SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: gao seng who wrote (226100)2/7/2002 7:52:56 PM
From: gao seng  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
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



To: gao seng who wrote (226100)2/7/2002 9:19:20 PM
From: KLP  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Byrd's words today, demean the office of "Senator"~ Here's another article on the exchange today....Is there any wonder that people don't respect politicians much? I hope Byrd hears from EVERY voter in the US....what a COMPLETE jerk! Looks like senility has "set in".....

O'Neill Near Tears in Confrontation

By Alan Fram
Associated Press Writer
Thursday, February 7, 2002; 5:33 PM

WASHINGTON –– Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill visibly fought back emotion on
Thursday during a bitter verbal confrontation with the Senate's senior
Democrat that ranged from congressional rule-making to both men's careers
and poor upbringings.

During a Senate Budget Committee hearing, an angry Sen. Robert Byrd,
D-W.Va., a member of Congress since 1953, engaged O'Neill in a remarkably
emotional exchange for nearly 15 minutes. Afterward, O'Neill said he had
responded to Byrd with "fire."

At several points, Byrd waved President Bush's new budget, which used a
picture of Gulliver tied down by Lilliputians to criticize congressional
constraints on decision-making by federal agencies.

"I just want to remind you, Mr. Secretary, that a lot of us were here before
you came," Byrd, 84, told O'Neill, whose eyes seemed teary at points. "And
with all due respect to you, you're not Alexander Hamilton," the nation's
first Treasury secretary and a founding father.

O'Neill, 66, pausing to gather himself, answered from the witness table in a
voice quavering with emotion.

"I've dedicated my life to doing what I can to get rid of rules that limit
human potential. And I'm not going to stop," O'Neill said.

Prior to joining the Bush administration, O'Neill had been chairman of Alcoa
Inc., where he won praise for management innovations that enhanced the
aluminum producer's profits.

The only specific rules that O'Neill pointedly cited on Thursday as unjust
were "rules that said, 'Coloreds cannot enter here.'"

Though O'Neill did not mention it, when Byrd was younger he was a member of
the Ku Klux Klan, which he has since renounced.

O'Neill has had other confrontations with members of Congress during his 13
months in office, though Thursday's was exceptional for its passion.

His frank assessments of congressional activities have included a
characterization of one Republican economic stimulus package as "show
business" because of his correct assessment that it would not be approved by
Congress. That episode led one Republican congressman to call for his
resignation, but Bush has stood by him.

On Thursday, Byrd repeatedly said that he and not O'Neill had been elected
by the voters.

"They're not CEO's of multi-billion-dollar corporations," Byrd said of the
voters. "They can't just pick up the phone and call a Cabinet secretary. In
time of need, they come to us, the people come to us," their members of
Congress.

O'Neill said he objected to what he called Byrd's inference.

"I started my life in a house without water or electricity," said O'Neill,
who grew up in a low-income St. Louis, Mo., household. "So I don't cede to
you the high moral ground of not knowing what life is like in a ditch."

"Well, Mr. Secretary, I lived in a house without electricity too, no running
water, no telephone, a little wooden outhouse," said Byrd, who was raised by
his aunt and uncle in West Virginia's coal country.

Byrd also objected to remarks O'Neill had made previously to a business
group, when O'Neill said some rules were "like the Lilliputians tying us to
the ground," adding, "God didn't send them."

Byrd said he believed O'Neill's remarks were aimed at the Senate's so-called
Byrd rule, named after the senator, which limits the items that can be put
on a tax bill.

O'Neill said "I stand by" those comments, but said he was referring more
broadly to rules that inhibit progress.

"What I deeply believe is this: When we have rules that were made by men
that restrict human potential, they should be changed," O'Neill said.
washingtonpost.com



To: gao seng who wrote (226100)2/7/2002 11:15:23 PM
From: ThirdEye  Respond to of 769670
 
Strom Thurmond.