Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
But then Democrats don’t disappoint either
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Al Gore on the Bush Administration:
Al Gore has made his sharpest attack yet on the George Bush presidency, describing the current US administration as "a renegade band of rightwing extremists".

In an interview with the Guardian today, the former vice-president calls himself a "recovering politician", but launches into the political fray more explicitly than he has previously done during his high-profile campaigning on the threat of global warming.

Denying that his politics have shifted to the left since he lost the court battle for the 2000 election, Mr Gore says: "If you have a renegade band of rightwing extremists who get hold of power, the whole thing goes to the right."
Well duh! Politicians to the right try to govern on the right, just like those on the left try to govern on the left. I mean why else would they run? And, other than GWoT, I'm a bit mystified as to how this present crew has taken the "whole thing" to the right. I mean how many times must we say "Medicare part D" and "No Child Left Behind" to make the point?

And how useful is that sort of rhetoric anyway? Does Gore think it appeals to the middle or wins him any friends there?

While he won't rule out a run for the presidency, he does take the opportunity to throw a little extremism of his own out there for public consumption:
Mr Gore, who appeared at the Guardian Hay literary festival over the bank holiday weekend, is promoting An Inconvenient Truth, a documentary and book detailing the climate change crisis that he warns "could literally end civilisation".
So could a large meteor strike, but what's the likelyhood?
In the interview Mr Gore also distances himself from Tony Blair on the subject of nuclear power, which the prime minister has insisted is "back on the agenda with a vengeance". Mr Gore says he is "sceptical about it playing a much larger role," and that although it might have a part to play in Britain or China, it will not be "a silver bullet" in the fight against global warming.
Nope, instead Gore will simply complain about "greenhouse gasses" while continuing to fight against the one form of energy which emits no greenhouse gasses.

Between he, Kerry and Clinton, the '08 Democratic primaries are going to be a blast.

UPDATE: Speaking of nuclear power, this blurb about a planned Greenpeace protest of a Bush visit concerning nukes is priceless. Fill-in-the-blank "alarmist" rhetoric and a big "oops":
Before President Bush touched down in Pennsylvania Wednesday to promote his nuclear energy policy, the environmental group Greenpeace was mobilizing.

"This volatile and dangerous source of energy" is no answer to the country's energy needs, shouted a Greenpeace fact sheet decrying the "threat" posed by the Limerick reactors Bush visited.

But a factoid or two later, the Greenpeace authors were stumped while searching for the ideal menacing metaphor.

We present it here exactly as it was written, capital letters and all: "In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]."

Had Greenpeace been hacked by a nuke-loving Bush fan? Or was this proof of Greenpeace fear-mongering?

The aghast Greenpeace spokesman who issued the memo, Steve Smith, said a colleague was making a joke by inserting the language in a draft that was then mistakenly released.

"Given the seriousness of the issue at hand, I don't even think it's funny," Smith said.

The final version did not mention Armageddon. It just warned of plane crashes and reactor meltdowns.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
It’s liberals like Al Gore that make me glad I became a conservative.

He can blame trying to not count absentee ballots from me and others Soldiers in Germany for that.

I find these constant personal attacks many keep spitting at Bush cheap and not helping them for election 2008 ... but if they stop they might really hurt the country and get us someone like Hillary in office.

 
Written By: RickyB
URL: http://
The Price-Anderson Act is a federal bailout for the nuclear industry. If the industry wants to build plants and accepts finantial responsibility for getting rid of the waste, and cleaning up the sites in 50 years when the plants are obsolete, then fine, let the private sector build them.

What is wrong is for the US government to accept all the liabilty. If free markets are to rule lets get rid of all of our energy subsidies and let the market rule. Lets just be sure that all the costs are counted during the production of energy. That includes the costs of wastes, security and insurance.

 
Written By: cindy bravo
URL: http://
P-A is about insurance and limited liability.

I have no problem having the Nuke industry doing all of what you’d like to see. I’d also say they they should then be allowed to charge what they want to for the power. I.e. no regulation of the price of their energy.

Fair enough?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
cindy b, fine, if the protesters quit running up the bill for building a nuke plant by fighting it every step of the way. Last I recall, about 1/4 to 1/3 of the cost of building a nuke was legal fees spent fending off idiots like you.

As for nuclear waste, I have a foolproof plan for taking care of that. (Well, it’s foolproof in the sense that the fools pay for their own foolishness.)

First, separate ’nuclear’ or radioactive waste derived from things like taking X-rays from the hot waste from nuke plants. Then, mix the hot waste at a ratio of 100-1 in a heavy glass. Let cool.

Cut the radioactive waste/glass into blocks 12 feet on a side. Load and ship to an isolated desert or wasteland. Pile up blocks.

Put signs at appropriate distances: WARNING!! Hazardous nuclear waste ahead. Stay away. at, say 1000 yards.

Followed by: Hey! Stupid!! The dangerous nuclear waste is just ahead and if you get much closer you’ll get sick or die. Maybe at 500 yards.

Then: HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO TELL YOU? At this point you’re already heavily dosed and should seek medical attention. If you can crawl out, maybe we’ll get you some. If not, too bad. At an appropriate distance.

Then SO LONG SUCKER!! You’re dead. We sincerely hope you didn’t have any kids that you might have passed the stupidity gene to.

The glass would make it all but impossible to get any useful radioactives out (for, say a dirty bomb) even if you used really good hazard suits and a big, big truck and lead containment vessel. We could look out for those.

Anyway, no problem with storing waste.
 
Written By: JorgXMcKie
URL: http://
Al Gore has made his sharpest attack yet on the George Bush presidency, describing the current US administration as "a renegade band of rightwing extremists".
I wouldn’t call that a "sharp" attack. "Blunt" is more like it.
 
Written By: equitus
URL: http://
"Blunt" is more like it.
Perhaps Gore should sit down with a "blunt" to calm his nerves...
 
Written By: b-psycho
URL: http://www.psychopolitik.com
If the industry wants to build plants and accepts finantial responsibility for getting rid of the waste, and cleaning up the sites in 50 years when the plants are obsolete, then fine, let the private sector build them.
That would be the current model. Glad you like it.
Lets just be sure that all the costs are counted during the production of energy. That includes the costs of wastes, security and insurance.
And how about some looser pays tort reform? The large cost the government is willing to soak up is the delays caused by the "No energy" crowd.
 
Written By: Ryan
URL: http://
I have heard Gore holds up China as having better emission standards than the United States. This is a joke.

China is an environmental disaster and it is not because of its laws. It is because of the lack of enforcement of the laws. China’s care emission laws may be better than the United States’, but that is basically irrelevant because there are a huge number of cars there whose emissions would probably not meet anyone’s standards.
 
Written By: China Law Blog
URL: http://www.chinalawblog.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider