Since you asked. Good overview and references here:
George W. Bush is cool and popular.
Which means he can get away with some pretty amazing things.
Just one example: imagine if Bill Clinton, in a speech in which he asserted that security isn't a political issue, and that good women and men of both parties are working to make America safe, also said the following, as 43 uttered in New Jersey yesterday regarding the stalled homeland security bill:
"The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people."
Al Gore is (sorry) annoying and unpopular, at least as seen through the political/media establishment filter.
So it's another day of Goofus and Gallant here at The Note.
Gore gives what was on some levels a serious, substantive speech in San Francisco yesterday and gets chastised by the White House and the Republican National Committee for playing politics, a storyline followed to some extent by the TV and newspaper coverage.
Since Gore made the front pages of several papers, stand-alone soundbites on the Big Three evening newscasts, and longish segments at the top of the network morning shows, he clearly was the main political player of this news cycle.
The questions that arise are: 1) did he serve himself well? And 2) did he serve the Democratic party well?
Presidents always are the dominant political players in off-year elections, and on paper, at least, Gore should be his party's equivalent.
The guy won the popular vote; he would be the far-and-away frontrunner for 2004, should he choose to run; and he is able make a strong case that a lot of things he warned would happen on the domestic front if George Bush became president have in fact happened.
And because Iraq is, for now at least, the defining issue of this midterm election as far as the chattering class is concerned, what Gore did yesterday in San Francisco — make a pitch to the liberal and most anti-Bush wing of the Democratic party — arguably carved out for him another possible big-time "I told you so" for a potential presidential campaign.
But with the near certainty that all the other would-be Democratic presidential nominee in Congress eventually will vote for the final war resolution, and with many Democrats trying to take any difference between the two parties on Iraq off the table for the election, Gore also might (emphasis on "might") have made himself politically irrelevant and maybe even politically retroactive for 2002 candidates.
Of course, on the flip side, for the few 2002 Democratic challengers and/or stray incumbents who wind up being opposed to the war, Gore might now be a great surrogate.
Gore got all the coverage he did despite almost no advanced text or staff background briefing; despite almost no big-foot reporters attending; and despite the fact that the speech was out on the West Coast, three hours behind the center of the political universe and rather close to the evening news.
It's impossible to know whether Gore aimed for more coverage of the speech, or not. On the merits of the text, the speech was filled with news, but the West Coast location made it tough.
But let's face it, part of the criticism of Gore's effort is based on the media elite, all Republican, and even some Democrats just plain not liking him. And when you're not liked, you don't usually get cut any breaks.
Still, the sheer sweep of Gore's criticism, and the lack of other major news in the cycle, got the guy a pretty good ride.
"Gore's remarks, delivered before the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, put him at odds with many of the other possible 2004 Democratic presidential candidates, who have been generally to strongly supportive of Bush on Iraq," the Washington Post 's Balz notes. "Until yesterday, only Senator John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean have offered notable dissent, although Kerry has left open the possibility of voting for the resolution in Congress." LINK
"Gore spokesman Jano Cabrera said Gore would support unilateral action if there were an imminent threat against the United States by Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction, but said the former vice president believes an 'imminent threat has not been pointed out by this administration.'"
The Los Angeles Times ' Barabak notes that Gore used "unusually harsh language and a sometimes mocking tone:" "the severity of his tone and the prominence of his platform--a speech aired to a national radio audience--served only to intensify speculation on whether he will try another run for office in 2004." LINK
"Gore's dissent represented a political gamble of sorts, coming at a time when polls show strong public support for ousting Hussein. But his remarks should dispel the criticism of fellow Democrats who say he has been too deferential toward Bush. Moreover, Gore could tap a vein of underlying anxiety that has developed around the administration's assertively independent foreign policy."
With hefty excerpts inside, USA Today 's Page flexes her intra-paper muscle and actually leads the nation's newspaper under the headline, "Gore Assails Bush Plans to Hit Iraq." LINK
And Page deftly gets at the 2002/2004 political pretzel: "Gore's words could be a rallying cry for those who oppose Bush on Iraq, complicating the move for fast action in Congress. Not all Democrats would be pleased by that. Some of them, especially those running for re-election in November, want to turn the topic back to economic and other domestic issues as soon as possible."
Although Gore aides played up the Commonwealth Club location's status as an historic venue, choosing an audience likely to be packed with, well, San Francisco peaceniks (the kind of people who will hum "Hail to the Chief" when Gore walks in the room), just might have been the real point of heading west.
(The San Francisco Chronicle claims it was "singing," LINK not humming, as per the New York Times .)
The Times ' account, by veteran campaign reporter Dean Murphy, does not seem neutral on the question of whether Gore had political motives. LINK
Gore makes it as an insert into the Wall Street Journal 's main Iraq story, and for some reason Ari Fleischer went on the record with that august paper to rap Gore.
Sometimes, the Bush political operation acts macho and attacks as a manifestation of pretty thoroughly hidden (but still visible) concern. We think we know them well enough to say: believe us, that isn't what is going on when they attack Gore as savagely and dismissively as they did after his speech.
They might be wrong on the merits of Gore's arguments; they might be underestimating him politically. But, boy, they have no fear or concern whatsoever about him as a political opponent.
Still, anecdotal evidence and polling suggest that Washington remains more hawkish on a war with Iraq, and is asking fewer questions and for fewer justifications, than the wise yeomen farmers of America are asking. Gore potentially could be tapping into that.
If you take the substance of Gore's critique and drain it of both the political bile and derision that the man himself inspires, and the suspicion of political calculation, it's quite possible that Gore was giving an intellectual, emotional, and political voice to the views of many Americans.
And in an interview with The Note, one Democrat sympathetic to Gore claims the former Veep did the party and the country a favor: "He has found the most salient (and true) argument against Iraq — that it will hurt the war on terror."
"Americans generally don't care that invading Iraq is a dangerous precedent, will make us a pariah at the U.N., destabilize the Mideast, etc. Gore has managed to show, in a way Americans will find compelling, why an Iraq invasion is not in our self interest."
"That's the way you convince Americans that a particular foreign policy is a bad idea — not by showing it's wrong or immoral — by showing it is not in our self interest
continued
abcnews.go.com |
