Friday, January 27, 2006
Meanwhile, as Captain Ed reports, the increasingly loopy Al Gore continues to find new ways to demonstrate his repudiation of mainstream political thought, accusing the new Canadian government of being a tool of big oil, blaming the Prime Minister's election on "media concentration," and conveniently overlooking the well documented financial scandals of the formerly ruling liberal party.
Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore has accused the oil industry of financially backing the Tories and their "ultra-conservative leader" to protect its stake in Alberta's lucrative oilsands.
Canadians, Gore said, should vigilantly keep watch over prime minister-designate Stephen Harper because he has a pro-oil agenda and wants to pull out of the Kyoto accord -- an international agreement to combat climate change.
Gore believes the issue of the oilsands and the sway he contends the industry holds with Harper didn't garner news coverage during the election because "media concentration has taken a toll on democratic principles around the world, and Canada is no exception."
Al Gore one-ups John Kerry by making these statements not from Davos, but from the Sundance Film Festival!
What is going on with these two supposedly serious men who were both presidential nominees of one of the two major parties in this country? Have they no sense of farce?
Instapundit linked to this interesting comment over at The Truth Laid Bear that I think goes a long way to explaining where exactly we are with these two.
All politicians "play to the base", making occasional outrageous statements that engage and excite their core constituencies, but won't necessarily help them with the electorate as a whole.
At some point, though, you have to begin suspecting that a politician may no longer even be trying to win elections, but rather has crossed over into a continual base-appeasing mode that guarantees sufficient attention to fund ongoing campaigns, without any particular regard for whether or not any will ever be successful. The process of campaigning has become an end in itself; a permanent job description, rather than a step towards actual elected office.
Today's example: John Kerry's call for a fillibuster on Alito's nomination.
Kerry has become the Paris Hilton to Al Gore's Nicole Ritchie on the stage of American politics: creatures whose fame has become self-sustaining; and who remain in the public eye not because of any achievement or acumen, but who are simply famous for being famous.
This sounds about right to me. There was a time when I considered Al Gore to be presidential material (can't say the same for Kerry) but those days are long past.
Update: Thx Pen. Grievous error corrected.
John Kerry is, indeed, trying to parlay a weak Democratic response to the Alito nomination into a seemingly bold position. But we know that bold positions aren't Kerry's strongsuit, and he's creating some theater to stay in the headlines.
Gore, on the other hand, is a citizen without political aspirations who is speaking his mind.
It's fascinating when the President has been hovering around 40% approval that anyone says that critical voices are outside the mainstream or that Bush is doing anything but losing mainstream America.
Further, if you're looking for a juicy bit of scandalous behavior, here's a nice one, "BUSH: Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution" - George W. Bush 2004
This quote comes when Bush had full knowledge of the NSA spying program. That's called lying outright to the American people, and conservative used to hate that sort of thing.
There appears to be a mote in your eye.
yeah yeah, Bush lied, people died, yada yada yada. I can come up with hundreds of quotes, some possibly by you on this blog, criticizing the president for not connecting the dots and preventing 9/11.
More to the point, you have not refuted the Paris Hilton analogy. Very telling!
To be honest, I like the Nicole Ritchie/Paris Hilton analogy. Very Clever.
But this lie is about something current, recent. It's a blatant lie. Does it concern you in any way when a sitting President looks into the eyes of America and tells an outright lie?
It bugs me. I guess I'm just a stupid liberal. Wanting my President not to lie about spying on me without a court order. Maybe I'm Paris' purse dog?
Well, I don't have as big a problem with it as you. Putting aside questions as to whether or not he actually lied (definition of wiretapping, etc.): One, he wasn't under oath and therefore committed no crime (in saying what he said). Two, despite Dan Rather's assertions to the contrary, I do not believe that there is a "public right to know."
Three, the program's whole value is in its secrecy. Which is why I think the leakers should be pursued and prosecuted. They have revealed national security secrets, a far more serious crime in my opinion.
I'm not expecting you to agree with these arguments, but simply explaining my point of view. I suspect we will not see eye to eye on this matter in the near term.
The point of the post, however, is the derangement of Gore and Kerry. I know you like to throw out terms like "swiftboating," but Kerry is a joke.
Now, I make no secret that I support the president and many of his policies (not all, by any means) but I will say that it pained me no end that the Republican party could not find a more articulate candidate with a more demonstrated intellectual capacity. THe press is not his friend, but he sure makes it easy for them. (He has a strength of conviction that few recent office holders have shown, however, and I respect him for that.)
All that being said, it says something pretty powerful about his opponents that they couldn't muster a better electoral effort against this inarticulate man (and I include Republican primary opponents in that indictment). Our culture as it stands now does not attract our best and brightest to higher office. What Kerry and Gore are doing is a disrace. Imagine how weird it would be if Bob Dole was on the circuit making extreme right wing speaches to evangelicals (or phoning them in from, say, a National Front gathering in Europe).
Screwy, who do you think the Democrats will nominate in 2008? Do you expect either of these two bufoons to make a run of it? Is there anyone on your side who you think the American public can take seriously? Are there any serious thinkers who can give national security its proper priority, or will they just get bogged down complaining about prescription drugs?
I'll tell you right now, my vote is up for grabs.
Over at JustOneMinute the
discussion is about the new Libby Lawyers' briefs for discovery.
In comments re reporters that could be in trouble is
Timmy Russert. This led to
Huffington's posts on Russert, which led to discussion of the LEFT EATING THEIR OWN.
Just before I came over here,I posted in comments:
Why does noone consider Bush41 and Sen Dole to be losers? They both lost elections. But compare their behavior and class to
the recent and long passed
losers on the Dem side:
Telling isn't it!
It depends on the definition of wiretapping? I can't believe you just said that with a straight font.
As I mentioned earlier in the week, I'm waiting for a real leader to emerge in the party. I'm no fan of Hillary, and John Kerry makes me want to kill myself. Wes Clark might be acceptable. Russ Feingold will sweeten up the debate, but I don't know if he has the chops for the Big Chair. I hope Sharpton runs again because he's the most eloquent man in politics, and he was the first to say that marriage is a human right. Denny Kucinich, that little ankle biter, is an excellent representative for his district and an excellent standard bearer for the truly liberal wing of the party. Kucinich and Sharpton aren't contender, I know, but they're awfully fun to watch in the debates. John Edwards would do more for our country in the private sector.
Mark Warner has a lot of promise as a winning candidate, but I don't know enough about him to have an opinion about his creds for pres.
So, in a nutshell, I don't have the slightest idea. If I had to make a bet I'd lay $20 on Clinton/Warner '08. Clinton's raising more money than Jeebus, and Warner will have enough outsider credibility and manly mansome presence to balance the ticket.
If I had my wish, I'd choose Howard Dean for President. I know that makes me a nutball in any sphere that gives any creedence whatsoever to the scream. Dean's been right about Iraq, right about bin Laden, right about the health care crisis, right about how to raise money, right about the mission being the message - We Have The Power.
That was fun for me. Thanks for the opportunity.
Did you say Sharpton?
As for John Edwards... he's a joke everywhere but where I live (down the street from him), where he's building his multi-million dollar 14 room place on a 100 acres. The rich liberal just doesn't fit in with the crunchy unshaven.
The democrats are going to need a better mantra than "anyone but Bush" since he can't run again.
I think the only thing the parties hold in common right now is the nomination is up for grabs. I'd be just as shocked if Hillary doesn't get it, as I will be if she actually gets the Presidency.