ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Regarding Al

I haven't commented on Algore's speech from Monday, for a variety of reasons. But, it apparently has re-energized the Moonbat Left, as this post from StupidCountry demonstrates:

Al Gore Gets Real

These are the most cynical of times. But I'm going to go out on a limb and say something that's likely to earn me some ridicule even from people who side with me ideologically.

I saw and heard some of Al Gore's Martin Luther King Day speech on C-Span this afternoon. I was moved. Somewhere along the way, in his five years in the shadows, Gore has acquired (in addition to a few pounds) a feel for public eloquence. If you set aside the popular image of Gore as a loser -- remembering of course that he acquired that image in the 2000 Presidential election in which he won the popular tally by 500,000 votes -- the man has found a way to express the indignation that many of us feel at the way the Bush administration has attempted to distort the Constitution and emasculate Congress and the Courts. Lately I'm reading everything I can get my hands on to try to understand how the administration is conducting this coup...and strangely enough, Gore captures this better than anyone.
[...]
It isn't just the words. I'm not ashamed to say Al Gore has learned to speak, in a way that gets to me. Damn it, Gore looks like a President. Even as I was readying myself to vote for him in 2000, I'd never have said that; then, he was just the default Democrat, a windy, over-rehearsed, tone-deaf technocrat, but still a far better choice than the fool the Republicans had nominated.

Now, I'm ready to suggest that Al Gore be taken seriously if he chooses to try again in 2008. Yes, I realize that the Republicans have already begun flogging their smarmy talking point about the Clinton administration's investigation in the Robert Hanssen spying case, and that this is one way they would swift-boat Gore. I don't think it will wear well over an entire election cycle. There's just not enough there, and it invites a comparison that will blow back on the next Republican apologist.

I mean it. Al Gore. Not Hillary Clinton, or John Kerry. Stop snickering at me. I'm serious.

Now, one thing I can say with absolute certitude is this: the NSA story has apparently lost its legs. How do I know this? Because Algore has now picked up that issue and as history will point out, he has the absolutely worst political vision in the Democratic Party, waiting until something has reached its zenith and THEN jumping on the bandwagon. Once he touches an issue, it dies a horrible death. Case in point: See his endorsement of Howard Dean in the Democratic primary. I'm sure that he saw all of the press about Dean and believed that it was a sure thing. A few days later, Dean gets trounced.

Algore in 2008? Sure, that'd be a great idea (for the GOP). When I read Algore's comments, the first thing that came to my mind was "Thank God this man didn't become President."

Let's look at the politics of the NSA surveillance - not the legality of it, which I think Jeff Goldstein at ProteinWisdom has demonstrated that the President has operated within his legal bounds, even within the bounds of the FISA statute. No, politically this only benefits Republicans. What's the worst thing for the Republican's chances in 2006? That the base isn't energized and pissed off at the direction of the party - see spending, immigration (on which I think both the base and the party are wrong), the continuing grind in Iraq, etc. What happens as the Dems escalate the rhetoric, calling for withdrawal from Iraq (which a majority of Americans recognize would be a mistake) and attacking Bush's use of technology to thwart multiple terrorist attacks. They see the Dems and the attorneys for Al Qaeda terrorists caught on the battlefield or en route to detonate a dirty bomb whine about such technology and come to the following realization:

"Yeah, spending is out of control and I'm not happy about any number of things, but the Democrats are absolutely insane when it comes to preventing another 9/11."

As Nancy Pelosi pointed out in San Francisco, most Dems recognize that the NSA kerfluffle is not about impeachment, but about electoral politics. This shows that they're not serious about our civil liberties AND our national security. Reintroducing national security into the 2006 mid-term while at the same time reinforcing the stereotype of the Democratic party on the matter only benefits the GOP. Perhaps Algore did not get the message, but the fact that he's jumped onto the bandwagon shows that this issue isn't a winner.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Comments (2)
Stupid Country said...

Mmm. I get the sense that you're fishing for some kind of response. It's difficult, because I can't find the logic here to refute. Jeff Goldstein's take on the NSA spying is a barely comprehensible stew of rationalizations and wishful thinking. As for this post your own post, well...

Have you ever heard the phrase "whistling past the graveyard"?

If the Right wants to laugh off the domestic spying issue as a kerfuffle with no potential to inflame the electorate against Republicans this year, I say groovy. Anything can happen in an argument on the law, I'll grant that. But I see too many good minds, including way too many good conservative minds, coming to the consensus that the NSA program was an illegal executive power grab (and notice please that there are conservatives using the "i" word) to believe this argument is going to fade between now and November.

A mid-term election is supposed to be a referendum on the party in power. With the NSA issue and the eventual trial of Scooter Libby weighing down the Executive and the lobbying mess sliming mostly the GOP in Congress, I would expect this to be a rough year. If I were a Republican, I guess I'd be spin-doctoring like a madman too.

As for Gore...okay fine. Laugh him off. You'll have plenty of company. My whole point is that he's due for a re-evaluation. Sure, he's stumbled more than once, but we're all pre-disposed to expect him to. That loser tag is very hard to shake. On the other hand, managing expectations for Al Gore should be easy. I have no doubt that a lot of Democrats share your cynicism about Gore. Me? I like an uphill sell. I'm staying with my reassessment, and not just for the fun of it.

Monterey John said...

Regarding Al... I just got it!

How about "What about Al"?