Adam Kleinheider (here) has posted about Al Gore's good publicity over the years (and any publicity is good publicity, ACK asserts.
ACK, (here) along with Bob Mueller (here) are asserting that Al Gore is on a roll and may not stop until he's the Dem nominee in 2008; I tend to agree with Sean Braisted (here) who says that a Gore nomination is not likely.
My reasoning is slightly different than Sean's, though. Because, in my estimation, Gore's "prestigious awards" (actually just nominations) are rooted in his political notoriety, they are thereby tainted. He's not some disinterested, talented success story who is only now turning his attention to public service (aka the down and dirty world of politics). And I think it matters (as Sean observes) that Americans aren't multi-cultural, post-Christian, socialist-leaning folks, so Gore's political reputation (starting with the Clinton administration and continuing through his sore loss in 2000) and crusading positions on various issues--including the GWOT and "the Environment," don't endear him to a majority of voters.
Hello world!
7 years ago
19 comments:
I realize Al is the GOP's worst nightmare as he would slam dunk any candidate from either party (considering he was already elected once by the American people), but not to worry Ned. I spoke with Al last April. My colleagues and I asked him a number of things, one inevitable question was about '08. In the face of mounting pressure to run in '08, he will definitely not. After making known his intentions to not run in '08, I said to him, "I don't blame you for not wanting the presidency, who would want to clean up Iraq after a failed president's mess?" He just smiled. I think Al would be happier on his farm in Carthage with a Nobel Prize and an Oscar instead of trying to clean up the quagmire that Bush created. Wouldn't you?
Much of America was devastated by Katherine Harris & the Supreme Court's actions that handed Bush the presidency in 2000, America has been paying for that mistake ever since, and will continue to for decades to come. I knew Bush would be bad for America, but even he exceeded our expectations.
I haven't seen that in any polling data, much less data that reflects people who actually vote.
But, come on William, what should Harris have done? What should the Supreme Court have done? Do we live under rule of law or not? Do we let people change the rules after the game starts (or is OVER)? We have an electoral college for a reason, and it worked as required in that election. Election fraud is almost exclusively a Democrat game--felons voting . . . from prison . . . NO evidence of voter intimidation . . . votes appearing out of nowhere (see Washington state Gov's race). The 2000 election was a travesty, because of how much it laid bare the sloppy electoral system that Democrats have taken advantage of for decades. Get over it; Gore lost, just like y'all won in 2006 and noone's hollering about the fraud that was rampant.
PLEASE, pressure him to run--(and know that he won't be in Carthage if he opts out; he's a metrosexual), though you're right: it won't shock me that he only wants the presidency in times of ease. The GWOT would not be better if Gore had won in 2000; believe me, he wouldn't/doesn't cause Islamists any lost sleep.
The 2000 election was a perfect storm of vote fraud, voter confusion, and political nepotism that produced GW Bush the 'accidental president.'
Imagine if you will ... IF in the 2000 election - Bush won the popular vote by a half million+, and the electoral decision came down to the state of TN where Al Gore's brother was the Governor, his campaign manager was the Secretary of State/supervisor of elections, the makers of the voting machines were big Democrat contributors, and the decision came down to a SCOTUS that was filled with Clinton appointees? How would that make you feel? Would you think there would be any room for bias in that situation? It's not a dream, the scenario really happened, but with the opposite result ... in FL. An election that will be remembered in infamy and will have a lasting negative impact on America, possibly for the rest of our lives.
Sure that happened, but there were other very close state counts in 2000, they just weren't as ripe for taking advantage of by the Dems.
And there is no basis for claims that any of those factors "gave" Bush the election. Rule of Law. Sure, the Dem-controlled FL S.Ct. tried to change the rules after the votes had been cast (read: NJ S.Ct. and Frank Lautenberg decision) and there were UNPRECEDENTED efforts to cast doubt on the results, but there was no there there. No intimidation; no disenfranchised African Americans could be produced; the Dems were in control of the Palm Beach Co. process before, during and after the election. Thousands of felons voted (hmmm, wonder who they were breaking the law to vote for?)
Every Sec. of State in every state is a political officer so, according to your premise, 50% of the time an election's results for President would be per se suspect.
