Art. 1, Sec. 8? That's the one that refers to promoting the common defence and general welfare, right? Which makes this a non-answer. Autoegocrat is asking for specifics, not generalities.
What's my point in arguing about this? To stop crap like what happened to Gore from happening again. See my final comment. The press' savaging of Gore grew out of the similar treatment given to Bill Clinton, was extended (albeit in milder form) to John Kerry, is being dished out now to Dem hopefuls such as Edwards and Mrs. Clinton and will be handed to whoever gets the Dem nomination. Unless people start speaking out against it now, and for me part of that means yelling when I think someone is misrespresenting the record. You keep harping on Gore's alleged mistreatment of Bill Bradley. Well, I'm not seeing it. The notion that somehow Gore was mistreating Bradley (who, again, repeatedly attacked Gore's honesty during his campaign, ingratiating himself with those in the media flogging this tale and helping to set the stage for the eventual Dem defeat) by challenging his proposals was another of the media's treasured scripts. (The "attack, attack, attack" catchphrase was repeated over and over, by a variety of journos and pundits, in print and on the talkshows.) Likewise the notion that Gore blew the debates with Bush all by himself, as opposed to having his performance spun that way. It's not your business to help elect anybody. But I think the last seven years have pretty much been a gold-plated disaster for this country. I think the mainstream media bear some responsibility for that, not just in the way they cover elections but in things like the run up to Iraq, the health care debate, etc. I'm positive they are showing a double standard in how they treat Dem vs Rep candidates and proposals, though I don't read minds and can't say why. Look at how the Washington Post chose to handle the announcement about Gore's Nobel Prize - by running a sloppily written, misleading article about a court decision in Britain that actually found his movie to be "broadly accurate" and threw out the plantiff's case. This award could have been an opportunity to educate the public about this state of affairs. Instead, we get another round of the same old stale Gore bashing propaganda. Or in your case, cherry-picking a single incident from the many in the 2000 campaign and offering a poorly supported theory about it as "the truth".
Let's move on to a larger issue; what the press treatment of Gore means for any Democrat running for Prez. Hillary is leading in the polls and already Chris Matthews has trotted out Vince Foster and insider trading "scandals" that had been ruled on years ago. John Edwards haircut is Al Gore's earth tones redux. How much newsprint and airtime was wasted on how much he paid for those haircuts? In all of that, did you hear anyone mention how much Bush pays for his custom tailored suits, by way of comparison? We got to hear all about how much his house cost; in all of the coverage, did any of the MSM tell you that Romney's summer home cost more? If a Republican candidate had gotten the kind of press treatment Gore got at Dartmouth, the screaming would have never stopped. Democrats get trashed over and over in the mainstream media and our pundits tell us that bias doesn't exist, that it's a "myth".
And it's not whether I believe any old politician, it's whether I believe Gore. Whatever he may be, he's not a dummy. Were he to run again, the BS would simply pick up where it left off. Almost all of the pundits and reporters responsible for it are still holding down their jobs and would just dust off the old lies and get them back in front of the public. And they were very effective at it the last time. Tell me, how many people do you meet a day who still believe Gore said he invented the Internet? Shoot, YOU still seem to be holding on to some of that.
If you'll reread my comment, you'll see I said Love STORY, not Love CANAL. I was referring to the "controversy" ginned up by Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich (liberal columnists for the liberal NYT) over an offhand remark published in a Time magazine interview Dec. '97. MoDo wrote two op-eds that month trashing Gore for the remark, Rich one, and the rest of the mainstream media ran with it from there. But your confusion is understandable. There was so much garbage written about Gore before, during and after the 200 election that it's hard to sort it all out
Can I point out a problem with this reasoning? The mainstream press had been kicking the crap out of Gore long before Bradley formally announced his candidacy. ("Invented the Internet" began in March '99. The Love Story flap started in December '97.) Bradley was no saint here, either, joining with the mainstream media in attacking Gore's honesty.
And can I also say that I feel columns like this are something of a waste. Gore has said over and over that he isn't planning to run for president. Do people still think he's such a lying phony that they don't believe he means it? All that propaganda must still hold some power.
And finally, when you're offering us your opinion about some event, you might want to think twice about using expressions like "the truth is...".
By Toby Sells and Chris Shaw
download this issue
click here to see more »