Al Gore needs to work for global change from the inside

San Francisco Chronicle
Michael Yaki
Sunday, July 22, 2007

"The political guessing game of "Will Al run?" -- as in Al Gore, former vice president and putative president-elect in 2000 -- continues unabated. In every interview with Gore in the past year, we have been treated to the spectacle of an earnest interviewer, hoping to make the scoop of scoops, relentlessly badgering the bearded/clean-shaven, flannel shirt/Brooks Brothers, v.2/3/4 Gore on whether he will declare his candidacy. Each time, Gore firmly, if reluctantly, rejects the notion of running.

To be honest, I was not an Al Gore fan in 2000. But like millions of Americans, my admiration for the man has grown over time because of his passion for the problems of climate change. This is not to say that Gore is my man for 2008. Nor is it to say he is not my candidate. Rather, it is to say that if Gore is truly serious about leading the effort to solve, as he has termed it, "the most dangerous crisis we've ever faced," he must look to himself, because that effort must depend on credible, bold leadership inside 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."

(snip)

"It will take more than a village to save the Earth. It will take a president who is willing to lead America down a sometimes painful path of emission reductions. It's more than buying carbon offsets every time you travel on a private jet (if you can afford both). It is, as Gore is wont to say, about making fundamental changes in human behavior, expectations and lifestyle. It may be a nice touch to put solar panels on the roof of one's home, as the Gores are, but how much more symbolic and powerful would it be if Gore made the White House solar?"

(snip)

"But even more daunting, and more urgent, is the need to find cooperation on emission reduction on a worldwide scale. It will take every ounce of diplomatic, trade, economic and even military influence the United States can wield by itself and with its allies to effect change in the developing world. It will take a president who is willing to put all the priority and power of the Oval Office to wage the equivalent of a world war in defense of the planet."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/22/INGKER31MT1.DTL

K&R

"For a change agent on global warming to be truly victorious, he will have to be on the inside, to move nations and corporations and leaders who don't want to be moved." :thumbsup:

passion for the environment to get the climate crisis under control. Dodd comes closest with his plan but has a snowball's chance at this point of getting the nomination.

and that's exactly what Howard Zinn has been saying activism vs elected office --

Look at Cindy Sheehan right now -- as Pelosi fades/fakes . . . Cindy's argument is gaining strength.

From the article:

"India's rate of growth in greenhouse gas emissions has jumped 50 percent since the 1990s as India has sought to become an industrial powerhouse, and in May the New Delhi government rejected calls for reductions in its emissions. Indonesia's dysfunctional leadership has condoned the savage and sad deforestation of its once-vast tropical rain forest and is now the third-largest emissions contributor, and Brazil's somewhat slower, but no less harmful, clear-cutting of the Amazon has pushed it toward the top of the charts.

Surely Gore recognizes the inherent paradox and flaw in his campaign for global awareness on climate change. How is "people power" going to change these countries? How will global awareness have any impact on totalitarian or one-party or desperately poor nations that have the ability to resist the implorations of Gore, Sting and Bono?"

at the top of the food chain. I believe in the grass/net roots as much as anybody and I understand Al's interest in changing the political atmosphere from that viewpoint and if it were for most any other issue, I would heartily agree, however the people at the top still make the ultimate decisions, and global warming climate change is too critical, to trust with anyone else in my book.

We're in Iraq today because there was no real leadership based on the principle of integrity in the Oval Office. Bush said he would cap CO2 emissions when he was running for President only to reverse him self within a week of taking his appointed office. I have serious doubts any other candidate will have the fortitude to address global warming climate change in the manner it so desperately needs.

Thanks for the thread DesertRat

Kicked and recommended.

:hi:

To prove it can be done.

Regular as clockwork.

Imagine how many trees you could have planted had you not wasted time repeating yourself. :eyes:

Thanks for posting.

that Al is seriously considering these pleas. We desperately need him now more than ever.

I would. Thanks for posting.

I wish I could give it more than one.

maybe someone else will recommend too! :)

so I can get my husband to recommend it.

because I can. :)

And, "all of the power of the Oval Office?" I thought the power came from the people in a Democracy through their representatives? If I didn't know any better I would think many more people approve of the "unitary executive" than they admit as long as it is their side in power. A president is only as powerful as the people allow according to this constitution, and the people on the whole won't know the power they wield to make change unless they are informed and then incensed enough to demand change from the executive and legislative branches. So this is really an ass backwards attitude if that change is not considered in the equation. I just love all of the people out here who think they know better than he does about what he wishes to do and discusses that incessantly rather than actually talking about solutions and their part in them. Then they wonder why progress never comes.

we're the people and we're letting it be known, who our preferred representative is to be. I don't claim to know better than Al Gore as to what he wishes to do, however I feel like we're doing what he wants. I haven't spoken to the man personally, but we're in the process of changing the atmosphere that he wants changed, and as his legislative pride and joy; the Internet gains strength the pace of change will accelerate.

Regarding the people being informed, this is why I'm for saving Net Neutrality, I believe the corporate media will try to neutralize the Internet's grassroots/net roots power by segregation means.

Regarding the unitary executive, this is a prime reason, as to why I believe Bush should be impeached, so the wanting of Al Gore as the unitary executive instead of Bush doesn't hold water with me.

Regarding solutions, we've had threads on the threat of and solutions to global warming climate change, and we will continue to have them. You've posted many of them and I commend you for this, however just as I don't post Al Gore for President on your threads out of respect for your feelings, it would seem to me turnabout would be fair play. I also believe this would allow you to be more effective and garner more input/posts on the issue of global warming climate change on your threads, if fewer people were antagonized by their perceived slamming from you on their threads. In short, your message would take off quicker, if more people were apt to read your threads.

Thanks. :thumbsup:

This isn't about my threads. Many read my threads and many are recommended, so what does that have to do with my comment here? And please, don't deign to subtly tell me to stay out of threads. I don't do it to others regardless and I don't appreciate it being said to me. I will continue to post in any thread I desire to post in and my comment above still stands because I am part of that people too and I believe Mr. Gore is handling this the way it must be done now, and he already is my representative regarding this crisis.

I'm speaking of slamming the O.P. or posters, of any given Al Gore run for President threads, usually on the premise of these people aren't doing enough to solve the problem of global warming, or proposing solutions to our dysfunctional government. When I said on my previous post "we're the people" that most certainly included you.

"however just as I don't post Al Gore for President on your threads out of respect for your feelings, it would seem to me turnabout would be fair play."

I think that speaks for itself. And I do not "slam" people here and you know it. Again, if you do not agree with my comments you too have options to use in order to avoid seeing them.

"however just as I don't post Al Gore for President on your threads out of respect for your feelings, it would seem to me turnabout would be fair play."

I think that speaks for itself. And I do not "slam" people here and you know it. Again, if you do not agree with my comments you too have options to use in order to avoid seeing them."

Yeah, it does speak for itself.

Fairness and reciprocity are way over your head.

I suspect many DUers have already used the very "options" you are talking about. I can't say I blame them.

;-)