MSNBC calls Gore on his shakey environmental
October 26, 2000 3:10 PM Subscribe
MSNBC calls Gore on his shakey environmental record and comments on how environmentalist groups are only recently endorsing him as election day jitters kick in.
This post was deleted for the following reason: Poster's Request -- frimble
That's a pretty silly typo in the deck of that story:
"The vice president has come under suprising attack by environmentalists."
posted by waxpancake at 4:07 PM on October 26, 2000
"The vice president has come under suprising attack by environmentalists."
posted by waxpancake at 4:07 PM on October 26, 2000
The criticism of Gore is very, very lukewarm, outside of Nader's comments.
I thought at first we were going to read about another one of those "environmental" groups who are really a front for the pro-logging or pro-oil industries.
posted by Mo Nickels at 2:19 AM on October 27, 2000
I thought at first we were going to read about another one of those "environmental" groups who are really a front for the pro-logging or pro-oil industries.
posted by Mo Nickels at 2:19 AM on October 27, 2000
Here's my take I posted on my weblog:
It disappoints me to see so many people who feel so strongly about the environment voting for Gore when Nader matches their views much better. It's true that voting for Nader will weaken Gore's chances. Bush may even win the election because of strong Nader support in traditionally Democratic states such as Wisconsin, Oregon, and Washington.
But here's my perspective: if the Democratic party really is forgetting about environmental concerns and leaving environmental advocates behind, is it worse to let that continue or to deal with four years of a Republican presidency in order to send a message to the Democrats? Voting for Nader and costing Gore the election because of it would send a huge message to the Democratic party that they need to focus seriously on the environment. If environmental groups go along with Gore just because he can win, there's no incentive for him to ever take them seriously. They can't vote for the Republicans, and they won't vote for the Greens, so why pay them any mind?
posted by daveadams at 7:19 AM on October 27, 2000
It disappoints me to see so many people who feel so strongly about the environment voting for Gore when Nader matches their views much better. It's true that voting for Nader will weaken Gore's chances. Bush may even win the election because of strong Nader support in traditionally Democratic states such as Wisconsin, Oregon, and Washington.
But here's my perspective: if the Democratic party really is forgetting about environmental concerns and leaving environmental advocates behind, is it worse to let that continue or to deal with four years of a Republican presidency in order to send a message to the Democrats? Voting for Nader and costing Gore the election because of it would send a huge message to the Democratic party that they need to focus seriously on the environment. If environmental groups go along with Gore just because he can win, there's no incentive for him to ever take them seriously. They can't vote for the Republicans, and they won't vote for the Greens, so why pay them any mind?
posted by daveadams at 7:19 AM on October 27, 2000
Man, that Gore is just E-V-I-L. Such a shifty eyed bastard. And what's with the EPA lowering environmental standards so that GWB can keep Texas #1 in pollution? Those 2 guys are totally in cahoots.
posted by snakey at 10:11 AM on October 27, 2000
posted by snakey at 10:11 AM on October 27, 2000
« Older letter from a freedman to his old master | Joe Frank: Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
"He is more knowledgeable and has done more on the environment than any politician in America," says Philip Clapp of the National Environmental Trust, who has been described as one of Gore’s most outspoken critics.
posted by owillis at 3:22 PM on October 26, 2000