Al Gore

What affect will Mr. Gore have on automobiles when he announces his intentions to run for President? I'm getting ready to watch him on Letterman on his tour of his book.

MANY people have asked him to run. Considering Gores previous statements on global warming what impact do you think he would have on the automotive industry?

I do NOT want this turning into political debate.

I'd LOVE to hear how Gore's intentions to run would affect the auto business in a positive or negative way.

Personally....Gore running for President would HELP General Motors immense due to the fact that the Chevrolet Volt is so close but literally the ONLY thing missing is the battery tech.

Gore would surely finance a battery program from the U.S. Government to help U.S. automakers.

i dont think hes going to run... ive watched him on a few shows lately, the most recent larry king live just the other day, and he said prob 20 time litterally he has no intention of running for pres or any other political office at that. he said that he has a mission and can do many things to help the planet without needing to be in office. i didnt vote for him before, but i can say IF he did run... is seriously think about voting for him. ive gained a lot of respect for him in the last few months that i had no idea he was active in the wellware of the planet. we need serious steps taken and so far... he seems like the only one doing it.

as for cars... he may never have a DIRECT impact on what the gov can do for the automobile ind, but as long as he keeps his campaign going on educating the public which the rest of our idiotic gov hasnt seem to have been doing. in the end i think he will help american and afar industries becoming more green. who knows. we shall see

cory

You tell me. What US politician has 'fixed' the US auto industry over the past few decades? None that I can recall.

I met (and had my picture taken with) Al Gore once at a stop in the Bay Area back in 2000. What struck me most was the Al Gore I met was entirely and completely different than the Al Gore we saw on the news and on TV. He was animated, lively, and actually funny. If that Al Gore had come through instead of the overcautious, dry, and wooden character we saw, Bush the 2nd would have never made it to office.

Al Gore has no intention in running for President again, and I can completely understand it. Running is extraordinary tough on the individual, the family, and emotionally. You're putting everything of yourself out there for critisim and ridicule. He went through the entire process, desicively won the vote of the majority of American citizens, had his entire election hinge on votes in Florida that boiled down to less than the capacity of a Greyhound bus, counts that degenerated to debates on "hanging chads", and a Supreme Court that stopped a recount. I don't think there's anyone here that would go through what he went through (regardless of political party) and be eager to go through it all again. It's going to leave a mark, not to mention a distaste.

As for what would a Gore Presidency look like for the auto industry, he's certainly no Bill Clinton.

Clinton wasn't a crusader, and was very able to be practical. His number one concern was the economy. During his term, there were no increases in fuel economy & no new excessive safety regulations despite cries from the treehuggers. Result? The US auto industry experienced a major boom in the 1990s. On the other hand, although Gore is perhaps the only person in the race who can restore US credibility abroad who could actually win the Presidency, Gore is also a crusader... a true believer. I can see him pushing enviromental regs on congress even if congress was very aware that the economic consequences would be harsh (though I'd see congress keeping his extremes in check).

Right now, I'd say Hillary is probally the most pragmatic candidate, and probally least beholden to both the enviromentalists and the oil companies.

At least her main advisor is the most qualified by far that anyone running is going to find. :think:

You tell me. What US politician has 'fixed' the US auto industry over the past few decades? None that I can recall.
Robert Mcnamara?

What affect will Mr. Gore have on automobiles when he announces his intentions to run for President? I'm getting ready to watch him on Letterman on his tour of his book.

MANY people have asked him to run. Considering Gores previous statements on global warming what impact do you think he would have on the automotive industry?

I do NOT want this turning into political debate.

I'd LOVE to hear how Gore's intentions to run would affect the auto business in a positive or negative way.

Personally....Gore running for President would HELP General Motors immense due to the fact that the Chevrolet Volt is so close but literally the ONLY thing missing is the battery tech.

Gore would surely finance a battery program from the U.S. Government to help U.S. automakers.

I think he'd do something similar to what's being done in California, only with the weight and funding of the federal government behind it, it would likely be more successful and easier on the auto industry.

I can't see how CO2 or higher CAFE standards can be good for relatively inexpensive V8 performance cars. They might be good for smaller 4 cylinder performance cars -- with DI and turbos or perhaps electric assist. I don't know what that does to "inexpensive" though.

Go Alpha!

Al Gore would be a disaster for the auto industry.

Of course, with all the global warming lunacy and ranting over gas prices, the idiotic CAFE system will be ratcheted up by the morons in Washington regardless of what schmuck is our next president.

:no:

I met (and had my picture taken with) Al Gore once at a stop in the Bay Area back in 2000. What struck me most was the Al Gore I met was entirely and completely different than the Al Gore we saw on the news and on TV. He was animated, lively, and actually funny. If that Al Gore had come through instead of the overcautious, dry, and wooden character we saw, Bush the 2nd would have never made it to office.I don't think I could stand being that close to that hypocritical jackass without caving to the urge to knock him on his ass. :no:Right now, I'd say Hillary is probally the most pragmatic candidate, and probally least beholden to both the enviromentalists and the oil companies.You are kidding, right?

Al Gore would be a disaster for the auto industry.

Of course, with all the global warming lunacy and ranting over gas prices, the idiotic CAFE system will be ratcheted up by the morons in Washington regardless of what schmuck is our next president.

:no:

I don't think I could stand being that close to that hypocritical jackass without caving to the urge to knock him on his ass. :no:You are kidding, right?

:yes:

Personally....Gore running for President would HELP General Motors immense due to the fact that the Chevrolet Volt is so close but literally the ONLY thing missing is the battery tech.

The Chevy Volt is but one car. I understand as well as anyone the importance of such a car for GM's PR, but it is still one car. GM (like anyone else in the industry) still relies on higher-volume, traditional vehicles for its health. If Gore had his way the ICE would be dead. I don't consider his views practical or healthy for the industry.

Too bad Bob Lutz isn't American born...

Dale Jr. For President:thumb: :usa:

desicively won the vote of the majority of American citizens

We all know that that is a useless statistic that should not even be broadcast. The Electoral College exists for a reason, and is an intricate part of our system. Only vote total within a state is important.

I don't think I could stand being that close to that hypocritical jackass without caving to the urge to knock him on his ass.

OK, I'll bite.

What makes him a hypocrite?

OK, I'll bite.

What makes him a hypocrite?

The silly idea of "Carbon Credits". The fact that the man flies all over the country/world and lives in a huge, energy-sucking house and then tells us how we should be living. :shrug: Dunno.

A. Agreed. Carbon credits is infact a silly idea. Just as silly as fuel economy credits automakers used.

B. Actually, he flies 1st class commercial where he can. The man still draws secret service protection and other items (or perks) as a former US Vice President.

C. The guy lives in a pretty huge mansion, like anyone else that's rich. Unlike most everyone else who's rich, his home is set up to be a bit more energy efficient (I recall solar panels for energy and double pane windows for starters), and is still a "work in progress".

Admitedly, I haven't actually seen "Inconvienent Truth", but I have read up on Al Gore. Besides his affection for increased fuel economy, what exactly has he said about "telling us how to live" which is that much different than what we do now?


FWIW:
the "Al Gore uses X-times the energy of the average home" story originated with the Drudge Report, was picked up by the news media, and fanned continuously by Fox News, and.... ironically.... got alot of the mindless, way-out-there, treehuggers up in arms.

News media as we keep finding out, favor the sound bite story at the expense of real story. It makes a bigger news impact in comparing the energy bill of an enviromentalist's very large mansion and guest house on the property (which is the size of a modest home in itself) to the "average American home".... instead of comparing his energy bill to other similar homes in the area, of which his bill is lower.

In short, it's all kind of like questioning Governor Arnold's comittment to the enviroment by comparing the fuel economy of his Hummer H1 to the guy who drives a V6 Impala.


I don't completely agree with his enviromental agenda, and of all the current presidential candidates, he'd have the greatest impact on the auto industry, but in all truthfullness, he got shafted on that "energy" story.

Al Gore isn't going to run so it doesn't really even matter.

Al Gore would be a disaster for the auto industry.

The big 3 have not done too good with an Oil man in charge of the country. At least if we had someone with some better direction in charge the big 3 would know were they stand and could work to beat Toyota and Honda to that end goal.

I take it you will never like Al Gore, but many in the auto industry have changed their tune about him.
http://www.autospies.com/news/one-time-Big-Gun-in-auto-industry-now-believes-Al-Gore-14786/

Instead of more subsidies for the oil industry like Bush has done, it would be likely that Gore would work with Detroit on developing new technologies and the infrastructure to support them.

The Electoral College exists for a reason, and is an intricate part of our system.

