Yeah I was one of those, was young and edgy, still feel bad about it sometimes but then remember AlGore was a pretty different dude then too. Like, he picked Joe fucking Lieberman as his running mate ffs, so I harbor no illusions that he would have been anything other than status quo. Better than GWB? Oh fuck yeah, in retrospect it’s not close, but their campaigns they were basically trying to out-center the other, and both seemed like just slightly different versions of each other. Assuming he would have been a major disruptor in terms of climate initiatives is naive I think.
I mean that is and has been the post Reagan political paradigm. It worked once for Democrats (Clinton), every other election before and after (at least as far back as Carter), Democrats win when they step to the left. Yet they still think they should be fighting for some imagined center.
Oh for sure, he was following Clinton’s lead, so that’s why it’s somewhat funny to hear people talking about him like he was some kind of super environmental progressive, when that just wasn’t the case, or it at least isn’t how he ran, which was really quite the opposite.
Yes, I agree. I’m also not sure that running as a super environmental progressive would have been possible at the time. We were just coming out of the timber wars, where the timber industry had spent millions convincing the US that a few hippies chained to trees trying to prevent the last bits of old-growth redwoods from destruction were the problem.
It was a different time and we were very desensitized to the concept of hippy punching etc.
How high do you have to be to erase everything al gore did to prove he wanted to do something about climate change? Why are you rewriting history like this? It’s preposterous
You’re the one rewriting history. Al Gore didn’t run on climate change. Ordinary voters don’t give a single shit about climate change in 2000. There was never any chance Gore was going to spend his political capital on climate change legislation.
The most we would have gotten from him is more incrementslism on the topic, like we got from Obama and Biden. The op is utterly delusional for posting such garbage.
At the time you didn’t have to be major disruptor like we need major disruption now. What you needed to do was move the needle, which could be done. Moving the needle early on drastically changes the path decades later.
There’s also what you say during the election and what you do. I’m pretty sure Bush played it up (I’m amazed at what I see him say in old videos). Gore played down what he intended to do, or didn’t make a big deal about it, because that’s not what got votes at the time. So they may sound similar but not actually be similar.
Yeah I was one of those, was young and edgy, still feel bad about it sometimes but then remember AlGore was a pretty different dude then too. Like, he picked Joe fucking Lieberman as his running mate ffs, so I harbor no illusions that he would have been anything other than status quo. Better than GWB? Oh fuck yeah, in retrospect it’s not close, but their campaigns they were basically trying to out-center the other, and both seemed like just slightly different versions of each other. Assuming he would have been a major disruptor in terms of climate initiatives is naive I think.
I mean that is and has been the post Reagan political paradigm. It worked once for Democrats (Clinton), every other election before and after (at least as far back as Carter), Democrats win when they step to the left. Yet they still think they should be fighting for some imagined center.
Oh for sure, he was following Clinton’s lead, so that’s why it’s somewhat funny to hear people talking about him like he was some kind of super environmental progressive, when that just wasn’t the case, or it at least isn’t how he ran, which was really quite the opposite.
Yes, I agree. I’m also not sure that running as a super environmental progressive would have been possible at the time. We were just coming out of the timber wars, where the timber industry had spent millions convincing the US that a few hippies chained to trees trying to prevent the last bits of old-growth redwoods from destruction were the problem.
It was a different time and we were very desensitized to the concept of hippy punching etc.
How high do you have to be to erase everything al gore did to prove he wanted to do something about climate change? Why are you rewriting history like this? It’s preposterous
You’re the one rewriting history. Al Gore didn’t run on climate change. Ordinary voters don’t give a single shit about climate change in 2000. There was never any chance Gore was going to spend his political capital on climate change legislation.
The most we would have gotten from him is more incrementslism on the topic, like we got from Obama and Biden. The op is utterly delusional for posting such garbage.
At the time you didn’t have to be major disruptor like we need major disruption now. What you needed to do was move the needle, which could be done. Moving the needle early on drastically changes the path decades later.
There’s also what you say during the election and what you do. I’m pretty sure Bush played it up (I’m amazed at what I see him say in old videos). Gore played down what he intended to do, or didn’t make a big deal about it, because that’s not what got votes at the time. So they may sound similar but not actually be similar.