BuzzFlash
presents Southern Style
by Rebecca Knight
August 20, 2002
Regarding Al Gore
Part II: Election 2004
by Rebecca Knight
Will Al Gore choose to run for the presidency again in 2004? Indications are that he is strongly considering a historic run for the Democratic nomination. As Gore contemplates his decision, his primary concern should be what would be best for the long-term stability and continued success of our beloved America both domestically and internationally.
A Gore candidacy in 2004 would naturally raise the specter of the 2000 election when the principles of our democracy were violated as never before. The right to vote freely and have our vote counted accurately is fundamental to the success of any democracy. Many believe that right was stolen from us. Our system of government may not survive if the events of the 2000 election are repeated. The principle involved here is about doing the right thing. The "right thing" in America is to honor our system of representative government. The outcome of election 2000 did not honor that system.
This is not to say that what happened to Al Gore in election 2000 should automatically make him deserving of the 2004 nomination of the Democratic Party. It is to say that we, the people, chose Al Gore to be our president and we were denied our choice. Naturally the fact that Al Gore is considered the "legitimate" winner by millions of Americans makes him the first choice of many of those people.
Others suggest that Gore had his chance and it is time to move on to another candidate. Those who take that position tend to fault Gore for the outcome in 2000. Is that really fair? Was Al Gore singularly responsible for mistakes made during the 2000 national campaign and also during the Florida debacle? No, the Democratic Party and we the people are also responsible. The Democratic Party did not support the Gore candidacy as forcefully as it should have as evidenced by the whispers calling for Gore to concede instead of fighting for votes to be counted in Florida. And we the people should have taken to the streets.
Hindsight is easy. Perhaps no one fully understood the ramifications of the situation in Florida until it was too late, but we are completely aware now. What will we do about it? Will we use the opportunity of the 2004 election to make a statement? Shouldn't that statement be made by forcefully uniting behind another Gore candidacy?
Many hold it against Al Gore that he did not win his home state of Tennessee. Yes, we Tennessee Democrats were distressed by the outcome. However, in order to fully comprehend what occurred in Tennessee it is necessary to understand statewide politics.
Many factors were involved in Tennessee in 2000. There is evidence that voter fraud took place, just as it did in Florida. Tennessee had seen an influx of new industry and as a result many new residents of the state were unfamiliar with Gore's success representing the state as a Congressman and Senator. In those capacities, Gore had conducted himself with dignity and an unprecedented determination to remain connected to his constituents' concerns by holding thousands of town hall meetings throughout the state almost every weekend. During campaign 2000 even the existence and number of those meetings were questioned, but, as a Tennessean, I know Gore's account was accurate because my family members and I attended some of those meetings.
Gore was extremely popular and he remains the only candidate to have ever carried all ninety-five counties in a statewide election. However, that success must be placed in the context of the times in the year 2000. Remember that Gore had not run for public office in Tennessee on his own in about ten years. He had been focused on national issues, as any vice president should be. Also, during Gore's service as vice president, Tennessee had shifted to the right just as had the rest of the south. Tennessee had elected a Republican governor and two Republican senators.
The Republican Party, having grown stronger throughout the state, did a masterful job of misrepresenting the position of Gore on two very critical issues in Tennessee – gun rights and abortion. Anyone with political acumen is aware that the Republican Party is expert at using issues to divide, all the while misrepresenting the Democratic candidate's position. No Democrat wants to take away guns. Read the Democratic platform from 2000 to fully understand the issue. And no Democrat, in fact no American, is pro-abortion. But, the Republican Party somehow gets away with framing the abortion issue in that way. Abortion and gun control are divisive and inflammatory issues used by the right to confuse the average American and cause them to vote against their own economic and social interests. Those were the tactics used in Tennessee in 2000 and they worked.
In Tennessee the Republican Party was also better organized and funded than the Democratic Party. These are aspects that can easily be corrected in a 2004 campaign. Plans to reverse these trends are being addressed by the Tennessee Democratic Party. I have listened to the discussions at the local level. Yes, another Gore candidacy is a hot topic within Tennessee and can be a divisive one, but it is highly unlikely that Democrats within the state would not rally behind Al Gore. The Gores are obviously aware of the critical need to mend fences in Tennessee as is indicated by their recent purchase of a home in Nashville, in addition to their farm home in Carthage, and the amount of time they are spending in Tennessee.
Many hold it against Al Gore that he is a career politician. Since when is that a shortcoming? Since when is it dishonorable to spend one's life in the service of one's country? Of course Al Gore and many other politicians could have gone for the brass ring in the private sector and become multi-millionaires. For a man or woman to turn their back on such enrichment and choose to spend their time as an elected representative of their home state should be acknowledged as evidence of devotion to love of country. It is disgusting to suggest otherwise.
