That’s what Grover Norquist says President Obama portrayed him as:
Grover Norquist, founder and president of Americans For Tax Reform, has a new theory about why President Barack Obama won — he portrayed Mitt Romney as a “poopy head.”
“The president was committed; elected on the basis that he was not Romney and Romney was a poopy head and you should vote against Romney and he won by two points,” Norquist said on CBS’ “This Morning” Monday. “But he didn’t make the case that we should have higher taxes and higher spending, he kind of sounded like the opposite.”…
This was a neat way, for Mr. Norquist, of distracting us from the fact that exit polls show that most voters last Tuesday want to raise taxes on higher-income individuals.
Related Posts
No, but I suspect Norquist is.
Good one, Karen.
How old is Mr. Norquist, again? Three?
It takes one to know one.
I had never heard him speak before. My first reaction is: “THIS is the most powerful and most feared man in Washington? The guy who got all our Congressmen (except, I guess, Clyburn) to pledge allegiance to HIM? The guy who said “poopy head” on TV?” Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
+100: Karen McLeod
I’m a switch hitter; I’ll vote Republican or Democrat depending on who is the better candidate or the lesser of the two evils.
The Republican field this year was weak. It was as if they expected that they would lose.
There was the ethically, and morally challenged candidate, Newt Gingrich; the morally challenged candidate, the pizza guy; everybody’s crazy uncle: Ron Paul; the vulture capitalist: Mitt Romney; my votes for sale: Rick Santorum.
I don’t know if the Republicans will pull out their big guns for 2016 or not. But Bobby Jindal is a front runner for 2016? Hopefully, SC Governot Nikki Haley won’t be governor in 2016 and won’t be a member of Jindal’s cabinet.
Instead Mitt lost and South Carolina lost because Governot Haley was expecting a cabinet position in Romney’s administration.
Stay classy, Republicans!
This is a guy, Norquist, whose 15 minutes are long since past. Can everyone please stop giving him airtime now?
I like Karen’s answer a lot.
Not sure exactly what a “poopy head” would be, but it doesn’t seem quite right. I think a poopy head would take a more active role in being stinky about things – I think Romney is more passive and weak and evasive – not being willing to own up to his past convictions or adequately explain why they had changed – he just wanted to avoid the issue and hope it would go away. Seems like a weak cowardly kind of disposition. He’s not a poopy head, he’s a yellow bellied weaselly chameleon.
Well, yeah. Works for me.
The bipartisan compromise now under discussion does NOT raise tax rates, but would reduce or eliminate deductions like the
popular mortgage interest deduction. Yes, millionaires might lose most of the current deduction, BUT…
Every time (there have been no exceptions to this since the IRC was established) the tax code has been “overhauled”, “simplified”, or “reformed”, new loopholes have been made available only for those wealthy enough to afford “expert tax guidance”. Why? Tax lawyers thrive on deciphering the arcane legalese of new loopholes their federal allies create surreptitiously for their wealthy clientele.
Since it usually takes at least 10-15 years for tax interpretations to become public (through court cases and clarifying regulations), with Congress’s help tax lawyers effectively stifle competition from all but the larger CPA firms.
Example: how long have most of you known about the “carried interest tax deduction” the wealthy Obama supporters and Romney use? It has been around since 1972!
I say we let ALL the Bush tax cuts expire. Then we can really start raising taxes.
@Bryan – Exactly. Those Obama voters who are screaming for the rich paying more taxes will see tax rates for the bottom taxpayers go up from 10% to 15% (50% increase) and the top taxpayers go from 35% to 38% (about an 8% increase). And with defense cuts equally social service cuts they can expect their entitlement payments drop. I read yesterday that Ohio is dropping their food stamp entitlement an average of $50 per welfare recipient starting January 1. Gotta pay for these free services somehow.
“The president was elected on the basis that he was not Romney and that Romney was a poopy-head and you should vote against Romney,”
Don’t think that’s going to make it into Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations.
It has “always” amazed me that any elected representative is willing to sign a pledge written by an unelected individual, pledge fealty to his ideology and ideas and expect anyone who is capable of one minute of individual thought or expression to continue to vote for them!!
Well, for some, it was a no-brainer because they signed the damn thing anyway.
It is demeaning and frightening for a nation when anyone on either side of the aisle is willing to do something so contradictory to freedom of ideas or thought as to mindlessly pledge devotion to an individual and place that person ahead of the country.
The lamebrains in Hollywood who have sworn allegiance to Obama and vowed to serve him are committing an act just as egregious as anyone doing the same for Grover Norquist.
