This is Al Gore. For the last 5 years, he's been our nation's shadow president. When Bush does something terrible, we left-leaning Americans have speculated about what a Gore administration might have done instead. You know, if the Republicans hadn't stolen the 2000 election and the Supreme Court hadn't selected Bush. He's given a lot of speeches during Bush's first term and the first year of his second, (I think I blogged about a fantastic speech he gave late last year regarding growing threats to our freedom of speech). He gave a new and damning speech on Monday about recent revelations regarding Bush's illegal wiretapping that puts everything about the Bush administration into the correct perspective -- essentially that our 43rd president and his Republican-controlled government have an active disdain for the truth, and they demonstrate that disdain time and time again. Of course the Bush administration responds by saying, "If the democrats want Al Gore to be their voice on this issue, we welcome that." Well, Scott McClellan, you shouldn't, because Gore is, right now, the one guy in the political landscape telling it not just how it is, but how it COULD be. He's the voice in the wilderness. For me the voice of the Democrats isn't H. Clinton, it isn't Kerry, it isn't Obama, it's this guy. Most political speeches seem like boneheaded, watered-down policy initiatives that have been focus-grouped, and gutted of all originality by aides with their eyes on the electoral map. Most political speeches placate the party faithful, offend a few on the other side, and inspire absolutely no one. Gore doesn't have an entourage of wonks telling him what he ought to say. (For evidence of that, go to this link. It's about Lawrence Bender's documentary (currently at Sundance) about Gore's one-man crusade against global warming. Can't wait to see it.) He's beholden to no-one. He writes brilliant speeches and then he gives them. I think everyone, if they have some time, ought to read the speech. It's both exhilarating to hear the guy who won the popular vote in 2000 be so unequivocal about civil liberties, and depressing to think who got in instead. Anyway, right now, Gore's my guy for president in 2008. He's still saying he won't run, but I think he could be convinced. I think he's been an important and eloquent voice of reason during the Reign of Bush, and I think Democrats could get really enthusiastic about righting the wrong done in 2000 and putting Gore in the White House.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Wouldn't the World Be Such a Better Place if This Guy Were in the White House? It's Not Too Late. 2008's Just Around the Corner
This is Al Gore. For the last 5 years, he's been our nation's shadow president. When Bush does something terrible, we left-leaning Americans have speculated about what a Gore administration might have done instead. You know, if the Republicans hadn't stolen the 2000 election and the Supreme Court hadn't selected Bush. He's given a lot of speeches during Bush's first term and the first year of his second, (I think I blogged about a fantastic speech he gave late last year regarding growing threats to our freedom of speech). He gave a new and damning speech on Monday about recent revelations regarding Bush's illegal wiretapping that puts everything about the Bush administration into the correct perspective -- essentially that our 43rd president and his Republican-controlled government have an active disdain for the truth, and they demonstrate that disdain time and time again. Of course the Bush administration responds by saying, "If the democrats want Al Gore to be their voice on this issue, we welcome that." Well, Scott McClellan, you shouldn't, because Gore is, right now, the one guy in the political landscape telling it not just how it is, but how it COULD be. He's the voice in the wilderness. For me the voice of the Democrats isn't H. Clinton, it isn't Kerry, it isn't Obama, it's this guy. Most political speeches seem like boneheaded, watered-down policy initiatives that have been focus-grouped, and gutted of all originality by aides with their eyes on the electoral map. Most political speeches placate the party faithful, offend a few on the other side, and inspire absolutely no one. Gore doesn't have an entourage of wonks telling him what he ought to say. (For evidence of that, go to this link. It's about Lawrence Bender's documentary (currently at Sundance) about Gore's one-man crusade against global warming. Can't wait to see it.) He's beholden to no-one. He writes brilliant speeches and then he gives them. I think everyone, if they have some time, ought to read the speech. It's both exhilarating to hear the guy who won the popular vote in 2000 be so unequivocal about civil liberties, and depressing to think who got in instead. Anyway, right now, Gore's my guy for president in 2008. He's still saying he won't run, but I think he could be convinced. I think he's been an important and eloquent voice of reason during the Reign of Bush, and I think Democrats could get really enthusiastic about righting the wrong done in 2000 and putting Gore in the White House.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Nixon lost in 60 in a very very close election (a lot of folks believe Kennedy stole that one), came back and won in 68, and again in 72. It's more than possible -- it's happened. And you have to admit there's something different with Gore. Had the election not been disputed, had Bush come in and done a terrific job, the chance for Gore in 2008 would be about nil. But the election was disputed, Gore won the popular vote, Bush hasn't done a good job during his tenure, in fact he's done abominably, and Gore's stayed out of the political nitty gritty, offering his views from outside of Washington. I don't think a beard he's long since shaved off is enough to put him out of the race dude.
