Serious Considerations for Gore supporters.

[oldscratch]

From an excellent book, AlGore: A User’s Manual by Alexander Cockburn, and Jefferey St. Clair.

The grim veeper
Excerpts from Al Gore: A User’s Manual.

By Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair

IN THEIR SCATHING review of Al Gore, Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair Ð publishers of the twice-monthly muckraking newsletter CounterPunch Ð provide a compelling guide to the vice president’s history of conservatism and deceit. Below are excerpts from the book, which spans Gore’s steady rise from a silver-spoon childhood as son of a powerful pro-New Deal senator to prominence as a conservative New Democrat.

Midgetman

Looking back through the 1980s, one finds that on every issue, whether it was supporting the contras (of which more later), shilling for the Pentagon’s latest weapon systems, backing the Reagan-Bush position on NATO deployments in Europe, Gore’s hawkishness was unflagging…

In his first Senate term Gore supported both the B-1 and B-2 bombers, and the development of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers which were opposed by most Democrats. He backed the 1986 bombing of Libya, although he said it probably wouldn’t be enough to stop the Libyans’ export of terrorism. In that same year Gore voted against an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would have prohibited the production of nerve gas. He argued that such a ban would create a nerve gas gap, encouraging the Soviet Union to step up its own gas production. He then voted to fund the development of a new nerve gas missile called Big Eye. He justified that vote by saying that the new technology would actually result in a safer bomb than the old material in the arsenal. Gore held one of the decisive votes here, bringing the tally to 49-49. Vice President Bush cast the tie-breaker, then shame-facedly asked Reagan to call his mother, Dorothy, in Hobe Sound to explain why her son had felt it necessary to vote in favor of this terrifying weapon.

At the start of his second Senate term, in 1991, Gore voted for the Pentagon on three hotly contested measures to cut back on various outrageous military boondoggles. The first was a budget amendment offered by Senator Paul Simon of Illinois to cut military spending by 2 percent in the fiscal 1992. Next, Gore denounced as imprudent a measure offered by Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa to transfer $3.1 billion from the military budget to Head Start and other domestic programs. Finally, he voted against a resolution put up by Senator Bill Bradley calling for the Pentagon to develop a plan on how it would achieve an $80 billion reduction in the military budget over the next five years.

It should be recalled that these were the years in which the Soviet threat had imploded; in which, for the first time since 1945, political grandstanding on the Communist threat no longer was fungible currency. Many Democrats were talking about a peace dividend. Not Gore. Never for a moment did he abandon servility to Pentagon programs, earning his campaign treasury handsome subventions from arms manufactures such as Lockheed. Nor did it lessen his zeal to detect new threats to the national security of either the United States or Israel, whose interests he has always regarded as identical…

Gore was also one of the few Democrats to favor the reflagging of Kuwaiti oil tankers, making them US registered so that any threat against them by Iran would be taken as a gauntlet thrown at the feet of Uncle Sam. Reflagging also led to deployment of US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf, eventually becoming the largest naval armada since World War II…

The green game

The first environmental promise Al Gore made in the 1992 campaign, he soon shattered. It involved the WTI hazardous waste incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio, built on a floodplain near the Ohio River. The plant, one of the largest of its kind in the world, was scheduled to burn 70,000 tons of hazardous waste a year in a spot only 350 feet from the nearest house. A few hundred yards away is East Elementary School, which sits on a ridge nearly eye-level with the top of the smokestack.

On July 19, 1992, Gore gave one of his first campaign speeches on the environment, across the river from the incinerator, in Weirton, West Virginia, hammering the Bush Administration for its plans to give the toxic waste burner a federal air permit. “The very idea is just unbelievable to me,” Gore said. “I’ll tell you this, a Clinton-Gore Administration is going to give you an environmental presidency to deal with these problems. We’ll be on your side for a change.” …

Shortly after the election, Gore assured the neighbors of the incinerator that he hadn’t forgotten about them. “Serious questions concerning the safety of the East Liverpool, Ohio, hazardous waste incinerator must be answered before the plant may begin operation,” Gore wrote. “The new Clinton/Gore administration will not issue the plant a test burn permit until all questions concerning compliance with the plant have been answered.”

