Al Gore praised by Bob Barr for ‘commitment to addressing climate change’

Apparently, the love-fest between Al Gore and Bob Barr is not one-sided, as previously assumed.

According to The Hill:

Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr praised Al Gore on Thursday for his commitment to addressing climate change and said he has met with the former vice president several times to discuss possible solutions.

There obviously is a role for government,” Barr said, deviating substantially from libertarian philosophy for at least the second time this week. Earlier, he said he wanted to give the Federal Reserve more oversight powers to regulate the housing market and “privatize” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by contradictorily increasing government support for and regulation of the publicly traded firms.

“There’s a role for private industry,” Barr continued. “There’s a role for nonprofits and certainly a role for the American people, individually and collectively.”

24 thoughts on “Al Gore praised by Bob Barr for ‘commitment to addressing climate change’

  1. G.E. Post author

    When will the disgracefulness end?

    Someone should set up a countdown to Election Day.

  2. svf

    http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/energy-policy/

    if you dig a little further, it’s fairly clear what he had in mind by saying there is a “role for government”…

    The federal government should eliminate restrictions that inhibit energy production, as well as all special privileges for the production of politically-favored fuels, such as ethanol.

    In particular, Congress should allow the exploration and production of America’s abundant domestic resources, including oil in the Outer Continental Shelf and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and alternative sources such as shale oil.

    of course, you probably have some kind of problem with that too.

    “DISGRACEFUL!!!!”

  3. G.E. Post author

    Congress should not “allow” nor prohibit anything. It should sell of its communistically held lands. That’s the libertarian position. Barr, like all conservatives, is not willing to allow the free market to flourish because he’s afraid it might achieve an outcome that’s not to his liking.

  4. inDglass

    So Barr has flip-flopped from a bad Republican position to a bad Democratic position on these issues. He is apparently willing to be anything but Libertarian.

  5. Steve LaBianca

    svf // Jul 18, 2008 at 4:49 pm

    if you dig a little further, it’s fairly clear what he had in mind by saying there is a “role for government”…

    The federal government should eliminate restrictions that inhibit energy production, as well as all special privileges for the production of politically-favored fuels, such as ethanol.

    svf, you have got to be kidding! A role for government is a phrase connoting being “active”.

    It is only a LACK OF A ROLE which is inactive.

    So, THIS is the spin that we’re going to get. Once this spin fails, it will then be “Shhhhhh . . . he doesn’t really mean it. He is just trying to appeal to the tree-hugger types.”

  6. kiddleddee

    Steve LaBianca writes:

    So, THIS is the spin that we’re going to get. Once this spin fails, it will then be “Shhhhhh . . . he doesn’t really mean it. He is just trying to appeal to the tree-hugger types.”

    More likely, the spin you will get is something like, “He is saying much more libertarian sounding things in private conversations.”

  7. Jerry S.

    He’s all over the place, trying to get votes. If, IF lightning struck and Barr won, how would he govern? Who would be his advisors?

  8. G.E. Post author

    No, sunshinetrollman… You need to learn how to read a news story.

    Although “significant action” isn’t a direct quote, it is a paraphrasing of Barr’s intent.

    Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia, said it is time to recognize that global warming “is a very serious problem” and that it will get “dramatically worse” unless significant action is taken.

    So what are you saying? That Barr doesn’t think there should be “significant” action?

    Here’s a direct quote from collectivist Barr:

    “There obviously is a role for government. There’s a role for private industry. There’s a role for nonprofits and certainly a role for the American people, individually and collectively.”

    I seriously hope you’re on Viguerie’s payroll.

  9. sunshinebatman

    It’s a purported paraphrase, colored by the reporters own biases, being waved around like a direct quote by someone else with his own agenda. Someone who can’t even keep track of which page he’s posting replies to, aparently.

  10. G.E. Post author

    So I’m wrong for believing The Hill?

    If The Hill is misrepresenting Barr, you’d think Barr would care to say so.

    It’s not like The Hill is a minor-league blog or something.

  11. Commandroid

    Steve LaBianca, you want an “inactive role” for the federal government? So do I. Are we going to get that perfectly overnight? Of course not! Realistically, common sense tells us that we must gain INCREMENTAL changes, bit by bit, to achieve the goal over time. As I hear all too often, the thinking of libertarians is stuck in a “utopian” mode in which America must magically become “purist” libertarian immediately or the deal’s off. That attitude is unrealistic, and it reveals why, after 36 years of existence, the LP is still a tiny party that barely makes a ripple in the national political sea. Get a clue, libertarians! The USA is a nation suffering from entrenched statist and authoritarian control, a situation that will not be remedied overnight. It will take DECADES to slowly, incrementally redirect this massive ship of state into anything even slightly resembling a libertarian vision. We should take at least one (and only one) lesson from the Republicrats: In spite of our differences, we back the guy (or gal) that gets us even PARTIALLY what we want. Bob Barr is a long way from what we would all want to see in an LP presidential nominee–but at least he’s more libertarian than the other two jokers with the DP and RP! Plus he’s got some political gravitas out there on the street that other LP presidential contenders do not have—that’s real political capital that just might bring more attention to our party on the national scene. He is taking positions that are designed to draw votes from mainstream Americans. Not libertarian purists. There aren’t enough purists out there to elect a dog catcher much less a president. Our party must attract the mainstream if it is ever to make a bigger ripple in the sea. If you will visit the Barr website and check out his energy policy, you will find it is the most reasonable thing out there. It lays out a vision of getting the government OUT of energy and letting the free market do its thing.

  12. Commandroid

    OK, here are your paragraphs. And I mean every word.

