Kurtz failed to challenge claim by Townhall's Ham that Gore "uses 300 times" the energy "the rest of us use"
During a discussion on the July 15 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources of the news that Sen. David Vitter's (R-LA) phone number was among those in the records of alleged "D.C. Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey, host Howard Kurtz failed to challenge Townhall.com managing editor Mary Katherine Ham's claim that former Vice President Al Gore (D-TN) "uses 300 times" the amount of energy that "the rest of us use." While Ham did not indicate the source of her claim, she was apparently exaggerating unsubstantiated assertions made by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR) about Gore's home energy bills, including a claim that his home energy usage was "more than 20 times the national average."
After contrasting Vitter's alleged use of an escort service with his political emphasis on promoting "morality," guest Arianna Huffington, founder and editor of Huffingtonpost.com, asserted that a politician's personal life would be "fair game" if it contradicted issues that he or she had made "the cornerstone of who you are as a political leader." Ham replied: "Well, in that case, we're free to go after the environmentalists who -- like Al Gore, who uses 300 times what the rest of us use."
As Media Matters for America has previously noted, TCPR claimed to have reviewed Gore's home energy bills and found that "[i]n 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh -- more than 20 times the national average. ... As a result of his energy consumption, Gore's average monthly electric bill topped $1,359." But in making their unsubstantiated claims, TCPR omitted some or all of the steps that Gore has reportedly taken to reduce the effect of his home energy usage, and that these steps apparently increased the cost of Gore's energy bills, which were also reported by CNN financial correspondent Ali Velshi and in a February 27 article in The Tennessean of Nashville.
On the February 27 edition of CNN's American Morning, Velshi reported that in response to TCPR's claims, "Gore produced bills that showed he purchased 108 blocks of green power for each of the past 3 months," which cost "about 432 bucks a month extra ... to use solar or other energy sources coming into his house." Velshi reported that "[o]ne group says that's about the equivalent of recycling 2.5 million aluminum cans, or more than a quarter million pounds of newspapers."
The Tennessean article also reported: "Gore purchased 108 blocks of 'green power' for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills. That's a total of $432 a month Gore paid extra for solar or other renewable energy sources."
The weblog Think Progress also reported that Gore's office said "Gore's family ... sign[ed] up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch" and "purchas[ed] carbon offsets to offset the family's carbon footprint."
Also, a February 27 Associated Press article questioned TCPR's assertion that the Gores used more than 220,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2006. The AP reported that "according to bills [it] reviewed," "[t]he Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006," while TCPR "said that Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours." The AP reported that TCPR president Jason "Drew" Johnson "said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service. But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never received a request from the policy center and never gave it any information."
In addition, the Gores reportedly purchase carbon offsets to allow them to lead "carbon neutral" lives. The Tennessean reported that involved with such "carbon emissions offset[s]" is "figuring out how much carbon is emitted from home power use, and vehicle and plane travel, then paying for projects that will offset that with use of renewable energy, such as solar power." The article further noted that the Gores drive a hybrid SUV and "Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe." According to a Wired magazine profile of Generation Investment Management, "Gore says he and Tipper regularly calculate their home and business energy use -- including the carbon cost of his prodigious global travel. Then he purchases offsets equal to the amount of carbon emissions they generate." From Wired:
The Gores and all the employees of Generation lead a "carbon-neutral" lifestyle, reducing their energy consumption when possible and purchasing so-called offsets available on newly emerging carbon markets. Gore says he and Tipper regularly calculate their home and business energy use - including the carbon cost of his prodigious global travel. Then he purchases offsets equal to the amount of carbon emissions they generate. Last year, for example, Gore and Tipper atoned for their estimated 1 million miles in global air travel by giving money to an Indian solar electric company and a Bulgarian hydroelectric project.
From the July 15 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:
KURTZ: So if you talk about morality and you don't live up to those high standards, you're fair game. But if you don't talk about morality --
HUFFINGTON: You're not fair game.
KURTZ: -- you can do whatever you want? Really?