Plus, using the term, “Poopy Head” in a public statement demonstrates the fact that he may have an intellect that covers a square mile area but only with a slight dusting, nothing with any depth whatsoever.
The inference that Romney ‘s head was up his backside oblivious to reality made that a moot point. Ignore the whining seditious slime.
Wait, Bart. The lame brains in Hollywood have not signed a pledge, and even if they had, they aren’t the elected officials. No one sensible is suggesting that Obama signed any pledge, or even that any Democrat signed any pledge or made any prior agreements about how they would serve. If they had, I think we’d have had open service by gays a lot sooner, immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, repeal of the Bush tax cuts….those are the Democratic base’s “pledge” items for a start.
@Kathryn,
I never said the “lame brains” in Hollywood have signed a pledge, I only made the point that they vowed allegiance to Obama in the same manner as the “lame brains” had signed the Norquist pledge. Verbal or signature, a vow or pledge to an individual is still the same thing.
If you can’t think for yourself, you shouldn’t try to influence others to follow suit. That was my point.
Bart, I respect your comments, but I really don’t see how ” they [hollywood] vowed allegiance to Obama in the same manner as the “lame brains” had signed the Norquist pledge.”
How in the same manner? One group are private individuals expressing their personally held beliefs at no one’s urging but their own. Whether or not you think they are intelligent or agree with their assessments, this is something they have the right to do and presumably chose to do so of their own free will.
If you think otherwise, what evidence do you have that those in hollywood who support Obama can’t think for themselves?
Meanwhile the other group are elected officials who are accountable to those who elected them but who choose to sign a pledge that affects the work they are elected to do at the urging of someone who was not elected and who is not their constituent. And it is not at all clear whether they signed the pledge because they believe in it or because they fear repercussions on their re-election efforts due to outside influences controlled by Norquist.
Norquist is kind of like a bully extorting lunch money in exchange for not beating you up in this scenario. Who is the bully influencing the hollywood crowd if this is the same situation?
Seriously it’s not at all the same thing.
But it is a whole lot more significant when elected representatives are held hostage to a single issue
When you sign the Norquist pledge, you give up your ability to legislate.
You abdicate your sacred duty to legislate as the situation warrants is what you do. You cease to be a human representative, and become an automaton.
It’s particularly disgusting to me because I have no fondness for any kind of campaign promises. No one should go into office having sworn to do X (much less having committed the idiocy of promising to ALWAYS do X in all circumstances that arise), because he doesn’t know what will happen that might make that promise irresponsible or irrelevant. As the Fremen say (or would have said, were they not fictional), “Be prepared to appreciate what you meet.” And act accordingly at the time. Don’t tie your hands beforehand.
This is related to my belief that one of the main purposes in electing representatives is to delegate them to spend the time that the rest of us don’t have actually studying an issue, listening to diverse opinions on it, in order to become wiser than they were when they went in, before they vote on it.
To make like you KNOW what to do before you have that opportunity is foolish. To just happen to “know” that the right thing to do is the currently POPULAR thing is unconscionable.
For the first time in a long time, the odds are in the Democrats’ favor: Go over the cliff and then restore tax cuts for the middle class. It’s not a desirable option, but less desirable than what much of the GOP is proposing, which is to pray for a solution to drop out of heaven. Deus ex machina.
So you’re all okay with a politician NOT signing the pledge but stating that his personal philosophy is that government is too large and that taxes should be lower?
Isn’t the “Will you accept $10 in cuts for $1 in tax increases?” question the same thing? A phony litmus test?
Grover Norquist is no different than any other special interest group (unions, NRA, pro-choice, pro-life). He’s just been really effective at marketing his message. Unfortunately, the results haven’t matched the rhetoric. We don’t have smaller government. We don’t have a balanced budget. We don’t have a simplified tax code. We have the opposite of all that.
Actually, I agree with Steve. Let “ALL” of the Bush tax cuts expire and let the Democrats offer an entirely new tax package and budget at the same time. Republicans should stand aside and let them run their course and see where it takes us.
Give the Obama initiatives the four years he asked for without objection and at the end of his term in office, do an honest evaluation and move on from there. If the economy is on a firm path to a real recovery and if the middle class is restored or has hope of restoration along with real inroads to fiscal responsibility in entitlement programs, Social Security back on the road to stability, and Medicare costs under control, then we will know if the Democrat solutions are the right ones. If the healthcare act is not costing the taxpayers anymore for health care, leave it alone. If the elderly are not subjected to necessity of procedure reviews that constitutes the so-called “death panels”, then leave it alone.
