Posted on 12/02/2002 12:32:32 PM PST by areafiftyone
Among the many problems facing the Democratic Party, according to former Vice President Al Gore, is the state of the American media. The media is kind of weird these days on politics, and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party," said Mr. Gore in an interview with The Observer. "Fox News Network, The Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh—there’s a bunch of them, and some of them are financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires who make political deals with Republican administrations and the rest of the media …. Most of the media [has] been slow to recognize the pervasive impact of this fifth column in their ranks—that is, day after day, injecting the daily Republican talking points into the definition of what’s objective as stated by the news media as a whole."
Mr. Gore has been airing his views during a nationwide promotional book tour that marks his re-emergence in public life after a self-imposed exile following his loss in the 2000 Presidential election. Now, as Mr. Gore considers another Presidential campaign, he’s determined to confound his ponderous image by unveiling a new Al Gore—one who doesn’t hesitate, as he puts it, to "let ’er rip."
Hence his controversial criticisms of President Bush’s foreign policy, and his surprise announcement in favor of a government-run universal health-care system. And hence, in a phone interview with The Observer, his extensive criticism of the media, which is hardly a conventional way of launching a national political campaign.
Actually, Mr. Gore may have little reason to hide his views about the media, for his re-emergence, while generating a massive amount of attention, has also inspired ridicule from commentators of all ideological persuasions. Conservatives seemed delighted by his return, remembering his awkward candidacy in 2000, and many liberals have been quite frank in wishing that he would simply disappear.
But Mr. Gore has a bone to pick with his critics: namely, he says, that a systematically orchestrated bias in the media makes it impossible for him and his fellow Democrats to get a fair shake. "Something will start at the Republican National Committee, inside the building, and it will explode the next day on the right-wing talk-show network and on Fox News and in the newspapers that play this game, The Washington Times and the others. And then they’ll create a little echo chamber, and pretty soon they’ll start baiting the mainstream media for allegedly ignoring the story they’ve pushed into the zeitgeist. And then pretty soon the mainstream media goes out and disingenuously takes a so-called objective sampling, and lo and behold, these R.N.C. talking points are woven into the fabric of the zeitgeist."
And during a lengthy discourse on the history of political journalism in America, Mr. Gore said he believed that evolving technologies and market forces have combined to lower the media’s standards of objectivity. "The introduction of cable-television news and Internet news made news a commodity, available from an unlimited number of sellers at a steadily decreasing cost, so the established news organizations became the high-cost producers of a low-cost commodity," said Mr. Gore. "They’re selling a hybrid product now that’s news plus news-helper; whether it’s entertainment or attitude or news that’s marbled with opinion, it’s different. Now, especially in the cable-TV market, it has become good economics once again to go back to a party-oriented approach to attract a hard-core following that appreciates the predictability of a right-wing point of view, but then to make aggressive and constant efforts to deny that’s what they’re doing in order to avoid offending the broader audience that mass advertisers want. Thus the Fox slogan ‘We Report, You Decide,’ or whatever the current version of their ritual denial is."
"We understand that Gore is frustrated," said R.N.C. spokesman Kevin Sheridan. "He’s the leader of a party without a message. But if he thinks that the Republican National Committee can control the American media, then perhaps he needs a break from the book tour."
Fox spokesman Rob Zimmerman said, "We won’t dignify this with a response."
A spokesman for The Washington Times didn’t return calls for comment. Rush Limbaugh was traveling and not available for comment.
A Left Hook
Of course, some of the harshest criticisms of Mr. Gore have come from distinctly non-conservative quarters. Mr. Gore seemed particularly stung, for example, by an op-ed written by Frank Rich of The New York Times, suggesting that his new spontaneity was a charade. "When people write a line like one that I read this morning—quote, ‘People do not change,’ period, end quote—well, there’s a difference between learning from experience and self-reinvention," Mr. Gore said. "People do change, particularly in America. If you don’t learn from the experiences you have in life, then you’re not trying very hard, and if you don’t make mistakes, you’re not human …. If people who make their living criticizing anybody and everybody want to add me to their list, that’s all right. Hell, they’ve got to make a living."
Democrats sympathetic to Mr. Gore frequently maintain that "political insiders"—the media, big donors, professional politicians—paint an overly pessimistic picture of his viability as a candidate and suggest that his position has been strengthened by the party’s poor showing in the midterm elections several weeks ago. "There are all these people in the party who have been adamant that we need a fresh face," said Joe Andrew, who headed the Democratic National Committee during the Clinton administration. "I think a lot of those people are taking another look at Al Gore now, saying that, ‘Well, at least there’s someone out there with big ideas, who looks good on TV, who looks more comfortable with himself.’ I think it’s simply a fundamental reaction to the sense that he is a serious candidate with serious ideas."
