Principled pragmatism at the maghrib of one age, the fajr of another
I've had a really hard time taking Gore seriously since he launched on his campaign of, "I'm not a staid centrist anymore. Really. I'm an outraged leftist now."But I have an even harder time believing him getting outraged about the Bush Administration and civil liberties. Just about every power that the Bush Administration has sought since 9/11 was something that the Clinton Administration had also been trying for.The USA PATRIOT act is the best example. It was sitting with all of its provisions already drawn up so quickly after 9/11 because it was chock full of things that the Clinton FBI and Justice Department had been trying to get but the GOP Congress had denied them.I am about as impressed with Gore as I am with those Republicans who "bravely stood up to Clinton's power grabs" before meekly roling over to give the same powers to Bush.
I think a symptom of our poisoned well of national politics is the tendency to reduce people to caricatures, with all context erased. Gore is a good man, a deeply principled and good man. It's impossible for anyone who has read the broad specctrum of his writings - especially in the past six years, not just during the Clinton Administration - to maintain the caricature of him you've reduced him to, Andrew, with the staid word "leftist". Gore was the original Democrat hawk; he was and is the principled idealist who really believes in what America stands for.Just about every power that the Bush Administration has sought since 9/11 was something that the Clinton Administration had also been trying for.Incidentally, you're tragically, vastly, imensely wrong about that, but I won't get involved in that debate. Its pointless. I dont know what your original sources are for that assertion but I trust my own research and attention to Gore's career more. No offense intended, but I clearly know more about Gore than you do, and I can't let your mischaracterization of him stand unchallenged her, not on my blog. Gore will do something tomorrow that we desperately need; he will RAISE A DEBATE. Fro that alone, you shoudl forgive him whatever faults you ascribe to his past. NO ONE ELSE can short circuit the media obfuscation wall like he can, in his post-political phase (he has utterly and flatly disavowed any remote chance of ever running again for any office). WE NEED THIS DEBATE. And if you share my concerns about civil liberties, as I know you do from reading your writings over the past few years, you should cheer Gore on Monday. And let bygones be bygones.
Incidentally, you're tragically, vastly, imensely wrong about that, but I won't get involved in that debate.You know, I might very well be wrong, as I am going from memory, and I would very much like to be corrected. I thought, though, that I remembered that the bulk of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT act were powers that the Clinton Administration had asked for from the Republican Congress and been turned down? Is this incorrect?And as long as I am accepting correction (being married has gradually made me better and better at this), I am going to admit that I've read very little of the New Gore. The thing that tends to have people swooning is his rejection of DLC centrist positions he held prior to 2000 and becoming a more left wing voice. His supporters appear to be saying that he never was a centrist, but that he only pretended to be one up until around 2002.That bothers me, though. The Gore that was a part of the magnificent spate of good government from 1992 to 2000, the competent technocrat was what? A mask worn for the rubes in the heartland?
Perusing your blog, specifically, "City of Brass", I have arrived at what I believe is a defensible inference. Both you and your readers would welcome news of in-your-face overt opposition to your "smirking chimp", my "dum'ya botch".In plainer terms, I want to run for Representative for Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional District on a platform calling for the impeachment of President George Walker Bush.Incidentally, I deliberately referred to your blog, to indicate that I visited your blog as an individual, and not as a spammer. Yes, that last is an illustion to a "pre-deconstruction" chick flick with a rating of two and a half hankies.Oh, alright (!) already, I'll own up to it. I owe getting my message out to so many bloggers to COPY/PASTE ... gim'me a break ... will'ya puh-lease! I got to get the word out somehow.Ah, before you click on any of the enclosed hyperlinks, please read the entirely of my comment. For example, the three planks I nailed together in my platform out to get me elected. "impeach bush" is the first plank. The second is "impeach bush". The third is like the second, "impeach bush".To continue, the first hyperlink below leads to the opening salvo of my campaign.http://hewhoisknownassefton.blogspot.com/2006/01/danger-senator-specter-danger.html As for the second hyperlink, it leads to evidence that my candidacy is about more than opposition solely for the sake of opposition.http://hewhoisknownassefton.blogspot.com/2006/01/dispelling-stench-in-oval.htmltoodles......\.he who is known as seftonoh, by the bye, it's a good guess you'll find what I have to say in PROMETHEAN COMMENT interesting to the point of startling. In that segment, I advance the case that the mere nomination of Judge Alito is tantamount to treason.
Post a Comment