If one of the Democrat solutions is to provide another multi-billion dollar stimulus package to provide for positive growth across the board, private and public sectors and no special interest accommodations, Republicans should go along and vote for it. If possible, instead of a multi-billion dollar stimulus, if it is to do what we are told it will do, make it a multi-trillion dollar package instead. Why go for a small approach when a bigger one according to many economists would work much better.
I am very serious about this approach. So far, nothing has worked and it is evident that we are going to get another weak compromise that will do nothing but provide political fodder for one side to use against the other and accomplish nothing concrete.
The following are some thoughts in no particular order on the subject, some valid, others – maybe.
Legalize pot but put it under the same restrictions as we have for smoking cigarettes and cigars in public places and tax it to the same level as tobacco, maybe higher. More revenue for the government coffers and a new enterprise for entrepreneurs.
Have open borders between Mexico, Canada, and the US with no requirements other than minimal identification. No time limit on staying or work visa requirements either unless they want to become a citizen. If they stay at least one year, pay taxes, and contribute, automatic citizenship granted if they want it. Eliminate or drastically reduce the INS and save money on border enforcement.
Scale back the military to a bare-bones, minimum defense force requirement. Close all bases on foreign soil completely and turn the defense of our friends over to their own military and let them bear the burden of defending their own soil. Dry dock all naval vessels with the exception of one or two carriers and submarines necessary for patrolling our own coastlines, never venturing into waters beyond 50 to 100 miles beyond them. If an American vessel sails into dangerous waters, they are on their own, no help coming from the Navy. Cancel all contracts with every military contractor including the ones in Ohio that come under the UAW collective bargaining agreement.
Eliminate the National Guard except for a State Guard necessary to react and assist in emergency situations. Take the Sweden approach and require each citizen of age to own a government authorized weapon should we be invaded or need them for national defense purposes. Eliminate ownership of handguns or other firearms for personal use completely. No ownership for home or personal protection. Depend on local authorities to provide for your safety. If necessary, increase local taxes to pay for additional police protection or let the federal government assist in providing the needed funding. Require every home to have an alarm system installed and if they cannot afford one, let the government provide it.
Require all foods to meet certain standards for fat, cholesterol, and other harmful contents so there will be less obesity and associated health issues. Only allow beef or pork to be served or eaten one day a week and then it must meet a maximum fat content allowable under health guidelines set by the government. No exceptions allowed. Otherwise, all meals must be vegetarian with a minimum of dairy products. By reducing the amount of meat we eat, it will reduce the number of animals required therefore reducing the gases they emit that pollute the atmosphere and increases the carbon content responsible for climate change according to established science – or not, depending on your point of view.
The government should invest in installing charging stations in every area of the country and set a time limit of 10-15 years before all vehicles on the road must be hybrids or all electric. Again, no exceptions allowed.
There should be no new power generating plants allowed unless they are solar or wind powered, no coal, no fossil fuel powered generators, and no hydro powered plants either. All existing coal and nuclear plants to be given 10-15 years of operation and in the interim, the green technology research accelerated to accommodate the upcoming demands for power.
Reconfigure the existing power grid to much smaller independent regional grids and close the existing interconnecting grid so an attack or failure wouldn’t throw most of the nation into darkness. Or take the Duke Power approach and partner with a DuPont and create a national system of co-generation plants to take care of local needs when the local power plant cannot handle the load. Arizona for example has several in place and they work very well. Smaller grids would be more adaptable to solar and wind power.
Homes should be required to be totally energy efficient and existing homes should be retrofitted to meet the requirements. All new home plans should be submitted to an energy review panel before a construction permit is issued. They should be inspected prior to occupancy to guarantee it meets the established standards. Families who cannot afford to own a home or cannot upgrade should be provided a dwelling that meets the requirements by the government and any occupancy fee should be paid direct to the government. Substandard homes should be leveled and rebuilt if the owner meets an established set of qualifications based on income, age, and other essential requirements.
In major population centers like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Miami, and other major cities across the nation, replace cars with bicycles and other modes of transportation to reduce or eliminate traffic congestion. Require commuters to use public transportation as the primary means of travel from home to work and if someone insists on driving their own vehicle, add a surcharge so high it will discourage them from even considering it. If possible, offer a tax credit to individuals who live within a short bike ride or walking distance to their place of employment so they won’t place any stress or burden on public or private transportation.
