Hello Kossacks! I just saw Al Gore's interview on This Week. He is amazing and it is heartbreaking to see that his successful presidential campaign was thwarted by activist judges and George Bush's litigious nature.
However, I was disappointed in the interview on two points and I'd like to know if Gore gave a better answer in his new movie (I won't be able to see it for a couple of days).
Please see below:
1) George Stephanopoulos asked what would have been different about the country if Bush had accepted defeat in the democratic process. Gore said something about global warming and better efficiency standards. I wish he had pointed out that if he knew the American public would accept a half-trillion dollar bill for something, he would have mandated a Brazil-like oil independence, at least in automobiles, immediately after 9/11 (and it would have cost much less than the war ultimately will and most likely less than it already has!).
2)At the very end of the interview, Gore said he would like to work to create an environment in which a candidate/president would have to respond to the global warming problem. I found this disappointing because, by this standard, Gore had already succeeded by 1999, when George Bush said during his campaign that he would reduce CO2 emissions if elected. He lied. And this Republican modus operandi will continue: Swift Boat and Swindle. At most, they will talk about it.
Did Gore address these better in his movie?