Many accuse Al Gore of being elitist because he grew up in Washington, D.C. and attended private schools. Gore should not be criticized for choices his parents made on his behalf. What was Al supposed to do? His father was a respected Senator from Tennessee, which required him to live in Washington. Was Pauline Gore supposed to travel from Washington back to Tennessee while in labor so that Al could be born in his home state? The facts indicate that the Gore family has no reason to be elitist. Albert and Pauline Gore were anything but wealthy. Any financial success they enjoyed occurred after the elder Senator Gore left Washington.
Physical locations of birth and childhood educational environment are not reflective of one's loyalties to home. Perhaps the "media elitists" cannot comprehend ties to a home as beautiful as Carthage, Tennessee, where the rolling tree filled hills, lovely river, and slow-paced lifestyle capture one's heart. Maureen Dowd recently called Carthage "godforsaken" in her New York Times column. Were Ms. Dowd and others like her to ever visit Carthage, they would still not get it. No, they would see it as a hick town akin to the fictional Mayberry. But places like Carthage are to be treasured. Al Gore understands this concept. He understands it because his parents taught him to love it through disciplined work on their farm during his youthful summers spent in Carthage. Home is in the heart and it is obvious that Al Gore's heart reflects a love of Tennessee. I can understand Gore's sentiment for Carthage because I live only a short drive away from there. I was there when the Clinton/Gore campaign kicked off from the county courthouse on the Carthage Square. Al's regard for a place like Carthage makes it even more obvious that his heart shows no indication of elitism at all. These are points that make working class issues, the populist themes, ring true when Al Gore speaks of them.
George W. Bush was not born in Texas either, but was that an issue? Never mind. George W. Bush was born with all the privileges of the wealthy, but has he been called an elitist? Never mind! The double standard persists! The media supports it and promotes it.
Every logical thinking American is aware by now that the media was biased against Al Gore during election 2000 and that bias continues to this day, as evidenced by the anti-Gore columns that permeate the mainstream media every time Gore makes a public appearance or statement. Columnists and reporters who focused on every insignificant misstatement or nuance by Gore in 2000, while never delving in depth into the background of George W. Bush or the factual evidence of his many shortcomings as governor of Texas, did a great disservice to this country. We are all paying for their failure to responsibly and ethically do their jobs.
The problem is that too many Americans buy into the spin the mainstream media promulgates. Many Americans have neither the time nor the interest in understanding the true facts. Large percentages of Americans are lazy and irresponsible in failing to exercise their right to vote. They believe whatever they read or hear from the mainstream media and they become complacent. We are paying for that at this very moment. We are paying economically, socially, and internationally, for there can be no doubt that most of the actions of the Bush administration would have never taken place under a Gore administration.
The mainstream media would continue the anti-Gore themes they used during election 2000 were Gore to run again in 2004. So what? What else is there for them to say about Al Gore? We have heard it all before and still more Americans voted for Al Gore. This is not a negative aspect of another Gore candidacy. In fact, it is a positive, because Gore has been there, done that. Unlike the other potential Democratic candidates, he has experienced the Karl Rove attack machine, which equips him to face it again.
The Republican Party loves to proclaim loudly and forcefully that there is a "liberal bias" in the media, even though the evidence suggests that there is anything but a liberal bias. This is how the right wing operates. Practice successfully what you accuse others of doing. Where does the liberal mainstream media bias exist? Not in any mainstream newspaper or on any mainstream television news shows! The right wing has successfully infiltrated the media to the point where it is almost impossible to find a left leaning professional journalist willing to put their job on the line to get the truth about the right wing election spin machine on record. This is not surprising considering that most of the mainstream media is owned by giant corporations closely associated with the Republican Party.
What is the solution to the problem of bias in the media against Al Gore? For a stronger Gore candidacy, the best solution would be to hire aggressive campaign managers like James Carville and Paul Begala, who understand the critical value of a rapid response team. Al Gore himself needs to be a candidate on fire for the people! Recent speeches made by Al suggest that is the case. Keep that fire burning, Al!
As for the people, there may be no other solution except for Americans who understand the truth to rise up and demand accountability from journalists; rise up and demand that evidence be presented to support all anti-Gore claims! It cannot be done, because the vast majority of those claims are falsified and/or exaggerated. Rise up and demand that the truth of the Bush administration policies and their effects on our daily lives be investigated and reported! We may have no other choice!
Many criticize Al Gore for failing to use the successes of the Clinton/Gore administration to his advantage in election 2000. It is obvious that Gore was in a very precarious situation due to the controversies surrounding the personal failings of Clinton. How to safely distance himself from those controversies, yet claim credit for the many successful policies leading to eight years of peace and prosperity, was a tightrope situation not easily navigated by Gore. Perhaps there is ample evidence that Gore failed in that respect in 2000, but of course, in a run for the presidency in 2004 this would not be an issue. The issues in 2004 would be the obvious failings of the Bush administration and the policies and ideals of a Gore presidency that would reverse such negative trends.
