Why do people continue to compare Bush and Gore's homes?

Question

People never cease to bring up this comparison between Bush and Gore's homes.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.aspqid=20070913123734AAgAWkc&show=7#profile-info-7a1a4586cbdfad0a780847164818434aaa

Certainly you can argue that Gore is a bit of a hypocrite for having a large house while arguing for a reduction in energy consumption, though people often forget that this is not an argument against global warming.

However, Bush has quite possibly been the worst environmental president in US history. He's done an incalculable amount of damage to the environment while in office. Is the fact that his home is relatively environmentally friendly supposed to compensate for that? Is the fact that Gore's home consumes a lot of energy supposed to invalidate his benefits to the environment through the amount of awareness he's raised with regards to global warming?

What's the purpose of this argument?

I can't believe people are actually questioning the environmental damage done by the Bush Admin.

Please just do a bit of research. It's not that difficult. I'll even give you some links.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2003/2003-06-24-10.asp
http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000091.php

In terms of global warming, the administration has altered scientific reports and refuses to take any action to reduce emissions despite admitting that humans are the primary cause. The Supreme Court had to force the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/qbushplan.asp
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/15/tech/main588593.shtml
http://www.sierraclub.org/epajob/bush_trackrecord.asp

Answer 1

Because they think it adds credibility to their argument against a spokesman of a scientific idea, and think it lend credibility to their defense of the actions taken by the Bush admin to weaken environmental protection standards.

Answer 2

True. Since that's the only real argument they have, it's pointless. Calling Gore or Kennedy a hypocrite by conservatives is, pretty much, the pot calling the kettle black. Ever hear of Vitters or Craig? Both Republicans who pretended to be holier-than-thou family men...one was caught in a high priced madam's contact book and the other was arrested for soliciting homosexual acts. There are plenty of politicians on either side anyone can point to being a hypocrite.
Bush may be doing the absolute minimum he can to admit there's a climate problem but Gore is doing what he can to bring it to others' attention. Hmmm, which is more helpful? A house or getting a million home owners to start being more environmentally aware?

Answer 3

Considering all the links to your information sources are Eco-oriented you have a point in asking your question as to why people are always comparing Bush's and Gore's houses.

What Bush chooses to do on his on time and dime and then signing business friendly policy is the Republican way.

Gore's telling the world, what they should be doing and then doing the opposite is the Democrat way.

Which ever politician is in office they will make policy that will help those (with deep pockets) that finance their campaigns.

Voting for Hillary or Richardson or Obama won't make that much more difference, than a Republican getting elected. None of them will sign policy that will hurt American business because that is where the campaign money comes from.

Answer 4

Gore is a pacesetter of the Democrat party. Socialists and Communists totally understand that what they pontificate is for the low-existence massess that they command. They comprehend they'd do in spite of they choose because of the fact they're the elite and deserve particular privilages because of the fact they're the only human beings clever sufficient to run all and sundry else's lives throughout the government. Democrats have self assurance government desires to stress the massess to in spite of they think of is ultimate. Republicans have self assurance persons could have rights and be allowed to make their very own judgements. this is fairly a count of Freedom.

Answer 5

Because it is a good illustration of the different approaches taken by these two politicians to a common problem (in this case global warming), and by representation, the differences in their respective political philosophies.

Al Gore is a well know liberal, his approach to any problem, and in fact to any question, is that the government should enact a program and mandate a solution. In this case, a carbon cap and trade system. But, as a member of the liberal elite, he would exempt himself and fellow members of this exclusive club from any restrictions or inconveniences imposed by this program. Hence, he preaches that we must all reduce our carbon foot print, use less energy, etc, but he and his family remain free to consume 20 times the electricity used by a normal U.S. family. In this he is not alone. Sen Edward Kennedy, also a well know liberal politician, is always blathering on about saving the enviroment, reducing global warming etc, but has also spent considerable time and effort trying to block the construction of a large off shore wind turbine project because the towers would spoil his view. Other members of the Kennedy clan are also notorious for being high profile global warming activists while flying around in private jets and riding in limos.

George Bush, a conservative, believes that government programs are rarely an effective solution. Instead, individuals are perfectly capable of choosing what is best for them. As and individual, he clearly believes that a low energy foot print is the best choice and thus his private house is a model of energy efficiency. He does not, however, believe that his choice should be forced on others.

And I challenge you to document your claim that George Bush has done an incalculable amount of damage to the environment while in office. In fact, If you look at actual data, you will probably see that the environment has become cleaner during his tenure.

Propaganda sites from ELF organizations are not valid documentation. Show me some actual figures that support your claim that environmental damage has been done (for example data that shows a step change in environmental degradation during the Bush administration . Just one would be interesting, but for the damage to be incalculable there would have to be many many examples. If you can't provide this, please shut your cake hole.

emos, Gore's house does not run on renewable energy, it takes power from the same grid that all of us use. If you disagree, show me some proof.

Answer 6

Bush has done the worst job ever i agree with you but i dont agree with you when you call gore a hypocrite his house runs on renewable energy so how is he a hypocrite

Answer 7

Tell us what "incalculable amount of damage" Bush has done to the environment - please be specific. There has been plenty of legislation under Bush to improve the environment. Diesel engines now have to cleaner than before. Transformers must meet energy efficiency standard TP1 by federal law. Your question is based on false assumptions.

Answer 8

Exactly ! a demonstration house does not bring a lot.

Several countries have a broad market penetration of passive houses (90% less energy) and solar houses.

Indeed, several countries have implemented a mandatory house minimum energy standard.

Answer 9

So I guess you think Bush is responsible for a lot of global destruction and that he was responsible for most of global warming. Nice job liberal.

Answer 10

It shows the hypocrisy of the believers. Everyone is supposed to sacrifice, except for them, as they are too important to make any cutbacks.

This is exactly how the Soviet Union worked. The similarities between the two are more than a coincidence.