In the column, why I hate the Democratic Leadership - Pickens, Democrats agree in calling for altern

[Mass]

(That is the dallasnews title, that is purely the fault of the paper). But, did Reid need to be that enthusiastic. (I may be a little bit excessive, but, coming from Reid, this is hard to swallow).

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/industries/energy/stories/DN-pickens_19bus.ART.State.Edition2.4dba04f.html

Pickens, Democrats agree in calling for alternative fuels

...
"I can be most effective as a nonpartisan, and I think the Democrats know me to be an honorable person," Mr. Pickens said Friday, adding that he's talked to Al Gore and the two agreed on "95 percent of what we talked about."Really. In this case, we can really worry about what their judgement.
...
Count Mr. Reid, the Senate majority leader, as one of his newest fans.

The Nevada Democrat said Thursday that although Mr. Pickens was once "my mortal enemy," he is "putting his money where his mouth is" when it comes to clean energy.
...

[beachmom]

1. I saw Al Gore at Netroots Nation, and he mentioned Pickens favorably

in his speech with the wind farms in Texas. Money talks, I guess. It is my view that Al Gore, praiseworthy as his work is, is not as great as everyone says. He's doing his thing, but he's not going to stick his neck out for anyone, and thinks nothing of praising a Swiftboater. We know better about Pickens, but with Gore's praise, less people will listen to us.

[karynnj]

3. I suspect that Gore is exactly who he was in 1988, 1992, 2000

He is committed to global warming, but still the DLC centrist he was then. I think every Democrat needs to demand that Pickens tell the truth about what he did in 2004 - even to the degree Fox did. As to praising Pickens, it is good that he is building windmills, it is a sign that the economics are there - which is what Kerry has said will happen.

(Oddly, had Kerry won - Kerry would be the one fighting to get a plan in place and likely would have led the world at Bali, via his representatives and likely himself. Gore actually benefited by Kerry's loss. His efforts - mostly after 2004, would have been different with a President actually proposing action.)

[YvonneCa]

10. In the spirit of 'full disclosure'...

... I really like and support former Vice President Gore. :7 I know some here feel differently...which is one of the things I like best about this group. I learn a lot from all of you and your ideas challenge my own thinking on issues. Yesterday, after watching Al Gore on Meet the Press, I emailed this to the show:


Thank you for your interview this morning with former Vice President, Al Gore. It was a good discussion, and an important topic for our country. While I have a lot of respect for both the Vice President and Tom Brokaw (whom I have watched for many years, and who did a good job representing the talking points for the other side on EVERY issue he raised), I completely agree with Al Gore’s position in this morning’s discussion.

I believe Al Gore to be a visionary leader. He looks at problems currently faced by our country and sees long-term, transformative solutions, and he sees the opportunity these problems also present to our nation.

On the issues of high gasoline/oil prices, our faltering economy, and our current shaky level of national security… he is able to see the connection between these events, and the solutions needed to address them simultaneously. He argues for big change…and he is right that now is the time to begin.

Our infrastructure (electricity grid, water systems, rail and freeway systems, many downtown areas, etc.) needs a major overhaul and modernization. We are threatened by the current system of energy in two ways…it may be manipulated or cut off (which affects both our economy and our national security, if we go to war to retain it), AND we are ruining our life sustaining planet. To use Al Gore’s words in “An Inconvenient Truth”… it’s our only home.

If we, as a country commit to the former Vice President’s plan, we will never again have to go to war for oil. Our national security will be enhanced. Our environment will also become more inhabitable for a longer period of time (and this is true, whatever you believe about global warming). Building the new infrastructure…transportation, energy grids, green buildings, new solar/wind industry, etc… will get our economy back on track because of the jobs it will create. It’s the kind of ‘stimulus package’ we really need to do the job.

But more important to our future than all that, I believe, we will once again have the chance to be seen as a leader for something positive in the world… and without that, our future looks pretty dim.

So I agree with everything Al Gore had to say this morning on Meet the Press. And, despite Mr. Brokaw’s best effort to sting him with questions about every right-wing talking point currently out there in the media and cyberspace, the former Vice President only made one mistake. It’s a statement with which I completely disagree. When asked about whether he was interested in a position in an Obama administration, or future position as President himself, Al Gore quipped that he had already been elected… but that he did not serve.