But that never happened. Instead, the EPA quietly granted the WTI facility its test burn permit. The tests failed, twice. In one trial burn, the incinerator eradicated only 7 percent of the mercury found in the waste, when it was supposed to burn away 99.9 percent. A few weeks later the EPA granted WTI a commercial permit anyway. They didn’t tell the public about the failed tests until afterward.

Gore claimed his hands were tied by the Bush Administration, which had promised WTI the permit only a few weeks before the Clinton team took office. But by one account, William Reilly, Bush’s EPA director, met with Gore’s top environmental aide Katie McGinty in January 1993 and asked her if he should begin the process of approving the permit. In this version of events apparently McGinty told Reilly to proceed. McGinty said later that she had no recollection of the meeting.

Gore persisted in maintaining that there was nothing he could do about it once the permit was granted. A 1994 report on the matter from the General Accounting Office flatly contradicted him, saying the plant could be shut down on numerous grounds, including repeated violations of its permit…

The decision to go soft on WTI may have had something to do with its powerful financial backer. The construction of the incinerator was partially underwritten by Jackson Stephens, the Arkansas investment king who helped bankroll the Clinton-Gore campaign. According to EPA whistleblower Hugh Kaufman, during the period when the WTI financing package was being put together Stephens Inc. was represented by Webb Hubbell, who later came into Clinton’s Justice Department and was indicted during the Whitewater investigation, and the Rose law firm, to which Hillary Clinton belonged. Over the ensuing seven years, the WTI plant has burned nearly a half-million tons of toxic waste, 5,000 truckloads of toxic material every year, spewing chemicals such as mercury, lead and dioxin out of its stacks and onto the surrounding neighborhoods. The inevitable illnesses have followed…

In a 1995 speech to REGO leaders, Gore instructed the teams to find ways to turn over government functions to “the vigor of the competitive private marketplace to produce better services, higher quality products, and greater efficiency than public or private monopolies.” Through REGO, Gore also promoted a theme that would become a hallmark of the administration, allowing corporations to comply voluntarily with federal laws and regulations. “Reinventing government,” Gore said, “is about giving businesses new opportunities to become trusted partners in enforcing laws.” He then pointed to opportunities to lessen the burden on industry in areas such as “worker safety, environmental protection and the whole range of regulatory functions.”…

Gore poked fun at government rules for food inspectors on how to determine the freshness of fish through a smell test. “Of course, government must be involved in food safety,” Gore declared. “But is there a way we could rely on market incentives and people’s common sense instead of government interference? Can’t we get the government’s nose out of this business?” …

… So where did all the new REGO money go? To health care? The environment? Investments in civilian infrastructure? No. As Leon Panetta, then head of the Office of Management and Budget, told an astonished White House press corps, most of the money, some $30 billion worth, was going to fund the Clinton-Gore 1995 crime package. “We would commit $10 billion for savings and the ability to reduce the deficit,” Panetta said. “The amount above that would go to fund the crime bill… We’re not looking at entitlement spending on the crime side. But discretionary spending: money for cops, money for prisons, money for law enforcement generally.”

And you want to elect this guy because he’ll be better for the environment than Bush? To quote David Bower “The Clinton-Gore administration has done more damge to the environment and the environmental movement than the Bush and Regan administrations combined”

oh yeah, Vote Nader

[tracer]

The rather lengthy quote in the OP is full of instances where Gore voted pro-warhawk or anti-environmentalist. But I can’t believe there weren’t other bills on which Gore voted anti-warhawk or pro-environmentalist.

The question is, did he vote pro-warhawk more often, or on more substantial bills, than he voted ant-warhawk? And did he vote anti-environmentalist more often, or on more substantial bills, than he voted pro-environmentalist?

