Gore is probably right.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

No. Not about global warming.

But I am afraid he could be right about George Bush caving in to pressure from the more gullible and more opportunistic members of his party who want to pass emissions regulations.

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore predicted on Tuesday that President George W. Bush would shift to do more to fight global warming, under Republican pressure from California to New York.

"I think there is a better than 50-50 chance that President Bush will change his policy in the next two years," Gore told an audience in Oslo after showing his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" about global warming during a tour of Europe.

"Many of his strongest supporters are changing their positions and are becoming vocal in asking him to change," Gore told about 300 people including Norway's Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and Environment Minister Helen Bjoernoy.
Gore later reminds of remarks by Bush about breaking our "addiction" to oil and of his recent moves to promote alternative (read: uneconomical) energy sources. And he then also brings up the following inconvenient truths.
Gore praised California for passing the first bill in the United States to cap emissions after a deal between Republicans and Democrats last week. The bill aims to cut carbon dioxide emissions by about 25 percent, back to 1990 levels by 2020.

He also said many right-wing Christian religious leaders, major business leaders and mayors of cities from Seattle to New York were seeking cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide in a break with the Bush administration. [links added]
Way back in 2000, I abstained from voting for President because I figured this issue would come up, and Bush would not stand up to the environmentalists effectively.

He has two years to prove me wrong. Unfortunately, I think we're going to find out that Bush "opposed Kyoto before he supported it" as he finishes morphing into an amalgam of Gore and Kerry.

-- CAV


Michael Neibel said...

I agree entirely. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 either, mainly because I wanted no part of his "compassionate conservatism." I voted for him in 04 because I wanted him to finish the job in Fallujah and then tackle Iran. Well he did Fallujah but has done nothing with Iran. What a disappointment. In all other matters I have no confidence in him.

Gus Van Horn said...


Well, what can I say? Great minds think alike!

We voted exactly the same way (at least) twice in a row -- and for the same reason on the second vote.

And we have about the same level of "voter's remorse"!

FWIW, I abstained in Clinton-Dole and cast a protest vote for Perot before that. Bush I was my first election and oddly enough, I do not clearly remember whether I voted in that one! I'm thinking I voted for Bush as a continuation of Reagan. I was quite dissatisfied with him, especially after Iraq.