Mr. Vice President… I absolutely agree that you were elected. And what a loss for the country that you were not permitted to be in the White House. But I’ve been watching and listening to your many (mostly uncovered) speeches. You did serve after 2000… and, to this grateful American, you are continuing to serve today.


When Brokaw brought up the Pickens ad, Gore made the point...gracefully...that he was an oil man. He acknowledged what was done to Kerry in 2004, but made no comment on it. He then went on to differentiate between Pickens' plan (natural gas cars) and his own (off carbon based fuels). I would have liked to see him stand up and say how awful the SBVT thing was and chastise Pickens for his role...but I think that would have hurt his ability (as the leader) to bring people together around the issue of climate change.

But somebody needs to do it ! :7

[beachmom]

29. Actually, no -- nearly everyone here loves Gore. That is why I was

disappointed that in his own speech and umprompted, he felt the need to bring up Pickens. I just want Pickens & Swiftboater to always be in the same sentence, because it is important. Gore didn't do that, nor did he criticize Pickens in any way in his speech. Now Mass's OP is more about how too many of our Dems are clueless about the environment, and how Pickens's plan which includes natural gas powered cars is stupid. Obviously, Gore knows that, and when asked elaborated on that on MTP. Still, he is not talking about Pickens the way I think he should be. I think anyone who donated to the SBVT should have that chain saddled to them for the rest of their life until they repent. To that end, Gore was not helpful.

Gore is doing his own thing, on global climate change. He is not going to be helping out Democrats. He certainly did not stick his neck out for Obama, that's for sure. So I guess I don't view him as some kind of Democratic savior. He is an environmental activist now. That's it.

[YvonneCa]

32. I agree with a lot that you say...

...and I'd be the first to cheer if Al Gore aggressively (figuratively, of course :) ) slapped down Pickens or anyone else involved in SBVT. I just think he has assumed a different role...the role of promoting transformational US leadership on climate change...and to be successful in that role, he HAS to be inclusive and bring in people on all sides of the issue (whether he likes them or not). If he attacks (again figuratively) anyone who might play a role (and Pickens has the clout and is determined to do so) it diminishes his ability to bring people together.

In a way, he is 'doing his own thing' on global climate change...but (JMHO) I think his goals are altruistic, not selfish. I guess that's why I have great respect for him.

[beachmom]

42. Absolutely, but then that puts him in the same category as Bono of U2.

Bono made extreme poverty in Africa his big cause, so when the Iraq War erupted he stayed largely silent. In his mind, he needed to help the poorest of the poor in Africa, which meant that he needed to get Bush on board ... which meant he didn't want to piss off Bush on issues unrelated like the Iraq War. It makes sense, and really, Gore has been better than that, speaking out on the Iraq War in '02. But since "An Inconvenient Truth" came out, he has decided he's staying OUT of politics. Which means, I question the Worship Gore mentality on the blogs. I mean, a lot of them gave Bono a really hard time. And MLK, the great civil rights activists, was of a different fiber for speaking out against Vietnam, which temporarily anyway, hurt him. But NOW he is praised for that courageous speech.

So, my final take is that I admire Gore, the environmental activist and venture capitalist for working on this. But I am less a fan of Gore the Democrat. I just don't think he's that into it anymore, and when he was, he was a centrist. His speech, to be quite frank, started out slowly, and my mind began to wander. He did hit his stride halfway through when he talked about the "absurd" notion of offshore drilling to solve our problems. But as I said in the other thread Van Jones gave a far better speech on the environment. But don't listen to me. Watch the speech yourself:

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/569130

(Starts at about 6 minutes in) It was WAY COOL the way he came in, because it seemed like it was just a recorded question until he appeared.

[YvonneCa]

43. I've seen the...

...speech. And I agree with you that...judging Gore speeches...it was not his best. He was speaking a little 'off the cuff.'

