Oil drilling prompts Al Gore's first public split on climate with President Obama

[joeybee12]

President Barack Obama’s decision to allow expanded offshore oil drilling prompted the first public criticism of his administration from Al Gore’s environmental advocacy group, the Alliance for Climate Protection.

The organization, which the former vice president founded and chairs, put out a statement last week opposing the new policy.


The statement is significant because it marks Gore’s first break with Obama on his signature policy issue, nearly two years after Gore’s enthusiastic endorsement gave the Illinois senator a jolt of momentum following the divisive Democratic presidential primary.

Gore and the Alliance have appeared to avoid direct criticism of the president in the past when they’ve had disagreements, and have often cheered on the administration.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/91201-oil-drilling-prompt-al-gores-first-split-with-president-obama

__________________________________

Stupid Al Gore! He didn't go to Harvard so he obviously doesn't understand the "nuances" of Obama's brilliant proposal...oh, wait...

[Captain Hilts]

1. That's probably just what the Prez wants to "court the middle." nt

[karynnj]

5. It's because the President wants to pass something

I think the job Gore did on educating the country is fantastic and deserved the Nobel Prize he got. However, Gore ignored the Byrd/Hagel amendment that passed the Senate near unanimously and did not represent the concerns that countries like China and India were excluded and that there was no mechanism to keep out of compliance companies from hurting the US's economy. This meant that they never submitted the treaty to the Senate for ratification. (Many environmentalists and Gore speak of the Senate rejecting it, but it was never sent to the Senate. Why? Because it met neither of the two main concerns that were expressed in teh Byrd/Hagel resolution. As that was 4 months befor Kyoto was finished, Gore knew it was going nowhere.

Now, this is not the climate treaty, but it is the same thing. Kerry/Lieberman/Graham or any other Senators will need 60 votes to pass the bill. There is no possibility of using reconciliation. Now language was put in the budget to enable that - and there was the Johanns amendment (passed with many Democrats' votes) that specifically prohibited that. There is not a chance in the world that the Republicans will not filibuster. My only concern is whether the President's plan is contingent on a comprehensive bill or not. If not, it's a give away and it both hurts the environment and takes away something negotiable from people trying to put together a bill.

Gore was a Senator. He knows how this works. It is clear we need to move to constraining carbon and to do that we need to get a bill through the Senate. (Before we knock Obama for trying to make deals, we need to pressure the Democrats in coal states to realize that coal is unlikely to be made clean enough to use. )

[amborin]

7. "pass something" meaning, pass anything and call it a "win"

[karynnj]

9. No, something that can be built on that makes a first step

I wish I could believe that a strong, good bill could pass, but Kerry/Boxer which was a serious attempt to have a bill that could pass, but still made a big step forward didn't not have close to the needed 60 votes.

Tell me how you get 60 votes when DU favorites like Feingold and Franken and 12 other Democrats are more concerned about the economic future of coal -because moving from that will hurt their states' economy, which is a valid concern.

This is a far harder lift than healthcare, which all Democrats were at least in favor of, and you saw how tough that was.

[amborin]

12. yeah, those back room deals to kill the PO made it tough for progressives

[joeybee12]

15. No, no, no...the insurance companies are the problem...

...so how can they be the solution? This bill cannot be "strengthened".

[karynnj]

18. What are you talking about? The "insurance companies"??

I assume you are speaking of the healthcare bill. This is the environmental bill.

As to whether the bill could be strengthened, it is entirely possible if the insurance companies don't work to constrain costs on their own (highly likely), I can easily see a move to either allow states to create a state (or region with a group of states) public option or to create a nation wide one. The first of those "tests" how much good a public option can do. (The right still see what we passed as a first step to single payer.)

[joeybee12]

19. I thought you were talking about healthcare...sorry...

...howvere, I still disgaree that this is some great chess move by Obama...he needs to make the case for conservation, the only serious way to lower gas costs...he has the bull pulpit, use it instead of all this so-called triangulation.

[karynnj]

26. I agree that Obama could be doing more to push the variaous pieces

that should be done on this. In the transportation sector, he did change the CAFE standards though that is years in the future. He also put a lot of money to high speed rail, which if it were to replace short plane flights or long car trips, would help on conservation. I think they also were working to push more efficient appliances and weatherproofing for buildings. The stimulus also had significant money for green energy, like wind and solar. He really could put all of that (and likely many things I never read about) into a great speech.

I assume that he might move to do that in the future. If you look at it, Obama made a huge push to help the stimulus and then the budget. He also did make a huge push giving many speeches on healthcare over the last 3 months. He also has given some good foreign policy speeches when Afghanistan or Iraq were in the policy flux. Given the manufactured "controversy" on the NEW START, I would bet he will give another speech on that - pointing out that this was in keeping with St Ronnie's program.