Are you typing with a straight face that the S.Ct.'s rulings were biased simply because a majority of the S.Ct. were appointed by Republicans? If a majority of the Court (then) was partisan or predisposed to Republican or Conservative rulings, that's news to me.
And it doesn't impress me that an overwhelming majority of urban residents (sufficient to give Dems "majorities" in the "popular vote") voted for Gore.
William, I know the 2000 election was a bummer and I know I would be really frustrated were I in your shoes, but you guys need to buck up and move on. Demonizing and demagoguing your opponents simply because they beat you in an election isn't cool and it undermines our system.
That's what's so disconcerting about moral relativism to me. I feel constrained by a moral code to act with integrity, regardless of the stakes involved. I don't think the same can be said of those who believe the end justifies the means. I work in election law because I want to have a clear conscience by knowing that, win or lose, it was done fairly.
Well, rant over. I'm sure we'll be discussing this and other stuff more. Now I'm going to continue wading through the Macroevolution site to which you linked . . .
Thanks, I really do appreciate your perspective. You write and express yourself well. I find it intriguing that you describe yourself as a moral relativist. It helps me understand the psychological makeup of those who claim the 'moral high ground' as a basis for political ideologies. This may, in part, be the basis for characterizations of Bush devotees and the religious right as approaching the level of cult status, particularly as they become further isolated from the mainstream. This is a totally different political animal than we have seen in this country and I find it fascinating. I can see how people with your mindset could be conflicted and susceptible to denial. I'm glad I stumbled upon your blog and I apologize for my frankness.
To be clear, I don't consider myself a moral relativist; though I don't like the term, I consider myself a moral absolutist.
Also, I also would not agree that I and other Religious Conservatives are not "in the mainstream"; we may very well be wrong or even wrong-headed, but all the polling data I've seen reflects that more Americans are like me in their worldview than they are like John Kerry. I've noticed the view that Progressives are on the march and Liberalism is a majority view is a common misperception among those who frequent the blogosphere. The reality is that most people are too busy with their non-virtual lives to maintain or cultivate a virtual community or network.
And regarding purported near-cult status of Bush . . . I am definitely a critic of him, but I also am inclined to defend him against--among other things, outrageous, illegitimate accusations such as he is "a divider not a uniter," or he is obscenely incompetent, or corrupt, or malevolent, etc.
You guys (sorry, I'm definitely lumping here) are so busy raising outrageous crap that there is little opportunity to agree on anything. Bush is much more Liberal than I am on NCLB, gov't spending, the role of gov't, compromising principle, pragmatism over principle, the First Amendment, immigration policy, etc., etc. But, regrettably, I don't believe y'all want progress as much as you want power (back), so working together with Bush isn't an option.
Frankly, I do occasionally get the feeling that I'm like an exhibit at a zoo. But I think honest/sincere communication bridges a lot of misunderstandings and provides a foundation for working together. So, William: "Don't.stop.thinking about tomorrow. Don't. stop. it'll soon be here . . ."
I was going to say, moral relativism doesn't fit, absolutism is more appropriate. That makes sense. As it seems to me, relativists generally 'live and let live' where absolutists, at least evangelical absolutists are bent on the 'great commission' of forcing others to adopt their ideology. This manifests itself in restrictions of rights, media, privacy, and a whole host of threats to freedom. I hate to use this comparison but... that is the Taliban in a nutshell.
An analogy - I woke up this morning at my girlfriend's house and she was watching that women's show "The View". To paraphrase - there was a moment where Whoopee Goldberg was comparing the burning of Dixie Chicks CDs to the burning of books in Nazi Germany. The conservative member of the group said, "What about women burning their bras - a statement of women's rights... nothing wrong with that?" Bette Midler smartly commented, "They were burning their own bras, not yours or mine!" (applause...)
It's what I'm talkin' about.
Well, moral relativists only say "live and let live" if it suits them. Smoking bans; transfat bans; Political Correctness; "equal time" legislation; graphic teaching of sex ed in public schools; seatbelt laws; shower-head-size regulation; "progressive" tax rates; I could go on and on.
I hate for you to use those comparisons, too, but it merely demonstrates the paranoia and shrillness coming from the Left. People weren't burning their Dixie Chicks CDs because of their content or to whom they belonged (actually, Rosie's comment was nonsensical--even though the audience appears to have loved it); they were destroying them in protest of their derisive, petty, very-arguably-unpatriotic actions . . . indeed, we inherited our first (and last, incidentally) three Dixie Chicks CDs from a relative in this manner, and we really like their music.
