Al Gore Says Democratic Candidates Should Absolutely Run On AOC’s Green New Deal: Report

From The Daily Caller

Daily Caller News Foundation logo

Chris White Tech Reporter

December 13, 2019 1:07 PM ET

Former Vice President Al Gore believes the Green New Deal (GND) could be a winning issue for Democrats in 2020.

The GND is a “broad brushstroke, bold proclamation, the details of which are designed to be filled in later,” Gore told Politico Friday. He believes Democratic candidates should use the legislation to help generate enthusiasm before next year’s election, Politico reported.

Gore also suggested that Republicans are flipping on climate change. “We’re not that far away from a restoration of bipartisan support, particularly since Mother Nature is getting everybody’s attention with these fires and floods and hurricanes,” he told reporters.

Republicans in the Senate torpedoed the activist-backed legislation in March as Democrats called the vote a dog-and-pony show. The GOP defeated the proposal 57-0; Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called the bill a socialistic ploy designed to kill the economy. (RELATED: McConnell And Senate Republicans Vote To Kill Green New Deal)

The resolution, introduced in February by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, called for “10-year national mobilizations” toward addressing climate change. A fact sheet published alongside the proposal claimed the plan would “mobilize every aspect of American society on a scale not seen since World War 2.”

The GND would reportedly phase out fossil fuel usage within 12 years, but could cost tens of trillions of dollars, some reports show. Americans could be forced to pay up to $93 trillion to implement the proposal over a decade, the conservative-leaning American Action Forum (AAF) noted in a study in February.

Critics claim that number is exaggerated as the proposal is still in the preliminary stages.

Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Cory Booker of New Jersey, both of whom are running for president, for instance, signed on as Senate co-sponsors of the proposal before it met its demise in the Senate.

Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, another 2020 candidate, introduced a different version of the GND in November. The new version calls for a $180 billion investment to retrofit public housing to eliminate all carbon emissions.

The housing units would use solar panels and other green energy resources to meet those goals.

Gore has not responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

88 thoughts on “Al Gore Says Democratic Candidates Should Absolutely Run On AOC’s Green New Deal: Report

  1. “Former Vice President Al Gore believes the Green New Deal (GND) could be a winning issue for Democrats in 2020.”

    A man in deep delusional mode, there have been no significant ecoloony legislation in this area since the climate baloney took off in the 1990’s

    • GND is a “broad brushstroke, bold proclamation, the details of which are designed to be filled in later,” Gore told Politico Friday. – article

      ‘Smatter? Is Gorebull out of money already? No details now, just take it on speculation?

      Yeah, no thanks, idiotstick.

      Can someone tell that fat dorkwad to go sit down in the corner?

    • Isn’t this the path most megalomaniacs take? If they can’t be in charge then they’ll tear the whole thing down.

    • Climate and guns seem to be two issues where, even with the full backing of the manifestly corrupt mainstream media, dems can’t move the needle – a testament to the common sense of half the population.

  2. I’m sure all Americans are going to be swayed by voting for the GND a policy that has no substance as gore explains till its voted in,then it can become anything,yer right!

    Question is there any possibility that the Democrats can gain a majority in one or both houses?

    • B d Clark: Anything is possible. Americans are a “gimme” culture and the Dems promise utopia. AOC got elected. It was a small district, but she’s there. A fairly high number of Republicans are retiring, which increases the odds. Then again, people are tired of the “impeach him” as the only thing Congress is doing, so maybe not. I wouldn’t lay odds on anything right now.

    • B d Clark, the Democrats already have a majority of the house (it’s why they were able to do the partisan impeachment circus the past few weeks). Next election it’s possible they can hold on to the house and because of the number of Republican vs Democrat seats up for election (12 Democratic and 23 Republican of those 5 Dems and 11 Rep are considered “battleground” elections, the rest being considered “safe”), they theoretically could pick off enough to flip the senate. Of course, If Trump gets re-elected, it’s also possible that his “coat-tails” help preserve the Republican majority in the Senate and even flip the house back to Republican control.

      In short, it’s impossible to say who will be in control of each of the houses after the Nov 2020 election, but it the American People have been paying the slightest bit of attention to the shenanigans the Democrats have been playing with their one-side partisan impeachment circus, they’ll give the Republicans an unprecedented landslide victory in both houses. Unfortunately I don’t think the population has been paying that much attention.

    • B d
      Sad to say, there is a disturbingly high probability that the Democrats can gain a majority in both houses of Congress and also defeat Trump. 100% of the representatives are elected every two years and the Democrats already have control there. One third of the senators are up for election every two years. Next year, 22 of the 34 seats up for election are being defended by Republicans. Most Senate seats are likely to be won by incumbents, but given that only 12 Democrat seats are up for a vote, and only a couple are really in play, Republicans need an incredibly strong performance to avoid losing more than 3 seats and with that the loss of control. If Trump is re-elected, a 50-50 tie would still result in nominal Republican control because the Vice President breaks any tie in the Senate.

