 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Of course, it is a phrase that can easily boomerang on the speaker — especially when given in a political setting. However, as one mischievous wag (OK, OK, it was me!) put it on a Sunday talk show, "Was Gore saying that he and the Democrats were the 'best' but lacked all conviction — or that they were the 'worst' and filled with passionate intensity?" Tongue-in-cheek observation, yes, but appropriate. Because if nothing else, Gore and company sure had passionate intensity. Frankly, it is easy for conservatives to mock Gore and the Democrats — especially considering that someone needs to be fired for not having the air conditioner working. The world learned in late December 2000 that Gore is a sweater. No, that doesn't mean the opposite of a cardigan. It means while everyone else tries not to sweat the small stuff, Gore sweats all the stuff. The perspiration had thoroughly soaked Gore through practically before he had begun his speech. It's interesting, Bill Clinton is the man most compared to Richard Nixon, but Clinton always appeared calm in front of the camera. Even when he was being deposed in the Starr grand jury tape, he was unflappable (one reason why voters/viewers felt sympathetic to the president when the tape was released to the public). But Gore always looks somewhat nervous. Nixon "lost" his televised debate to Kennedy because of a perspiring lip. It's an important question: Will the American public vote for a guy that seems just a bit to hot for the room? Bush in 2000, may have at first been seen as a bit wet behind the ears, but it's better than having someone who looks wet everywhere! That said, Gore's appearance should make Republicans a little, nervous — though not sweating as profusely as the former V.P. It's because Gore's use of the Yeats quote was more than apt: He is the best — and the worst — candidate the Democrats can send up against George W. Bush in 2004. And neither the White House nor the GOP should underestimate the threat that he poses. First, the public, oddly, responds to a passionate Al Gore. For whatever reason, Gore's numbers jumped profoundly after his 2000 convention speech. This time, after the Florida speech, he just gave Tipper a light peck on the lips, rather than the full throttle ("throat-le"?) tongue-action, he delivered in Los Angeles. The passion that he delivered was warmly returned. In fact, the signs declaring "Still Gore Country" and the way that Gore was treated as a rock-star god suggests that, though most media is not picking up on it, the Democrats have not given up on the rawness of Election 2000. Sure, Florida is a special case, but a perusal of various Democrat-leaning bulletin boards and websites suggests that they still view Bush as "illegitimate" and lacking a mandate. This may explain why congressional Democrats feel that they don't have anything to lose by blocking Bush appointees. As far as they're concerned, they are in touch with the "American people," i.e. their constituents. Secondly, Gore returned to the themes of 2000, but this time with a barely hidden "I told you so" smirk. Conservatives don't buy it, but unfortunately, 500,000 more people (give or take a few thousand) seemed to accept Gore's "people vs. the powerful argument 18 months ago. Add in the two million-plus Nader voters and as analysts on both side of the spectrum have noted, a center-left coalition cast more votes for president. True, not all the Nader voters would automatically support Gore, but it seems a good bet that he would have been the second-choice of close to two-thirds of them. The Enron/Arthur Andersen fiasco is tailor-made for these people. So, despite everything, Gore has a potential audience out there. It's a ready-made audience that has voted for him (or someone whose ideas overlap with him somewhat). This is why Gore is the "best" that the Democrats can throw up against Bush. On the other hand...."I think Bill Clinton and I did a damn good job." That was Gore's other memorable line. If Gore had rhetorically embraced Clinton's policy accomplishments, he may very well have won the election. Instead, he couldn't figure out a way to attach himself to the policy without being smeared by all the scandals. His inability to do so was his fatal strategic error. At the time the previous administration ended in January 2001, its policies were favored by the public — even though Clinton was personally held in even greater contempt. Sure, why not? At the time, scandals aside, Clinton had overseen nearly six straight years of relative peace and remarkable prosperity. Even though economic storm clouds were on the horizon and the NASDAQ began melting down in April of 2000, most Americans felt comfortable in their wallets. The public supported tax cuts because the surplus was large. Then 9/11 happened. This is why Gore can also be the "worst" 2004 candidate. What do the "accomplishments" of the Clinton-Gore administration mean when it's clear that the nation was vulnerable to a horrific terrorist attack? The war on terror was barely mentioned by Al Gore last weekend. It was a rhetorical omission that ironically matched the Clinton administration's lack of focus on bin Laden: The attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993, U.S. military barracks in 1996, American embassies in Africa in 1998 and the USS Cole in 2000. Links to al Qaeda were evident in all these cases. Yet, Clinton only launched missiles when his political career seemed to be at stake. This information — in the post-9/11 world — is now part of the known record. The "peace and prosperity" argument which Gore could have run on in 2000 is now longer operative. Instead, Gore could be in the position of answering for the failure to disrupt Osama bin Laden's terrorist network. This time Gore would have to defend Clinton-era policies — not scandals. But, more importantly, the broader framework has changed. It's no longer "the economy, stupid." In many ways, it's not even, "the environment, stupid," "the education, stupid." It's just terror. As commander-in-chief, George W. Bush has the capacity to get TV time at a moment's notice. He's able to talk about what whatever he wants: Thus, a midday speech on Monday, April 15 touched upon the tax relief Americans were getting because of the 2001 tax cut, then expanded to discuss the nature of freedom, why America is fighting the war, and then back to the issue of taxes. Presidents have the ability to frame arguments in broad, conceptual themes. The "loyal opposition" can never find that platform. Thus, Daschle, Gephardt, and almost any potential Bush opponent in Congress looks like a midget in contrast. Gore is the single exception. He can't quite match Bush in stature — the president of the United States will always win that measure — but he is a solo agent who can claim to be "fighting" for the concerns of his supporters. No one else can do that. Yet, no one else can also be said to carry much responsibility for the lack of pre-9/11 preparation. Al Gore: He is the best — and the worst. And Democrats and
Republicans are going to have to deal with him for quite some time to
come. — Mr. George is an editorial writer for the New York Post. |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
he
best lack all conviction and the worst are filled with passionate intensity."
That was one of the memorable lines in Al Gore's "comeback"
speech last weekend at the Florida Democrats' state convention. The statement
was made after Gore had unleashed a laundry list of particular Bush-administration
offenses. It is an excerpt from Yeats's poem, "The Second Coming."
Yeats, of course, was referring to the Messiah. Guess we have an idea
of how Gore sees himself. Some hardworking speechwriter gets points for
selecting that one. 