But while Mr. Gore has a solid core of support, many Democrats do want a fresh face to take on George W. Bush in 2004. The same formal and informal polls that show Mr. Gore with substantially larger backing than any other Democratic hopeful also show that a great many donors, opinion makers and party leaders are uncommitted—and leaning toward Anyone But Gore.
It’s possible that no amount of criticism will keep Mr. Gore out of the race, but there’s little question that "Gore fatigue" already has become a rallying point for his potential opponents. "At this point, people are uniformly looking for a different face and a different agenda, an agenda that requires a backbone," Vermont Governor Howard Dean, a potential Democratic contender, told The Observer.
Asked about Mr. Gore’s efforts to make a fresh start as a straight-talking, independent-minded Democrat, Mr. Dean said, "I think it will be kind of a tough job for someone who was a sitting Vice President to call himself an outsider."
Mr. Gore acknowledged his image problem among powerful Democrats, and that the onus will be upon him to recapture the loyalties of those who supported him in 2000. "Maybe I bear the blame for some of it," he said. "I haven’t been very good about calling all of the insiders over the last two years, and maybe some of them have a beef with me because of that. I know they have been courted assiduously by some of the others who are considering a run for the White House, and it may be that some of them have already signed up with other people. If I do decide to run again, I think there’s a lot of support, but I’d also have to work really hard to get a bunch of them committed back to me."
Mr. Gore also reckoned that he would have to prove himself all over again to key political and media players. "I’m well aware that the political insiders and political-journalism community have a considerable amount of influence, and even though I’m stronger at the grassroots level, I think that if I did run again, I would have to convince those two groups that I’ve learned enough in the last couple of years to run a better campaign than I did last time. I don’t think that there’s a thing that I could say and no words I could choose that could accomplish that—the way to convince them would be in actually doing it."
For now, Mr. Gore can only attempt to explain what motivates the ceaseless lampooning he continues to face from America’s columnists and commentators. "That’s postmodernism," he offered. "It’s the combination of narcissism and nihilism that really defines postmodernism, and that’s another interview for another time, if you’re interested in it.
He talks so sloooowly monotone that it's as if I'm in a time warp.
Hal (2001 Space Odyssy computer) has more personality than Goron.
He's still fun to watch because you cal call him an asshole to the tv.
Heh,heh, thats right!
I like this from Levin's article awhile back:
Let this go, Al. All is not lost. In 30 years you, too, can run for the Senate from New Jersey. And after you meet your maker — Mattel — you can run for the Senate from Missouri.
Yours in gestalt,
Mark R. Levin
Clinton Uses IRS To Punish Critics
by Larry Klayman Judicial Watch
Imagine you founded an organization dedicated to the preservation of basic principles upon which this country has thrived. Issues like individual freedom, personal responsibility, and ethics in journalism. Not horrible terms, and not even so much because you wanted to antagonize those who didn’t share your view; rather, because you firmly believed in these principles as a means by which an orderly society should function.
Imagine then if you lived under a government which didn’t share your principles, and because they didn’t, they decided -- as arbitrarily as you would choose a movie -- that they would send an investigatory body like the IRS into your offices to interrogate you without cause. Try to envision a group of these detached individuals camped in your office, rifling through your personal papers, admitting to you that it was a political inquiry, and then making claims to be compiled into formal charges against you. What you’ve just heard is what the Western Journalism Center went through with its own government -- the Clinton Administration.
Perhaps one of the most startling and disturbing accounts of the Nixon Presidency, beyond Water-gate itself, was Nixon, on tape, discussing with chilling detachment, plans to use the IRS to threaten political opponents. In 1974, this was a landmark and most egregious breach of the public trust. Today, despite the Clintons’ systematic testing of Americans’ threshold of tolerance, the song does, and must, remain the same.
The story of the Western Journalism center started with a simple, if bulky, White House document and ended in a $10 million lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch against the IRS for abuse of power. Like any good story, it takes the requisite twists and turns, often leaving the viewer or reader befuddled as to how people placed in a position of trust can bring themselves to act as they do.
The Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce, a 331-page manifesto and brainchild of Associate White House Counsel Jane Sherburne and the DNC, was circulated to select reporters in a tortured effort to describe how the “right wing” conveyed “fringe” stories into mainstream American media. In essence, this document was an effort to “alert” friendly journalists that such a “conspiracy” was being promulgated by certain groups dissatisfied with the moral lapses of the Clinton White House. In short, it was an enemies list.
