These folks (who inexplicably have a great influence over national discourse), are framing Al Gore, the guy who was right about global warming and the Iraq War as "a madman."
Elisabeth Bumiller - NYT
Chris Matthews - MSNBC
Joe Klein - The New Yorker
Michael Kinsley - Washington Post
Kathleen Parker - Syndicated political columnist
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh052206.shtmlSpecial report—Corps on Gore!
PART 1—STILL CRAZY: Al Gore was right about global warming—way back in the 1980s. He was also right on internal combustion. And oh yes, he was right on Iraq, in a prophetic speech in September 02—a speech Joe Klein praised at the time. In a rational world, this would make Gore a reigning star—but we live in the world of a millionaire press corps, and we suffer, every day, from its judgments. On Friday morning, Michael Kinsley heaped torrents of praise on McCain, who was wrong. But how does the pundit corps treat Gore, the man was actually right on Iraq? On this weekend’s Chris Matthews Show, one empty scribe turned to another (Joe Klein), who then said what they’ve said all along:
KLEIN (5/21/06): You know, there’s a big question here. If you read Al Gore’s speech just before the war in Iraq where he came out against it, it’s a brilliant speech. If you saw Al Gore delivering it, he looked like a madman.
Al Gore can be right as much as he likes—but in these strange regions, he’s always a madman. Moments earlier, Matthews had started the hunt. He teed up the vacuous Kathleen Parker by quoting one of her columns:
MATTHEWS: Kathleen, you wrote a column recently—I like the phraseology—you said Al Gore is “one slice short of a loaf.” (Group laughter) I mean, that’s like they say up in Massachusetts, they say things like, “He’s got a few shingles missing from the roof.” What’s your point? Is he a little nutty, are you saying?
Gore can be right as much as he wants. But it will always be thus with these life-forms, the ones who run our public discourse—and prefer to watch King Kong. And Parker, of course, knew her role rather well. Coyly, the harlot responded:
PARKER (continuing directly): Well, I think he’s got—There are those who say he’s lost it. I’m not going to go that far. I think he’s actually feeling quite liberated from himself, I think he’s having a great time. He’s now the alpha wonk. And suddenly he has all these admirers and Hollywood types loving him with this movie.
For herself, Parker won’t say that Gore has “lost it.” Other people are saying it, though, the vacuous scribe coolly purred. Of course, she refers to Gore’s film about global warming—the topic where the nutty man who has “lost it” was actually right all along.
Yes, Parker and Matthews are deeply stupid. In fact, they’re stupid to the point of national calamity, since these are the people in charge of our discourse. And all this week, we’ll note the ways our liberal elites accept this weird state of affairs. But please understand what we’ve shown you for years: This is the way the “press corps” treats you—if you’re the guy who was actually right! Throughout this segment on Gore-as-a-candidate, the Standard Themes were dragged out and promoted. Was Gore too “bitter?” Did he have too much “venom?” Could be possibly get over his “anger?” And, of course, what about his “authenticity?” Robots couldn’t stick to a script the way these bizarre magpies can.
And by the way—was Joe Klein right? Did Al Gore really “look like a madman” when he gave that speech in September 2002—the prophetic speech where he listed the reasons why we shouldn’t go to war with Iraq? The prophetic speech where he said all the things which have now become conventional wisdom? It’s funny—Klein didn’t say anything like that at the time of Gore’s actual speech! In fact, at the time, this weak man said something massively different! Three days after Gore gave the speech, Klein reviewed it in Slate, in substantial detail—and he praised it, aggressively criticizing those who were savaging Gore! At the time, he did say someone was “near-psychotic.” But it was Gore’s Republican critics! Yes, here’s how this weak and fallen man began his review in real time:
KLEIN (9/26/02): The default position on Al Gore appears to be ridicule. He opens his mouth and is immediately assumed cynical, tactical, self-serving, self-pitying, awkward, embarrassing, unintentionally hilarious, or all of the above. Much of this comes from Republicans, who seem afflicted by near-psychotic rhetorical twitching whenever the man who won the popular vote in the year 2000 makes a public appearance. This week, for example, an amoeba from the GOP National Committee stepped out and pronounced Gore's speech about Iraq more appropriate for a political hack than a presidential candidate. But the press has been equally dismissive (including me). And so have many of his fellow Democrats.
An “amoeba” had called Gore a “hack”—and Klein stepped up to defend him. Indeed, all through his lengthy column, Klein failed to say that Gore had looked like a madman. Instead, he heartily praised Gore’s speech. Indeed, when he voiced his (few) reservations, they only concerned the speech’s content—content he now calls brilliant:
KLEIN: Al Gore's speech wasn't a masterpiece. It seemed hastily composed and rewritten (Gore has an unfortunate habit of pulling sweaty all-nighters before a major address). William Safire has noted some of the sloppy, contradictory thinking. And an argument can be made that there was politics involved—that Gore was positioning himself for 2004.
But raising an important issue for tactical effect is quite different from ignoring an issue for tactical convenience. Gore performed an essential public service. He nudged a necessary debate. And he raised a crucial distinction: A war against Iraq and the war on terrorism are not identical...
For the record, Safire’s complaints seem slender today. (So too his brilliant mind-reading, located in his opening sentence: “Al Gore's speech in San Francisco attacking the Bush pre-emption doctrine was the opening gun in the 2004 presidential campaign.”) But then, how about Klein? Today, he says Gore looked like a madman; at the time, he said nothing like that. But then, does this weak, fallen man ever say the same thing in the present that he said in the past? (Links below.)
Gore is a madman. Gore is nutty. Gore has lost it—at least, some people say so. And Gore is “a slice short of a loaf”—phraseology that Matthews just luvs. This is the way a deeply dysfunctional, millionaire cohort treats the affairs of the guy who was right. And the guy who was wrong—the great saint McCain? He, of course, is pandered and fawned to. Even as we say he was wrong, we are required—it’s the law—to call him admirable, full of courage. He’s likable—so much larger than life. Let’s face it—if you’re the type who longs for King Kong, the man who was wrong must be chief.
These are the rules of this broken elite. The one who was right is out of his mind. The one who was wrong is the earth’s greatest saint. And our liberal elites just look dumbly on. More on that topic tomorrow.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