Many have the opinion that Al Gore conducted a poor campaign in 2000 and would do so again in 2004. By believing that, they are assuming that Al Gore learned nothing from 2000. If we can critique the Gore campaign of 2000 from the outside and understand the failings, isn't it ludicrous to assume that Al Gore learned nothing from it himself and would repeat the same mistakes? Of course it is! Al Gore is a seasoned politician.
I have personally been present for at least five speeches given by Al Gore over the years. The first was in the late '80s and the last was earlier this year. There is a noticeable difference in his speaking style. He appears to have come through the trials of fire of 2000 energized and determined to speak freely and from his heart. In one of his recent appearances, Gore made the statement that "freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose." Perhaps he finally feels free to just be himself and speak directly to the American people. Perhaps he feels the constraints and the pressures to perform in certain acceptable ways have been lifted by what he endured. If so, he will be a better man and a better candidate for courageously enduring the most controversial election ever held in America.
Gore has been criticized for removing himself from the political scene for several months following his concession in 2000. Rather than criticism, he deserves credit. It was the right thing to do. The times were inflammatory and there would have been no point in Gore participating in an extended public discussion of the Florida debacle. Gore deserved time out of the public spotlight to focus on his family and his future. He may very well emerge the better for it.
Some say that the Democratic Party big wheels and financial backers are balking at another Gore run for the presidency. So what? Are they so strongly influential that they can overcome the will of the people? We should certainly hope not. The people chose Al Gore in 2000. Never forget that fact! If Al Gore chooses to run again in 2004, the money will come. And if the power brokers choose not to back him they will be making a big mistake. We can overcome them by donating to a Gore candidacy ourselves and remove them from the political picture, which is what needs to be done anyway. Don't forget that the Republican Party always raises and spends more than the Democratic Party, but who won the 2000 election? Al Gore!
Al Gore was and still is extremely qualified to be president of the United States. Those who appear to be positioning themselves to challenge him for the 2004 Democratic nomination, while very intelligent and experienced politicians, are not nearly as qualified to unseat Bush from the White House. If polls are a true indication, Al Gore is far and away the leading choice of the people. No one else is even close. Al Gore is the right candidate for the Democratic Party. Who better understands the machinations of a Bush campaign?
Which candidate would the Bush campaign in 2004 most fear? Al Gore! Oh, they may state publicly that is not the case. However, they know that Al Gore is seasoned against their tactics. They know that Al Gore was the choice of the people in 2000 and would be an even stronger candidate in 2004. Why? Because Al Gore's message and predictions regarding Bush were right on target. They know that Bush administration policies are causing great concern with the American people. Bush may continue to have high overall approval ratings, but an examination of the poll numbers by issue indicate a deeply growing concern with domestic problems and those issues will be the deciding factor in the 2004 race.
The Democratic Party needs to come together in 2004 and not be splintered among candidates. Yes, there are many reasons for supporting a Gore candidacy in 2004. It is not entirely about wanting Al Gore to be president. Supporting and voting for Al Gore again would send a message that the Democratic Party supports free elections and is also about showing the world that we won't allow the Supreme Court to select our president. It is about defending our system of representative government. It is about shouting from the rooftops that we won't allow a man who would be king to remain in the White House! It is about forcefully proclaiming that we won't allow presidents to be installed instead of elected!
Democratic Party leaders would be wise to take note that the election of 2004 is not just another election. It is not simply political. It is not about out-maneuvering the other political parties. We cannot afford a disconnect between the political big wheels and the people. Election 2004 will be a rallying call for a political stand supporting every citizen's right to vote!
* * *
This column is Part II in a three part series. Having received many interesting comments from readers who e-mailed me, I will devote Part III to reader commentaries! Coming later in the week "Regarding Al Gore, Part III: The People Speak!"
* * *
POST SCRIPT: If you agree with the points made in this column, I request that you and others of like mind circulate this column widely, especially to Democratic Party leaders and elected officials. I also request that you print this column and mail it to Al Gore with a personal letter encouraging him to run in 2004!
Office of the Honorable Al Gore
2100 West End Avenue
Suite 790
Nashville, TN 37203The Honorable Al Gore
123 Turner Hwy
Carthage. TN 37030Leadership '02
2200 Clarendon Blvd.
Suite 1201
Arlington, VA 22201Honorable Albert Gore Jr.
Post Office Box 2346
Arlington VA 22202
* * *
Rebecca Knight is a native Tennessean, who grew up in Nashville, and currently resides in a small town near Nashville. Ms. Knight's political awareness evolved through the civil rights movement, the Vietnam era, the Watergate era, and the cold war. The debacle of the 2000 election increased her sense of responsibility for political activism. You may contact Rebecca Knight via e-mail at tennessee_gal655@yahoo.com.
© 2002 by Rebecca Knight
