Gore to deliver a ‘call to arms’

January 14, 2006

Al Gore has scheduled a major address for Monday. If you get the chance, you might want to check it out — it sounds like it’ll be pretty powerful.

In a major address slated for delivery Monday in Washington, the former Vice President is expected to argue that the Bush administration has created a “Constitutional crisis” by acting without the authorization of the Congress and the courts to spy on Americans and otherwise abuse basic liberties.

Aides who are familiar with the preparations for the address say that Gore will frame his remarks in Constitutional language. The Democrat who beat Bush by more than 500,000 votes in the 2000 presidential election has agreed to deliver his remarks in a symbolically powerful location: the historic Constitution Hall of the Daughters of the American Revolution. But this will not be the sort of cautious, bureaucratic speech for which Gore was frequently criticized during his years in the Senate and the White House.

Indeed, his aides and allies are framing it as a “call to arms” in defense of the Bill of Rights and the rule of law in a time of executive excess.

The vice president will, according to the groups that have arranged for his appearance — the bipartisan Liberty Coalition and the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy — address “the threat posed by policies of the Bush Administration to the Constitution and the checks and balances it created. The speech will specifically point to domestic wiretapping and torture as examples of the administration’s efforts to extend executive power beyond Congressional direction and judicial review.”

I think we’ve reached a point in which describing Gore’s addresses as “cautious and bureaucratic” no longer applies. In August, the former Vice President delivered a devastating critique of the national media and our political discourse. It followed robust and, dare I say, inspiring speeches on global warming, the political uses of fear, the truth someday rising again.

It may seem odd in light of his history of moderation, but Al Gore has become one of the nation’s most forceful and articulate progressive voices. If Monday will be a “call to arms,” I’ll be all ears.

and the Right will laugh, dismissing him as either a sore loser, a traitor, or a misguided private citizen.

  • and the Right will laugh, dismissing him as either a sore loser, a traitor, or a misguided private citizen.

    True, but I’ll still find him the best national liberal hero since Paul Wellstone died.

  • I look foward to hearing him, too, though my first and final reaction to what he’s going to talk about is that there’ll be nothing to cheer about until a Republican makes the same speech with the same spirit.

  • Isn’t it time that Al Gore reconsider running for President in 2008?
    I think only someone of his stature has a good chance of winning
    the Democrat nomination. He keeps saying no but why give such speeches? It is clear no other Democratic party leaders or elected officials have the ability to take on the Republicans.
    Would we be in the sorry mess we are in now if Gore had been elected
    and affirmed as the winner of the Presidential election in 2000? NO!
    We would have had good government and senisble laws not the shrill,
    hyper-patriotic/jingoist nonsense we have in 2006.
    Bush and Cheney and their sorry-ass allies are leading us over the
    cliff into perdition.
    Isn’t it time to start a Draft Gore movement to run for President in
    2008? America needs an experienced and competent leader who
    can inspire others to enter government service to restore a true
    sense of democracy this country so sorely needs.
    Whether he likes it or not we need Gore. What do you say, America?

  • Okay, CB. What’s your take on why he won’t
    run? In the last year or so Al Gore has emerged
    as a towering figure with his fiery speeches
    promoting progressive ideals and blasting
    away at the policies of the administration. As
    a political cynic, I must admit that even I feel
    goose bumps when this man speaks, and it’s
    been a heck of a long time since that happened.
    And certainly there is precedent, although
    somewhat tainted, that a losing candidate
    can come back and win the presidency.

    So what is it? Have the Democrats gravitated
    so far to the right that the DLC has made it
    clear that he’s no longer welcome? Is it personal
    with Al Gore? Was he mortally wounded by his
    ignominious defeat at the hands of this clown,
    this buffoon, this hollow, visionless freak of
    American history? Or is he secretly yearning for
    a grass roots effort to propel him to the
    nomination?

    I just don’t get it. The Democrats don’t have anyone
    who can inspire a following the way the “new”
    Al Gore can.

  • Okay, CB. What’s your take on why he won’t run?

    OK, we can get into it, but let me preface this by saying that I have no real inside info here. I know a few people who worked for Gore’s campaign, but I haven’t gotten any specific insights into Gore’ recent thinking. In other words, this is my own personal speculation, nothing more.

    Gore wanted to run in 2004 but, I think, hated the idea of 2000 Part II, so he stepped aside, and as it turns out, backed the wrong horse. So, what about 2008? I think there are four things holding him back.

    First, he likes saying what he thinks and assumes there’s no real audience for it. A couple of years ago, for example, Gore embraced the inescapable logic of single-payer health care, the first national political figure to do so. Would the public back a presidential candidate who wants “socialized medicine”? Gore thinks not. Is he right? I’m not sure. Either way, Gore wants to be able to keep saying things like this without worrying about constituency groups in a campaign context. For that matter, he can hammer Bush relentlessly without a campaign motivation tarnishing or undermining his message.

    Second, I think he worries about being labeled “Gore 3.0.” The truth is, and I think he’d acknowledge it, Gore always held back. He was too afraid of public and media scorn, so he clung to the middle and split the difference. Always. What we’ve seen since 2000 is the real Gore, but when Tim Russert asks candidate Gore, “Why did you pretend to be a boring centrist?” the answer not only isn’t clear, it may not persuade anyone.

