The New York Times carries an op/ed piece by Al Gore today captioned “How to Debate George Bush.” Rather than giving an experienced viewpoint of George Bush’s debate skill and weaknesses, the former Vice-President lapses into a partisan rant.

As advice to John Kerry it is worthless. As insight for the rest of us into the presidential debate process it is useless. The sole purpose of this piece seems to be the New York Times need to meet its daily quota of anti-Bush vitriol.

For example, Al Gore alleges that Kerry’s opportunity in the debate lays in the fact that George Bush’s performance in office amounts to a “catastrophic failure.” Are you for real Al? A “catastrophic failure” to me would, for example, mean that American cities have been destroyed in nuclear attacks, or that a foreign power has occupied significant portions of American soil, or maybe a deadly plague is sweeping the nation. Even the most partisan liberal has to admit that “catastrophic” is clearly over the top.

Gore goes on to list what Kerry must do in the debate. Interestingly this includes “demonstrate the connection between job losses and Mr. Bush's colossal tax break for the wealthy.” Does Al really believe that tax cuts lead to job losses? Does any honest and coherent economist hold this belief? I doubt it.

I for one would like to see Kerry try this approach - for purely partisan reasons mind you. Nothing would make Karl Rove happier than to have a liberal Senator from Massachusetts telling the American people that he believes the best way to “create” jobs is to raise their taxes. Forget running Michael Dukakis’ 1988 campaign, Kerry would be re-running the Walter Mondale playbook from 1984.

Al Gore obviously still resents losing the 2000 election to someone he perceives to be his intellectual inferior. His article demonstrates that he still doesn’t get it. He is still “misunderestimating” George Bush. If Kerry takes Al Gore’s advice he will likely join Al Gore on the list of most bitter losers.
- posted by Thomas @ 9:21 AM 0 comments