Friday, October 12, 2007

Al Gore's Inconvenient Record


By Ben Cohen

It is a sad symptom of today's image driven society that politicians can get away with some of the lies and broken promises they have made. Having cast himself as the saviour of the environment, Al Gore has increased speculation as to whether he will run a last minute campaign for the 2008 election after winning the Nobel Peace Prize. With legions of Democrats urging him to 'save the Democrats', it's a pity no one remembers Gore's dismal record in office

There is no doubt Gore has done a fine job of raising awareness for Global Warming and other environmental issues after making 'An Inconvenient Truth'. It is an exceptional documentary that drives home the message that our planet is in big trouble. But Gore did virtually nothing for the environment when serving as Vice President under Clinton, and ran an extremely tepid campaign against George Bush afterwards.

This article is not meant to bash Gore, but to remind people that as a politician, he was fairly useless. In Rolling Stone Magazine, Gore wrote:

"In the 1930s, Winston Churchill also wrote of those leaders who refused to acknowledge the clear and present danger: "They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent. The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place, we are entering a period of consequences.”

It is true that Gore has never ignored the clear and present danger of Global Warming. He was just resolved to be irresolute when he had the power to do something.

Having entered the period of consequence, Gore has now reinvented himself as a rock star environmentalist and is doing a good job in raising awareness. He should keep doing what he is doing while leaving the hard decisions to someone else.


. Full text.

1 comments:

Anonymous said...

Valid points, but past political records and decisions don't always have a bearing on a candidate's current political clout or ability. I mean, President Bush had some hard-partying years, a questionable record of leadership AND has been shown to be politically impotent, but now he's the thriving 'war president' we know and love today. If we start judging candidates on past merits and historical lessons, what will we crazy liberals have to write about?

RECENT POSTS