BURLEIGH ON GORE! When liberal savants praise Al Gore, could they possibly get their facts right? // link // print // previous // next //
MONDAY, MAY 8, 2006
TIM RUSSERT JUST WANTS TO HAVE FUN: What an embarrassing—and defining—performance by Tim Russert on yesterdays Meet the Press! His session with Nancy Pelosi was bad, although Pelosis evasions and errors almost matched Russerts stale heres-what-you-said-two-years-ago tango. (Note to Pelosi: Pay-as-you-go is not the same thing as no deficit spending. At HuffPo, meanwhile, Stephen Kaus correctly criticizes Pelosi for her refusal to answer the simplest questions.) But in the journalist roundtable segment which followed, Russert simply embarrassed himself. After spending eight minutes with Dan Balz and Todd Purdum, he brought on Bush impersonator Steve Bridges for an excruciating—and thoroughly pointless—eleven and a half minutes more. Inexcusably, he turned Balz and Purdum into second bananas, making them pose mock questions to Bush. Both scribes seemed uncomfortable; well choose to believe that they didnt know that their time would be put to such use.
But how about Russerts use of his time? Russert is one of the nations most privileged citizens; he gets a full hour each week to explore the worlds news in this ultimate high-profile venue. But apparently, exploring real news is just too boring; yesterday, he burned up his last quarter hour in simpering discussion with Bridges—during which he kept prompting the affable comic to say what good sport Bush is. As we watched Russert burn up his time, we recalled Peter Beinarts precis of Joe Kleins new book from last Sundays Washington Post:
BEINART (4/30/06): It is no exaggeration to say that Politics Lost represents the culmination of Joe Klein's life work. It spans every presidential campaign he has covered. It draws on sources nurtured over his three decades as one of the country's leading political reporters. And its topic has clearly obsessed him for a very long time: Why is American politics no longer fun?According to Beinart, Klein just wants our politics to be more fun. So too now with simpering Russert.
What does it mean that the CIA is without direction again? Yesterday, that barely mattered to Russert; he just wanted to trade pointless jibes with a good-natured comedian. But then, as weve suggested before: This is what a society gets when its press corps is run by multimillionaires. (File under: Human nature.) Pampered poobahs like Russert just wanna have fun, as Margaret Carlson once explained to Don Imus.
Journalists who actually care dont waste the publics time in this manner. Maybe its time for Tim to retreat to that fancy home among the swells out on that breath-taking island.
BURLEIGH ON GORE: As it happens, we agree with Nina Burleigh on two basic points. Were not hot to see Hillary Clinton run for the White House, and wed love to see a world in which Al Gore could win such a race. In this piece from the Huffington Post, Burleign lists ten reasons why she hopes Gore will run. A few thoughts on those reasons will follow.
But first, another reality check. Why would Gore have trouble running? In part, because of people like Burleigh! When Gore ran for the White House in 1999 and 2000, he was subjected to a two-year slander campaign by the mainstream press corps (not by the right-wing noise machine). And how did Burleigh respond to that? Of course! She stared into space and said nothing! Just for fun, we Nexised Nina AND Burleigh AND Gore to see what shed written during that period. Not a word in defense of Gore. But plenty of blather semi-trashing Hillary, then a Senate hopeful.
Meanwhile, what about Burleighs ten reasons for Gore? Lets pick three, then ponder.
Burleighs Reason 3" is fairly harmless—but its simple-mindedness is annoying. It suggests a familiar but silly notion—that the Gore of today is a whole different person from the guy who ran in 2000. Many liberals now voice this notion; it doesnt seem to occur to them that Gore ran as he did during Campaign 2000 because he was trying to win an election—that hes the very same person today, in a different circumstance.
To us, Reason 3 is basically silly. By contrast, Reason 5 shows the way our liberal leaders can bungle the simplest, most helpful facts:
REASON 5: The Iraq War will be universally understood to be a disaster by 2008. Gore opposed the Iraq War first among his peers, and forcefully, in 2004.Pathetic. Gore came out against war with Iraq in a major speech on September 23, 2002, when the debate on Iraq was nearing its peak (news report, below). Predictably, Gore was savaged as unhinged—and Burleigh failed to defend him. Gore was called every name in the book. Burleigh stared off into air.
