Jump to content

Al Gore for Climate Change Czar?


finknottle

Recommended Posts

I find it amusing that there is alot of excited speculation on the left about making Al Gore the Climate Change Czar.

 

As a firm believer in climate change, here is my take:

- McCain was concerned enough about it that he bucked the consensus of his party. I believed he would have acted, but it doesn't matter now.

- Obama never raised the issue, appeared to have no special enthusiasm, and never strayed from his parties position. I don't believe he really cares, and in his priorities it will take a backseat to social program, if it's allowed on the bus at all. IMO he'll say the right things to the Europeans, invest some money in 'green' research, and move on. There will be no real action.

 

Hopefully I'm wrong about Obama, but suppose I am not, and all he really wants is for the (political) problem to go away. What's the best way foir him to proceed? With great fanfare, appoint Al Gore Czar, and wash his hands of the problem - any bitter medicine Gore advocates can be stifled within the administration. What's the worst situation for Obama? If Al Gore remains outside of his administration. Gore is the only advocate with the visibility, prickliness and gravitas to publically keep Obama's feet to the fire on the issue.

 

So basically, if you believe that serious measures need to be taken, you had better hope that Gore does *not* get co-opted as czar and instead remains free to keep speaking out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard somewhere that Gore turned this down. If what I heard was true, this is a moot point

 

But what I don't understand is that everytime there is a problem there is talk of a "problem" Czar

Climate Change Czar

Auto Bailout Czar

Iraq War Czar

Drug Czar

 

Czar indicates total control without accountability

Maybe I'm just a racist redneck from western PA (Erie) that is clinging to my guns and bible so I don't know any better, but could somebody direct me to the part of the Constitution that outlines the role of the <flavor of the day> Czar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it amusing that there is alot of excited speculation on the left about making Al Gore the Climate Change Czar.

 

As a firm believer in climate change, here is my take:

- McCain was concerned enough about it that he bucked the consensus of his party. I believed he would have acted, but it doesn't matter now.

- Obama never raised the issue, appeared to have no special enthusiasm, and never strayed from his parties position. I don't believe he really cares, and in his priorities it will take a backseat to social program, if it's allowed on the bus at all. IMO he'll say the right things to the Europeans, invest some money in 'green' research, and move on. There will be no real action.

 

Hopefully I'm wrong about Obama, but suppose I am not, and all he really wants is for the (political) problem to go away. What's the best way foir him to proceed? With great fanfare, appoint Al Gore Czar, and wash his hands of the problem - any bitter medicine Gore advocates can be stifled within the administration. What's the worst situation for Obama? If Al Gore remains outside of his administration. Gore is the only advocate with the visibility, prickliness and gravitas to publically keep Obama's feet to the fire on the issue.

 

So basically, if you believe that serious measures need to be taken, you had better hope that Gore does *not* get co-opted as czar and instead remains free to keep speaking out.

 

He'd be perfect. He's full of hot air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard somewhere that Gore turned this down. If what I heard was true, this is a moot point

 

But what I don't understand is that everytime there is a problem there is talk of a "problem" Czar

Climate Change Czar

Auto Bailout Czar

Iraq War Czar

Drug Czar

 

Czar indicates total control without accountability

Maybe I'm just a racist redneck from western PA (Erie) that is clinging to my guns and bible so I don't know any better, but could somebody direct me to the part of the Constitution that outlines the role of the <flavor of the day> Czar

 

I think Drug Czar came first, probably during the Reagan Administration?

 

As an alternate title, there is a great episode from 'Yes, Minister' in the 70's where Jim Hacker is assigned the special position of 'Transportation Supremo.' He's given the impossible mandate of creating and implementing a sane and efficient national transportation policy over the opposition of the competing air, rail, and roadway interests. Really funny.

 

You really can learn all you need to know about government from that show. Like our President's creating various Czar's, if a Prime Minister want's to show he is committed to addressing a controversial problem but doesn't actually want to touch it with a ten foot poll, you have a big ceremony and solemnly hand the problem off to the Supremo. If he fixes it you take the credit, and if he makes a pigs ass of it and pisses everybody off (are you listening, Proconsol Bremer?) you can disown him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate Change Czar?

 

Let me know guess....that will require a Department of Climate Change, staffed with thousands more useless, resource draining bureaucrats whose job will be to further impede American businesses/taxpayers from the ability to compete in a global economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate Change Czar?

 

Let me know guess....that will require a Department of Climate Change, staffed with thousands more useless, resource draining bureaucrats whose job will be to further impede American businesses/taxpayers from the ability to compete in a global economy.

 

Actually no - tha's the point. A Czar is given a vague mandate to solve a problem, but not control of the beaucracies required. He gets a staff, not an actual organization. The Drug Czar, for example, heads a ~100 person policy office. He does not lead the organizations you think he would, such as the DEA, nor Customs or Education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually no - tha's the point. A Czar is given a vague mandate to solve a problem, but not control of the beaucracies required. He gets a staff, not an actual organization. The Drug Czar, for example, heads a ~100 person policy office. He does not lead the organizations you think he would, such as the DEA, nor Customs or Education.

 

The government giving someone a "vague mandate" and you not thinking it's going to be a monetary black hole is rich. You're !@#$ing delusional man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government giving someone a "vague mandate" and you not thinking it's going to be a monetary black hole is rich. You're !@#$ing delusional man.

 

How much money does the Drug Czar, our oldest Supremo, control?

 

I'm guessing it is just enough to run a 100-person policy group. I don't recall them ever handing out money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Drug Czar came first, probably during the Reagan Administration?

 

As an alternate title, there is a great episode from 'Yes, Minister' in the 70's where Jim Hacker is assigned the special position of 'Transportation Supremo.' He's given the impossible mandate of creating and implementing a sane and efficient national transportation policy over the opposition of the competing air, rail, and roadway interests. Really funny.

 

You really can learn all you need to know about government from that show. Like our President's creating various Czar's, if a Prime Minister want's to show he is committed to addressing a controversial problem but doesn't actually want to touch it with a ten foot poll, you have a big ceremony and solemnly hand the problem off to the Supremo. If he fixes it you take the credit, and if he makes a pigs ass of it and pisses everybody off (are you listening, Proconsol Bremer?) you can disown him.

 

The 'Yes, (Prime) Minister' re-airs on our PBS are must-watch for me. Gem of a show (even if it is a bunch of limeys :lol: ).

 

As time passes, it seems more like a documentary than a sit-com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, OK, but isn't Al Gore more of the same; same old, same old, rather than a symbol of "change?"

 

When I think of change, I think of something different than occurred before; something unique--proposed, planned and implemented by a new face.

 

After all, if you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got....

 

Don't tell me about Hill'ry, Bill Richardson, Rahm, John Kerry, etc. I want to see what Larry from Dubuque can do for us; and if he can't do anything, toss him out and try Linda from Sioux Falls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given a choice between tackling Climate Change and spending money on the poor, another voice for the bottomless pit. Just what we need.

 

There will always be poor people. There may or may not always be a habitable earth.

 

How can you be so callous? Don't you know that 50% of all Americans make less than the average American's annual income? We have to DO something about this, dammit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I'm thinkin' maybe Al Gore for Michelin Man replacement in the new Administration...full of hot air (not to mention himself), casts a shadow larger than any real influence, and perfect full-time smiley face.

 

All the gravitas of a ham sandwich....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...