bustardblog

Maybe "Gore Pulls his Punches", but W. goes AWOL Again

I haven't seen Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" yet.  However, like most things that humans create, I'm pretty sure that it's neither ideal nor perfect.  In his Op-Ed today, John Tierney manages to slime the former V.P. by emphasizing its imperfections rather than his accomplishments.
He begins with about four paragraphs focusing on what a nerd Gore is and how he speaks with a "wooden preachiness." Tierney is making sure that we know how un-cool Gore is and always has been. The fact that Gore is right on global warming is worth one sentence.  The fact that his opponent in 2000 was, and is, completely wrong on the issue is not worth mentioning at all.  Tierney's next task is to mock Gore for being right, and he obviously enjoys it. In this first half of the piece, you realize that Tierney is still reliving his high school days - the unpopular kid who is never to  be accepted by the cool kids, but still  makes fun of the other pimply rejects that share his social circle.
In the second half he suggests that in terms of solutions, Gore is simply a pandering coward. Why doesn't Gore push for higher gas taxes, or more nuclear energy, asks Tierney?  Why doesn't he demand more of his audience?
His article does not  bring up how Bush has denied the existence of a problem, nor that he has tried to silence any in his administration who would mention it. He also doesn't refer to the TV commercials run by his fellow Libertarians that literally sing the praises of carbon-dioxide. Instead he treats with scorn and derision the guy who has been trying to force us to face the issue for years.
I can only wish that Mr. Tierney would someday get over his high school desire to be "cool."

Traitors?

At times I find the land of the wing-nuts very confusing. You see, I don't have a map.

Frequently, there are posts and sites proclaiming that criticism of the Commander in Chief during a time of war is treasonous. And then the same wing-nuts go ahead and call the President an insane wimp, a profile in dementia and worse. It's beyond me.

When Al Gore criticized W's abuse at Guantanamo, Michelle Malkin called Al's speech a seditious act. (Feb,06)

But in another post she says that "Bush has lost touch with reality." And she isn't alone in doubting the sanity of the Leader of our Armed Forces now in Iraq. (a profile in dementia, is he insane?,)  Isn't this the kind of thing that is supposed to be bad for morale of our troops?

Many inhabitants of wing-nut land think the President (the Prez) is full of BullShit. (debbieschlussel, stoptheaclu )

Recently Donald Rumsfeld spoke about accusations of lying by this administration: "That charge is frequently leveled against the president for one reason or another, and it is so wrong, so unfair and so destructive of a free system" of government. On May 1st, Polipundit was blunt: "George Bush is a liar and a traitor who is selling out America to his big-money paymasters." Mrs. Malkin has a subsidiary 'immigration blog' which commented on Bush's speech with "In a gesture so mendacious that it gives a whole new meaning to the notion of transparency in government." View from the Right thought the speech full of "palpable lies", and called Bush's words "one of the biggest lies in American political history."

It would be cruel, but I could go on at length.

• Powerline "It strikes me that we are coming perilously close to 'more mush from the wimp' time.
• Polipundit "El Presidente is speaking now, and every word coming out of his mouth is a lie."
• "This is pure idiocy, and it has the potential of being far more damaging to this nation than any big-government power-grab perpetuated by any previous President." (here) (Levin of National Review)

I think you probably get the point.  But then, who is a traitor today?

Why Did He Do It?

Thanks to Richard, a commenter at Atrios, I got a chance to read April's Vanity Fair article on Jack Abramoff. Reading of an encounter with Bush, who observed how Abramoff  was really getting "buff" and asking how much weight the lobbyist could "bench press," I was again reminded of my utter inability to understand our President, and why he is our President.

My question about understanding him is not related to agreeing with him. I hated the Reagan Presidency. I really hated Nixon's. But I knew who they were. I am also not  asking how our country could have voted for W.: merely why he wanted us to.

He has no interest in government. Watching the recent video of his being warned of Katrina just reinforces that judgment. He asked no questions. As his first Treasury Secretary said of his running a cabinet meeting; the president was "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection," forcing top officials to act on little more than hunches about what the president might think."

Former Reagan aid, Bruce Bartlett, today described the administration as lacking "anybody who does any serious policy analysis" on policy issues.

When interviewing a prospective Supreme Court nominee, Bush "focused heavily on the upbringing of the two men,.. He wanted to know about his personal life and where he came from."

Clearly, this is not a Clinton, nor a Gore, who is actually interested in policy. Nor does he believe in the efficacy of either planning or strategy.

There was no plan for what we wanted to have happen in Iraq after Saddam fell. There is also no strategy as to what happens after we killed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty during W's visit in Delhi. Questioning the success of the treaty might be valid. Destroying it without proposing an alternative is inexcusable.

Bush has no interest in policy, nor in the role of the government. So why does he want the job?

Greed is always a possibility. It is a phenomenally corrupt administration. I have tended to dismiss that; thinking that the Bush's must have enough money.  But then I read of Barbara Bush's paid speaking gig at the annual convention of party furniture rental companies instead of appearing at Coretta Scott King's funeral, and I wonder about my innocence.

Is the greed explanation the only way to understand W's motivation to be president? Or does it have more to do with a former cheerleader asking the most important lobbyists in town and one of his biggest fundraisers about being buffed? Is it really about W being a member of the grown-up's club? His father might finally respect him?

To me one of the saddest, most telling moments of this tragedy of a presidency occurred in the White House on a Sunday afternoon at about 5:30.  W is sitting in a room by himself, watching football on TV. When he faints and falls to the floor, bruising his face after eating a pretzel, no one cares. The next day he said that he must have been unconscious for only a very short amount of time, because the dogs hadn't moved. Can you imagine falling onto the floor and your dogs don't move? So even the dogs didn't care. And when told this fanciful tale, the reporters didn't really question it.  Even the Press didn't care.

Poor one.

Gore Speaks: The Right Squeaks

  The fellow on the right has never had to run in an election. The one on the left received fewer votes than Al Gore. (Double Click to enlarge)

But  in today's right wing blogosphere - Al Gore is on the far fringe.

They are all going crazy over this report of his speech in Jeddah. The Captain says "Al Gore Sells out to the Saudis." Tigerhawk call the country ruled by the man holding hands with Bush "The Fountain Head of Jihad."

The Swanky Conservative writes "How to make my blood boil in three paragraphs or less. Step One: Be the former vice president of the United States speaking in Saudi Arabia."

Michelle Malkin and the Federalist Journal pile on.

Of course the most disgusting is Little Green Footballs who writes "Al Gore has been taking Arab money for a while." But his opportunistic photograph that could only be hurtful to 9/11 families is repulsive.

There is no shame, no intellectual honesty in wingnuttia. None.