As for Hillary v. Condi? The fun of a "cat fight" aside, what if Condo-sleaza won? Sure, she'd be 3 firsts all in one -- first woman, first African-American, first lesbian, but considering she's aligned herself with an administration that's systematically undercut and legislated against every single one of those groups, makes her a, what? Creepy weirdo with an incomprehensible (not to mention reprehensible) political ideology. And her bald-faced lying and obfuscating to get us into Iraq -- totally unsuitable for the Presidency. We might as well elect W to a third term.
She's one of the last viable politicians in the field I want in the White House. And if she won, it would give Republicans all of this unearned civil rights cache they'd lord over progressives for eternity. It'd be miserable.
Yeah! That's what I'm talking about! Dubya for another term! It's not outside of reach either. Let's put that in a bill, we'll call it the Jingoism Act or something similar, and we'll all be the better.
"Most political speeches seem like boneheaded, watered-down policy initiatives that have been focus-grouped, and gutted of all originality by aides with their eyes on the electoral map."
Bravo! And, even you, a grossly-staunch Liberal, can recognize the BS in politicians no matter the party! That's rare among people in this fare, fare country! Not to mention, you can speak very eloquently about politicians' bull-'hockey', too. Aside from that, let me just add: Gore is a douche. He may be right with what he's saying; he might not. I don't care. I hate Gore. I despise him. I also despise Bush! I really despise Bush. But, Gore is not a great man, either. He's not. I won't entertain any sort of "he's better than Bush" sort of biased levelling, either. Why? Because that's a cop out. We should hate all current politicians for the same reason: they're birtbags.
I use the 'neighbor' philosophy that seems to work. Here's how it works. If 'Kerry' lived to the left of your house and 'Bush' lived to your right, would you really want to interact with either of them? Wouldn't you think of them as the 'odd' neighbors? I would. I'd hate them
Anyhow, back to my point, to consider Gore for president, and then saying 'well, he'd be better than Bush', well, I gotta kinda think of all those Republicans that would say 'Bush's better than Clinton' anytime anyone would say 'But, Bush did this [insert horendous act here]'...
You get my point. I hate Gore. I do. I hate Bush, too. But, I think you're also right. Eat it up, Crane. You are in a moment of bliss right now, because although you are a bleeding heart lib, you also notice the falibility of people in the roles of running people. Bravo. You are right. Eloquent.
But, do concede defeat. You lost on the whole Waterworld debate. Concede!
Politicians are not gods.
Anyhow, Gore can suck my ass. So can Bush. My money is on Paul Papadeas for 2009 or whenever...
birtbags... that's a new word... let's embrace it.
Anyhow... concede your defeat... you loved Waterworld, dude. Admit it. You loved it. You lose.
I hated Robocop 3, Tank Girl and Barb Wire.
You loved Waterworld.
Admit defeat!
Condi's a lesbian?
Yeah, Mike, from what I've heard, Condi likes the ladies. Once she was doing an interview via satellite with this guy on Fox News. Here's a snippet.
ROSEN: "All right. I close with a gift for you. You met this person once, I believe, but you really, I think, ought to know each other because this woman is, I think you'll have an interest in knowing her. She is one of our Fox News anchors in New York. Her name is Lauren Green. She is brilliant, she's beautiful, she's African-American, she's single and she's a concert pianist in her spare time.
RICE: My goodness.
ROSEN: And she asked me to give you her CD, and I promised her that I would.
RICE: That's perfect.
ROSEN: And here's her doing a number of different classical pieces.
RICE: Well, that's special.
ROSEN: So there you have it.
RICE: Thank her very much, and I look forward to seeing her sometime.
ROSEN: All right. She's going to want to hear from you.
RICE: And maybe even play dual piano sometime.
So is she a lesbian, I don't know, nothing official, but the rumors are out there and this unusual interview exchange would appear to add fuel to the fire.
Hinesy: As for "just towing the party line" -- I think when you're National Security Advisor and then Secretary of State, you have a little more to do than tow the line. You help shape Bush Admin. policy. I have no idea why you're so inclined towards letting her off the hook. As for Colin Powell, yeah, he'd be a good candidate and I'd be interested in his positions -- but Condi? Dude, I thought you were a liberal. She's pro-choice, sure, but these days the most important issue of the day is the so-called "unitary executive". I'm positive she comes down on the wrong side on that issue. Also, if you and you alone could choose the next president, would you consider Gore at all?
Heath: you gotta give me a good reason why Gore's a birtbag. Did you read the speech? You, I think, would agree with most of it. And as for the thing about the weird neighbors living on either side, a)I probably would go hang out with Kerry if I could get past his Dobermans, and b) why does it matter our next president is someone we could hang out with? They're not running to have a beer with us, they're running for president. If they're qualified for the job and we think they'll do a good job representing us, that's all that should matter. Okay, rant over.
Post a Comment