But Burleighs Reason 4 takes the cake. Are we really this unaware? Or do we just like to pretend?
REASON 4: Gore is squeaky clean, untouched by corruption. No lost billing records in his linen closet, no Enron or Abramoff staining his campaign finance reports.On which planet has Burleigh been living? During 1999 and 2000—while Burleigh said nothing—Gore was widely assailed for a range of alleged campaign finance scandals. (Tim Russert savaged Gore on this score, in the most dishonest Meet the Press hosting job ever.) Because people like Burleigh sat around and said nothing, these ballyhooed pseudo-scandals are now part of Gores record in the minds of many voters—and in the minds of many journalists, the ones who would cover his next campaign. Al Gore made fund-raising calls from the White House! And: Al Gore went to the Buddhist Temple! In part, these stories live because Burleigh died, back when it actually mattered. Six years later, she acts like shes never heard of this problem—or about the 300 other tall tales which helped define Gore in the publics mind while she sat by and kept quiet.
Because of the multi-year trashing of Gore, his approval ratings are very low. Its amazing when liberal leaders hype a Gore race without deigning to speak to this problem—a problem they helped create. But: If we want to produce good outcomes, we have to deal with basic reality. Like all pols, Gore needs help from those who admire him. It wont come from know-nothing panders.
I respect and admire Hillary Clinton, Burleigh says at the start of her post. In 1998, she showed her respect by saying this, in an interview with the Washington Post, about Hillary Clintons embattled husband, then fighting for his life IN RE Monica: "I'd be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. Clueless and inappropriate then—clueless and off in a dream-world now! So it goes as our leaders hype Gore—in ways which wont really help.
GORE GOT IT RIGHT: Wed love to see Gore run and win. That said, is there any chance we could get our facts straight about his record on Iraq? Given current conventional wisdom, Gore has a near-perfect profile on this topic; would it kill his fans to state it correctly? Heres the start of Susan Pages USA Today report about Gores original speech on Iraq. (It was delivered September 23, 2002, at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco.) In the light of current conventional wisdom, Gore got it massively right on Iraq in September 02:
PAGE (9/24/02): Former vice president Al Gore on Monday outlined a sweeping indictment of President Bush's threatened attack on Iraq. He called it a distraction from the war on terrorism that has "squandered" international support for the United States.As Burleigh notes, Gore was right all along about warming. But then too, he was also right when it came to Iraq. When liberal leaders endorse Gore for the White House, would it be too much to state this correctly? Would it be too much for them to behave as if they still live on this planet?
INDECENT REACTIONS: As always, Gore was instantly savaged. Incredibly, here was the late Michael Kelly, in the Washington Post:
KELLY (9/25/02): Gores speech was one no decent politician could have delivered. It was dishonest, cheap, low. It was hollow. It was bereft of policy, of solutions, of constructive ideas, very nearly of factsbereft of anything other than taunts and jibes and embarrassingly obvious lies. It was breathtakingly hypocritical, a naked political assault delivered in tones of moral condescension from a man pretending to be superior to mere politics. It was wretched. It was vile. It was contemptible.Incredibly, that was actually published—thirty-six hours after Gore gave his speech. But that was what happened in those days if you made the mistake of being right.
At the time, Gore seemed to have his toe in the water for Campaign 04. As things unfolded, his profile on Iraq would have been perfect then, too. (Unlike Kerry, who had to wrestle with his 10/02 authorization vote.) But as always, the nasty attacks rolled down like rain—and liberal leaders sat and kept quiet. (They had mastered the skill during Campaign 2000.) Today, they say how much they love this New Gore. You should throw in right in their fat faces.
By the way: Those embarrassingly obvious lies were accurate. Check our archives in the days and weeks which followed Gores speech to recall the lies which were alleged.
Some of these lies went back to 1991. But uh-oh! Gore had been right back then too!