Gore vs. Clinton (Sen. Clinton, That Is)

Over at Ragged Thots, NY Poster and Reason contributor Robert A. George takes the measure of Hilary Clinton's and Al Gore's recent speeches about Republicans:

Say what you will about Al Gore, but contrast…his speech [on National Security Administration surveillance excesses] with Hillary's rather weak complaint over how the House of Representatives is being run. One doesn't have to admire -- or even like -- Gore to recognize that he is playing on a higher field of play than the junior senator from New York. She's playing simple politics; he's talking constitutional urgency.

George implies that one reason Gore may not be playing politics is that he's been kicked off that field, possibly (though not definitively) for good.

George also links to this press release by conservatives upset with the NSA monitoring program who share at least some of Gore's concerns. One of the things that is striking, though hardly surprising, about the cons behind "Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances"--Bob Barr, Paul Weyrich, Grover Norquist, and others--listed is that their influence within the GOP has been at a low ebb for some time now.

Comments

[Not in DC]

Norquist? Low end these days? You mean post Abramoff?

Please explain...

[Warren]

Gore will forever be the author of "Earth in the Ballance" and therefore unredemable.

[happyjuggler0]

Along similar lines, the cynic in me thinks that Nancy Pelosi has been such a hard core walking negative attack ad over the past 6 months or so in order to make Hilary look soft and fuzzy by comparison, making those with short memories forget her earlier reputation, and maybe vote for her in 2008 for president.

Gridlock 2008, here we come. Note, this is a good thing.

[This&That]

I wish Gore would make such an impassioned speech against the terrorists instead of the evil Bush.

Heck, I would like ANY Dem to make a passionate speech against the terrorists instead of Bush.

It seems like the only outrage Dem's can muster is against Bush, Rep's, conservatives, and anyone in the free world that is politcally right of them.

This&That

[downstater]

yes, democrats should stop denouncing the awful actions of the administration and redirect their criticism to a group who's badguy status is a collective no brainer. that will help stop the terror - the criticisms of congressional democrats!

come to think of it, democrats have not been giving many impassioned speeches denouncing axe murderers either. instead they are focusing on the actions of the president. kinda makes you wonder why they continue to give comfort to axe murderers.

[thoreau]

I wish Gore would make such an impassioned speech against the terrorist...

Wow, you just totally tried to change the topic.

[sage]

I saw part of the President Hillary infomercial the other night and I must say that the thought of mustering the entire US military to save one battered housewife seems a bit much.

[Stretch]

Gore almost has to be all hellfire and brimstone in order to remain relevant. Clinton is bucking for the Presidency and, if she gets the nod, I have a hard time believing that she won't get all the votes from the left that a more pronounced Bush antagonist would along with some of the more moderate votes she's currently courting.

To be honest, I think Al Gore is great. Certainly not because I agree with him, but because after he lost the 2000 election he moved back to the mountains, grew a beard and became a crazed badass. I often wonder if losing the Presidency, the very thrust of his entire life, in such a way truly changed the man. Or perhaps all along, buried beneath the robotic exterior of quasi-presidential behavior, lurked the insane left-wing mountain man just waiting to be freed from his Clintonian shackles.

[Cathy Young]

"Gore will forever be the author of "Earth in the Ballance" and therefore unredemable."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10913795/

So, Al Gore is just as bad as, uh, these EPA guys who are Republicans. See? Balance! Both parties bad! Unnh!

[This&That]

Downstater: You are stuffing words into my mouth....I did not say STOP attacking Bush, I said START attacking the terrorists. Pretty please? Or is that too much to hope for out of the Dem's nowadays?

Thoreau: No, the topic commented on passion and it occured to me that it would be nice to hear some passion out of any Dem on a topic besides one that is anti-Bush. Next time I will attempt to mind-read what you know is permissable to post on a topic before I respond.

This&That

[joe]

I wish This&That would write posts against the terrorists instead of attacking the Democracts.

What a stupid game this is.

[downstater]

I wish Gore would make such an impassioned speech against the terrorists instead of the evil Bush.

no word stuffing necessary.

joe is right, this is stupid.

[sage]

This & That,

Perhaps instead of whining about Gore you should be thanking him. Without him you couldn't post on this thing called the internet.

[R C Dean]

I would so not want to be an Islamist if we get hit again while Hillary is President.

About the only positive feeling I can muster about the woman is an inexplicable certainty that if she had to fight a war, then by God a war would get fought.

[joe]

I agree with RC: not even the most Neanderthal goober in Oklahoma is going to look at Hillary Clinton and say, "Women aren't hard-assed enough to be president." Talk about your Iron Ladies.

[sage]

I agree with joe: Most Oklahomans are Neanderthal goobers.

[Lowdog]

joe - or to expand upon Warren's post in the Islam anal sex thread...

think there's ever been some pegging going on in the Clinton home?

