Back to Table of Contents

The More Things Change: Al Gore

By Matt Hourihan

With the primaries over and done with, and the candidates of the two major political parties set to go, it's worth taking a look at the candidate making less headlines, the sitting Vice President. His campaign started slow, looked a little silly and bumbling, but eventually caught a spark from Bill Bradley's challenges, and rode that wave until the he trounced the former athlete in the Democratic Primaries. But with the apparent enthusiasm Bradley brought out in him somewhat gone, and with Bush recovering some of the votes he had once lost to John McCain, Gore is feeling the heat once again. And you can bet your generic bipartisan representative that he's glad it's not October yet.

Restless under the political radar, the Veep's presidential campaign is about to go through another tune-up. On Wednesday the 12th, it was revealed that Gore is trailing his nemesis in three separate polls, although they are somewhat close. As the memory of Sen. John McCain's magical mystery tour fades, and attention is paid to the two actual nominees, Bush is beginning to regain the upper hand that he had over Gore for most of 1999.

Most of Gore's problems can be traced to the candidate himself, but even so, just like last fall when the media portrayed Bill Bradley as a possible upset winner, he can't catch a break. Gore's yo-yo act on the Clinton-Reno return of Elian Gonzalez to Cuban misery has earned him no respect: not from people of principle who believe in democracy, not from the Castro sympathizers of the left-wing. Instead, his contradictory statements have added fuel to his reputation as a dishonest politician who'll pander to any constituency in order to get votes. Sort of like Bill Clinton without the grease. Gore's campaign of late has been characterized by some questionable political missteps. And now, different unions are pissed off at Gore for his support of normalized trade relations with China. It's not as if AFL-CIO members will vote for Bush, but they might stay home on Election Day, or go Third Party at the very least.

This is the typical slimy political strategy, exemplified by Gore. Every other day, expect compliant mainstream journalists to attack the GOP candidate on his record in Texas, especially issues of interest to women, issues on which Gore is only neo-liberal at best: health care, abortion, the environment, guns, Lone Star culture and excessive capital punishment. Gore just can't stand the possibility that Bush might close the gender gap that served Clinton so well in both of his elections.

Consider Adam Clymer's page-one lead a recent Times: "Texas has had one of the nation's worst public health records for decades. More than a quarter of its residents have no health insurance. Its Mexican border is a hotbed of contagion." Not surprisingly, considering the reporter, Bush declined to be interviewed for the story, so Clymer relied almost exclusively on the quotes of Democrats and men and women sympathetic to Gore.

On the same day in the Times was another front-page story about the Bush campaign, this one about Ralph Reed's consulting firm, Century Strategies, being hired by Microsoft to lobby the Governor. Bush knew nothing about Reed's new agenda. The following day, Reed, whose company has worked for Microsoft since 1998, apologized for what could be a potential conflict of interest and said he wouldn't lobby Bush. And, in fact, as Times reporter Joel Brinkley wrote on April 12, the Bush campaign had so far recieved just one letter on behalf of Microsoft from a Bush supporter. This was front-page news, again, in the Times. It didn't appear in The Washington Post until two days later, and this more accurate article forcing the Times to clarify that Reed's firm wasn't just hired after the government's ruling against Microsoft.

On April 13, Gore flunky Richard L. Berke published a story in the Times headlined "Stakes High for Both in a Bush-Gays Meeting." In the second paragraph, Berke writes: "While the votes of gays will probably not tilt the election, the gathering is shaping up as one of the more remarkable events of the current campaign." The whole notion of this article is absurd: If Gore can't count gay voters as part of his base, he may as well give up now.

Meanwhile, in the April 11 Boston Globe, Walter V. Robinson and Michael Crowley published a lengthy story headlined "Record shows Gore long embellishing truth." The reporters write, tongue in cheek: "Vice President Al Gore brings a remarkable life story to the presidential race: His father was such an unwavering supporter of civil rights that it cost him his Senate seat. His older sister was the first-ever volunteer in the Peace Corps, that heroic outpost on President Kennedy's New Frontier.