I judge Gore...and he's always been an economic centrist...more on a compilation of his writing AND speeches. I think his evolution in thinking about how to get things done has changed a lot...especially since 2000 (election experience) and 2003 (watching Bush take us into Iraq, which he opposed). I especially liked 'Assault on Reason' because he wrote about that thought process.

[karynnj]

44. I would even say global warming activist, not environmental activist

Gore was not anywhere near the environmentalist that Kerry is on other issues - which is why he was not endorsed in the primary over Bradley - while Kerry was, even though Leiberman had a very good record. But, I agree that Gore at this point may want to conserve his political capital - to maximize the influence that he has no matter who is President.

Gore is totally working as an outside government/politics activist and that may be where he is better. He did an exceptional job raising the profile of global warming by educating people. Their indirect pressure will force change. But, Even on global warming - look at what Gore did in Bali. Kerry worked quietly working to find common ground to help get a treaty. Gore had a high profile speech where he lashed into Bush - nice headlines, but seriously who likely accomplished more at Bali?

[YvonneCa]

45. I'd argue that both...

...accomplished much, but they were able to do that because they took on different roles. Gore is using international clout (as former VP and now Nobel winner) to widen and publicize the debate. Kerry is using his communication, team building and negotiation skills (as some here say, his SOS skills) to bring people together united by the correct plan going forward.

I'm grateful for both...and glad they seem to work together on this issue. :)

[karynnj]

46. I agree completely - My point was that the roles they took were different

It is interesting that Kerry, with his history of activism is the one working within the system and Gore who was the consummate insider is working as an outside activist - with excellent links inside. ( I agree that Kerry was demonstrating SoS skills - and he was credited even by the Bush people, though just in Senate hearings.)

[YvonneCa]

47. That is interesting...

...isn't it? If Kerry had been elected in 2004, the roles might have been different.:hi:

[Mass]

4. I honestly think that there are some positive points in what Pickens is talking about, but two point

1/ A lot of other people have been talking about this for a long time, so this is nothing news. A lot of oil companies have been working on the issues for years.

2/ My main complaint is the same one that makes me groan when I see GDP these days. People's short memory. Even if Pickens's plan was so novel and extraordinary, there is no reason to ignore everything else. You can say the plan is interesting and still remind there are a lot of other issues where the man is wrong. Soon, listening to some people, Obama's cabinet would be full of Republicans or Republicans like.

[MonteLukast]

6. Maybe Gore's just grateful...

... that somebody of his wealth and ideological opposition is getting on board, however nominally.

I'm concerned that it's just a fig leaf on the part of ol' Pickens.

Personally, I think Gore would've been better off talking to Arnold Schwarzenegger, if he wants to pick the first GOPer to come on board.

[wisteria]

14. Sad isn't it? Senator Kerry gets the short end of the stick- again.

Apparently, the Dem's have moved on and gone over the hill.

[karynnj]

2. Every Democrat mentioned in that article is shameless unless they

insist on Pickens conceding that he supported lies.

It is beyond disgusting that the media is rehabilitating the lead funder of the SBVT, while not according the same courtesy to Kerry. No matter what he went on to do - which we all think is a lot of good - Kerry deserved credit for his honorable service. He put his life on the line, saved others and still bears the consequences of that service.

Where are people like Scheiffer, who was shocked that anyone would say anything negative about St McCain.

I also agree with you that someone with credentials - beyond Gore's or Kerry's - needs to address this proposal. The idea that cars could run on fuel created from natural gas (which Pickens just happens to own) is not something I heard any scientists at any hearing speak of as a possibility. In addition, there are costs to converting homes to use electricity (generated by windmills etc) to heat homes and it is far more expensive. Transitioning to something other than natural gas will need to be done, but diverting the natural gas pushes the time frame up. It is always easier to do things gradually. (The other alternative - move cars to electricity or partial electricity seems more straight forward.)

If Pickens wants to fund this research, more power to him. My concern is that he will be asking for funding. If so, his grandiose proposal needs to be evaluated by the real experts - scientists.

[YvonneCa]

5. What a great post...

...karynnj. I especially agree with this:

"It is beyond disgusting that the media is rehabilitating the lead funder of the SBVT, while not according the same courtesy to Kerry."