      If Trump loses, the odds are that the Democrats will also take control of the Senate and continue to hold the House. If Trump wins, it’s still possible, maybe even probable that the Democrats would control both houses of Congress. The president is not a prime minister elected by the House, so divided government is common. There is typically a chance that in any presidential year, either party could take complete control, but divided government is more likely.

      It’s possible that the Republicans will return to complete control. A strong economy should normally be a good prospect. I hope for the best, but I am not very confident. Trump presides over the best employment picture in a generation, and historically low unemployment for minority groups. Also rising incomes. Yet he remains far below 50% in job approval and personal approval. Obama won re-election with below 50% job approval, but with high personal approval numbers and the constant support of the media and a weak opponent. I guess that Trump depends on having an opponent who is more hated like Clinton or feared as an economy-wrecker. He doesn’t have a Brexit issue and he can’t necessarily count on having a Corbynesque opponent. Hoping for the best, but bracing for the worst. We’ll know in 11 months.

      • Thank you Rich a good explanation, I do hope the Democrats lose, it seems to me it’s a hate campaign against trump by certain Democrats,, since the day he took office the BBC have run a campaign against him ,every chance they get they play him in a bad light. But it does show that trump has been demonised world wide and that takes organisation the left taking over every aspect of our lives.

  3. “The GND is a “broad brushstroke, bold proclamation, the details of which are designed to be filled in later,” Gore told Politico Friday. He believes Democratic candidates should use the legislation to help generate enthusiasm before next year’s election, Politico reported.”

    Ah yes, the old “we need to pass it to find out what’s in it” reasoning. No thanks, I’ll pass, because I DO know what’s in it…

    • I’ll pass it, just let me Ingest it and Digest it a little first then, when I pass it, the end product will be well known

    • Simultaneously, they plot to do away with the electoral college because it doesn’t let them dictate policy from their urban clusters.

      • Which are being packed with numbers via “Sanctuary Cities”.
        Even if the ILLEGALS don’t vote, they’ll still count when it comes to determining the number of Representatives for the House of Representatives for the next 10 years.
        Why do you think think they’ve fought so hard to keep the citizenship question off of the next census?
        They are afraid of a law that might base the number of House Representatives being based on the the number of legal citizens rather than just a head count.

    • I understand why it’s gone, but I do miss the “thumbs up” feature!
      Thumbs Up!
      (As I understand it, for those newer to the site, it used to have that feature here but it, along with other features that are no more, caused problems with the site’s functionality itself. And it costs extra to have to deal with those “extras”.)

  4. Hey Fatso. Why don’t you start living the GND instead of lecturing us or anyone else from one of your multimillion mansions or private jet or yacht or massage parlor or whatever. Walk the walk, big boy.

  5. Please, please, please Democrats run on the Green New Deal. Guaranteed success, can’t lose strategy, your yellow brick road to the White House. (sarc)

  6. Just wondering. In any full — ground up — accounting, what are the carbon emissions involved in say the proposed retrofitting public housing to eliminate all carbon emissions? On what planet will the aluminum and the photovoltaic silicon will be mined, refined, transported, installed, and eventually replaced and disposed of employing carbon emission free energy/machinery? It certainly won’t be on ours! So do dream on, ’cause its only when these facilities are finally lying there in place that they aren’t emitting carbon. And so their lying there at last for all to see and celebrate isn’t the only lying taking place here.

    • And how much appropriately-facing roof do the public-housing facilities have to emplace the panels? And at what latitude are the facilities located? And whatt will the residents do for electricity at night?

    • …retrofit public housing to eliminate all carbon emissions.

      The housing units would use solar panels and other green energy resources to meet those goals.

      These poseurs mistakenly use ‘carbon offsets’ in place of ‘carbon elimination’ in order to pull the wool over our eyes.

      The recent hypocritical excuses by the rich and famous for their much higher than average energy use is telling.

    • Doc Chuck: None of that counts. Really—I learned that from the wind industry. It only counts that once done, you get FREE electricity and heat. Never mind maintenance, that does not count either. Maybe we need a course in carbon credits and “green” energy, why only some items belong on the spreadsheet, etc. It would make things so much easier. Also, we’ll need two systems, one for “green” energy and one for evil CO2 emitting forms like oil, coal and gas. The same things don’t count in both. This is generally referred to as “creative accounting” and is encouraged in all government activities. Individuals can end up in jail, though. (See Bernie Madoff for why you need the government involved.) Hope that helps.

  7. The day that Al Gore donates all of his holdings to charity and moves into a tiny home and uses public transportation I will take him seriously.Until then he is just a carbon belching HYPOCRITE!

  8. Nothing could be easier to campaign against:

    They want to make you poor
    They want to make you hungry
    They want you to lose your job
    They want you to be sin luz
    They want you to be without power
    They want you to be cold
    They want to boil you in summer
    They want to take your car
    They want to take your health
    They want you dead
    They want you to vote for that

    • haha now that I did laugh at. I am sure Nicolás Maduro is also available to help with how to shut down the fossil fuel industries.