Please do not take this as me saying Obama is playing chess. I am not. I also am confused on whether or not he got clear agreements on votes for this drilling concession - or whether it is actually contingent on the bill passing (as it would be part of it). This is saying that in addition to the nuclear concession and this, there are things (mentioned in the first paragraph) he has done on conservation and green energy - and it would be great if he spoke again on this - maybe on earth day, which is coming up.

A bigger concession than any of these would be if they prevent states from going beyond the federal government in controlling emissions. (Kerry has for years pointed out that nearly half of the country are in areas where their state/local government has done important things on this. I hope that unless the federal controls are stronger (which I doubt) they do not do this.)

[Arkana]

11. I'm still wondering where the 60 votes in the Senate for single-payer come from.

[karynnj]

13. Same here - Bernie Sanders was quoted as there being under 10 who would vote for it

Kerry didn't use numbers but said it didn't have the votes and that they couldn't get them. But, people here suggest it could have been done.

[sabrina 1]

38. Wrong, Bernie Sanders in Feb, was quoted as saying

'we have the votes' to pass a PO by reconciliation. And in that same quote, he wondered aloud why the President had not included it in the bill. Please stop making things up to defend that travesty of a corporate giveaway people are pretending is health care reform. I can link to Sanders statements.

Howard Dean also said 'we have the votes, today, to get a PO'. That was in September. He was more optimistic about Obama's getting on board, as he said he was just waiting for the president.

This president sold out to the Private Insurance and anyone with eyes and ears know that he not only said that the 'PO was not important' and did not fight for it, he fought against it. It's done, but it has left a very poor taste in the mouths of many who voted for him.

[joeybee12]

17. Since they did reconcilliation, they would have only needed 50...

but then Obama squelched even that.

[karynnj]

22. The problem was the House had a razor thin majority

Pelosi had gotten them to vote for it once, but there were about 4 who voted for the bill who had left and Cao, a Republican said he would not vote yes again. From Pelosi's comments, she was not adding the public option, unless she could be assured it would pass the Senate. In the Senate, it was not just getting 50, it was getting it past the Byrd provision and it was not clear that would happen. Durbin, on his side, said that if it were in the House bill they would whip for it.

It really looks like all of them - Reid, Obama, Pelosi, Durbin etc were all holding their breath on getting those two House votes and even to a much lower degree when the Senate was trying to pass the reconciliation bill.

[laughingliberal]

39. The Public Option would have been one of the easiest things to do under

the Byrd rule. Direct budgetary impact? No doubt about it. And the House would have passed it again. We know why we didn't get it and we know whose needs they were serving.

[karynnj]

46. There were people who disagreed on that including many experts

Direct budgetary impact was not the only requirement.

[Ignis]

30. How about from Democrats who've read the 2008 party platform?

Covering All Americans and Providing Real Choices of Affordable Health Insurance Options.

Families and individuals should have the option of keeping the coverage they have or choosing from a wide array of health insurance plans, including many private health insurance options and a public plan. Coverage should be made affordable for all Americans with subsidies provided through tax credits and other means.

-- http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

If you run as a Democrat, I expect you to support the Democratic Party platform, or don't count on my GOTV/donation/vote again.

[laughingliberal]

40. Thank you! Why do we even show up to produce a platform anymore? nt

[Ignis]

43. Window dressing, apparently.

:shrug:

[laughingliberal]

37. I'm still wondering why we couldn't have a PO once we ditched the need for 60 votes for it

Actually, I'm not wondering. I think we know exactly why we couldn't have it. And it wasn't for lack of votes in the Senate once we went reconciliation.

[sabrina 1]

31. 'Gore was a Senator'. Yes, he was, for far longer than

Obama. And yes, he does know how things work. Which is why he has the credibility to judge what this president is doing. When you want something you fight for it. Obama did not want a PO in the HIR and he fought to keep it out.

Obama has been one of the biggest disappointments since I started to pay attention to politics. Even more disappointing are those who will attempt to excuse every outrageous shift to the right he makes when it would demonstrate far more respect for him, if they were to do what he claimed he wanted us to do in the campaign, hold him accountable.

[laughingliberal]

41. +1000 nt

[joeybee12]

2. Woo-hoo! This is being un-recc'ed!

Yeah, take that Al Gore...what do you think you know anyway?????

[karynnj]

6. Why did Clinton/Gore not send the Kyoto treaty that Gore helped

negotiate to the Senate?

Gore is a very good guy, but he has often since he was out of government recommended things that have no chance of passing. As President, if Obama wants to do anything on this issue, he needs to find a way to get to 60 votes. He and the people who do it will likely be attacked here - even though - if their bill has a good measure to put a price on carbon - they will be the ones most responsible for taking the first step to lower carbon.

