Alan Stewart Carl has an interesting (but ultimately unpersuasive) post up at Donklephant, arguing that charges of environmentalist hypocrisy against Pelosi, Gore et al are misplaced. Two points merit response here…

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=global+warming+swindle

On the other hand, I think Gore is a self-serving idiot. To me, he’s just pushing his own personal agenda, mostly because he believes only he is correct. He wants EVERYBODY on the entire planet to change to his liking. That’s just completly arrogant. It’s like he thinks he’s God on earth.

To make matters worse, the more closely you explore his global warming “thesis”, the more holes you can poke in the so-called science behind it. And he wants to stifle the scientific debate, obviously so he can’t be proven incorrect which would cause his whole new belief system to collaspe.

It’s terribly important to expose the hypocrisy of a dangerous and power/fame/glory hungry man like Gore before he can completely consolidate the power he so lustfully desires.

Gore is like a guy who drives his Chevy Suburban to work while telling others to conserve gasoline, then points out that he keeps his tires at recommended inflation and doesn’t leave it idling overnight, so it’s all OK.

Edwards, for instance, does not talk about the execesses of the rich so much as he claims the system is rigged in favor of the rich. The fact that he himself is rich and benefits from the system does not mean he can’t still want to reform government. I assume he is more the willing to pay whatever ridiculous taxes he wants to levy on people such as himself — until someone shows me that he’s been dodging his tax burden, I just don’t see how being rich makes him a hypocrite.

As for Gore, he’s concerned about our carbon footprint. It’s not really about how much power we consume as it is about being carbon nuetral. By all accounts, Gore practices what he preaches by using green energy when possible and purchasing those carbon vouchers (sorry, don’t remember what those are called) to offset the rest. I’m sure he could do better, but it’s silly to just look at his high power bill and assume he’s a hypocrite.

I attack the Dems a lot. But I try not to get caught up in spin jobs like this whole hypocrite offensive. It’s just not what the debate is really about.

As for who asks us to sacrifice, I stand down for now. That was a side comment that would take another post to cover in full.

And I have no idea, frankly, what policies Al Gore actually wants to implement, because he’s tried to make everybody by into his “doom is nigh” campaign rather than push for specific policies. A legislator in California has proposed banning the sale of general purpose incandescent lights. That’s an imposition.

Actually making significant cuts to CO2 emissions by the people in this country will require a whole lot of changes of behavior. It’s not all going to be accomplished by “alternative energy,” and even if it is, that alternative energy is likely to be more expensive (certainly going to be more expensive in the short term), forcing people to do without things they would otherwise have because they have to spend the money instead on the alternative energy or the taxes or what have you.

Gore preaches about reducing energy consumption while consuming 15x the energy that the average consumer does.

Edwards rails against the abuses of the rich, while living in the most valuable house in his entire county.

Both of these men have it well within their power to walk their own talk, yet have not done so. It’s the hypocrisy.

Micheal Moore can rhetorically say, “I want a 70% tax bracket for the wealthiest Americans.” But in the meantime, he runs his business like a Republican. The hypocrasy isn’t that they are rich and want redistributive policies, but rather that they used the very system they allegedly hate to live luxurious lives of wealth. If Barbara Streisand had to “become” successful under Barabara Streisand policies, she probably would have never become the Streisand that makes makes me what to vomit today.

The essence of the Limousine Liberalism — “Now that I’ve got mine, screw the rest of you, It is time for reform!” And that is hypocrasy. This mentality is perfectly exemplified in Boulder County, Colorado with the following: Now that I have my mansion built on the side of the mountain, we must stop allowing construction…you know, for the environment.”

I dunno. I don’t see Democrats imposing much on me besides wanting to redistribute my wealth to other people and causes (they’re not making me work in a soup kitchen). If you want to talk about Democrats’ willingness to place impositions on business, you may have a point. But no one is accusing Edwards or Gore of running a business that pollutes the environment or denies unionization. As far as I know, the Democratic platform does not advocate the forfeiture of mansions — only that the owners of said mansions are willing to pay a crap load in taxes. As long as a millionaire Democrat isn’t dodging those taxes, it’s not hypocritical for them to live in a mansion.

As a side note, it’s just as silly for those on the right to claim you have to give away your wealth in order to earnestly support the poor as it is for those on the left to claim you have to join the military in order to earnestly support the war. Such standards are worthless.

If you’re going to use blustering rhetoric give concrete examples. Where, in your own life, have you been forced to sacrifice in the name of a democratic initiative?
BTW: If you think the “Al Gore power bill”, “Edwards McMansion”, or “Pelosi Planegate” are examples of democratic hypocrisy you’re obviously only interested in talking points.

I certainly agree with your general point that the policies our leaders adopt is more important than how they choose to live their lives. But there can be relevance there. For example, the fact that so many Democrats with means choose to send their kids to private schools rather than public ones is one indication, among many, that our public schools are not very good, and that perhaps we should consider something more than the usual Democratic solution of further empowering the teachers’ unions and giving blanket pay raises rather than merit-based ones. On the Republican side, the fact that so many prominent Republican advocates for stronger families have been divorced suggests that perhaps we do need to maintain our no-fault divorce laws.

I’m trying to remember… did Democrats jump up and say it was irrelevant that George H.W. Bush (41) didn’t know the price of a gallon of milk, or did they say that reflected how out of touch he was with society?

Talk about hypocrisy!