Sunday, February 25, 2007

Party of the Demented

David Remnick, writing in the “New Yorker”, has done a service to psychologists; he has demonstrated not only a cause for the now-infamous “Bush Derangement Syndrome”, which has inspired countless luminaries to spew the most vacuous yet vitriol-laced screeds against the President seen in the past half-century, but also demonstrated the depth of insanity to which BDS sufferers not only sink, but indeed cling, preferring their malicious delusion to the truth, no matter what.

In the column, entitled ‘Party Talk’, Mr. Remnick gushes with prolonged and wholly undeserved praise for failed Presidential candidate Al Gore. After hinting that a Gore Presidency beginning in 2001 would somehow have been fantastically better in results than the real-world version (and fantasy is a key component to Remnick’s thoughts), Remnick falls back on a convenient lie, saying: “It is worse than painful to reflect on how much better off the United States and the world would be today if the outcome of the 2000 election had been permitted to correspond with the wishes of the electorate.”

While Gore did win a greater percentage of the Popular Vote in 2000 than Bush, it was a small amount, but more to the point the “wishes of the electorate” are constitutionally established through the results of the Electoral College. Not only is Remnick claiming that we should have ignored the Constitution of the United States, he is claiming that the electorate of thirty states which preferred Bush to Gore should have been ignored.

Remnick, having started lying, smoothly moves on to the next big lie, claiming that “the attacks of September 11, 2001, would likely not have been avoided, though there is ample evidence, in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere, that Gore and his circle were far more alert to the threat of Islamist terrorism than Bush and his.”

I will say bluntly, that no such evidence existed, or exists now. Al Qaeda engaged in a declaration of war against the United States in 1995, and the Clinton-Gore Administration took no specific action at all to address the threat from Osama bin Laden whatsoever. It is, again, a typical tactic of the Left, to throw out a lie and hope it is unchallenged.

Personally, I have to say I see a bitter irony that a man unwilling to address the threat of Global Terrorism, to such a degree that he pretends Gore’s timidity would be preferable to Bush’s decisiveness in the Middle East, should try to claim that an election long proven to have been decided to have been both valid and Constitutional, should be the case to claim that “the historical damage is too profound.”

So why bring up Gore again? His reputation in the Democratic Party, circa 2004, should have been lesson enough, but no. Remnick and other minions gush about Gore’s “quality of judgment”, never mind his episode of campaigning for funds at Buddhist temples, that his campaign to coerce selected nations to be punished for unproven charges in climate change somehow makes him a man with “visionary leadership”. And of course, to Liberal minds the nomination for an Academy Award and the Nobel Prize (in demagoguery) makes him all but a front-runner.

When the Republican Party deserted President Bush in 2006 because they wanted to play up their own egos, the voters saw little difference between the corruption of the Right and the corruption of the Left, and put the Democrats back into power. I was worried that the Democrats would learn the lesson the Republicans ignored, and that we might see an honest, sane, candidate from their party in 2008. When so many of the left see the pompous, self-serving Al Gore as qualified in any way, they seem to me to be repeating their blunders of the last two Presidential campaigns, and thank God if they do it again. Provided of course, that the Republicans can ignore their strong desire to present a buffoon of their own.


Dan said...

Gore won Florida, too, if all the votes had been counted. So Remnick is correct.

How do you know what actions the Clinton/Gore administration took against AQ and bin Laden? Remember the missile attack, or were you too busy spreading "wag the dog" nonsense? It seems that if they declared war on us in 1995, and couldn't score a hit until Bush was in office, you might want to rethink your theories of who was best.

DJ Drummond said...

Sorry Dan, but no that does not fly. No recount ever showed Gore with a lead in Florida, and an AP investigation revealed that if he had been granted the recount on the terms he demanded, Bush would still have won Florida.

As for "counting all the votes", the fact that Gore successfully had the legitimate votes of thousands of active-duty servicemen thrown out by the courts proves he never cared about fairness or the rights of the people.

In the end, the election was constitutional, legal, and far closer to fair than some I can think of. Gore lost, and if he and/or you still cannot accept that plain fact then you prove my point yet again.

As for the missile attack, I remember the delay which blew the timing, and I also recall Gore demoting Al Qaeda on his personal list of priorities. After the "Millenium" scare, he thought the threat was over. I'm not blaming him for doing that, particularly, because everyone fell into that thinking, but it certainly proves that Gore was not the National Safety guru that Remnick is selling.

The public record is there in declassified NSC minutes and testimony from intel and law enforcement officials, that the Clinton/Gore Administration consistently treated terrorism as a criminal issue, not as an act of war against the United States. Consequently, a series of Al Qaeda attacks against the US, from kidnappings to murders, bombings and assassinations, were given little attention, including the attacks on 2 US embassies, the attack on the USS Cole, and numerous abductions of US citizens in Arab countries.

Dan said...

Pretty careful in what you say there, aren't you? That's because we both know that the AP investigation showed that had all the votes in Florida been counted, Gore would have been president.

Gore and Clinton protected us and handled the situation. Bush blew it.

Also, I'm confident that had Gore been President on 9/11, and if the attack happened (it may have), he wouldn't have been a hiding pansy. He'd have gotten himself to NYC or DC and stood up for our country.

DJ Drummond said...

Sorrry dan, but that's a lie, claiming that if "all the votes" had been counted, Gore would have won.

Once again, no count ever showed Gore ahead in Florida. Wishing it were different does not make it so.

And Gore's record 1993-2000 tells us what he would have done if he'd been President on 9/11/01. And it's not something good for America.

Dan said...

Got something against peace, prosperity, and a competent government? Yes, I suppose you do.

DJ Drummond said...

Oh, please.

As if Gore had anything to do with those things, or even had a plan which could actually lead the US towards them!

Anonymous said...

"Got something against peace, prosperity, and a competent government? Yes, I suppose you do."

Uh, there's a huge difference between peace and not fighting back. HUGE difference.

As for prosperity America has always been a prosperous place except for the Great Depression years. Perhaps you are talking about the giant stock market bubble which was popping as Clinton/Gore left office. I'm not sure that would be a good thing to brag about.

And a competent government would have strangled al-Qaeda in the cradle in the mid 90's instead of doing nothing as it spread around the world.

Sorry, but kicking the can down the road for your predecessor to deal with does not make one a good President. Ask James Buchanan.

Californian said...

The Yankees scored more runs in the 2003 World Series but lost because they won fewer games. US elections are a series of state elections. Bitching about the 500,000 popular votes is as meaningful as complaining about the excess runs the Yankees scored.

9/11 could have been prevented if Al Gore had pushed to have secure doors installed on airline cockpits. That was one of his "accomplishments" -- conducting that study. Real competent.

Selling advanced missile technology to the Chinese? Taking campaign cash from the Chinese military? Waco? Competent?

Clinton inherited a booming economy and left one heading toward recession (mostly due to the business cycle.

The corporate scandals the Bush administration prosecuted? Most happened on Clinton's watch.

Clinton focused on V-chips in our TVs and waging war on Big Tobacco. His was the Seinfeld presidency -- it was about nothing.

Gore even bungled the Kyoto treaty, agreeing to terms that the Senate had already voted 95-0 not to ratify.

Dan said...

California, you forget that Gore actually had more votes in Florida. As for the rest of your dreams, Bush has screwed the economy, foreign policy, and domestic policy. He was a coward on 9/11.

I'll admit, though, that he has cleared a fair amount of brush.

DJ Drummond said...

Lying to promote Gore, lying about the President in order to insult him. Yep, Dan is fellin' his Democratic heartstrings today!