Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Gore Not Planning To Run in 08

I've held out a bit of hope for a Gore run in 2008, now that in "recovery" as he calls his current situation, he's become the candidate we always wanted him to be when he was actually in politics. In a speech in Sweden, he was still coy about a possible run:
I have absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a candidate again.
OK, so maybe not coy at all. So I suppose I should take him at his word and give up the dream of redemption for 2000. But it's hard. Every day that goes by, I marvel at what a different country we would be living in had Florida gone the other way. Gore has some ideas about it as well:
We would not have invaded a country that didn't attack us...We would not have taken money from the working families and given it to the most wealthy families...We would not be trying to control and intimidate the news media. We would not be routinely torturing people...We would be a different country.
I think that pretty much says it all.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Todd claims this says it all. Certainly does, I suppose:

We would not have invaded a country that didn't attack us...

I suppose that the former Vice President is referring to Afghanistan ... since that country hadn't attacked the US. He can't be speaking about Bosnia/Kosovo, where the Clinton/GORE Administration launched a war without any direct provocation against the US.

We would not have taken money from the working families and given it to the most wealthy families...

A variety of Clinton/GORE tax increases disproportionately targeted the poor and middle class. Beyond that, given how prominant Democrats are preemptively criticizing the pending recommendation from President Bush's taxation commission to lower the Federal mortgage deduction from $1 million to $350,000, I think the former Vice President should try to get his own house in order first.

We would not be trying to control and intimidate the news media.

Gore seems to forget how, after his son was expelled from St. Alban's Prep for drugs, he personally went to members of the White House Press Corps and threatened to yank the credentials/access badges of any reporter who's organization ran the story. Or perhaps that doesn't count as "intimidation", Todd?

We would not be routinely torturing people...

According to Dana Priest in The Washington Post on Monday 27 December 2004, some of the policies/authorizations supporting what the former Vice President terms torture came from ... the Clinton/Gore Administration:

"The C.I.A. has the authority to carry out renditions under a presidential directive dating to the Clinton administration, which the Bush administration has reviewed and renewed. The C.I.A. declined to comment for this article. "

And indeed if Todd were to google the name "Abdul Hakim Murad" he might learn that the Clinton/Gore Administration did indeed participate in the torture of captives.

Oh, that's right ... Gore qualified his comment with caveat of "routinely". So, Todd, why don't you tell us all the conditions under which torture is acceptable?

We would be a different country.

Yes, we wouldn't be subjected to Todd's sycophantic parroting of Leftist tripe. Probably ...

7:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whoa! Hold on. Now, I'm no Gore or Clinton fan, but as a former non-political staff person in both the HGW Bush and Clinton administrations, I have to set some things straight.

First, your comment is not intended to enlighten or broaden a discussion; it is only intended to score political points. How small.

Second, I take issue with the original premise. Gore would have won Florida, if you consider that many thousands of people intended to vote for Gore, not GW Bush. If memory serves me correctly, in the 2000 presidential election 120,000 ballots alone in Palm Beach county were disqualified because those people inadvertantly voted for Buchanan AND Gore.

I don't care what party you're from, you can't convince me that had those ballots been easier to understand that Gore would not have won in a walk. So, pro-Bush or pro-Gore, re-count or not, you gotta call it like it was.

Third, Democrats should not be falsely wishing Gore had won. Would he have been able to more effectively deal with al Qaeda? Who knows. We often forget that we had major problems with Sadam Hussein independent of 9/11 and Cheney/Rumsfeld. Who knows how it might have played out. point is: Democrats have no alternative program, so they can't even capitalize on Bush's current failures.

Now, on to the substance of your comments...

You claim this as an example of our invading a country that did not attack us. You're on crack.

This was a major international crisis threatening the stability of the region. It was already a genocidal mess. We entered that war on the behest of our allies after sitting on our hands with a non-policy for many months. We had a clear interest to go in, we had a clear plan that defined our mission, and we had a clear exit strategy. We also the cooperation (and thanks) of our European allies who shared in the brunt of the work. This was clearly a success: the war ended, democratic institutions have now prevailed, and in fact the people have seen that rule of law works. Many of the worst offenders, including Milosovic himself, are currently on trial for crimes against humanity. That was a far more effective war than what we've seen in this administration.

So this was no invasion of some innocent country, there was no false pretense to justify our intervention, and while it secured our national interest our intervention did not bitterly divide the country, nor did it detract from the real culprits.