[Rasa]

Well, none of this surprises me, coming from the man that said here “I guess you always hurt the ones you love” when asked about why he’s backed away from progressive causes…

[oldscratch]

*Originally posted by tracer *
**The rather lengthy quote in the OP is full of instances where Gore voted pro-warhawk or anti-environmentalist. But I can’t believe there weren’t other bills on which Gore voted anti-warhawk or pro-environmentalist.

**

There were. however…

**
The question is, did he vote pro-warhawk more often, or on more substantial bills, than he voted ant*-warhawk?
**

Pro-hawk much much more. Renowned for it. This is the man who brags about how he’ll spend more on the millitary than GWBushyBush. You also have to look at the stances he took as a VP, where he didn’t vote that much, but played a pivotal role in many policy decisions. Not the least of which was welfare destruction.

**
And did he vote anti-environmentalist more often, or on more substantial bills, than he voted
pro-environmentalist? **

As a senator and congressman his environmental voting record was 66%. One of the worst of the dems and worse than a few Republicans. Once he got into VPdom it got even worse.

First we have NAFTA. Don’t even need to bring up details on that one.
You know the spotted owl? Yeah that one. The one a Reagan apointee under the Bush administration put a moratorium on logging for. Well Clinton/Gore got the moratorium lifted. 35% of the remaining owl habitat was put in logging zones. the remaining 65%? Also open for logging. The Clinton/Gore plan is driving the owl to extinction much faster than the Bush plan before the moratorium. The owl has been declining at a rate of 8% per year since the plan went into effect. In CA, 10%, in rhw Olympic peninsula, 12.3% At this rate they will be extinct by 2005. In all the species has declined more in 5 years than a worst-case environmetal study said would happen under Bush in 40.

1995 saw the signign of the salvage logging rider which was signed by Clinton. It’s been called “the worst single piece of public lands legislation ever signed into law”. Gore later called it the administrations biggest mistake on the environment. Yet he supported it at the time, and has no plans to get rid of it.

Gore pushed through a bill that repealed the ban on the import of tuna caught in nets that also kill dolphins.

Gore pushed for a globalfree trade agreement on timber with no conservation measures.

Fought and killed the Biosafety Convention

In 92 promised to keep offshore oil and gas drilling away from Florida coastline. Then he broke that promise in the face of opposition of FL Dems and Republicans.

(this one’s for pldennison) Want’s chemical manufatures to test nearly 2,800 chemicals using HPV tests. That’s where you steadily feed animals higher and higher doses of chemicals till they die. This would kill an estimated 800,000 birds, fish, mice, and other animals. It would cost at least $14.

In 96 directly ordered the EPA to slow down it’s implementation of tougher pesticide standards.

The list goes on and on.

Gore remarked “The invisible hand has a green thumb”. How is this different from Bush’s statements on industry self-regulating itself.

And let’s not even get into the support of the drug war from someone who smoked a hell of a lot of thai sticks and enjoyed tripping and watching country music awards.

[jshore]

My sympathies are with you in many ways, oldscratch and I will likely be voting for Nader tomorrow here in the “safe” state of New York. But, I have to say that if those living in swing states think that their vote in the Bush–Gore contest won’t make a difference on the environment, they are really deceiving themselves.

Has Gore been too willing to sacrifice away his principles on the environment? Absolutely! But, for God’s sake, George Bush and Dick Cheney don’t even have any principles except that the only good environmental regs are those written by polluters, for polluters.

If George W. is elected and the Republicans retain control of Congress, I can almost guarantee he will sign into law some very bad bills on the environment that Gore would have vetoed. And, I will be more than happy to point them out to you when it happens. And I can guarantee that (even without a Republican Congress) you won’t be seeing some of the executive branch actions on the environment that we have seen recently…like requiring SUVs and light trucks to satisfy stricter air pollution controls and cutting down on the amounts of particulates in exhaust.

If you want another environmental view of what is at stake, see the letter from Carl Pope, President of the Sierra Club, to Ralph Nader: http://lists.sierraclub.org/SCRIPTS/WA.EXE?A2=ind0010&L=ce-scnews-releases&D=1&T=0&H=1&O=D&P=1649

I really do have sympathy for Nader and what he wants to do, but I really think you have to be unable to see the forest-through-the-trees to argue that a Bush/Cheney administration is unlikely to be any worse for the environment than a Gore/Lieberman one!!!