  9. I agree with Gore for once. Yes the Democrats should definitely run on this lunacy in 2020. There’s no surer way of getting The Trumpinator reelected. So go for it!

    • Climate had nothing much to do with the UK election result. All major parties are on board, including Johnson’s Conservatives.

    • I don’t think the GND has a chance of passing unless they include an amendment explaining the inner workings of a garbage disposal.

  10. GND or peace and prosperity. Tough choice. Not.

    I still maintain that a winnng meme for Trump would be, “If you like having a job, you can keep your job. Trump 2020.”

    • jtom — Are you taking a low-cost shot at good old “hoke and chains”?

      I agree with and thoroughly endorse your earlier comment about reading foreign news papers to find out what’s happening in the US.

  11. We have the equivalent in Canada–we get Gored by Trudeau. His 2015 promise of ‘details will be filled in later’ was called ‘Sunny Ways’, not GND. The first ‘broad brush principle’ was that ‘The budget will balance itself.’ I did not make that up, Canadians know the saying well.

    Then the promise was that the budget would be balanced by 2019. Well, 2019 has come and gone. So ‘the details’ are getting filled in now.

    In March 2019 the deficit was projected to be $19.8 Billion; yesterday it was $26.6 Billion. As for a balance?–pretty much now given as ‘not in your lifetime’; there are now no Liberal plans to ever balance it.

    Although it’s supposed to be down to $11.6 Billion by 2024-2025! C’mon, kick it again, Charlie Brown, I won’t pull it away this time I promise.

    So be careful about voting for any kind of ‘New Deal’ no matter the colour–‘the devil is always in the details’. And the devil is red, not Green.

    (And kudos to the one who dreamed up the ‘Corbyn neutral’ condition of Britain right now; an excellent chuckle.)

  12. I hope Big Al and AOC don’t visit my neck of the woods. I don’t want to shovel 3 feet of global warming.

  13. “broad brushstroke, bold proclamation, the details of which are designed to be filled in later,”

    Wherein lies the devil.

  14. The GND is a “broad brushstroke, bold proclamation, the details of which are designed to be filled in later,” Gore told Politico Friday. He believes Democratic candidates should use the legislation to help generate enthusiasm before next year’s election, Politico reported.

    The devil is in those details to be filled in later, along with massive poverty.

    $93 Trillion over 10 years will cost the average American $30,000 per year, or $120,000 per year for a family of four. Since the median household income is about $65,000 per year, the Green New Deal would make more than half of the families in the United States flat broke, so that “maybe” the climate might be a fraction of a degree cooler, that no one will notice, since everyone will be struggling to keep the lights on.

    When Al Gore ran for President in 2000 against global warming, Democrats lost West Virginia (coal country) for the first time in decades. If Gore had won WV, he would have been President, and wouldn’t have needed Florida. Pennsylvania and Ohio, which are natural gas fracking states, flipped to Trump in 2016.

    Nevertheless, I encourage all Democrats to run on the Green New Deal. With record low unemployment, the stock market hitting record highs, lower taxes, and America exporting oil and natural gas for the first time in over 50 years, how many voters want to trade that for cold poverty, and a booming market for candles and buggy whips? The Green New Deal as a platform for Democrats is a great way for Republicans to re-take the House of Representatives, keep the Senate, and President Trump to be re-elected overwhelmingly.

  15. The cognitive issues of the great Goracle are certainly great and multiple, but let’s hope there are few mature individuals on the Democratic side who realize Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy are not going to rescue Americans from policies guaranteed to initiate economic suicide.

  16. Al Gore = Artificial Intelligence gore.
    Cripple the US even more vs upcoming China.
    Forget Russia, that is just the CIA’s patsy.

  17. Gore: believes Democratic candidates should use the (GND) legislation to help generate enthusiasm before next year’s election

    Republicans: want Democratic candidates to follow Gore’s advise.

    There’s a reason the Dems refused to vote on the GND when Mitch McConnel brought it up for a vote. 57-0 against the GND. Not a single Dem was willing to vote for it, with 43 Dems (including it’s Senate co-sponsors) voting “present”. Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Kristen Gillibrand (R-NY), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) all refused to vote for it despite claiming to be in support of it. Even they realize how big a loser the GND really is. They’ll give it lip service to pull in lefty climate activists support but nothing more.

  18. Remember Earth in the Balance? Gore’s book that he ran on in 2000. The one that made me hold my nose and vote for Bush, after 20 years of wasting my vote on the LP. He’s also bankrolling the Greta agitprop campaign, through his Foundation. I think this is his last chance to save the world again. I sure hope so.

  19. People all over the world slowly start to understand that this climate alarmist renewable madness has a price. Its a price that ordinary people pay through higher prices for energy and everything else including the bare essentials for life. Its a price that they pay through higher taxes and rates and its also a price that they pay through lower wages or job loss because of a stunted economy. All those people are voters. Forcing Democrat candidates to align themselves with the GND is tantamount to political suicide. Gore must know that – but then again. What do you expect from a man that preaches rising sea levels and who lives on a seaside property?

Comments are closed.