Well for that poor excuse for logic to work, you’d have to prove that a Gore administration would be better for the environment would be better than a Bush one.
I have serious reservations about that reasoning. First, the environmental groups. If gore pushes through anti-environmental legislation they will roll over and take it up the ass. This has been proven under Clinton. If Bush tries, they will most likely try and stop him.
Someone brought up James Watt, a millenialist. If you’re going to bring up past Republican presidents, how about another one, Nixon. Let’s see what did he do that destroyed the environment? Oh yes, the EPA, the ESA, the clean air and water bills, among many others.
Clinton has done more damage to the ESA than Bush or Reagan ever did. Evidence? here. And Gore hasn’t spoken out against this. One can only assume he supports it. And they also both support NAFTA, sigh.
and let’s see what hte man, Nader, himself has to say?
MR. RUSSERT: What don’t you like about Al Gore?
MR. NADER: Well, let’s start with his wonderful book in 1992 on. He’s broken more of his priorities in eight years than probably any other current politician. He and Clinton have given the auto companies eight years holiday, no fuel efficiency standards, losing eight critical lead-time years. They’ve turned the auto safety agency into a consulting firm for Detroit. And one area after another, whether it’s the forests, whether it’s land erosion, whether it’s not protecting small farmers and ranchers, whether it’s pesticides, whether it’s genetic engineering, you name it, they have fallen down on the job. And Al Gore will go anywhere in the country to raise big money from Silicon Valley types and others, but he won’t go down the street in Washington, despite repeated invitations, and meet with a thousand citizen leaders, in a downtown hotel, representing millions of members around the country. That’s the kind of priority he is exerting and reflecting.
MR. RUSSERT: As you campaign around the country, reading the clips, you’ve called Al Gore a chronic political coward and the ultimate panderer. Do you really believe that?
MR. NADER: Yeah. Oh, yes. I – not only do I believe that, I mean, we have people coming up to airports, saying, “Do you hear the latest Al Gore? That’s the last straw for us.” I mean, he has pandered to big business. He has pandered to the types of lobbies in Washington that are taking over the city. I mean, when have you seen Al Gore stand up and challenge the international autocratic system of governors which downgrades environmental, consumer and workplace standards called the WTO or NAFTA? I mean, that goes right at the core of his environmental philosophy. And he abandoned it. He hasn’t challenged the fossil fuel industry and nuclear industry, though he’s been quite critical of it. And he
hasn’t come out for solar energy policies all over the country. That’s supposed to be one of the greatest environmental forays for our country and extending it across the world. He’s been very silent on that. He’s never made a single speech on consumer policy affecting the pocketbooks of the American people and their health and safety, all the rampant corporate crime, fraud and abuse that you see reported in The Wall Street Journal or on “60 Minutes” or in the Post or in the Times. He’s not even reading the papers, Tim.
MR. RUSSERT: Would he not be better on those issues than George W. Bush?
MR. NADER: On corporate power issues, apart from the rhetoric, no. A careful reading of the federal regulatory agencies, like the approval of pharmaceuticals, the food regulation, the auto safety, aviation, the regulatory agencies under Clinton/Gore are as bad or worse than under Reagan/Bush. Dr. Sidney Wolfe has said that the OSHA performance is even worse under Clinton/Gore than Reagan/Bush. I mean, that’s why we call the president George Ronald Clinton.
–from Nikita Chrystephan, email@example.com