Al Gore came come out of hiding the other day to begin laying the framework for a 2004 presidential campaign. He had to start, of course, by whining about the last election.
In his first interviews since conceding the presidency to George W. Bush almost two years ago, former vice president Al Gore calls the outcome of the 2000 election "a crushing disappointment" and criticizes the 5-4 Supreme Court decision that put Bush in the White House as "completely inconsistent" with the court's conservative philosophy.Yes, but doesn't Gore strongly dislike the court's "conservative philosophy"? Doesn't he want the Court to act inconsistently with that?
Of course he does. So if his assessment of the decision was valid, where does that leave his argument, exactly? "The Supreme Court should make activist/liberal decisions, except if these decisions keep me out of office, in which case they should be consistently conservative." Or something like that. Is there any wonder that he lost an election he should have won by ten million votes?