You claim a variety of taxes affected the middle class and poor as if it were the cynical purpose of the Clinton/Gore fiscal program. What a load of BS!!! Sorry, that's GW Bush you've mistaken Gore for. While economic austerity was necessary to stabilize our economy (at the behest of such Republicans as Allen Greenspan, and against the wishes of the entire liberal establishment) Clinton raised taxes as a part of his 1993 budget. It set the stage for a huge economic expansion. The amount of taxes was paid overwhelmingly by the same wealthy people who now enjoy the Bush tax cut.

It did, along with the gas tax of 5 cents, affect those making over $200,000. But the median income in 1993 was $39,000.

Further, many of the Clinton programs, namely an increase in the EITC and college loan programs, preservation of medical care programs, targeted capital gains cuts, empowerment zone expansions, and small business incentives all benefitted the lower and middle classes more so than the rich.

Your analysis is a willful misreading of history for partisan ends. Despicable.

Do you honestly believe that Clinton/Gore's handling of the news media came anything close to intimidation? Ha! Too funny.

The GW Bush administration has the most secretive and vengeful media policy ever, even more so than Nixon.

Meanwhile, Clinton's lack of ability to control the media was legendary. He had more leaks than a New Orleans levee, and was infamously poor at reprisal. He had Stephanopoulos as Communications Director. They had to bring in a Republican! (David Gergen) because they'd lost control from day 1. How else could such notables as Bob Woodward write books about Clinton policy decisionmaking WHILE they were being formulated and with the full cooperation from every major participant. It's because each one knew if they didn't tell their side of the story, they'd get screwed.

One must remember the context. In 1993 when Clinton took office, it had been 12 years since a Democrat had been in office. The media were all too scared to be called liberal, so they went out of their way to prove they were not Clinton lackeys.

Using credentials and access to power as a way to tame the media is an art all Presidents mastered (except maybe Carter!) but really perfected by GW Bush. Gore may have threatened, and so what?

Did Gore get mad when his son was busted for smoking pot? Sure, just like the Bushes did when their children get caught doing stupid things. But while Gore got mad, were there ever any reprisals against anyone? I doubt it.

Your attempt to paint Gore as some sort of evil demogogue is ludicrous. One thing Republicans do well: they commit some despicable act then accuse Democrats of doing it. Amazing.

Does this thing ahve a spell check?

Where was I? You got me ranting now.

And as for torture. Sadly, torture, among other practices that violate most standards of human decency has been a matter of US policy (although not officially) since forever. A peek into our recent history in central and South America, not to mention southeast Asia, comes to mind. Certainly not an invention of the Clinton administration. But he did little to stop it either.

But the real issue here is not that the military under Clinton committed acts of unspeakable and inhumane violence, therefore it excuses the same actions, even on a bigger scale, by the Bush administration.

It does not. No, the real issue is: The Bush administration failed to consider that in this case, the world is watching. This is not about torturing some spy to pry out critical information. It's about a systematic policy implemented across our forces in Iraq at a time when our claim to the moral high-ground was being questioned abroad.

This, of all times, was when we needed to be on our best behavior. Saaly, our esteem around the planet is lower than it ever has been. We're viewed, perhaps rightly so, as the villains in this war. Yet we persist in the fiction that we are the agrieved party?

Too bad Bush faithfuls see this as a matter of partisan debate rather than of objective analysis of whether or not a President has done wrong or right.

But, you're obviously just another partisan-head. So go back to your talk radio show and feed your addiction to self-affirming propaganda. I'll continue to call it as I see it.

6:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What? Does that Republican guy think Iraq attacked us? He's the only one on planet earth who thinks so.

Even Republicans now admit that (1) Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and (2) Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.

Wild Rider is right. Had Gore been president, we would not have invaded Iraq, and we wouldn't be in this mess.

Bush has done more to help al Qaeda by invading Iraq than anything else he could have done.

Nice going there, pal. Might as well have stuck the nation's finger in a socket and prayed for lightning.

9:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whoa! Hold on. Now, I'm no Gore or Clinton fan, but as a former non-political staff person in both the HGW Bush and Clinton administrations, I have to set some things straight.

Everything you say after this point contradicts the above assertion. Your own bias is pretty apparent throughout.

I have to wonder what is worse, what you accuse me of, or your obvious lies with regards to your "non-political" credentials.

10:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What? Does that Republican guy think Iraq attacked us? He's the only one on planet earth who thinks so.

Didn't say that. What I did say was that under the standard Gore advocates in favor of (US not going after a nation unless it actually attacks us first), the US would not have attacked Afghanistan.

10:51 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home