I'd be interested to hear what you're referring to when you say, " restrictions of rights, media, privacy, and a whole host of threats to freedom." I'm not going to outlaw shacking up, or serial stupid analogies by Liberals on TV, but I sure can disagree and hold the opinion that they're not the best courses of action. And resist them being normalized. For example, I really resent feeling like I have to keep my children in another room or have TV Remote at the ready during the Super Bowl to keep my kids from seeing a man rip a woman's bra off this Sunday.
Sure, some DC CDs were burned (just like Nazis did to books!?!) and some Conservative issues relate to law or regulation (just like the Taliban!?!), but the same thing can be said of Liberal causes, and which side of the ideological spectrum is more apt to use gov't or policy to control your life? With two big issues, abortion and Evolution, I'd posit that one's interest in not being killed is something definitely worth protection by the State, and it is my child (actually not, we currently homeschool) that is being propagandized about THEORIES of where we came from and about how gov't needs to regulate our daily lives to protect against POSSIBLE environmental impact.
Advice - don't like abortion?... Don't have one. Most everybody has moral standards of some sort. What I find most disconcerting are not only the seemingly hypocritical priorities of the religious right but the effort to control and force those priorities on society. European friends of mine comment to me about this. In America, it's literally a federal case to conservatives if 2 inches of a woman's breast is exposed but it's certainly more than ok (and wildly popular) with the same people to see a TV show where terrorist cause mass death, shoot and kill people, etc... But when it's really happening, the conservatives try to squelch any mention of it if it happens to make Bush look bad. (I didn't see any mention on Drudge of today's bombing in Baghdad that killed 102+).
Lawyer and conservative, John Dean characterized this conservative movement as authoritarian cultism. Which he writes about extensively. He covers the basis of denial, how morality is bent, how privacy and rights are surrendered, how fear is perpetuated as a means to an end, etc...
"Advice - don't like abortion?... Don't have one." Tell that to the 36-week old fetus . . . or to my minor daughter who can't imagine not looking like a runway model for junior prom or waiting 4 months extra to start college or losing her boyfriend.
"Most everybody has moral standards of some sort."
Exactly. And EVERY law is someone's morality being imposed on society at large.
Sorry, but Janet Jackson and Co. were on a Federally-licensed medium spewing psychological, gratuitous sexuality--pollution. And they were fully aware that it was inconsistent with guidelines.
I've always been intrigued by the so's-your-old-man reaction by Liberals about violence on TV, and it just dawned on me why I view them separately. Sure, some violence would qualify as pornographic, but generally the violence that I condone (for me, not for my children, generally speaking) is violence that inspires to do honorable things. Dying in defense of one's country or for loved ones is something to be encouraged; having a one-night- stand or even a multi-night-open-engagement with the little hottie in the next cubicle (or who is married to one of your staffers) is somehow worthy of encouraging?
And the whole "make Bush look bad" /cult insinuation is offensive, William. Do you think use of force is immoral? Do you think we can live in anything less than a police state if we ignore credible threats outside our borders? Do you think that it is necessary to show only the "downside" of our efforts to neutralize a threat and establish an ally in the Mideast? Does the so-called MSM give equal coverage to enemy casualties? Does coverage of the war affect the morale and resolve of the citizenry, and more so, the troops? Does ludicrously impugning the President as a war criminal affect the world's perception of our intentions and objectives in the Mideast? I think so . . .
I haven't read Drudge today--or any other on-line journal, but maybe you should check FoxNews if you're so concerned about us little brainwashed (or is it Talibanis?) not hearing the news . . .
I'm glad you've found a voice in John Dean, but Newsflash: John Dean is no Conservative, and I have only marginal interest in his opinion on anything.
Reading over the link you provided, I may have to start concluding posts with helpful (for Liberal readers) qualifiers such as, "Disagreeing with Left-wing policies does not mean you have a psychological disorder."
As I said, you and yours aren't the only ones disconcert[ed] about what is happening politically, and sorry if I don't view Janet Jackson's "right" to push the envelope (aka, flash the largest TV audience ever) as inspiring as standing against school segregation.
And tell your European friends not to fret about us over here . . . but have you considered leaving our fascist/Taliban/backwater/ capitalistic/Imperialistic police state for greener pastures?