Listening to Al Gore yesterday on Meet the Press (he talked about Picken's ideas) helped me to also be clear on the differences in their proposals...and they are different. Pickens wants to use wind (and he's invested in it) for most electricity needs, except cars...cars would get the natural gas (to his benefit also). Gore said (paraphrasing) that it was interesting, but an unnecessary step. He believes we should go straight to electic cars...because that's the final goal anyway. Why spend money on an intermediate step that still puts carbon into the atmosphere? A goal of ALL electricity generated by clean methods is better for the planet...and it takes care of our national security concerns (the fear card, which Pickens plays up to get support) at the same time.

[MonteLukast]

7. I think this Pickens business...

... is going to be an object lesson in how to reach out to your ideological opposites without becoming a shameless "bipartisan".

[Mass]

8. I am very happy that Gore saw the difference (and not surprised). I find distressing that the DEms

are all in love for this man. All he did was find a good business and he was not even a pioneer on that. And he continues to be wrong on everything else. Come on. Should we not know better.

[wisteria]

15. Senator Kerry is once more left blowing in the wind. n/t

[Inuca]

25. About cars running on gas

Ages ago (80s) when going to see my family back in Romania, I started seeing some ridiculous looking buses in the streets of Bucharest. Big cylindrical gas tanks on top. It was the time when there was very little gas (of the kind that comes from oil) in the country, rationed, people waiting in line for hours. So they refurbished these city buses to run on gas which was much more readily available. I know nothing of the technical issues involved, and the ugly ducklings disappeared in the 90s, so I guess there were some serious problems with that solution (risk of an explosion I guess was one of them). But the buses WERE running, and also this was a make shift solution done very quickly and on the cheap. Just FYI.

[YvonneCa]

9. Several thoughts, now that I've read (and reread) the whole...

...article:

1. This is a discussion the country should be having. At least it's an important issue about our future and the country's direction...it's about time. :) It beats discussing Brittany Spears!

2. ANY Democrat that wants to work with Pickens...and, in the Obama spirit of bi-partisanship, Democrats may find that necessary...should REQUIRE of him a VERY PUBLIC apology for what he did to Kerry. And JK should be given a VERY PUBLIC forum to accept or reject that apology as he sees fit.

3. I personally think Al Gore's position on this is the correct position (although I know some of you disagree with him). IMHO an intermediary step to get off foreign oil, using natural gas, may be necessary. But, if we are going to redesign cars, why not do it right the first time and not switch to another fossil fuel dependent (and carbon producing) car? Have you ever been to El Paso, Texas? Natural gas pollution is awful!

4. As to our Democratic leaders, I'd bet they are in two camps...those who 'get' the climate change issue, and those who only see this as a national security (get off foreign oil, to h*** with the environment) issue. I think we have to address both. Gore says that (and I'm one who thinks he's a pretty smart guy). I'd bet Kerry does, too (considering his CFR speech on it a couple of years ago).

[Mass]

11. I only have one issue with Pickens's honesty. In 2000 and 2004, he was supporting a president who

was at the opposite of what his stand is on these issues. Now that the Republican candidate is reasonnably on the right side on these issues, Pickens becomes vocal and starts a campaign on the issue.

If he really cared, he had two chances to support a great candidate, in 2000 and 2004. They were both better than Obama and McCain. This is why I question his timing, independently of the Swift Boat issues.

[YvonneCa]

12. I agree. He lacks honesty...

...and integrity. And his timing is totally self-serving. So is his plan, because it's a way to co-opt the issue of climate change (Gore and Kerry's issue :) ) in order to make money for himself. The fact that he wans cars to run on natural gas is the proof (for me) that he doesn't care about the environment.

Talk about a flip-flopper! I don't think he cares about the environment. I don't even think he really cares about national security (he just uses it, because he thinks FEAR will work). I think he is all about the money.

This guys can't begin to even hold a candle to Al Gore OR John Kerry.

