The Demonization Of Al Gore
By Chuck Todd
n official Washington, much has been made of GOP attempts to make a bogeyman out of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D. Since Daschle is the leading congressional antagonist to President Bush, perhaps it is only natural. But there is another demonization campaign that is getting far less attention -- the one being conducted by Beltway/establishment Democrats (and media) against former Vice President Al Gore.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's fueling all this Gore-bashing, of course, is ambition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the weekend, Democrats of all stripes simply unloaded on Gore. And what was more amazing was that the quotes were on the record in the newspaper of record for Democratic donors and activists -- the New York Times.
There was Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who supposedly "laughed uproariously when asked about supporting Gore again," noting that "the entire ticket went down with him in North Dakota." While it is true that Democrats lost the governor's race in addition to Gore's loss in the state, Mr. Dorgan apparently forgot that Democrats did keep their hold on the state's U.S. House and U.S. Senate seats.
Sen. John Breaux, D-La., was even more blunt when asked about Gore's prospects in 2004: "In politics, it's here today, gone tomorrow. It's a whole new scenario right now. You have to be likable before they can vote for you." That "likable" description must have caused Gore's whiskers to stand on end.
The most remarkable dig, however, came from a once-stalwart supporter of Gore, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. Harkin said he was "not ready to commit to him," adding that "we have to see what the lay of the land is." Losing Harkin would be especially harmful to Gore's nomination chances, because Harkin's substantial Iowa organization can make or break a Democrat in the Iowa Caucuses.
All this back-biting would be understandable if Gore had topped a ticket in 2000 that truly saw nothing but disaster. But not only did Gore win the popular vote, garnering more votes for president than anyone since Ronald Reagan, he also garnered more votes than any Democratic presidential candidate in history. He was atop the Democratic ticket in all those states sporting Senate races that helped propel his party to a 50-50 split (and eventual majority) in the Senate. And if we're judging him just on stats, it's also worth noting that his party did pick up one House seat in 2000 (which was promptly lost in a special election a few months later).
This is not the Al Gore that is presented to the media by his fellow Democrats, however. It seems no matter what he does, it's wrong. People say he's boring, unapproachable, but when he grows a beard and dresses more 'warmly,' people ask why he's gone off the deep end. And then there's his behavior following the contentious overtime election. While everyone agrees he bowed out graciously, some derided him for staying so quiet for so long. Of course, had he spoken out against Bush right after he'd taken the oath, those same folks likely would have derided him for being too critical and a sore loser.
The criticism of Gore is so harsh that one sypathetic Democratic operative said, "If he found the cure for cancer, people would ask him what took him so long." And another writer -- whose name escapes us, so please don't sick the Weekly Standard on us for poaching the line -- joked: "If Gore walked on water, people would deride him for not being able to swim." Quite simply, Gore is the leper of the Democratic Party elite.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Stop Gore movement is gaining steam, thanks mostly to consultants and strategists who have other horses to promote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's fueling all this Gore-bashing, of course, is ambition. There are a lot of Democrats who aren't getting any younger, and they want their shot at the presidency -- especially the 50 future presidents currently residing in the U.S. Senate. If Gore runs for the Democratic nod in '04, they know it's likely he'll be the nominee, despite what the Beltway elite and media might prefer. So these potential candidates are trying to bully him out early by threatening political isolation.
Think about it. If these folks really thought Gore was beatable in a primary, why would they discourage him from running? They don't want him in the race because they are afraid he's going to win. They are afraid the rank-and-file of the party -- especially if there is a crowded primary filled with senators -- will pull the lever for Gore, possibly out of obligation because of the 2000 result.
Maybe that fear is well-founded. Maybe a Bush-Gore rematch is the last thing the Democratic Party needs in '04. Maybe beating Bush is impossible. Maybe the party needs new blood to revitalize itself from the Clinton-Gore years.
Then again, maybe the voters ought to sort that out. And maybe last year's indecisive end to the election means Bush and Gore should square off one more time.
The Stop Gore movement is gaining steam, thanks mostly to consultants and strategists who have other horses to promote. And it must make Gore's decision whether to run that much harder -- because if he does run, he'll be going it alone. No help from the Washington elite, no help from the Democratic elite, no help from the big donors, no help from anyone except for those voters who supported him throughout his 16 years as a national candidate for office.
Talk about campaign reform. Maybe going it alone is what the rank-and-file of the party would want.
Chuck Todd is editor-in-chief of The Hotline, National Journal's daily briefing on politics.
hotlinescoop.com |