Reduce the allowable size of a vehicle so it will reduce the amount of space it occupies and the reduced size and weight will relieve the burden on our highways and streets, eliminating the need for as much repair as we have now. To save on fossil fuel based paving, require all streets and highways to be constructed of concrete.
To further reduce stress on resources, the environment, and anything else affected by human activity, initiate a maximum two child policy like China’s and give married couples or a single parent tax credits if they stop at two children. If they opt for more than two, they must obtain a permit or exemption and an “extra child tax” added for each additional child.
Establish a guaranteed minimum amount of income anyone should have in order to always be above the poverty level and everyone will have total healthcare coverage provided by the government. At the same time, establish a maximum anyone can earn and if they exceed the maximum, all monies over the maximum should be returned to the government in full. No exceptions.
The list could go on and on but due to space and attention spans, time to stop.
At this point, why not go for an “all in” scenario and be done with it?
Wow, Bart, that is one LONG comment — 1,381 words, to be exact. Who do you think you are — me?
Seriously, thanks for your thoughtfulness, and for taking the time.
Some provocative ideas there, but I have one quibble — I don’t think all of those things could legitimately be called the Democratic approach. Although I realize you were sort deliberately engaging in hyperbole. For instance, the one about requiring all citizens to own a gun — that kind of sounds more Republican to me…
Yes, Bart, let’s!
Yep, it was a lot of hyperbole but some rather interesting points. Sorry it was so long. For a moment, I did imagine I was wearing a bowtie and a seersucker jacket.
I had a few minutes while waiting on a conference call and thought it would be fun exercise to put out some thoughts to ponder. Hope everyone takes it in the light presented.
Hey, Kathryn’s all for it.
The only liberal idea I really want — which the Democrats didn’t have the guts to push for — is single-payer. I can generally do without the rest.
Oh, and saving the planet. I’m for that, too. But I confess that most of the things that would save the planet (public transit, raising the gas tax, electric vehicles, putting SUV drivers in prison — just kidding on the last) are things I mainly want to do for strategic reasons, making us free from dependence on oil from problem areas of the world.
And I want to do a lot of things that the enviros don’t like, for the same reason (nuclear, drilling anywhere and everywhere, etc.).
Actually, I take that back — some environmentalists have warmed up to nuclear, seeing as how it’s the cleanest way of actually providing the energy our economy needs — but certainly not all of them.
I’ve read some stuff on the web recently from anti-nuke people — I meant to post about it, and forgot, and now can’t remember where I saw it — that was really extreme. It’s like they got stuck in 1975 mode, only got even more intense over the years. They make it sound like a nuke plant is the end of the world. I need to find that stuff again. It was actually some of the most intense, extreme, political rhetoric I’ve read in awhile on ANY topic…
… and they seem to believe anyone who disagrees with them is a poopy-head.
By the way, did anyone read the NYT article about Obama’s Dream Team and how they worked with him to help win the election by asking people to sign pledge cards to vote and the cards had Obama’s picture on them?
Interesting article along with the one that outlined their strategy on which cable channels to target. TVLand was a surprise but after reading the article and thinking about it, during the Republican primaries and actually since 2008, there was an unusual number of political ads run that seemed to be “out of place” but according to the strategist, they were meant to appeal to targets mined from cable viewer’s viewing habits and preferences. One interesting aspect was the specific targeting of low information voters.
Bart’s point is a good one. It’s rather Marxist! Don’t go with half measures. Go all in!
You aren’t in the group, Brad. You’re mostly about splitting the baby down the middle, except where your religion requires otherwise. The UnParty didn’t win. The Democrats did.
Nah, see, partisans tend to forget this — they don’t win ANY national election without the critical UnParty vote.
When enough of us go GOP, the Republicans win. When enough of us back the Democrat, the Democrat wins.
The actual party loyalists a politician can reliably take for granted. But we control the direction of the country.
That said… the one thing that worries me about the way Obama won is that he placed WAY too much emphasis on motivating the base.
Yes, he went after independents in his acceptance speech at the convention and at other key times. But there wasn’t as much running to the middle as I’d like to see…
Worked, didn’t it?
Brad,
I am kind of neutral on nuke power, but you do have to consider that the entire nation of Japan is now going to shift completely away from Nuclear after the Tsunami showed some fundamental problems. When nuclear goes bad, it goes really, really bad. Chernobyl?
