Andrew Sullivan again jumps on his I-Hate-Al-Gore theme, applauding Richard Cohen's latest column which Sullivan characterizes as "disgraceful acquiescence in race-baiting in the last campaign" which caused Sullivan to go "from feeling queasy about Gore to being outright hostile."
But when one reads Cohen's column, it seems that Gore's main sin last campaign was that he didn't denounce a woman who wanted more action taken after her father had been murdered. For shame, Al! Cohen and Sullivan are correct -- you should have taken her out to the woodshed. That's what Cohen and Sullivan would have done.
And, that's it from last campaign. That's what made Sullivan outrightly hostile towards Gore. That's what Cohen uses to compare Gore to Trent Lott. Can the term moral equivalence be used here? I think it can.
Comments (3)
Actually, Al Gore's main sin was his refusal to concede the last election. Nobody should want to be President that badly that they are willing to destroy our tradition of the peaceful and willing transfer of power. Even Richard Nixon refused to go down that road.
However, with respect to the issue of race baiting, you are once again trying to obfuscate.
he didn't denounce a woman who wanted more action taken after her father had been murdered.
First of all as Richard Cohen's article makes abundantly clear, "Byrd's killers were hardly going to be daunted by such legislation, as what they did -murder --was already a capital crime. (Two of the three killers have been sentenced to death and the third to life in prison.)". So your comment is disingenuous. Secondly, as you also know, it was not the woman, but the NAACP who was making the charge. It was their commercial, not hers. Thus, Gore should have denounced the NAACP, not the woman, for race baiting. But of course we know he couldn't do that, could he? After all, you can't bite the hand that feed you.
Posted by Richard | January 8, 2003 11:04 AM
Posted on January 8, 2003 11:04
Nobody should want to be President that badly that they are willing to destroy our tradition of the peaceful and willing transfer of power. Even Richard Nixon refused to go down that road.
Was there any doubt that the transfer of power was not going to be peaceful? Was Al Gore calling up an army? Does Oliver Stone know?
Posted by Partha Mazumdar | January 8, 2003 3:52 PM
Posted on January 8, 2003 15:52
How about the willing part? As you well know it was Gore's refusal to concede that caused the election for the first time to end up in the Supreme Court. You always take things out of context to try and make your point.
As far as Oliver Stone goes, why don't you ask him? He is your man, not mine!
Posted by Richard | January 8, 2003 10:15 PM
Posted on January 8, 2003 22:15