I cited John Dean because he has been a conservative longer than you have been alive and has seen the changing face of the movement and uses well-founded social science to illustrate his observations.
Your questions -
Do you think use of force is immoral?
Sometime yes, sometimes no
Do you think we can live in anything less than a police state if we ignore credible threats outside our borders?
The credibility of the threat is at issue, safety at home begins with our borders. The authoritarians have used 'the threat' to stoke fear, increase political support, greater controls
Do you think that it is necessary to show only the "downside" of our efforts to neutralize a threat and establish an ally in the Mideast?
Is this better??
Does the so-called MSM give equal coverage to enemy casualties?
Yes, usually
Does coverage of the war affect the morale and resolve of the citizenry, and more so, the troops? Does ludicrously impugning the President as a war criminal affect the world's perception of our intentions and objectives in the Mideast?
The President needs no help in in emboldening the enemy and demoralizing the troops
------
Sex toys, killing cells, nudity, science - bad bad bad! Guns, war, killing Muslims, give up our rights so the president who has been consistently wrong to 'better protect us' - A OK!
Do you know how old I am William? And just because he was a Republican all the way back to the 60s doesn't mean he (a) was EVER a Conservative or (b) is a Conservative now.
I haven't "given up any rights" . . . surveillance on phone calls that suspected terrorists are making into the U.S. doesn't fall under the U.S. Constitution.
Guns are "good" because they have a useful purpose; "sex toys" are debatable, but I'm not sure they've ever been mentioned on this blog before. "Science" is not good or bad, but not every person who calls him/herself a scientist or advocates some action is necessarily correct or unbiased.
War (and killing) is--as you have conceded, sometimes moral and legitimate.
I have no problem (socially, though I think they're wrong theologically) with Muslims, but when they start beheading those who believe differently from them or don't accept their religious law, I certainly am not going to stand back and let them have at it.
If Dubya is doing a fine job of emboldening our enemies, why do y'all feel the need to pile on? Sure, kicking dictators and dictators' accomplices (Germany, France, Russia) will not endear us to foreign gov'ts, but whose problem--in the end, is that?
I'll just quote from another former republican -
"My view on Iraq is that there is nothing that has happened that was not both predictable and predicted by people with a lot of national security experience. As this thing moved forward, the Republican Party lost its moral high ground on national security issues. We have never been in a situation where, in my view... we have exported our ideology at the point of a gun. It's not a way to conduct American foreign policy "
-- Senator James Webb
Per my last post, last week on Fox News I witnessed Sean Hannity, conservative propagandist and college dropout explaining the "new Bush military strategy" to Rhodes Scholar retired four-star Army General and former Supreme Allied NATO Commander Wesley Clark. This is the mentality we're dealing with in this war, unqualified conservatives telling bonefide experts that 'their way is the right way' and we're expected to follow along without question after what we've seen? And if we don't we're aiding the enemy? This is another great example of why we are where we are in Iraq. "Spiraling downward" as described in the lastest NIE. The emperor has no clothes.
Is that the only reason Webb is an ex-Republican? I don't necessarily discount his view because he disagrees with me or with Bush--same with Clark, but I am less inclined to believe their advice is sound based on their apparent willingness to politicize a war.
Does it matter that plenty of college dropouts (heck, high school dropouts) agree with Gore/Clark/Dean/Webb?
And what are you doing watching Hannity and Colmes? I don't even watch it . . . I kind of suspect that you got that tip from the professional FoxNews watchers.
But as far as "aiding the enemy," there is certainly a place for loyal opposition, but we have service people in harm's way, and the accusations started before we were in a quagmire, before the insurgency, back when you could only accuse him of not getting his cues from Old Europe. Frankly, all the evidence points to the conclusion that the Democrat Party is vested in our (Bush's) defeat in Iraq. The second-guessing, armchair quarterbacking and shrill accusations are over the top, William.
This type of rhetoric really disgusts me. - "all the evidence points to the conclusion that the Democrat Party is vested in our (Bush's) defeat in Iraq."
