Stephen Vincent wrote:
> Sobering indeed, thanks Doug, for pointing to the Truth Out Reports.
>
Sobering is a funny word in this context. No, I am not outrage
fatigued, not really. It's just that the outrage is not at the
Conservacans. It's at "my own," the Democrats who might have prevented
this if SOMEone had been willing to get down in the mud and start
slinging same.
If Al Gore hadn't been such an All Around Nice Guy who feared the label
"negative campaigner," we might not be where we are today. As far as I
can see, all politics in the US has been negative since the 19th
century. "Ma, ma, where's my pa? Gone to the White House, ha-ha-ha."
Gore, trying to appear statesmanlike, would not play, and it cost us all.
This is not original with me--little is. But it's worth considering.
When Gore in 2000 was debating Governor Bush, when he was debating a
presumably "recovering" drunk and drug addict, *why* did he not take off
the gloves and come after Bush by hitting below the belt? A battle for
the heart and future of the country is wasted on TruthOut or Media
Matters: who is being affected when you talk to yourself? I wish Gore
had gone on the attack and hit the glassy-eyed Republican below the
belt. "Governor Bush, how many times did you drive your children or
other kids to school while you were intoxicated on alcohol or cocaine?"
"Governor Bush, can you explain your endless malapropisms, lapses of
thought, and distortions of your native language in any way that does
not point at brain damage from the use of alcohol by yourself or other
family members? And how does your widely known addiction predict how
well you will master your egotism at times of crisis? When he counseled
you, did Rev. Graham suggest AA as part of a program of recovery?"
"Fair Play" is the name of a caramel. Politically I have no idea what
it means. The Republicans certainly do not. But no--Gore had to take
the high road to loss in the courts. Four years later, an equally
flaccid (yes) Kerry could not hit back when he was Swifted. He could
not hit Bush where he lives: with two alcoholic daughters who probably
acquired the predisposition from old Dad.
A personal weakness when it could affect the conduct of the State is not
personal anymore.
I was friendly for years with someone whose sister is in recovery in
Houston, Texas. She and other recoverees had partied with GW when he
was still active. Hearsay: when asked if GW had ever sought a program
to help him recover, they got hysterical laughing and said "Recover??"
Do you think one decision Bush had made in the last 7 years has anything
to do with sound judgment? Could someone with an unclouded brain have
appointed Harriet Miers or Alberto Gonzales to *anything*?
Right after the 2004 debacle, I wrote an article for an Episcopal
journal (it has since ceased publication) called The Witness on the
issue of self-description as a "disloyal opposition." Maybe it is time
to revive it.
http://www.thewitness.org/agw/wolman121004.html
Ken
--------------------
Ken Wolman rainermaria.typepad.com
We're neither pure, nor wise, nor good
We'll do the best we know.
We'll build our house and chop our wood
And make our garden grow...
Bernstein/Wilbur, "Candide"
|