Joseph Farah, an award-winning journalist and former editor of The Sacramento Union, founded the Western Journalism Center in 1991. A credentialed publisher of numerous periodicals that specialize in investigative reporting, WJC’s efforts have been the focus of articles in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Investors Business Daily, and dozens of other publications.
Armed with its breadth of prior success, WJC began investigating the circumstances surrounding Vince Foster’s death -- circumstances widely reported to be, at minimum, slightly unusual. Taking out ads in The Washington Times, New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, WJC raised major questions and inconsistencies about Foster’s death -- echoing the sentiments of journalist Christopher Ruddy, whose services WJC retained in furtherance of their investigation.
These ads met with considerable success and attention -- and set off what has inexcusably become old saw to the Clinton Administration -- paranoia followed by brutal, systematic effort to silence its critics through intimidation.
In December 1994, Associate White House Counsel Sherburne prepared a memorandum that outlined strategies to use against individuals and organizations perceived to be adversaries of the Clinton Administration. The memo also assigned staff members to carry out these strategies -- and specifically identified the Western Journalism Center for having investigated Foster’s death. WJC was the only news organization targeted for action.
In July 1996, after absorbing months of swirling rumors of a pending audit, Joe Farah answered a knock on his door at the Western Journalism Center. Thomas Cedarquist, an IRS official and one of his chief defendants in Judicial Watch’s lawsuit on behalf of WJC, strode in and announced that, having seen the WJC’s work on 60 Minutes, he had arbitrarily decided (as this Administration does) that WJC was a political (not a non-profit) organization. Cedarquist confirmed he and others in Washington were going to challenge WJC’s tax-exempt status and audit their 1995 tax returns.
Farah was asked about his affiliation with Christopher Ruddy, a thorn in the side of the administration, and why WJC chose to work with him. Nearly every query posed to Farah was related to a story or developing story concerning the White House -- an IRS search completely devoid of concern for money. Rightfully exasperated, Farah questioned the tactics of the agency and received the following rejoinder from Cedarquist: “Look, this is a political case, and the decision will be made at the national level.”
Over the course of the investigation of WJC, nearly 20 conservative organizations -- including the Heritage Foundation, NRA and Citizens Against Government Waste -- felt the close, touch of the Clinton audit machine.
Even more oddly, the media who knew of the Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce never saw any pattern developing that would signify an orchestrated White House effort -- much less actually troubled themselves to report it. Meanwhile, the WJC’s offices were being broken into, with, mysteriously, nothing stolen. Their phone messages were apparently being monitored, and some of these developments happened to coincide with WJC breakthroughs in Clinton investigations.
The scrutiny of the WJC by the IRS lasted nine months. WJC employees lost their jobs and livelihoods. Finally, in October 1996, Farah exposed these corrupt practices in a piece in The Wall Street Journal, and the tide began to turn.
Margaret Milner-Richardson, IRS commissioner and close friend of first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, abruptly resigned. The New York Post attributed her departure to political audits of conservative organizations. Some began to probe these rampant abuses, and the audit of the Western Journalism Center was “concluded” -- a verdict of “no wrongdoing” rendered in May 1997.
Under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights enacted by Congress, Farah requested his case file from the IRS so he could review its contents. In keeping with the Clinton Administration standard practice, these rights were trampled in a terse refusal to turn over the documents -- the IRS frivolously citing “government privilege” as a means of keeping Mr. Farah from seeing justification for what had nearly bankrupted his organization.
But Farah would not be deterred. On behalf of WJC, Judicial Watch, a public interest watchdog group, filed a $10 million lawsuit against Ms. Richardson, Mr. Cedarquist, numerous unidentified agents involved in this case and the IRS itself. We are determined to ensure that Mr. Farah sees justice in this case, and that every American is free to express his or her First Amendment-protected views without vicious, detached harassment from its own government.
For all the baying we hear from the left of the travesties of Richard Nixon, they and this White House have elevated abuse of power to a new art form that, if unchecked, will perpetuate itself to unfathomable lows in the future. Nixon was an amateur compared with the criminal enterprise that continues to be run out of this White House. By this standard, citizens who elected their government will have no protection from those assigned to protect them. That is the blasphemy we must examine, and do our level best to stop.
YOU NAILED IT 100%. I nominate YOU as poster of the day!!!! Great comments, well said, KUDOS!
Barb back in Texas again.......
I bet he wishes he han't invented the internet. What a dolt.
Think about it, have you seen any combination of the above pics in the same room?
For crying out loud....when will this jerk ever get over himself.....
Another by-product of "letting it rip"?
I see what you mean; what the heck does that mean? Like I commented on an earlier post; the two words that come to mind when I hear the name, Al Gore are Boob and Oaf.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.