HUFFINGTON: That's what I think. I mean, yes, it's between you and your partner. It's not about your constituents. It's not about the press.
HAM: It's a bit convenient that if you don't happen to subscribe to any particular morals in that area, that you can just run around and do whatever you want to. You still have to answer to the voters. And I think Democrats should be held to a standard as well.
HUFFINGTON: It's not whether you subscribe to it. It's whether you make it the cornerstone of who you are as a political leader.
HAM: Well, in that case, we're free to go after the environmentalists who -- like Al Gore, who uses 300 times what the rest of us use --
[crosstalk]
KURTZ: Let's keep the focus on personal conduct. And since Larry Flynt, who publishes a magazine filled with naked women, is leading this crusade again, does the press roll over for Flynt in portraying him as a First Amendment champion?
HAM: Well, you know, Larry Flynt is sort of a sideshow. I mean, he -- he's obviously going to go after Republicans for the reason that Arianna mentioned. And I believe he was on Cavuto on Fox a month ago, and Cavuto asked him specifically, "Will you go after Democrats?" He was like, well, well, uh, uh -- he should mention them if he's going to go after Vitter to this extent, I think.
HUFFINGTON: Remember what is interesting here is it was Larry Flynt again who came up with Bob Livingston's extramarital problems which led to Livingston resigning and David Vitter being elected to his seat --
KURTZ: This is back in 1999.
HUFFINGTON: Yes, back in 1999. And then I happened to see Larry Flynt after that. And you know what is interesting? That there was more to be revealed about Bob Livingston, which he did not go on to reveal because he had left public life and he felt therefore it didn't have to -- he didn't have to go there.















Also noted, is that Gore's home space includes their offices. The energy that would have been used by for outside offices, is included in their home's energy usage.
The right wing's hatred of Gore does not allow them to understand these points. Think about it, they have chosen to ignore science in order to hate Gore more. What a grand strategy.
While MMFA is right, Gore should have seen this coming. Kerry's "was a real soldiers" swiftboating, Edward's $400 haircut, Hillary is a catrating lesbian. It's not fair but it was going to happen. Actually, I hope he is laughing at this since the Cons are attacking him and he is not even running. Why is that, I wonder. My guess is large energy corporations need their shills to attack him as unlilke many candidates who need cash -- his support is not for sale.
I would agree that politicians (current and former) should see this coming. However, journalists have a duty to their audience to inform them of the truth and the facts. Journalists like Kurtz who just let right-wingers (or anyone) spew out unsubstantiated smears and lies is not only not doing their job as a journalist...they are betraying the trust of their audience. They are enabling lies and smears and attacks. That makes Kurtz a party to unfair political smear campaigns.
Not to mention the fact that Kurtz has a well documented record of double-standards and hypocrisy, and considering his show is supposed to be a critical look at the media, it shows how truly broken the system is. He's little more than a right-wing shill looking to push the media more to the right.
I don't care about ratings or the media's warped notion of "balance." Anyone who allows and enables a liar, smear-artist or who reports lies or rumour as fact is not a propagandist and is spitting in the face of their own audience. ALL journalists have a duty to inform their viewers of the TRUTH and FACTS. By allowing pundits to come on the show and lie or make false smears without correction, is no different than if Kurtz made them himself.
Why assume that he didn't see it coming? Let's suppose he did. What was he supposed to do about it? They're going to tell the lie no matter what.
That's just it: it's going to happen. As with Kerry, regressives will make something out of nothing, Fox, Limbaugh, and Hannity will keep repeating it, and the rabid 26 percenters will eat it up.
It's not worth living your life to please those people, because nothing you do will.
Hillary is a catrating lesbian.
I hear she rates them on a scale of 1 to 5.
Kerry's "was a real soldiers" swiftboating
should read "was not a real soldier"
I've always wondered why the MSM allows these lies to go unchallenged.
Arianna should have LEAPED into the conversation and told them off.
So, according to these guys, the national average is about $65 per month? I'd like to see the national average for houses the same size as Gore's.
