Skip to comments.Gore Debates Blair
Posted on 09/24/2002 9:07:35 PM PDT by Pokey78Edited on 04/23/2004 12:04:50 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The erstwhile veep blames America first, while the prime minister takes a stand for freedom.
Former Vice President Al Gore assailed President Bush's handling of the war on terror on Monday, and it didn't take long for a rebuttal. It came yesterday from British Prime Minister Tony Blair, once Mr. Gore's ally as part of the center-left Third Way but these days a fast friend of Mr. Bush's Iraq campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
He's clearly trying to appeal to the crazies on the far left.
And that is one spooky deal.
It's a shame that he can't see that alot of America has wised up. I shudder to imagine what it would be like if this nutcase was actually in position today to make decisions for the country. What a wishy-washy emmer-effer. He's speaking in California, of course. It might be a whole different speech if he were speaking in Oklahoma, Kansas or another state in middle America. (fat chance, huh?)
I kind of sense his speech writers are also making his political and moral decisions for him.
Oh well, I don't like algore, no matter what his positions are this week.
Well, it's what a lot of the Democratic base wants to hear. Gore could easily believe that he lost the 2000 election because he did not run far enough to the left. He lost several states by margins that were smaller than Ralph Nader's vote count.
My own sense is that he is wrong about this. I think the 2000 election was played very close to the knife's edge, right where the public breaks between left and right. Had Gore moved left, or Bush right, either of them would have lost more than he gained.
In any case, approaching the 2004 primaries, Gore will want to be farther to the left than he will be for the general election. This is another game that has been long-played in politics, but which is going to become harder as it becomes easier for ordinary voters to see how candidates change their positions over time. Those who are blatant panderers -- and Gore is certainly that -- stand to be identified as such by a much larger number of voters.
I think Democrats in general are still struggling to understand how to operate in the new media environment. They are used to having pretty much the entire news dissemination machinery in the United States pulling for them and cheering them on, even to the point of 'managing the news' on their behalf.
This piece from Reuters is a perfect example of the kind of heavily-slanted news coverage that Democrats have come to rely on. They still get it, but now it's not the only thing out there, and that changes the game in ways they don't understand yet. They cannot count on the public being fed a steady diet of pro-Democratic slant from every nook and cranny in the media. The ability of a Clinton to blatantly lie, and to have the entire media establishment go along with it 'for the cause,' is gone.
The pro-Democratic slant will still come pouring out of the usual places, but increasing numbers of Americans are getting their news elsewhere, so these ideological jihads that the press and the Democrats used to wage together are no longer so effective. I don't think Gore understands that yet. He's doing everything right to win the game as it was played in 1990. I suspect he will be quite baffled by what is about to happen to him.
I was with ya up to that sentence. <|:)~
I think that Gore was set up by his opponents within the Dem. Party. After Gore and Daschle - any semi-sane Democrat will sound reasonable to the American people, maybe even Edwards or Hillary, two slick far left enemies of America.
They're giving me a headache...and I really want to sock a reporter for not only covering up for Daschle's traitorous behavior in the Senate, but for giving either Gore or Daschle's comments front page legitimacy. Grrr!
GORE: Saddam Must Go
Source: BBC; Published: June 28, 2000; Author: Jeff PhillipsUS Vice-President Al Gore has told Iraqi opposition politicians that the United States remains committed to the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein.
Meeting a delegation from the Iraqi National Congress (INC), he also reiterated the administration's view that the Iraqi leader should be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity ...
.There can be no peace for the Middle East so long as Saddam is in a position to brutalise his people and threaten his neighboursAL GORE .
The technology of politics has passed Albert Gore Junior by, and he doesn't seem to have noticed. He's still out there telling us what he thinks we want to hear, but now it's too easy to see that's all he ever does. He doesn't mean anything by what he says, he's just making noises with his mouth, hoping to tap into the public passions of the moment. He stands for nothing, except wanting to be the Chief that people Hail to.
His is not a type that ever should have been elected to high office. He's a little man, with little ambitions and little thoughts, mostly about himself. Good riddance to him, and to his type.
KABOOM! Someone should send this to Rush or Sean.
Again, MHG, Right On!
If Gore was President, he wouldn't have dealt with Saddam, and never would, plain and simple as that.
This statement is just outrageous, and very much like the one he made about Bush 'squandering" the good economy in just a short time. Gore seems to forget that he was one of the ones screaming the loudest during the campaign when Bush said the economy was tanking!!!!!! But Clinton/Gore were still in charge then weren't they?
Anyone who voted for this arrogant unAmerican fool should be even more ashamed of themselves after this speech.
You know, I saw someone on FOX yesterday trying to spin gores anti-Iraq war
talk. They're still bringing up "algore got 500,000 more votes than Bush".....
This is a really good point you make. I think it speaks to how Gore (and Daschle and others) are now getting caught in their lies - It is just too darn easy to catch them with the technology that is out there for recall of past statements.
The liberal media used to be the only ones that could pull this stuff up easily. Now we have the tremendous resources (that Owl wishes he never invented) catching these fakes.
BTW, there is a poll on Gore that needs to be FReep.
Did Gore act properly in criticizing Bush's policy on Iraq?
-Yes. It was proper. It needed to be said. Gore had the courage to say it. 74%
- No. It was not proper. Gore put his political ambitions ahead of the country. 26%
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.