[Ignis]

34. Probably because of the first name in that pair.

You're blaming Gore for not being able to push his environmental initiatives through Clinton's administration?

Oh, please.

[karynnj]

47. No, I'm not

I DO think Gore, if he were President would have done more on the environment. The point though was that the treaty that Gore helped negotiate did not attempt to do anything to meet the already identified Senate issues.

Now, had Gore become President, it is possible that the type of negotiations that were had at Bali would have let him move faster and to have gotten a treaty at Copenhagen (as we would have started 8 years earlier in a better economic situation - and at home, using some of the money we then had to upgrade the smart grid and initiate the clean energy initiatives that Obama did last year and possibly passing a comprehensive treaty. (that might have been harder because without Bush, I doubt we would have ever gotten to 60 Senators)

[madrchsod]

3. the reality is there won`t be a drop of oil pumped for years

there`s not enough platforms and crews to do any drilling for years. it would be cheaper and faster to conserve the amount of oil that is in the sea than to drill.

it`s good politics to get the drill guys off his back while he raised the mpg standards by another 10 mpg. that`s a nice chess move.

[joeybee12]

4. Yeah, so was that great chess move to get actual reform in health care,

get DADT gone...and so on.

[conspirator]

8. Gore should have run. Now he has to shut his mouth nt

[demmiblue]

10. Why does he have to shut his mouth?

:shrug:

[karynnj]

14. Gore absolutely has the right to speak out and he is not hurting the President here

Allies of the President will speak out and should speak out when they disagree. Their objections add to the discussion. The fact is that Gore has lead on climate change, especially since he left office. Silence from him would be very strange. An open discussion on the tradeoffs to get votes is important. This is still the period when those tradeoffs are being made.

President Obama really does not have a track record on climate change or even the environment - none of the 2008 candidates really did - unlike Gore and Kerry. However, a President Gore or a President Kerry would be faced with the same problem of getting 60 votes in the Senate - and 67 to ratify any treaty.

This also is not the first time that Gore has respectfully expressed concern - both Gore and Kerry were not happy that creating the smart grid, which they have said is key, wasn't given the support from the administration it needed. (Here is a thread I started that includes both Kerry's and Gore's comments - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=195268 ) Here both Kerry and Gore spoke out - yet it is hard to find two closer allies, outside the administration, on this issue. Both felt strongly enough to speak - and on this it (or other things) likely has increased the administration's backing.

[joeybee12]

16. By that logic, DU needs to shut down!

I guess that's about tops, 10 people who ran in 2008. Everyone else needs to shut up.

[mehdi kiril]

24. Should Gore shut up when he agrees with Obama, too?

Or should he only shut up when he disagrees?

[Ignis]

Oh, everyone's welcome to join in on the chorus.

But heaven help anyone stupid enough to disagree.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[laughingliberal]

42. AFAIK, it is still the right of every citizen here to not shut their mouth

Or have we further decimated the rights of individuals while I wasn't looking?

[Forkboy]

45. That's pretty fucking dumb.

[LWolf]

20. k&r

[protocol rv]

21. President Obama makes sense to me

I don't see why you would be afraid of some drilling offshore the US coast. It's not as damaging to the environment as oil tankers are. So what's the fuzz? You prefer to see oil tankers bringing oil back and forth? Plus this gives employment to US workers. Opponents are irrational, or lack the facts.

[Ignis]

32. "Opponents are irrational, or lack the facts. "

Try reading the DU rules again.

[Uncle Joe]

23. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, joeybee.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

25. Thank you, Al Gore!

:loveya:

[Greyhound]

27. Well that's it then. Gore has turned to "The Dark Side", and must be shunned.

:rofl:

[kenny blankenship]

35. He's no different than a Freeper!

[ecstatic]

28. I'll save my outrage for when drilling actually begins

I don't think it ever will. It was just a faux wedge issue.

[sabrina 1]

29. Omg, is there still room under the bus?

[Ignis]

33. The bus is going to need monster-truck wheels soon.

[CBR]

36. I really like Al Gore. Remember when we were told that he was "no different"

from Bush... :crazy:

[Ignis]

44. We're going to need a new version of Godwin's Law for Nader.

"Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican George Bush."

-San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000

[CBR]

50. The law probably would require that a post mentions him. nt

[Ignis]

51. Pull the other one. To whom were you referring, then?

[jimlup]

48. I agree with Bill Maher on this one.

The offshore drilling is an unfortunate compromise that should have been given as a final negotiating point rather than a welcome to the meeting gift to the reptilians.

[Ignis]

49. Haggling 101: Do not start with your highest bid.

But what would I know? I'm not a Chessmaster.