Bart, I guess I could quibble with a few points but I won’t. Seems like a pretty good list. Will it work? Maybe. Maybe not. But the Democrats would own whatever results occur. I don’t think we’d need to wait 4 years. By the mid-terms we’d have a pretty good sense of how all this is playing out.
Look, we need to aggressively pursue sustainable sources of energy like wind and solar. Until we do, and we cut back on usage, too (like stop using incandescent light bulbs, and oversized houses), we will need to relay on coal, hydro or nuclear. Coal kills people all the time, quickly and slowly, and releases radiation into the environment. Nuclear has actually been a whole lot safer, so far. It is, however, a Band Aid.
The two child policy is interesting. Not sure that would play well in a culture that is highly motivated to allow families to make family size choices free from government intervention. Nor is it really necessary for developed countries. But it is something to consider for third world countries. With fertiliy rates approaching 4, 5 and even 6 in some areas of Sub-Saharin Africa, well above the 2.1 needed for population replacement, there is a crying need for some desparate action to slow this disasterous trend. The USA could help by funding programs to provide birth control devices such as patches under-the-skin hormone capsules to third world women. And of course condems for men. Those on the right would howl but this would be a good thing for all mankind.
Brad says President Obama spent too much time rallying the base and not enough appealling to independents. Perhaps. But maybe if the President did not make an effort to appeal to independents, maybe it’s because he didn’t feel the need to. If you read Bart’s enjoyable bit of hyperbole, think how many of those points President Obama would even come close to supporting.
More stimulus? — Before the election Obama was talking about tightening America’s belt not more stimulus
Legalizing pot? — LOL
Opening borders? — During the election Obama was touting his increased border patrol and the reduced flow of illegal immigration not the other way around. His administration has seen a higher rate of deportations than the last too.
Scaling back the military? — Hardly. Obama is very comfortable using our military.
Banning fossil fuels? — Which debate was it where Obama was bragging about increased coal and oil production during his presidency?
So… allow the white folks their self-determination, but crack down on those wogs reproducing.
Sometimes I wonder whether population-control folks ever listen to themselves. Other times, I know they don’t.
And Kathryn — nuclear is a “Band-Aid”? No, solar and wind — which I’m all for developing — are Band-Aids. Nuclear covers the whole body.
And cutting back on consumption is a fine goal for every individual. I’ve practiced it my whole adult life, keeping the thermostat turned down in the winter and up in the summer, for instance.
But wholesale reduction of energy consumption on a level that would make coal and nuclear unnecessary within our generation? That’s called negative economic growth. It’s a recession, or depression, that would make the recent one seem mild.
I disagree on this for the same reason I disagreed with you the other day about savings rates. We need more cash in circulation — especially the cash that companies have sat on the last few years, afraid to invest — not less, to kick-start us out of this slump.
David,
Thanks for your response. I do have a rebuttal to offer for your consideration.
“”More stimulus? — Before the election Obama was talking about tightening America’s belt not more stimulus””
August 2011 speech broadcast on most networks. The following is from CBS:
“Hurricane Irene persuaded President Obama to cut short his vacation on Martha’s Vineyard, where he worked on the job creation plan he’ll unveil after Labor Day.
Most of the president’s plan for jobs is still being developed — except for one idea he’s been pushing hard and pushing in public, reports CBS News White House correspondent Wyatt Andrews.
“Let’s rebuild America,” the President said in a recent speech. The President wants to spend big on the nation’s roads and bridges, starting with a two-year, $109 billion spending package that’s been stalled between the House and the Senate — but which he argues — will put tens of thousands of people back to work quickly.
But the roads bill is controversial, because its not all paid for — and would involve new borrowing. Some economists say it’s worth it.”
Yes, BEFORE the election he was talking about tightening the belt. So, did he change his position on the idea of another stimulus. Was he for it before he was against it?
“”Legalizing pot? — LOL””
Yet, some states legalized pot and if Obama’s past is any indication on his personal use of pot, one can realistically conclude that if the political winds were blowing in the direction of legalization, he wouldn’t hesitate to support legalization. After all, once a member of the Choom Gang, always a member.
“Opening borders? — During the election Obama was touting his increased border patrol and the reduced flow of illegal immigration not the other way around. His administration has seen a higher rate of deportations than the last too.”
Obama’s administration closed 7 border stations with Mexico, 6 of the closings are in Texas, one in California. The reason the flow of illegal immigration is down and working in reverse is due to the economy and lack of jobs. Therefore, no reason to stay when employment conditions are no better in the US than they are in Mexico.
“”Scaling back the military? — Hardly. Obama is very comfortable using our military.””
