Articles by David Roberts

Mallaby on Gore

The Washington Post's Sebastian Mallaby -- a member in good standing of the more-centrist-than-thou Beltway club -- thinks the Bush administration is making Al Gore look good:

Six years ago, Bush narrowly defeated Gore, apparently because voters thought he'd be a nicer guy to have a beer with. But after years of governmental bungling, of willful indifference to truth, the national mood seems to be changing. Voters have seen that nice guys can screw up. And technocrats with diagrams and charts have never seemed so interesting.

Elite opinion, which was so devastating to Gore's 2000 campaign, seems squarely behind him this time around.

Update [2006-5-22 15:28:21 by David Roberts]: Via Kevin Drum, Margaret Carlson makes a similar point.

Unbelievable

From Congressional Quarterly (subscription):

House Republican leaders this week plan to push at least one energy policy hot button during floor action before departing for a week-long Memorial Day recess: authorization to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

What's it going to take? A stake through the heart? A silver bullet? Perhaps environmentalists should consult this guide.

No.

Today, when asked whether he would see Gore's new movie, Bush said, "doubt it." I doubt it too. Who needs truth when you've got truthiness?

But Bush also said something more insidious:

... in my judgment, we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects, and focus on the technologies that will enable us to live better lives and, at the same time, protect the environment.

Should we "set aside" the question of whether human activity is driving climate change? I think not.

A while back, I wrote a post on this subject. I never put it up -- I was thinking of making it into an op-ed or something, but I never got around to it. Anyway, it's relevant to this question. So I've put it below the fold.

CEI and the bounds of the socially acceptable

Speaking of the CEI ads, I've been giving them some thought.

I worry that they will be a flash in the media pan, and quickly fade from memory. That would be a lost opportunity.

Here's a suggestion for a group that has the money and will to organize (maybe MoveOn): Don't let this drop. Find out every single corporate sponsor of CEI, contact them, and ask them if they agree with the content of the ads. If they agree, publicize the hell out of it. If they don't agree -- as Ford claims not to -- ask them why they're supporting an organization that's muddying the waters on this vital issue. If they refuse to respond, publicize the hell out of that.

Our development director questioned me about the Ford post. He said (paraphrasing), surely Ford shouldn't be held accountable for everything CEI does. After all, organizations that fund Grist don't necessarily agree with everything in our pages.

On most issues, I would agree. If Ford had disagreements with CEI over, say, accounting regulations, but supported their other work, fine. Reasonable people differ about accounting regulations.