Reply #71: Rebuttal of attack on Gore.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

This is in reply to #25 in this thread. I am moved to make a full scale rebuttal. I apologize for the length, but the referenced post is chock full of the spin and distortion characterizing campaign 2000, with the enthusiastic participation of the SCLM. In the interest of full disclosure I must say I’m biased. I would have readily reversed the Clinton-Gore ticket in 1992 if I could have after reading Earth in the Balance, which was the point at which I became a die-hard Gorista.

Point 1:
>His whole life seems to me to be one long calculated attempt ...to avenge his father's defeat and go to the White House.

Subjective point not requiring rebuttal. On the contrary, as someone who has read three Gore biographies, (Turque, Zellnick, Maraniss) and who has met the man, he seems to have been about a helluva lot more than that. I invite you to research his life and make a factual case for such an assertion.

Point 2:

>First of all, my chief pet peeve in politics is dynasties, legacies, and nepotism.

I disagree on three counts:

First, the Gores are not really a dynasty. At least some of the families you name produced three generations of politicians preceded by family wealth (a la the Bushs). Gore Sr. grew up in a poor farming family and went to night law school while working during the day. Gore Sr. didn’t become wealthy until after he left public office in 1970. Secondly, I disagree with your point in the abstract. Dynasties sometimes produce great Dem presidents, e.g. FDR & JFK. I certainly would seriously consider supporting Bobby Kennedy, Jr. if he launched a political career. Thirdly, Gore is a great man in his own rite. Any reference to nepotism or being merely a legacy, while on point with respect to Dubya, is absurd in referencing Gore.

Point 3:

>Gore panders.

I disagree strongly. I believe his career is replete with examples of political courage. I’ll refer to some of those examples in as I take each subpoint in turn:

>- He won his first victory as a pro-lifer.

I don’t believe that is true. I think his first campaign for US Congressman from Tennessee was in 1976. I can’t really prove a negative, but I remember Repubs and SCLM in 2000 trying to call him a liar/flip-flopper on abortion but their arguments and cited facts, as usual were distortions and in some cases lies. It is true that in running in an extremely conservative southern district, Gore’s position on abortion was more nuanced than it was once he achieved a national constituency, e.g. he voted against federal funding for abortions in the 70s and I believe the early 80s. But I have never seen any documented proof that he has ever advocated overturning Roe v. Wade, which is the true litmus test for an anti-abortion politician. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Here I include a citation of a classic example of the War on Gore waged by the press in 2000 in this regard, see:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h052400_1.shtml

>- Then he switched when he had higher aspirations in the Party.

Again, this is spin, in my view. Unless you can demonstrate a reversal on Roe, I think your point is a distortion of the facts and overreaching.

>- He then backed Tipper on the PMRC nonsense to prove that he was still a "values" guy.

This is an interesting point for me because my own view on this has changed since it happened. Being a good knee-jerk liberal in the 80s, I sided with my man Zappa on this one. I bought into his rhetoric about censorship, etc. Since then, I’ve had kids and pop music has become a lot more misogynistic, violent and anti-social. Now I think rating labels for music are a good thing because they gives consumers (read parents) a heads up that a CD might contain objectionable material. We do the same thing on movies and TV shows. As a parent I think that’s a good thing. Tipper never advocated censorship. She gave a recent interview on this issue on NPR and I include the cite. Tipper 1, Jello Biafra 0.

http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=ATC&showDate=11-Jan-2005&segNum=7&mediaPref=WM&getUnderwriting=1

>- He ran for President in '88 far before he was ready and inserted Willie Horton in the campaign.

I didn’t follow his campaign in ’88 and didn’t support him, so I can’t really speak to whether he was ready or not. As to Willie Horton, again that is a factual distortion. He did mention the furlough program in one debate with Dukakis (out of approximately 40 in which Gore and Dukakis participated), but he neither mentioned Horton by name nor played the race card. Of course, Lee Atwater and Dubya did exactly that in immoral fashion in the ’88 general campaign for George H. W. Bush.

Sean Hannity agrees with your spin, but the facts don’t:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh110102.shtml

>- I don't believe the story that he sold his Gulf War vote to the group offering him the most airtime, but I do think he made the politically expedient move there.

I don’t believe he sold his vote either because there is no evidence for it other than the blather of Alan Simpson, who can be observed lying by noting when his lips are moving. As to political expediency, Gore was in a minority of Dem Senators who voted for the Gulf War, so how was it expedient? Further, Gore was in the international mainstream in supporting the liberation of Kuwait. The coalition had almost universal international support which included a number of major Arab countries. Gores vote has been historically vindicated. I don’t criticize Dems who advocated allowing more time to let the sanctions work. I considered that argument closely myself but ultimately came down on the side of invasion as well. These are precisely the credentials necessary for a viable Dem candidacy in 2008, i.e. someone who has supported a justifiable war in the past.


>- Then in 2000, he ran as far away from Clinton as possible with his "people vs. the powerful" populst campaign as if he hadn't been part of the Administration for 8 years. And as if it had not been a remarkably successful 8 years at that.

Running away from Clinton as an individual was smart. That’s part of why Gore won. Every VP running for the White House has to differentiate himself from his president. Above and beyond that, Clinton had high negatives with independents because of Monica. Bush was running as something he is not and the press let him get away with it by largely ignoring the Alabama National Guard story, Harkin, etc. Gore was dealt a bad hand yet found a way to win.

As to the administration’s record, Gore’s 2000 stump speech made numerous references to it. His southern populist theme was effective and played a role in winning a good proportion of moderate independents. Another aspect of why he won.

>- Then, after his first Gulf War vote, after supporting the sanctions, after supporting Clinton's air strikes, after supporting the '98 buildup to war, he tries to paint himself as Eugene McCarthy.

I fail to take your point. When Gore supports a war he says so and says why, e.g. the Gulf War or Kosovo (both good decisions in my view and in the mainstream of international opinion). When he opposes a war, likewise, he says so and says why, e.g. Viet Nam and the invasion of Iraq, again, in the mainstream of international opinion. Gore went on the record with his opposition in September 2002 in a San Francisco speech urging Congress to vote down the war resolution. This was at a time when public opinion and the press generally favored the invasion. Where is the expediency in that? I call that moral courage.

>- Then, at the earliest possible moment, at a time when most past nominees and office-holders are holding their tongues, he inserts himself into the Dean campaign.

He said he wouldn’t run in December 2002 and that he would later endorse another candidate. He then endorsed Dean a year later in December 2003, hardly the earliest possible moment. His endorsement was certainly not thrust on Dean. Dean readily welcomed it and it was seen by many as making Dean’s nomination tantamount to inevitable. The endorsement was politically and morally consistent, since only Dean and Kucinich among the candidates had been early critics of the invasion, thus putting them in the Gore camp with respect to the war.

So I agree that your assessment was harsh, but I find very little factual basis for it.