Why do Republican ex presidents or VP don't do anything useful?

Parent Cafe
61

<p>Back to the GOP for a moment. There’s been a fairly large disconnect between conservative intellectuals and GOP candidates for national office. Candidates are valued for their “folkesiness”, which is seen as being somehow better than having much of an intellect. Meanwhile the intellectual rigor of the movement is really hidden beneath the surface. </p>

<p>That’s why so many of the officeholders and candidates don’t have much to contribute in the after-years. They’re really not the thinkers of their own movement.</p>

62

<p>Yes, preaching environmentalism and not living the life style is hypocritical. But not nearly as hypocritical as “leaders” who managed to worm their way out of serving in combat, but years later have become born-again militants and eagerly send the children of others off to die in an unjust war.</p>

63

<p>ldmom, </p>

<p>Would you want someone telling you what size house you should live in? I certainly wouldn’t. I’m not saying that some in Hollywood don’t ‘overconsume’, but so do some in every other strata of North American society. When people make an effort to ‘go green’, to recycle, to choose organic products, to install energy saving lightbulbs, etc., I don’t think that those efforts should be mocked.</p>

64

<p>I’ve noticed that too, Dadguy. Sadly, it seems that a significant segment of the American populace would rather have a president they could swig a beer with than a “pointy-headed” intellectual.</p>

65

<p>“Would you want someone telling you what size house you should live in?”</p>

<p>No…but I also wouldn’t want some of our country’s largest individual consumers of natural resources preaching to me to cut back.</p>

66

<p>These days Stewart Brand endorses nuclear energy. Regrets alarmist views held in the past- overpopulation, genetic manipulation of food/plants, take-over of humans by our intolerant computers- which bred a romantic distrust in the benefits that come from science. Doesn’t mind having been wrong. Enjoys it, even.</p>

67

<p>pssch.</p>

<p>Carter-I’d hardly call being an anti semitic, bitter old man a service to humanity
Gore-His house consumes 20X the amount of energy the average person’s house does. All he’s doing is being a hypocrite
Clinton-Nothing he could do now would make up for weakening the military, selling our secrets to China, refusing bin laden’s head on a silver platter, and mlying to the country. he was so bad behind his desk that I actually wish he’d spent <i>more</i> time on top of it.</p>

68

<p>"You guys just look dumb here. stop it. FAKE outrage is just silly. "</p>

<p>How is stating a fact that Al Gore consumes 20 times the natural average for electricity, in addition to consuming much more natural gas than the average American faking outrage? Like ldmom said, the guy does not practice what he preaches. Is that outrage? I guess some of us are too dumb to understand the difference. :o</p>

<p>What I think looks dumb, is condescending statements that try to make other posters feel inferior. Such statements usually don’t do anything to prove a point in my opinion.</p>

69

<p>“No…but I also wouldn’t want some of our country’s largest individual consumers of natural resources preaching to me to cut back.”</p>

<p>I guess Al Gore has wasted his time focussing on environmental issues then. Perhaps he should have spent his time on the golf course instead.</p>

70

<p>Interesting article in today’s Boston Globe about ex-presidents.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/28/ex_presidents_big_payday/?p1=MEWell_Pos4[/url]”>http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/28/ex_presidents_big_payday/?p1=MEWell_Pos4&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>In case you can’t open:</p>

<p>"We learned last week that in the six years since Bill Clinton left office, he has pocketed a staggering $40 million in speaking fees. Tirelessly working the lecture circuit, he has delivered hundreds of speeches, often at a price of $150,000 and up. Two-thirds of his speaking money has come from foreign sources, according to the Washington Post, including “Saudi Arabia’s Dabbagh investment firm, which paid $600,000 for two speeches, and China’s JingJi Real Estate Development Group, run by a local Communist Party official, which paid $200,000 for a speech.”</p>

<p>The scale of Clinton’s post-White House earnings is known only because financial-disclosure rules require his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, to report them. (They don’t include the additional millions his speeches have raised for the William J. Clinton Foundation, his nonprofit charity.) But he is hardly the only former president to leverage the prestige of the presidency for big bucks.</p>

<p>This shabby practice began with Gerald Ford, who accepted high-paying board memberships at companies like 20th Century-Fox, Primerica, and American Express. Ronald Reagan accepted $2 million to deliver two 20-minute speeches in Japan shortly after leaving the White House in 1989, and both George H. W. Bush and Jimmy Carter have traveled widely to lecture for pay.</p>

<p>The elder Bush in particular seems to be Clinton’s model. The Wall Street Journal reported a decade ago that “in the four years since he left office, Mr. Bush, already a wealthy man, has earned millions of dollars speaking publicly.” Charging $80,000 to $100,000 per appearance, “Bush generally restricts himself to giving speeches and rubbing shoulders with corporate executives and high-level government officials.”"</p>

71

<p>Do as I say not as I do… </p>

<p>Seems to be the mantra of those who wish to continue with their lavish lifestyle while telling us “normal” Americans what we’re doing wrong.</p>

<p>ldmom, I laughed out loud at that “green” statement too. Why didn’t they ride the public transportation that they so espouse to the Oscars. Hypocrites, all of them.</p>

72

<p>“That’s why so many of the officeholders and candidates don’t have much to contribute in the after-years. They’re really not the thinkers of their own movement.”</p>