The Electoral College was not an original part of our system. It is a hold over system from the middle ages. It is very much obsolete today.

C. The guy lives in a pretty huge mansion, like anyone else that's rich. Unlike most everyone else who's rich, his home is set up to be a bit more energy efficient (I recall solar panels for energy and double pane windows for starters), and is still a "work in progress".

FWIW:
the "Al Gore uses X-times the energy of the average home" story originated with the Drudge Report, was picked up by the news media, and fanned continuously by Fox News, and.... ironically.... got alot of the mindless, way-out-there, treehuggers up in arms.

News media as we keep finding out, favor the sound bite story at the expense of real story. It makes a bigger news impact in comparing the energy bill of an enviromentalist's very large mansion and guest house on the property (which is the size of a modest home in itself) to the "average American home".... instead of comparing his energy bill to other similar homes in the area, of which his bill is lower.

I read he just bought the house few years ago and is in the process of updating this 70 year old house and making it more energy efficient. It is also not really a house like the rest of us have. It is used more like an office/hotel. They also buy energy from green suppliers.

The Electoral College was not an original part of our system. It is a hold over system from the middle ages. It is very much obsolete today.

AMEN!!!

What good does it do to have a "majority rule" system if the majority does NOT rule?!?! :irk:

Electoral college was founded in a day and time where campaigning was done on horseback and trains. TV and radio were science fiction. Most people did good to get a few years of basic schooling, and many farmed or frontiered to survive. Likewise, there was no way to convey the results of a vote from all states and territories to Washington in a decent amount of time, nor to count or tally such a large number of votes. Women could not vote. Blacks could not vote. Even white men that were not landowners or educated could not vote. The college was sort-of needed just to keep the system functioning and manageable.

Today, there is no excuse for any American not to know the subjects and politics of any candidate, and therefore make their own decisions and cast their vote. The system could, and should, be able to accurately count and tally every vote in a reasonable time and manner, and generate results in a timely fashion. To simply report those results to a representative in a chamber in Washington to "speak on behalf of XXX jurisdiction", is absurd in today's environment. I resent the college 100%, and advocate it's disbandment.

AMEN!!!

What good does it do to have a "majority rule" system if the majority does NOT rule?!?! :irk:



People's values and point of view vary greatly by background, and the region in which they live. California and NY would basically disenfranchise small population states as a matter of numbers. Is that fair?

I don't completely agree with his enviromental agenda, and of all the current presidential candidates, he'd have the greatest impact on the auto industry, but in all truthfullness, he got shafted on that "energy" story.

You are a glutton for punishment!!! :lol:

We have posted similar thoughts before - you know where I stand... right in the middle - straddle the fence.

I currently own 86 guns. Needless to say, I am not for more gun control.
Likewise, I enjoy hunting, fishing, and outdoor sports, and it's hard to catch fish in a river loaded with heavy metals, dioxins, and chlorides, or hunt birds over a barren oil field - a healthy environment is everything.

I have conservative views on some things, liberal views on others.

WRT Mr. Gore, I think the USA would be better off right at this moment with him in office from 2000-2004 as opposed to King Bush. Many reasons, don't have time to list them all.

As far as Gore's environmental policies... his are not perfect and I can shoot holes in them to be sure, but his ideas are better than Bush's current plans (what plans FTM?!?!) Pumping oil out of Iraq under guard of US military is not a good domestic environmental plan IMO. Alaskan drilling is a mistake too IMO... again, the conservative side of me says this is a stash that should be held on to for a "rainy day" - why burn it up now for no reason - nevermind the environmental risks and costs. I digress.

You guys can say what you like, but Gore is not a bad guy, and he could do lots more for our domestic economy and environment than he is being credited for, certainly more than the current admin is doing.

Under the Clinton/Gore admin, there were at least 3 cases where Clinton or Gore directly requested congressional investigations into price-fixing of gas prices. After the announcements were made, prices actually came down - magically - and the investigations were always dismantled or blown away.
How many inquiries have been made since 2000 by B2 or Cheney? Hmm.
Now... TRY to convince me that GM, Ford, or Chrysler would not benefit from stabilized (or lower) fuel costs?
So you see... is your glass half-full, or half-empty?

Extremists... beware thine own.;)

People's values and point of view vary greatly by background, and the region in which they live. California and NY would basically disenfranchise small population states as a matter of numbers. Is that fair?

