - however if a sliver of daylight appears they're more than willing to grab a crowbar and start yanking.
No, I don't blame the Media for every area where Libs or the left are disappointed in Obama. I've been disappointed too. In fact, I wrote my own diary about it way back in 2008. It was called Disappointed. In my case I was unhappy that Obama tossed Reverend Wright under the Bus after he had been unjusted and viciously Smeared and Swiftboated by ABC News. But that split ultimately, was as much personal as politcal. Wright ultimately gave him no choice.
No, he hasn't tried to prosecute Bush and Co for War Crimes and Torture (largely because under the Military Commissions Act - what Bush did isn't a crime anymore), but his special prosecutor has convened a Grand Jury to potentially Prosecute a CIA Torturer(s).. Perfect? No. Better? Yes.
I get that he's not the Great Dark Savior of the Democratic Party. He's not Dumbledore. He's not going to wipe away 30 years of Conservative/Republican framing of the issues in one, or even two terms.
He won't solve every problem and he might not even solve most of them.
But what he will do, and what he has done - is move us in the right direction inch by inch, step by step, little by little. Disappointed in how he's handled Wall Street? Well, look over here - the U.S. happens to be sueing Deusch Bank for Fraud in the Mortgage Crisis. They've also sued JP Morgan Chase and Royal Bank of Scotland.
Obama hasn't done enough about Oil Prices? Maybe, but the CFTB has charged OIl Speculators with Market Manipulation and he has opened the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Frustrated about No Public Option in Health Reform? Yeah, ok. Well, Vermont now has Single Payer. The Feds have Cut Health Care Costs for Pre-Existing Condition Plans by 40%, and established limits for private plan premium increases to 10% max. California's Blue Cross/Blue Shield has Cut their rates and is Offerring Rebates after years of raising premiums by 40-50%
One could blow off every positive achievement as not being enough. Of being too little, too late, too small, too timid. I understand we're dealing with President Goldilox here, whose always looking for something that's neither too hot, nor too cold. He almost always goes for what's "Just right" between the Left and the Right. Sure, you could also say his initiatives should be bigger, bolder, more dynamic. That they should steam the curtains and make us all fresh julian fries for lunch except for the fact that that shit aint gonna happen!. That's not who this President ever claimed to be.
We all have a right, even a duty, to complain about where we see this administration - or any administration - as failing. But let's not lose perspective. Let's not give in to hopelessness, bitterness and despair because Obama isn't nearly as progressive as some of us are. On the whole, things are moving in the right direction., our arguments with Obama here are really about how fast and how far he's willing and able to go, not about which way we should be going.
To me, I accept that he's President Goldilox, and that his Presidency is the Start of a journey away from the crimes of the Neo-Cons, it's not a destination. There's always going to be more that needs to be done, more that needs to be fixed. The question I have for those who've reach the point of giving up on Obama is "What's your alternative?"
Who is your better choice?
And I don't ask this for 2012, I'm asking about 2016 because being able to get that better choice in place and to fully implement even more progressive goals than Obama has so far or ever will - we need his Presidency to be a Success on balance. We need to thinking and planning about the President after Obama, and the one after that -- and the one after that. If any of us are Serious about implementing all our progressives goals in full - it's going to take that long, if not longer.
I never expected magic from Obama, IMO none of us should have. If you feel that the magic is gone now, you were destined to be bitterly disappointed in any case and the media has nothing to do with it.
Comments are closed on this story.