This, like Edwards' hair cut and Obama's church and Hillary's "lying" about Chelsea's whereabouts on 9/11, is a phony issue. But, it gives the GOP's professional liars something to gnaw on, so they don't have to talk about the disastrous fiasco in Iraq foisted upon us by the dumbest, most corrupt President in modern history.
I'm sure this was just a slip of the tongue by Ham (har!), but I'd like to see a survey of the Reliable Sources and Townhall audiences, asking how many times the national average Gores electric bill is.
I'd bet 20X to 300x would be the range.
Uh...
Ham replied: "Well, in that case, we're free to go after the environmentalists who -- like Al Gore, who uses 300 times what the rest of us use."
Yeah... is there anyone who SAID they weren't free to go after hypocrites? They're just not free to make stuff up.
What an odd response.
My thoughts exactly. So now they're "free to go after envirnomentalists"? Like something was holding them back before?
Or is she just acknowledging that their efforts to this point have been disingenuous and cynical?
I have a question - Why does Larry Flynt have to reveal info like Vitter's indiscretions? Isn't the same information available to the MSM? And if so, why don't they reveal this legitimate news instead of waiting for Flynt to do so?
I've mentioned that myself. MSNBC even had a piece on this story and how Flynt is searching to see if any other numbers lead to politicians. They closed the bit by saying how interesting this is and it will be interesting to see if any more politicians are found out.
But as you mentioned, Flynt is using the exact same information that was released to the media. The exact same list of numbers that ABC admitted to having (as all media does) and ABC tried to say they were gonig to report the story but Flynt beat them to it. Uhmmm...ok. What is their excuse NOW? MSNBC was willing to report on someone else's breaking the story, but are refusing to look into the story themselves. It's only news if somebody else does the actual "journalism" part I guess.
The media has the list of numbers that Flynt has and refuses to look into it out of fear they will look "biased." They will ignore the story until somebody else finds the truth and evidence then report it as if they did their duty to the public when in fact they didn't.
Wow I'm very impressed Al Gore bought carbon credits from his own company..........Yet another straight up politician!
Hey, way to add something useful to the discussion! That was such a logical post.
Is it your contention, then, that if I own a shoe factory, it would be disingenuous of me to buy shoes from my company? I have to buy shoes from someone else to avoid some sort of right-wing, alternate-universe ethical infraction?
Actually, a more accurate interpretation of his "logic" would have been if Gore attacked Nike for using sweatshop labour, started his own shoe company with fair labour, and then the right attacked Gore for being a hypocrit because he attacks Nike but still buys shoes...from himself no less! Yet ignoring that the money Gore spends would go to American workers making a fair wage while money for other shoes goes to corporate coffers and overseas slave labour.
There is a HUGE difference.
When I buy product from my own company, I always keep the profits. While "carbon credits" satisfy progressives and make owner Al Gore feel good no one here has investigated the new owners of those credits. The MSM are holding those story's for later on in the election cycle. When the truth about "credits" comes out its going to be ugly, Las Vegas vacations, strippers, lobbyists, yikes!
Actually, Gore's company, GIM, provides the offsets for all employees. As the company doesn't invest its own money in carbon offset technology, it doesn't profit from the offsets, and neither does Al Gore.
Try another Drudge talking point.
The hate they have toward Gore is amazing. They lie and lie and make things up to smear him.
Right: "Gore is a hypocrit for using more energy and asking us to conserve"
Left: "Republicans want to legislate morality but break the law and hire prostitutes."
Right: "Don't talk about hypocrisy or we may be temped to mention Gore's energy use!"
A perfect example of right-wing logic on display. They state they should be able to criticize Gore for his energy usage? Hello! They did! They attacked him literally the day that Gore started speaking out. So it is quite the hollow threat to say that if we point out a Republicans hypocrisy they should be able to attack Gore. They've been attack Gore non-stop since 2000 and moreso when Inconvenient Truth came out.
Right wing logic is startingly similar to bully "logic". Attack somebody all day long, but the second somebody else attacks you back...they're asking for it. In typical Bully logic if they punch you and you punch them back, you aren't even. No, you aren't even until they punch you again.
How can any rational person care about how much energy Gore uses at his residence?
Oh, I forgot, righties are patently irrational.
I guess you would have to ask Gore the same question.
Perhaps it's because Gore's excessive reliance on energy is how he lives, yet he preaches and spanks us into reducing our consumption. Seems a little curious, that's all.
First of all, Gore's house is actually a ranch with several buildings. The electrical bill is for the entire estate not just a small condo. Secondly, Gore is a rich man, he has never hid that. But he has never falunted it like Cheney or Bush. He can afford higher energy bills by buying the more expensive green energy, which at present is expensive because Republican politicians have blocked all development of green energy incentives in Congress and in the White House. Per Kilowatt, the Gore's are actually using far less carbon based energy than an average user. And that is the point. from what I understand of Mr. Gore's energy views is that rich people should do more whenever possible to reduce carbon emissions. He is practising what he preaches. That is more people of wealth got on board with green energy, both with their homes and their businesses, green energy would be cheaper and more available. But to be honest, equating Gore's energy bill to a hypocritical Southern Senator who frequents whores while at the same time preaching hate against gays and non-Christians typifies the Republican party is a bit of non-sequitar to be begin with.
........rich people should do more whenever possible........."
Well, as long as I know that Gore is doing more whenever possible, then I feel much better, whew!
Al uses GREEN energy. This is energy derived from renewable sources and therefore is not harmful to the Environment. No one, including Al himself, ever said using ENERGY was the problem. There is an abundance of ENERGY in the universe. It is carbon-based energy that is the problem and Al does everything he possibly can to avoid using it, or, if necessary, offsetting his use by investing money in renewable energy production. Why does it matter how much energy he uses??
Let Al have his own power plant in his backyard if he so chooses, as explained ad nauseum here before, it's his railing against the rest of us for wasting energy on a planet with a "fever".
Again, it is GREEN energy. No one says you can't use as much energy as you'd like, as long as it comes from renewable, non-polluting sources! What can you not understand about this point?
he understands. he just prefers an argument.
Any other critiques of his post, Tommy? I thought he wrote pretty well.
Nah, what I referenced from his post was indeed the silliest.
The ony "silly" portion of this thread (apart from anything from leatherhelmet -- he's just irrelevant) is your posts. Edgarfield and iowadem answered you completely and factually, yet you insist on continuing not to get the post.
This is why you're called a "zombie" below. You've earned it.
Republican tactic #14
Attack the messenger.
I believe I was responding to Mr. Gore's hypocrisy. If you are unwilling to address that, then move on.
What did you think, aside from your comment about the rich, did you think of the poster who gave a reasoned analysis to rebut your thoughts? I don't think he was attacking you or the show on Al Gore.
Please describe for me, if you will, Al Gore's hypocrisy? How exactly is Al Gore being a hypocrite by using energy? It is the IRRESPONSIBLE use of carbon-based, non-renewable, energy that is the problem. The actual use of energy is somewhat necessary in order to live. The food you eat is energy your body uses to do stuff, even if you are a flesh eating, right-wing Zombie.
Be careful now, people will be fact-checking you!
Your defensiveness in calling me a "flesh eating right wing Zombie" is obviously code for some desperation on your part, and you expect an answer to anything?
I never expect, nor have I ever seen, a coherent answer from you to any post asking you a direct question.
Al Gore = Jimmy Swaggert
Swaggart purchased credits to offset his prostitution footprint?
No, he introduced tactics so the prostitute never remembered experiencing him (or so we can hope) ;)
Al Gore = Jimmy Swaggert
George W Bush = Alfred E. Newman
Let's see...the country needs to adopt better energy policies to reduce its carbon footprint and its reliance on fossil fuels (oil production has peaked and will decline in a long, slow emergency)
So instead of addressing the problem and proposing solutions and encouraging energy conservation--they attack Al Gore. Oh yay, cheer on the other rich politicians who don't try to make us do anything about this issue. Just keep shopping and buy those gas guzzling cars and go back to sleep....
you've just described the rush limbaugh audience.