Yes it is. And just because you are from a state doesn't mean you will vote for XXXX. We could also use more states right. Big Fed. isn't really working out that well, but that is for a different thread.

Al Gore has his own agenda - to make money with his scare tactics... getting you to watch his "documentary", buy his books, and buy into his carbon credit theory.

You want a debate? Watch this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170

Then tell me you subscribe to his theories. His version of the "truth" is a twisted version of half the facts. Hell, even the co-founder of GreenPeace says global warming by way of carbon emissions is BS. Watch that video, even the first 5 minutes, and tell me that Al Gore is telling us the truth.

It's all about the $$$, nothing more.

I do NOT want this turning into political debate.

Too late me thinks. Al Gore is a controversial figure, as you can plainly see by this thread, and his name as a thread title is going to open it up to this.

What good does it do to have a "majority rule" system if the majority does NOT rule?!?! :irk:

The Electoral College does offer some protection to the smaller states whose interests would largely be cast aside if it weren't for the college. As it stands now, a state like Michigan that has a huge interest in which President stands to work with Domestic automakers more would have roughly 6% of the overall vote in the college, but only 3% if we went to a straight "majority rules" system.

There are other arguments for the college which can be found around the 'net.

People's values and point of view vary greatly by background, and the region in which they live. California and NY would basically disenfranchise small population states as a matter of numbers. Is that fair?
It wasn't that the people in the state would be underrepresented, but the states themselves. In this system a minority group in CA, TX or NY is underrepresented compaired to a majority group in a lame small state even though they may be the larger group.

The Electoral College does offer some protection to the smaller states whose interests would largely be cast aside if it weren't for the college. As it stands now, a state like Michigan that has a huge interest in which President stands to work with Domestic automakers more would have roughly 6% of the overall vote in the college, but only 3% if we went to a straight "majority rules" system.

There are other arguments for the college which can be found around the 'net.

:confused:

The college takes the majority of votes from a state and makes that ENTIRE state to vote one way or the other. Which means one of the two parties will get their way for their state. Givign a state actually less power in deciding in president in my opinion.

When you remove this system, all you are left with is a nationwide popular vote.

No state has any say one way or the other when it comes down to it. It all matters in how many votes the ENTIRE nation voted for you as a candidate.

So please tell me how a state has less power, when it matters that ALL Democrats or Republicans band together to vote for their candidate.

From everything I've read and researched, Al Gore is either a liar, idiot or at best an opportunist....or just a combination of all three.

The scariest part of all of this is the fervor that this myth is being shoved down our throats and into policy....


The result is a cadre of GW believers and plenty of doubters among the so-called "scientific community." Which group gets the media attention and lucrative research grants? Which gets ignored, marginalized, ostracized, demonized, sometimes fired and even death threats? Yes, death threats! Such is the depth of GWF passion.

The New York Times, among others, took Gore's GW Inconvenient Truth film apart for its errors and exaggerations. He says CO2 is the most important "greenhouse" gas. But 95 percent of that mix supposedly causing Earth to cook is water vapor; CO2 is four percent.

For example, just two percent of Antarctica is dramatically warming while 98 percent is cooling, according to Bjorn Lomborg, author of the widely acclaimed book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, and sea mass is increasing in the Northern Hemisphere while decreasing in the Southern Hemisphere. And global temperatures dropped for three decades following their recent high point in 1940 despite increasing levels of CO2. Now they are rising again and approaching that 1940 high. These cycles correlate closely with solar activity, not CO2.


What seems difficult for non-scientific GWFs and GW believers to grasp is that two things happening simultaneously - increasing CO2 and increasing temperatures - are not necessarily linked. Is increasing human life expectancy caused by increasing CO2?

The fact that CO2 levels are higher than they've ever been, Easterbrook points out, "does not mean that CO2 is causing global warming. The increase in CO2 since about 1945 has been from 0.03 percent [of the Earth's atmosphere] to 0.038 percent, a change of only 0.008 percent. The data I have indicates that CO2 is not the cause."

All human activity (including breathing) produces about 3.3 percent as much CO2 as does nature itself, primarily from solar ocean heating and decaying plants and animals. While CO2 now comprises 0.038 percent of the total global atmosphere, human activity contributes just four percent of that, and the U.S. supposedly 25 percent of that four percent. So if the entire United States were to disappear overnight, the resulting reduction in generation of new "greenhouse" gas would be one percent!

.......listen to geologist Easterbrook: "Extending the past [global temperature] pattern into the future," he contends, "we should start cooling again beginning between sometime this year and 2010." That should eventually hush GWF hysteria and send doomsayers over the edge (again) about "global cooling," as in the mid-'70s. He further projects that the globe will cool "half a degree or so" between 2010 and 2040, warm between 2040 and 2070, and cool again from 2070 to 2100, "give or take five years."



http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Commentary/At_Witz_End_No_Consensus_on_Global_Warming.S192.A1 2354.html

1. Gore won't run. (sadly). 2. Greenpeace is a bunch of environmental extremists whose ideas, while well intentioned, run the gamut from sane & reasonable, to completely irrational, which is why no government agency will listen to them. 3. Does anyone have any proof that Gore owns or is heavily invested in a company that's poised to make a killing off of a "green initiative"? In fact, is there even a company so poised at all? So I don't think he's about the money. 4. I laugh when I hear Bush referred to as Mr. Big Oil, he was the only oil man in Texas who couldn't find any. Was real good at digging holes though. Thank God his dad sent his friends in to buy up his companies at a profit or his resume would have been a list of his business failures. That's not to say that he isn't a close personal friend of Big Oil though, he is.

In direct response to posts above...thank God for the Electoral College and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

In the 2000 Presidential election, Al Gore won 48.4% of the popular vote. George Bush won 47.9%. I don't see how that is a "desicive" majority of American citizens (and is far smaller margin than Bush in 2004).

A "majority" does not, and never has ruled in this country. Thankfully, we are not a true democracy - no matter how much that term gets bantered around, or what your third grade teacher might have told you.

Personally, I cannot think of any realistic scenario in which I would vote for Al Gore. I'd vote for Hillary before him - and that's very, very hard for me to say.

Al Gore might 'help' the Auto Industry through protectionist measures, but long term, that will hurt, not help, IMHO. More Gov't this, more gov't that. Every election, this country becomes more and more socialist, and less and less capitalist.

Once again, I am eternally greatful for our Founding Fathers.

No way to not turn this thread political, thus I'm done. Have fun. :)

Personally....Gore running for President would HELP General Motors immense due to the fact that the Chevrolet Volt is so close but literally the ONLY thing missing is the battery tech.

Gore would surely finance a battery program from the U.S. Government to help U.S. automakers.

So, how much money would Gore throw at battery development, and why would it be more effective than the billions that the federal government has already sank into that task?

Besides, Congress allocates funding for federal programs, and neither party has shown much enthusiasm for doing anything except dicking around with CAFE proposals.

In direct response to posts above...thank God for the Electoral College and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

In the 2000 Presidential election, Al Gore won 48.4% of the popular vote. George Bush won 47.9%. I don't see how that is a "desicive" majority of American citizens (and is far smaller margin than Bush in 2004).

A "majority" does not, and never has ruled in this country. Thankfully, we are not a true democracy - no matter how much that term gets bantered around, or what your third grade teacher might have told you.

Personally, I cannot think of any realistic scenario in which I would vote for Al Gore. I'd vote for Hillary before him - and that's very, very hard for me to say.

Al Gore might 'help' the Auto Industry through protectionist measures, but long term, that will hurt, not help, IMHO. More Gov't this, more gov't that. Every election, this country becomes more and more socialist, and less and less capitalist.

Once again, I am eternally greatful for our Founding Fathers.

No way to not turn this thread political, thus I'm done. Have fun. :)
So then your also against our involvement in Iraq and you dislike both democrates and republicans too, right?

My geuss, your a hard line republican who is thankful of the electorial college simply because it gave the presidency to Bush.

BTOT, I'd never vote for Gore, he belives too much of his own propaganda. I think the two most important things in this election are reganing International respect and economic responsiblity (getting a handle on trade deficits and big oil). Which i see no canidate who would be great at both of them, but sad to say I think Hillary is our best bet so far.

I do not trust politicians in general - no matter what their party affiliation (I belong to none).

Beyond that, I'll refer you to this...

No way to not turn this thread political, thus I'm done.

But you can guess all you want.

...have a nice day. :)

Bob

There is no way to start a thread about a politician without it being political. That's like starting a thread about a Corvette and saying that you don't want it to be an automotive thread.

This is why we do not allow threads like this on this site. Keep political threads on sites where they belong.