"By Gore's account: He was raised in hardscrabble Tennessee farm country. He was a brilliant student, in high school and at Harvard. And despite his political pull, he received no special treatment, opting instead to go to Vietnam where he was 'shot at' After his Army service, he spent seven years as a journalist, and his reporting at the Tennessean in Nashville put corrupt officials in prison. As a junior member in the US House, he was a major force: He wrote and then spearheaded passage of the Superfund law. He even authored the US nuclear negotiating position. And at a time when President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev faced off on the superpower stage, Gore had his own meeting with Gorbachev. And, of course, he created the Internet. At various times in his political career, Gore, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has said all those things about himself and his family.

"None are quite true."

Robinson and Crowley concede that Gore has an impressive legislator's record, but add that "the facts have never been quite enough," and go on to debunk each of Gore's claims. This is the kind of material that exasperated Bradley during the primaries and led him to famously say in a New Hampshire debate, footage of which will undoubtedly be used in GOP commercials this fall: "Why should we believe that you will tell the truth as president if you don't tell the truth as a candidate?" Of course, keep in mind the same could be said of Bush's "reform" policies, or any other steps he has made towards the left.

Left-leaning reporters and pundits continually write that there's no "Clinton fatigue," because the President's job approval ratings remain high. Guess again. While Clinton has been the beneficiary of a strong economy-helped immensely by Microsoft, the company his administration has tied up in litigation-his personal conduct in office has indeed left voters with a bad smell about the White House. If that weren't true, Gore would be leading by a dozen points. But despite Clinton's lying and womanizing, Gore's lies might even be worse for a candidate-although whether Bush's own debauchery will undoubtably end up hurting his own capmaign as much remains to be seen. Voters could excuse Clinton's involvement with Gennifer Flowers (the press largely ignored the more damaging accusations of rape by Juanita Broaddrick) and the fudging about his draft-dodging in the late 60s. After all, many men and women could identify with those failings; in addition, Clinton's determined climb from a lower-class environment is an embodiment of the American Dream. And then he went and perverted it with the affairs and sexual romps. Hence, his personal approval rating remains low. But Gore, a child of privilege, is a something of a congenital liar, just like Bush. Americans will have a harder time countenancing his constant self-aggrandizement, condescension and flipflopping on issues. Bush was also born into an aristocratic family, but his easygoing nature is apparent to campaign crowds, even if his speeches seem stiff and bumbling, and it's clear he'd never exploit his family for political gain--so far.

Gore is in such a pickle right now-and, to be clear, he's an expert at getting out of jams, which is why the election will be so close-that at an appearance before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, he gave the press some advice. On April 12, the day after Bush unveiled a limited (compared to Gore's) health care plan, Gore accused his rival of "political malpractice" and chided the assembled to pay closer attention to the wily Texan. He said in a speech: "Incredibly, implausibly, [Bush] is proposing to replace the economic policies that have succeeded beyond anyone's boldest predictions with the very policies that failed miserably eight years ago. Call it trickle-down, call it voodoo economics, call it supply side. Names don't matter because we tried it and it failed miserably... I worked in journalism long enough to know that some claims demand serious scrutiny... [Bush] wants us to believe he's committed to issues like education, health care and the environment. Let's face it. The Bush approach on these issues is a headline without a story."

The end result of all of this is thus: When it comes down to it, voters will be voting in an election of ideas and false hopes, not of actual political excellence. Neither candidate, Bush nor Gore, has been one hundred percent honest with us. Bush is far from a "compassionate conservative," and belongs solidly in the right, not mingling in the middle with Gore, who belongs in the middle, not mingling over on the left. Gore, on the other hand, has done a much better job of appearing to be who he truly is. It's a sad state of affairs, though, when that statement can be said with the knowledge that even though Gore is probably more honest, he's still not honest enough.

Matt Hourihan is a freaky political junky. He plans to vote early and often this year.