This type of attack is a hallmark of authoritarian cultists - personality types characterized by a desire and need to submit to and follow authority. Those who submit to authority necessarily relinquish their own conscience (in favor of serving the conscience of their leader and/or their movement), those who are part of this movement are capable of acts which a healthy and normal conscience ought to preclude - particularly outrageous 'strawman' attacks on any person or group who questions the authority they (you) follow ... (Bush, Jesus, Limbaugh, or whoever).
This is particularly pertinent as I just sent several emails to leading blogs, Fox News and the NYT.
This is exactly what I wrote:
"At approx 5:45 CST on Sat Feb 3, Cal Thomas of Fox News said, (approximate quote) "It is the agenda of the New York Times that America lose the war in Iraq".
This accusation should receive due publicity. This despicable type of authoritarian attack against the media should not go unnoticed."
Hey, join the club of disgust.
And I'm disgusted that you think that quoting John Dean is the same as arguing a point.
But frankly, all the evidence points to the conclusion that the Democrat Party is vested in our (Bush's) defeat in Iraq.
What are the conclusions supported by the evidence re. Thomas' NY Times statement? They have looked for any reason, all along the way to predict American defeat. They have taken every opportunity to highlight the more demoralizing aspects of the war. They have looked for every hint of scandal to either (a) give cover to Dems/Libs who voted to go to war, or (b) demonstrate why we deserve to lose the war. They've been looking for an "exit strategy" ever since Bush ignored their opinion that we shouldn't neutralize Saddam.
And I only mention Bush in the above observation because that is the only reason I can discern that Democrats/Liberals have acted as they have for the past 6 years. What is the opposite of idol worship? I have acknowledged that Bush is flawed, can you acknowledge that he's not the fount of evil/ignorance/greed/incompetence/ malevolence?
We authoritarian cultists sure don't have any trouble advocating for smaller government, less Federal control, more control over our educational systems, a minimal welfare state, broader civil liberties, not caring what the UN thinks, not being told for whom we should vote, a decentralized church, separation of powers, owning small businesses, on and on and on and on.
Just because y'all were having your electoral butts kicked for all of recent memory, it's easy to act as if speaking out against authority is a virtue in and of itself. Speaking of disgust . . . I think this conversation may be drawing to a close.
Disagreeing with a Liberal does not constitute a mental disorder.
No, I quoted Glenn Greenwald's review of John Dean's book.
To also quote Chuck Hagel -"I don't question the president's sincerity, his motivations in this. I never have. Nor anyone in his administration. This president is sincere about what he said last night. He believes this is the right thing to do. I happen to disagree."
A lot of people disagree with the president, but it doesn't mean they all want America to fail. You are confused. Dissent is not the equivalent of "hostility" against the United States, disloyalty, unpatriotic or treasonous behavior.
Great discussion here on this subject. Too many things seem all too familiar when reading this .
William,
The first link is ironic, seeing as Liberals are for more gov't control of life and involvement in citizens' lives.
Indeed, the only time--historically under our Constitution, when greater gov't powers have been tolerated is during time of war . . . for obvious reasons.
Abortion and the GWOT are godsends to y'all because they are perhaps the only two issues that can be spun to seem as if individual rights are being trampled. We are at war (as we were prior to 9/11) and intercepting phone calls between suspected terrorists in foreign countries calling chumps in the U.S. is hunky-dory with me.
Quoting Greenwald quoting Dean isn't argument; and neither is quoting Hagel. Of course a lot of people disagree with the president, but leading is not conducting a focus group or deferring to morally compromised European countries or pacifist Democrats. You can argue about a decision, but once the decision has been made, there comes a point where the disagreement and harping and accusations are COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. That's why we have elections, and why we don't have a direct democracy, and don't require consensus for every action by gov't. The biggest similarity between modern-day America and Nazi Germany is that something was burned by somebody (no, not flags, not effigies of Bush at the March for "Peace," Dixie Chick CDs!!!).
Dissent is certainly legal and can even be admirable. But sometimes it is just sour grapes and pettiness and trying to find a rallying point, ANY rallying point to finally win an election. I think much of what all but the 20% or so of truly pacifist Liberals have been doing in regard to Iraq is the latter . . . you think it is the former . . . we disagree . . . that doesn't mean that I'm psychotic, or a criminal, or a cultist or flawed in character.
I'm pretty tired of the nyahyahnyahnyahnyah stuff . . . so don't expect to imply psychosis, criminality, or cultism in your comments and not have said comments "moderated."
Post a Comment