    Steve LaBianca, you want an “inactive role” for the federal government? So do I. Are we going to get that perfectly overnight? Of course not! Realistically, common sense tells us that we must gain INCREMENTAL changes, bit by bit, to achieve the goal over time.

    As I hear all too often, the thinking of libertarians is stuck in a “utopian” mode in which America must magically become “purist” libertarian immediately or the deal’s off. That attitude is unrealistic, and it reveals why, after 36 years of existence, the LP is still a tiny party that barely makes a ripple in the national political sea.

    Get a clue, libertarians! The USA is a nation suffering from entrenched statist and authoritarian control, a situation that will not be remedied overnight. It will take DECADES to slowly, incrementally redirect this massive ship of state into anything even slightly resembling a libertarian vision. We should take at least one (and only one) lesson from the Republicrats: In spite of our differences, we back the guy (or gal) that gets us even PARTIALLY what we want.

    Bob Barr is a long way from what we would all want to see in an LP presidential nominee–but at least he’s more libertarian than the other two jokers with the DP and RP! Plus he’s got some political gravitas out there on the street that other LP presidential contenders do not have—that’s real political capital that just might bring more attention to our party on the national scene.

    He is taking positions that are designed to draw votes from mainstream Americans. Not libertarian purists. There aren’t enough purists out there to elect a dog catcher much less a president. Our party must attract the mainstream if it is ever to make a bigger ripple in the sea. If you will visit the Barr website and check out his energy policy, you will find it is the most reasonable thing out there. It lays out a vision of getting the government OUT of energy and letting the free market do its thing.

  13. Jerry S.

    I looked at the site and can’t understand how Gore can praise him for anything or vice versa…Unless it’s just lying Pols pi%%ing on each others leg…This has to be a bigger flip flop than anything Kerry had…

  14. Lance Brown

    Maybe I’m missing something. If one accepts the notion of global warming, and that one of the causes of global warming is man-made pollution in the atmosphere…isn’t pollution beyond the boundaries of one’s own property one of the places where libertarians do think the goverment has a role? Not that I’m a big fan of Ron Paul, but that was his take on the libertarian environment position. It’s been my interpretation too. You put shit in my air, and you are committing a form of trespass, or whatever you want to call it. An act of aggression.

    So inasmuch as a libertarian government would be the enforcer against such acts of aggression-via-pollution, wouldn’t a libertarian government have a role in addressing global warming?

    If global warming was caused by throwing trash onto other people’s lawns, libertarians would have no beef with goverment’s role there, right? Government would have every right to step in, stop the yard pollution, and thus help stop global warming. So what if the “trash” is tiny particulate waste, and my “yard” is actually the space above my yard- specifically, the air between my property and the sun. Why would the government not have a role in protecting that? I thought that was libertarianism’s answer to the tragedy of the commons? That has to be applied to the air, and the atmosphere, somehow, does it not? Or is that some gigantic loophole in the libertarian protection of property rights? (We protect river water on the same premise, no? Lakes?)

    I’m being serious here, in case anyone’s wondering. If global warming is real and caused by human pollution, then wouldn’t there be a legitimate government role vis a vie property rights?

  15. G.E. Post author

    Lance – Ron Paul’s position is not the same, or anywhere close to Al Gore’s.

    True libertarianism is the most hardcore environmentalist philosophy there is. Ron Paul’s position is that of Murray Rothbard — pollution is aggression, period.

    That is NOT the position of Al Gore/Bob Barr, who are for regulations and collectivism.

  16. Lance Brown

    Just to stir things up, I’m also praising Al Gore for his committment to addressing climate change. Whether I agree with him or not (truth be told, I haven’t listened all that much), he has set a great example of how private citizens (especially celebrity ones) can work on their own to promote and try to educate people on the issues most important to them. It’s up to the people to decide what to do with said information, but Al Gore has proven to be an exceptional activist for his cause, and kudos to him for that.

    So there.

  17. G.E. Post author

    Ha!

    “Private citizens” promoting coercive global government and admittedly lying and propagandizing is not something commendable!

  18. Lance Brown

    G.E., your basis for saying Barr is for regulations and collectivism what? His use of the word “collectively”? Because that would be a stretch. I think even bolding it as you did above is a stretch. There’s nothing wrong (or, more specifically, unlibertarian) with individuals working collectively. Another term for that is “working together”. People do it all the time, and it’s not inherently harmful.

  19. Lance Brown

    BTW, G.E., my earlier point was that there is in fact a role for government. Your points about Paul and Rothbard sidestepped the question, which was: wasn’t Barr correct in saying there was a role for government? You seem to be harping on him for two parts of his statement. The word “collectively”, and his claim that there is a role for government (along with all the other parties) in addressing global warming. But there is a role for government, if global warming exists and is caused or aggravated by human pollution. You basically said so yourself. In fact, Libertarians would advocate a stronger role for goverment in that area than any other party, by far, under “true libertarianism”, in your own words…am I wrong?

  20. G.E. Post author

    Read all of Barr’s statements on the matter. If you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, to an absurd degree, then fine. He is clearly not a radical free-marketeer in the Ron Paul vain, so there’s absolutely no reason to believe that, when it sounds like he’s talking about regulation, he’s talking about anything other than regulation. This is a guy who wants to make Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac LESS private and call it a “privatization” for God’s sake!

  21. Commandroid

    Careful, libertarians! Once you open the door to government intervention in global warming, you open it to a thousand other things. Global warming can be used as an excuse to control virtually every aspect of our lives. Once the camel’s nose is in the tent, it’s not long before the whole animal is inside.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *