I'll just ignore your final sentence, on account of it being bitter ranting without much relevance to the real world. But as for the rest:

Just like Gore is not a VP (anymore) who is in a position to abuse his office for personal gain, he's also not a scientist who needs to take care to appear independent lest he casts doubt on the objectivity of his results. He's a high-profile lobbyist and figurehead for the anti-global warming movement, nobody expects him to be objective or to do his own scientific research. His message gains credibility not from him, but from the many scientists who agree with it, in particular the IPCC. If we were talking about IPCC scientists or other important researchers on the topic, it would be a different story. Gore is just like any other high-profile lobbyist, trying to convince politicians to pass laws that they claim are generally beneficial but that they also stand to benefit from themselves. That is of course not a good thing, even if Gore's pet cause has more obvious benefits for the population at large than most lobbyists' causes, but it's very different from biased scientists, and from government officials abusing their position. If you want to get back at the people who complained about Cheney, you're going to have to do better than that.

I will however say, in trzaska's defense, that his comment "Nothing wrong with making a buck, but it is time to realize that both sides come to the table with certain motivations" is certainly true, and that I don't actually think most of the people replying disagree with that. Unfortunately, his reputation precedes him, and people reply to argue against points that he actually never made in this post - he never said what Gore did was illegal or corrupt, nor even that it was that reprehensible.