<p>I’ve read the writings and radio addresses of Ronald Reagan for years and I think he actually was a major thinker of the conservative movement. But you’re generally right, though. Most of our big brains don’t run for office.</p>

73

<p>"We learned last week that in the six years since Bill Clinton left office, he has pocketed a staggering $40 million in speaking fees. Tirelessly working the lecture circuit, he has delivered hundreds of speeches, often at a price of $150,000 and up. "
I really don’t have a problem with that. The man is certainly brilliant and a great speaker, so if people want to pay big bucks to hear him, who should complain? Now I do have some questions and concerns about the funding of the Carter Center.</p>

74

<p>

</p>

<p>That is the understatement of the thread. While it is pretty easy to check the REAL record of our past politicians, it is an unfortunate fact that it does not matter too much. While Al Gore did not DO much at all for the environment while he was sitting next to Bill’s throne, he deserves the credit for his role in his documentary. Obviously, people who like him --often blindly-- will repeat he won an Oscar; others will correctly point out that he didn’t and be criticized for making such statement. </p>

<p>Al Gore is more effective in California that he ever was in Washington, DC and that may be very good for all of us. If he succeeds to keep the fight on global warming in the first pages of the papers and on ET, that is good. If the dollars from Google and Apple and the ego boosting from Hollywood can keep him away from Washington, that is a HUGE bonus. </p>

<p>In the end, we all seem to adulate the IMAGE of people as we think they were The melancholy for Clinton and Gore is everywhere and most of it is a cynical by-product of our imagination. In the case of Gore, people who understand his record on the environment know better. In the meantime, staunch democrats and hardcore liberals might prefer to overlook who was incharge when the US did not sign the Kyoto treaty but quite another one called … NAFTA. </p>

<p>How does the autoworker in Michigan who lost his plum job to some “dirty” Mexican reconcile his position on Clinton-Gore? The answer is that he doesn’t as he hopes that the US will continue to produce polluting four or six wheels monsters and pay elematry schooled janitors more than $100,000 a year along the way! </p>

<p>The true record never matters! Only the perception of reality does. And that si why Al Gore is more effective in Beverly Hill’s world of fiction were the truth can be edited at will and new heroes created overnight. And for the record, it works even on people who profoundly disliked the full of hot air former VP. I like him in his new role, especially when remembering that he plays a part. But, what the heck, Hollywood actors do seem to do pretty well in politics!</p>

75

<p>

<a href=“http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm[/url]”>http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm&lt;/a&gt;
How can “Mr. Global Warming” justify his hypocrisy? As I said earlier, I dislike the way the issue of climate change has become so politicized – it should be analyzed in a scientific, objective way, including the impact on the world-wide economy and what that means to starving children in the third world. But for Gore to be so sanctimonious about telling the average American to conserve energy at home, while squandering it himself, is nauseating.</p>

<p>My father was an avid outdoorsman. I knew about John Muir before I knew about the Rolling Stones. I DO care about the environment – I’m just not convinced that the current mania is the right solution. The Kyoto agreement did not address carbon emissions in China or India. We could all ride bikes and not make up for the problems their emissions create.</p>

76

<p>

</p>

<p>… a description never applied to John Kerry…</p>

77

<p>Here’s where I get a little suspicious – I agree that we may be in a period of warming (although we were supposed to worry about “Global Cooling” in the 70’s) but I’m not convinced that the steps that are recommended will make a difference. I also wonder about the financial piece – I think it’s possible that the motivation for carbon credits etc. is just another way to redistribute wealth from affluent economies, like the US, to third world economies. In pursuing that course, we may end up with a worldwide depression, which would just end in the deaths of many in the third world who rely on US aid.

<a href=“http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-02-28-voa2.cfm[/url]”>http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-02-28-voa2.cfm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Sometimes it’s a question of unintended consequences. For example, with S2 I used cloth diapers (yuck!) because I thought it was better for the environment. It definitely wasn’t better for baby! Then I learned that the issues regarding waste disposal, detergents, and water pollution were worse than the issue of disposable diapers in a landfill.</p>

78

<p>Again, for those of you who continue to harp on the hypocrisy of environmentalist Democrats like Gore–Can you see nothing remotely hypocritical about the militant hawk neocon Republicans in this administration who refused to honorably serve their country back when they had a chance? (Cheney’s “I had other priorities,” excuse, etc.) That hypocrisy thing works both ways. Personally, I find the shameful antics of cowards like Bush and Cheney to be far more offensive than Gore living a big house or riding in a limo.</p>

79

<p>Washdad–I don’t know if you were kidding or not, but Kerry was indeed referred to as a “pointy-headed intellectual.” He may not have deserved that moniker, but it was certainly leveled at him. The intellectual part never bothered me, but that “pointy-headed” thing was strange!</p>

80

<p>"Again, for those of you who continue to harp on the hypocrisy of environmentalist Democrats like Gore–Can you see nothing remotely hypocritical about the militant hawk neocon Republicans in this administration who refused to honorably serve their country back when they had a chance? "</p>

<p>Perhaps we’re just keeping this thread about environmental issues? The Republican/military issue has been discussed a lot, and the Gore house-thing is pretty new.</p>