Yep, as long as he can use drones and Seal Teams, he is satisfied and comfortable using our military. But, he has proposed a range of reductions in our military and wants to make it a smaller, more efficient military, with fast strike capabilities in hot spots. Even Leon Panetta has criticized the cuts in military spending.
“”Banning fossil fuels? — Which debate was it where Obama was bragging about increased coal and oil production during his presidency?””
Obama has always made it clear he intended to place so many restrictions and regulations on coal that any new power plant designed to use coal would go broke. As for increased production, once again, the ECONOMY has had a lot to do with inventory, not production. As for increased oil production, all of it has been achieved on private land, not public leases. And, once again, the economy has been the driving influence that has created an excess oil inventory. As long as the economy has not created a high demand on oil or coal, production rates may remain the same or slightly higher but when production is compared to available inventories, appearances can be deceiving. If you want to add natural gas to the equation, the boom in production in Ohio and Pennsylvania is also on private land. Plus, the EPA was in the process of preparing new regulations to be enacted immediately if Obama lost the election.
Just something to think about.
On the pot thing… hmmm, there may be something to this, in light of this video that recently surfaced. 😉
Brad,
Climate change and the ensuing disasters are going to do a number on the economy if we don’t get real about energy conservation. We cannot make every discussion about growth.
Actually, we can and must, until we get back to a normal growth rate.
I’m all for conservation and always have been. But it’s no substitute for having adequate, clean, affordable energy sources for a growing economy.
It’s ONE thing you do, while you do all the other things. Conservation is not an energy strategy in and of itself.
When Thomas Friedman sells his 10,000 square foot home and moves into a solar powered yurt, I’ll believe he’s serious about global warming. Same goes for Al Gore, who has seen his net worth increase 10-fold since getting on the global warming gravy train.
Until and unless you can come up with a way for China and India to slow their growth, replacing lightbulbs ain’t going to do a thing for the climate.
Friedman’s home here:
http://wonkette.com/413811/this-is-literally-thomas-friedmans-house
So… you’re condemning him for being successful?
I kind of knew that. He pulls down major dough from his books and lectures. He probably uses what the Times pays him just for mad money.
It’s a nice house. I like a house with wings…
“So… you’re condemning him for being successful?”
Funny how things get twisted when it’s a liberal with the big house.
“He didn’t make that” on his own.
I’m condemning him for being a hypocrite when it comes to global warming. He can get as rich as he wants to and spend his money as he’d like. I’m just guessing most of his fans have no idea he lives a lifestyle that isn’t like Ed Begley Jr. P.T. Barnum was right.
It would be like John Edwards giving abstinence lectures.
Got to agree with Doug on that one. But it isn’t about slowing China and India’s growth; that will take care of itself. As will their need to stop poisoning their own country. Friedman’s house, on the other hand, is about what I always thought of him: Do as I say (not as I do). Typical pundit.
Nobody except maybe that TV family with like 20 kids needs 10000 square feet. You can live quite luxuriously, but far more energy efficiently in much much less. Look at all the Manhattan apartments featured in Architectural Digest!
Gore’s family made a lot of money from Occidental Petroleum, and also from owning coal mines that did business with TVA.
Al’s also a member of the giant mansion club – when he’s not assaulting masseusses.
Not sure if it was Hungary or not but a recent article about a temporary living quarters was interesting. The “apartment” is about 4 feet wide and has all of the necessities one person would ever require. About 150 – 200 square feet of space.
Now, fitting Al Gore in it would be an interesting reality show in inself.
@ Kathryn –
“The increasingly urgent need for private citizen support to combat dangerous climate change, along with education and health issues, was the prime reason I decided to tour again,” – Barbra Streisand
Barbra Streisand reportedly maintains her New York apartment at 42 degrees when she’s not there in order to stockpile her furs. Her estate in California consists of five houses and a 12,000 SF air conditioned barn. Irrigating her lawn reportedly costs $22,000 per year.
Typical do as I say, not as I do liberal.
Brad if you think for one nano-second that a poor country like Niger can sustain a fertility rate of 7.19 without mass starvation, disease, civil war and all the other horrors brought on by overpopulation then you are just not very good at math.
I really don’t pay attention to climate change. I’m not going to replace light bulbs and think that will stop hurricanes… but we did replace three cars in the last year with versions that get 10-15 mpg better mileage.
I bet Al Gore spends more time driving around in large SUV’s (along with his security) than he does in a Prius.
Well, Gore does require more security than I do.