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by oldscratch *
(this one’s for pldennison) Want’s chemical manufatures to test nearly 2,800 chemicals using HPV tests. That’s where you steadily feed animals higher and higher doses of chemicals till they die. This would kill an estimated 800,000 birds, fish, mice, and other animals. It would cost at least $14.

Huh?

[oldscratch]

million, the Ryan. 14 million. Sorry.

[oldscratch]

Nader never made a pledge to not campaign in toss up states. His words were, why would I do that? I’m running for president.

*Originally posted by jshore *
** But, I have to say that if those living in swing states think that their vote in the Bush–Gore contest won’t make a difference on the environment, they are really deceiving themselves.

**

You are right. The same could be said of when Clinton ran against Bush. Obviously, clinton has been worse for the environment. Spotted owl anyone? I repeat, moratorium under Bush, extinction under Clinton.

Also, Al gore was the first polition to fight for and win exemptions to the EPA. After that it was increasingly easy. He is the man who gutted it. He is one of the most anti-environmental politicians in America. Why? because he can actually do something about it. The raving right-wing looneys can never get their plans passed. Gore can count on the support of environmentalists.

One of the former “Nader Raiders” also asking Ralph to step out is Toby Moffet. You know what his job was until recently? A lobyist for Monsanto

**
Has Gore been too willing to sacrifice away his principles on the environment? Absolutely! But, for God’s sake, George Bush and Dick Cheney don’t even have any principles except that the only good environmental regs are those written by polluters, for polluters.

**

Same goes for gore. Promises not to allow offshore drilling in Floridia. Does so anyway. Promises not to allow drilling in Alaska? Anyone want to take a guess what he’ll do? Hurt the one’s he loves maybe? At least people would stand up to Bush if he tried it.

**
If George W. is elected and the Republicans retain control of Congress, I can almost guarantee he will sign into law some very bad bills on the environment that Gore would have vetoed.

**

Like the "“worst single piece of public lands legislation ever signed into law”. Which Gore supported at the time and would have signed? Or maybe something gutting the EPA? Get real.

**
I really do have sympathy for Nader and what he wants to do, but I really think you have to be unable to see the forest-through-the-trees to argue that a Bush/Cheney administration is unlikely to be any worse for the environment than a Gore/Lieberman one!!! **

Actually, my argument is that it will be better. Just like the bush admin was better in real practical results than the Clinton.

[Sea_Sloth]

This is so depressing.

[jshore]

Fine, oldscratch, sometimes I think we liberals can be our own worst enemies. We will agree to disagree on this (mainly 'cause it is getting too late to do anything else). But, I reserve the right to say, “I told you so”!

BTW, why is Carl Pope so passionately supporting Gore over Bush? Has he sold out too?

Signed,
One Nader Voter Who Still Thinks There’s Some Real Differences Between Gore and Bush [and not that Bush is better]!

[jshore]

*Originally posted by Sea Sloth *
**This is so depressing. **

Boy, Sea Sloth, I am with you there!

[Danielinthewolvesden]

*Originally posted by oldscratch *

1995 saw the signign of the salvage logging rider which was signed by Clinton. It’s been called “the worst single piece of public lands legislation ever signed into law”. Gore later called it the administrations biggest mistake on the environment.
Gore pushed through a bill that repealed the ban on the import of tuna caught in nets that also kill dolphins.
**

The salvage logging bill was, i beleive authored by a republican- and in any case, was passed by a Republican Congress. It was a rider to other important bills that the administration wanted, which had wide bi-partizan support. Gore had nothing to do with it. Did not even get to vote on it, did not sign it, nothing. He also was not the “gunman on the grassy knoll”- if we are going to talk BS. :rolleyes:

The dolphin bill, was passed by a Republican congress, again- Gore did not vote for it, nor sign it. However, the USA was required to pass this into Law, because of treaties and International law.

Now, Gore’s environmental record is 1 hundred times better than Bushes- so why just bash Gore?

Next- how many great environmental bills has Nader introduced, voted for, or signed- not one. Nader is no more “Green” than Bush- but he is rabidly anti-large corp. Sure, sometimes he does “talk-the-talk”- but he has never “walked-the-walk”- as he has less political experience than I have.

[oldscratch]

*Originally posted by jshore *
**
BTW, why is Carl Pope so passionately supporting Gore over Bush? Has he sold out too?
**

Yep. Look at some of the plain anti-environmental legislation that he has supported and you’ll find him a weak friend of the environment. One of the reasons that David Brower tried to regain control of the Sierra Club a few years back. He supported the selling out of the Spotted Owl, supported Gore and Clinton through NAFTA, supported much other anti-envronmental legislation.

[oldscratch]

*Originally posted by jshore *
**
BTW, why is Carl Pope so passionately supporting Gore over Bush? Has he sold out too?
**

Yep. Look at some of the plain anti-environmental legislation that he has supported and you’ll find him a weak friend of the environment. One of the reasons that David Brower tried to regain control of the Sierra Club a few years back. He supported the selling out of the Spotted Owl, supported Gore and Clinton through NAFTA, supported much other anti-envronmental legislation.

[jmullaney]

Here is Nader explaing that these clowns are almost exactly alike:

for your listening pleasure

[oldscratch]

*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden *
**
The salvage logging bill was, i beleive authored by a republican- and in any case, was passed by a Republican Congress. It was a rider to other important bills that the administration wanted, which had wide bi-partizan support. Gore had nothing to do with it. Did not even get to vote on it, did not sign it, nothing. He also was not the “gunman on the grassy knoll”- if we are going to talk BS. :rolleyes:

**

Daniel, I hear the words, but the words, they don’t make sense.

Gore was part of the administration that signed this into law. He voiced support of the bill when it was signed by Clinton. He didn’t speak out against it, even though environmental groups were calling it incredibly destructive. This, the environmental VP. I call that support. He could have spoken out against it if he wanted, they could have sent it back.

**
The dolphin bill, was passed by a Republican congress, again- Gore did not vote for it, nor sign it. However, the USA was required to pass this into Law, because of treaties and International law.

**

You’re facts are off. Way off. From http://elfi.com/gwf/gwfS1420.html

"

Today, only tuna caught by methods that do not encircle dolphins with nets
is allowed to be sold in the US. But new legislation H.R. 408 by REPs. Wayne
Gilchrist(R-MD) and Don Young(R-AK) would repeal the ban on sale of
dolphin-deadly tuna, and would change the legal definition of “dolphin safe”
to allow chase, harassment encirclement, capture and killing of dolphins as
long as no dolphins were “observed” killed outright in the nets. But many
dolphins die in the mile-long nets without being observed and the new
definition invites cheating. This legislation was developed by the Mexican
gov’t. along with free trade advocates in the Clinton Administration, led by
VP AL Gore, and anti-environmental members of Congress. Don’t let dolphins
be sacrificed on the altar of free trade."

Led by Al Gore.

**
Now, Gore’s environmental record is 1 hundred times better than Bushes- so why just bash Gore?

**

Every example I’ve given has shown the Bushes to have a better record. Not only that, but the environmental groupops would actually organize against Bush. Not so with Gore. Do I need to repeat facts? Gore, first politicain to weaken EPA. Gore, supports off-shore drilling in oppositioin to Republicans. Gore, extinction of Spotted Owl. Gore, anti-dolphin. Gore= no environmentalist. Even by the shoddiest standards.

**
Next- how many great environmental bills has Nader introduced, voted for, or signed- not one. Nader is no more “Green” than Bush- but he is rabidly anti-large corp. Sure, sometimes he does “talk-the-talk”- but he has never “walked-the-walk”- as he has less political experience than I have. **

Oh really? I didn’t know that you ran for president in 96. How fascinating.