[Yo]

"Funzo" Clinton for prez! She's cuddly, and has lots of firepower.

[This&That]

Hmmm, ok I was unclear. I meant 'instead' as In preference to or as an alternative. To modify a Bush quote, "Posting is hard work!"

That is, I don't mind the Dem's attacking Rep's or the Rep's attacking Dem's. That's American as apple pie. But I can hear the passion against the terrorists in various Bush speechs but it is overwhelmed in (for example) Gore's last speech. That seems to me to be all I hear from the Dem's. So I want to hear some anti-terrorist speechs from the Dems. Not used as a platform to attack Bush or Rep's, but an honest to goodness anti-terrorist speech.

Would someone point me to one? Not a paragraph or two but an actual speech. Or is that "stupid" also?

This&That

PS: 'joe': I am not a major political leader so if my few posts (well one post) is on a single topic that is not a problem. But if Gore simply keeps attacking Bush what is wrong with wishing he would lend some of his passion to say something against the terrorists? I am a voter thus I ask my political elite to address my concerns. Or is that somehow wrong?

[Phil]

I am not a major political leader

Neither is Al Gore. He's just a well-known Democrat ex-senator and ex-VP now.

[James]

And one fruity dude.

[James]

And I'll never forget that first debate when he tried to rattle Bush with that ridiculous groaning routine. What a pud.

[This&That]

Gore is not a major political leader?

In this very thread he is played opposite Hillary who is a major leader for sure.

He is a very possible major contender for the 2008 bid.

He is considered by many to have been robbed of his presidential bid.

He was VP of the US for 8 years & and senator for how long before that?

Any speech he makes gets major media play.

Claiming he is not a 'major' leader is the weakest response I have read yet.

[Al Gore]

I denounce those terrorists that call themselves the "Leaders of the free world" and thier psychopathic leader George W. Bush. We must put an end to thier terroristic ways! We must never misunderestimate thier power. I call for all decent, patriotic Americans to rise up and overthrow our Jhiadistic government and return us to a kinder, gentler nation.

[SR]

According to the neocons and fundies, Grover Norquist has practically converted to Islam, so I'm sure they're not surprised to see his name here.

[Phil]

This&That, he holds no position in elected office nor in any major political party. It's a fact. I didn't say he wasn't influential or important, but facts is facts.

[Douglas Fletcher]

If next week I saw Al Gore standing on a street corner wearing a sign that said THE END IS NEAR I wouldn't be very surprised.

Having your life's dream crushed and derailed must be a terribly painful experience, but that doesn't mean I can't be entertained watching Al Gore turn into a hilarious lunatic. Shoot for the moon, Al! We need all the laughs we can get.

[Douglas Fletcher]

He is a very possible major contender for the 2008 bid.

Unless McGovern decides to run.

[rog]

Hey what happend to my previous comment??

http://www.electgore2008.com

[joe]

Still not a single substantive point to counter anything Gore said.

But lots of ad homenim attacks, and the standard "Al Gore is CRAZY!" shtick that gets rolled out whenever he lands a few punches.

Doug Fletcher, I'm looking at you. You're trying too hard.

[bubba]

What's to counter in Gore's speech? It's entirely self-contradictory.

He's an amusing version of John Kerry.

I'm also amused that Dems think of Hillary as an "Iron Lady." She has nothing in common with Margaret Thatcher.

Blatant pandering and preaching to the choir is not evidence of "strength." Maybe if she had a purple heart...

[bubba]

What's the policy on cross-posting?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_01_15_corner-archive.asp#087822

[David T]

Why didn't Gore attack the terrorists? Well, of course, he did in that very speech:

"The president and I agree on one thing: The threat from terrorism is all too real.

There is simply no question that we continue to face new challenges in the wake of the attacks on September 11th and we must be ever vigilant in protecting our citizens from harm.

Where we disagree is on the proposition that we have to break the law or sacrifice our system of government in order to protect Americans from terrorism when, in fact, doing so would make us weaker and more vulnerable."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/16/AR2006011600779.html

(My own chief criticism of the speech by the way is that Gore shows he doesn't know what the "unitary executive" theory means.)

Anyway, the whole business of "why don't you attack Bin Laden more?" is silly. With a handful of exceptions, everyone in the US is against Bin Laden. Saying that he is bad is superflous. The only issue is how to combat him--e.g., does the war in Iraq harm or hurt the struggle against Al Qaeda?--so naturally that sort of issue, and not whether bin Laden is good or bad gets most of the attention in most speeches by cirtics of the administration. Naturally, these speeches do contain denunications of terrorism, acknowledgement of the reality of terrorist threat, etc., but nobody pays any attention to this aspect of the speeches because such things are (quite rightkly) taken for granted.