    Third, I think Gore harbors some ill will towards the media and political establishment. Running again would force him to try and mend some fences — and I have a hunch he’s still too bitter to want to bother. Honestly, I don’t blame him.

    And fourth, and this may be wildly wrong, but I have a hunch Gore wants to be “drafted.” He’s put himself out there and become a progressive hero. I think he’s probably sent signals, “If you want me to run, you’re going to have to ask.” And with a wide-open field, no one in the establishment is willing to do that. It could come from the grassroots, but nothing of substance has materialized.

    Anyone else have other thoughts?

  • But how fast is Al on his feet? His hearts in the right place and when he has time to prepare and there’s buildup and the venue is respectable and he says good stuff in a forceful way then he looks great. But maybe that’s his strongest mode of presentation. He’s a thoughtful guy. But the Dem’s are having a difficult, (terrible), time dealing with RepubCo on their, (our), best days and with their, (our), best people.

    It’s a lot to ask, but whoever runs for Prez against RepubCo and really expects to win is going to have to know how to aim and fire repeatedly and fast from standing, kneeling, sitting and rolling positions. And (s)he better pick a running mate that’s got both his/her back and has eye’s in the back of their own head as well.

    I am tired of Clinton’s, Gore’s, Lieberman’s, Shrum’s, Brazille’s, Kerry’s, Biden’s and whatever other household name’s one might come up with as Dem machine players that might/maybe/probably won’t provide us with a winning candidate. We’ve been there and done that. It ain’t working. Both the preparatory process and the candidate must be more focused, disiplined and just generally, badass.

    I respect Al a lot. He should speak proudly and often but I don’t want him as the Democratic candidate for president.

  • My response would have been similar to CB’s first point. I believe politicians are most free to advocate substantial ideas when they do not feel the obligation to mollify anyone. Gore can be speak passionately because he appears to have no campaign at stake. And, I have to say, he is presently doing so under the radar of the MSM. As I read through CB’s other possible rationales, I realized that it is point 2 that concerns me most as a voter. I watch Gore now and cannot help but ask myself how much – if any – of the fire (sometimes theatricality) in his speech is contrived? It seems a disconnect from “Al 2.0,” and I think he would be attacked vigorously on this point. So, if he is seeking to be drafted, I can only hope he has a game plan for getting out in front of this vulnerability and neutralizing it. This uncertainty is being expressed by a person who concurs with his assessments of many of our public policy ills today. I do not know what it will take for Gore Reincarnated to get a serious look from self-described “Centrists” who concluded (with help from the MSM) that Gore was a wooden personality who could not bring himself to tell the truth during the 2000 campaign. They are out there and Gore will need a fair number of them to win in 2008.

  • I’m with anthony…We need to draft Gore. He needs to say what needs to be said and not to kowtow to to the DLC. We need to have a new vision for Iraq, a new vision on medicare and other health issues, a new vision on the economy…without these things this country will continue the downward slide we are on now. If after telling it like it is, he isn’t drafted to be our Democratic Nominee…we don’t deserve to keep this country as it used to be …and we won’t!

  • I read the other day that Gore describes himself as a “recovering politician”…wonder if he’s becoming reconciled to life outside government.

    I think he does a lot more good these days speaking truth to power than if he were running for office (and I think he remains unelectable for the highest office), but the outcome of the 2000 election is a tragedy, one that will be playing out for years…

  • I think Carpetbagger’s explanation sounds very good. Gore’s problem, then, might be that he just needs to be a lot tougher.

    If he was saying all these things as the Democratic nominee, instead of as “Al Gore, has-been,” then people would hear what he’s saying. But saying these things now, no one is hearing him but us.

    Maybe he doesn’t get that. Yeah, of course, if he’s going to put himself out there, then people are going to fling stuff at him, are going to try to take what he’s doing down a notch. But on the whole, it would be better because a lot of people have enough sense to recognize the substance, and to ignore the spin– so long as someone’s actually voicing the substance loudly enough. Apparently no one else who’s in a position to run is going to be as bold as Al Gore would be, if he would just throw down.

  • In personal terms, you know how it is with many of us. There’s was a certain someone in your past. Someone, who, we parted company with for one reason or another. But in spite of going our separate ways, we never quite made a clean break of it. And on those occasions when we see or hear of that person, we find ourselves thinking about what might have been. To use an archaic word I guess we ‘pine’ for them.

    Well, transfer those sentiments to a political level and for me they apply to Al Gore. When I see or hear of him, I find myself ‘pining’ for what might have been.

  • This is ironic. Al Gore’s spinning in a circle, saying all the things we want to hear our boys and girls saying. Yet he’s alone at the dance.

    Al Gore’s got to come into the fold somehow– if not as a candidate, then as a running mate, strategist, or even a speech-writer. Think about that one.

  • I think the problem with Gore is that he’s smart, he’s articulate, he understands the issues, but he’s not a winner. He’s too easy a mark for the right.

    That may not seem fair, but it’s actuality. The left needs a candidate who, unlike Gore and Kerry, does not stand down when the going gets rough. Don’t forget that both Gore and Kerry walked away from their supporters and from the most central issue we face: stolen elections. As long as we have candidates walk away from their constituents’ right to fair elections, there’ll be no Democratic Congress, no way of preventing a “unitary” executive and an increasingly imperious Supreme Court.

    • Comments are closed.