[Inuca]

26. Pickens is an a..hole, no ifs nor buts about it

It does not mean that he may not have good ideas. I know way too little to venture my own opinion, but his annoying ads may help heighten the public awareness. I switch the channel when I come across the ads by the way, I think my level of awareness is satisfactory ;-) and I just cannot stand his voice or mug.

[wisteria]

16. Kerry is owed no less than a public apology. But, it seems as if the Dem's have decided to throw

him overboard.

[MBS]

28. yes, we should write or call any Dem Senators who are praising

Pickens, and demand that they extract a public apology from Pickens before working with him.
The whole thing makes my blood boil.

[YvonneCa]

33. Absolutely agree. n/t

[wisteria]

13. If they want to find common ground that is fine, but no one should let this guy get away with

the idea that he is and has been an honorable guy in the past. Is there no Democrat that will say what has to be said about how he helped screw Senator Kerry over in 2004?
And, you point out something that should be obvious, why has no one asked Kerry for his opinion. The leadership knows that alternative energy is one of Kerry's passions.

When I see things like this,-Dem's ignoring one of their own to pander, I just want to withdraw my support of this party. I just makes me sick.

[YvonneCa]

17. As I said...

...upthread :) "As to our Democratic leaders, I'd bet they are in two camps...those who 'get' the climate change issue, and those who only see this as a national security (get off foreign oil, to h*** with the environment) issue."

I'd bet that as this discussion progresses in both houses of Congress, that distinction will be made. (Sort of the way the 'drill ANWR and pristine coastal areas' versus 'use areas where oil leases already exist' distinction was made.) The distinction is an environmental protection side, versus a forget the environment and just get our oil at home side. One side cares about both the environment AND national security...the other is only about national security at any cost.

I'd also bet that...when Congress takes this up...Kerry will be VERY involved. :) And what Gore is doing supports his argument.

On the respect for JK issue...maybe we should all attend hearings on this...wearing 'cool' , anti- T. Boone t-shirts ! Get C-Span to do a closeup. :7

[wisteria]

18. Code Kerry shirts.

Yes, this would be well worth missing work for.

[YvonneCa]

21. Love it...

...'Code Kerry.' That would be worth traveling from Ca. to D.C. for. :7

[Mass]

19. You've got the same reaction I've got reading the article.

It's not that the man is a conservative. It is that he literally threw money trying to ruin the career and reputation of a good Democrat, and that it does not matter. And they are surprised they try to screw Obama right now. This is reactions like that that encourage them.

[wisteria]

20. Exactly. n/t

[YvonneCa]

22. Encourages them...

...and lets them keep 'legitimacy', when they don't deserve it.

[JI7]

23. is he supporting OBama for President ?

[Mass]

24. No. He gave money to Guliani during the primary and supports Mccain, as far as I know.

[YvonneCa]

34. I doubt it...

...being an oil man, and all. :)

[Inuca]

27. Just saw that Pickens

will be in front of the Senate homeland security committee today (CSPAN frontpage), if anybody has the fortitude to watch.

[beachmom]

30. LIEBERMAN!!! Ugh. nt

[Mass]

31. What does that have to do with anything? There are three or four senate committees

that can have a relation with his proposition. How does homeland security fit there?

[YvonneCa]

36. Here's what I...

...think. Pickens' idea (natural gas cars) is to get us off foreign oil. (He also wants to drill anywhere and everywhere in the US to reach that same goal.) I think getting off foreign oil is good for national security.

But, it does not address the environmental issue.

BTW, Durbin is talking about this on the Senate floor RIGHT NOW.

[Mass]

35. Well, it seems that Democrats did not show up to the hearing. It was all Lieberman and official

Republicans (Collins, Voivonich, and Domenici) . Lieberman was horrible as he is always, but who is surprised.

[YvonneCa]

38. I'd bet that's because...

...Democrats want to include solutions that protect the environment. These guys don't care about that. They are hoping the American public won't catch on.JMHO

[YvonneCa]

37. Durbin on Senate floor NOW...

...discussing this.

[YvonneCa]

39. Poor Jeffie...

...Sessions. He just can't get over Al Gore's proposal. :)

[Mass]

40. Poor Jeff, this is hard to understand for him.

[YvonneCa]

41. As are...

...many things. :7