Gore's house vs. Bush's house

One of my recent blog entries discussed Al Gore's house and how energy inefficient it was. Later on, someone sent me a Snopes article that discusses Gore's house as compared to President George Bush's house. In this Snopes article, we see that George Bush's house is made in the environmentally correct way that we expected Al Gore's house to be. So I ask: What gives?

I know that the media doesn't have a liberal slant, because they told us that they don't, and if it's in the newspaper, then it must be true. However, don't you think that if Bush had the house that Gore had, the media would be telling us CONSTANTLY on how much energy is being wasted? No doubt there'd be a running meter somewhere in the front page - or on their website - which kept track of "How much energy Bush's house wasted today".

This would especially be the case if Gore was the one that had the environmentally friendly house that Bush has. No doubt that, along with the running meter of how much Bush's house is wasting, there would be another meter next to it showing "How much energy Gore's house saved today". Don't you think that, if Gore had Bush's environmentally house, the media would practically be canonizing Gore for sainthood? "Environmental prophet practices what he preaches", "Gore shows the way", and other such headlines would be a regular in their headlines.

And I say all this folks, not as a conservative (my political viewpoints are explained in my profile), but as someone who is tired of the hypocritical double-standards that are often on dispaly in the non-biased mainstream media. Should the media level any criticism against Bush? You betcha! Especially over the way this war in Iraq is being conducted. I'm not the kind that thinks the sitting president should be held above criticism. Bush deserves the criticism he's getting, and he should have to answer for his actions, especially in those decisions that affect American citizens. And his feet should be held to the fire over the war's progress.

However, Al Gore has been in the news a lot lately - especially in regards to environmentalism. He's made a movie that won an Oscar. He's very outspoken and passionate about the environmental cause. And yet, he lives in an energy inefficient house. His counters of carbon-offsetting actions come across as weak, especially since he's the prophet of environmentalism. Since the non-biased media is largely on his side, it would only be to his benefit for him to have an energy efficient home - and not just excuses of "carbon offsetting".

Just off the top of my head, I can think of reasons why Gore should renovate his home to be energy efficient like Bush's. Let me rattle them off:

* He would no longer be preaching a message of "Don't do as I do, do as I say".
* He would be setting the example for other "Don't do as I do, do as I say" environmentalists.

* He would no longer be upstaged by a Ree-publican - especially a currently unpopular one.

* He would have the non-biased media bowing at his feet and giving him as much positive press as possible.

* And most importantly, he would be helping the very environment that he claims to care very much about.

You'd think that Gore, at least, would follow Bush's example- if for no other reason than to live up to what he expects the rest of us to live up to. But that's just plain logical, and we can't have that nowadays, can we?