Dan, I don't think it is at all unlikely that the person or people who drafted Gore's speech actually did read your blog, and lifted the Nixon comparison directly. You know of course that from now on this idea, which is completely wrong and if anything rather flatters Bush, will go down as something Al Gore invented himself.

A remarkable thing about this speech of Gore's -- remarkable, that is, if Gore has the slightest thought of a future role for himself in public life -- is that it evidently contained no word of contrition, no hint that he felt sorry he had not done a better job as a candidate and in failing allowed Bush into the White House. He wouldn't even have had to admit to any specific mistake, and wouldn't have had to acknowledge anything about Florida. What a loser.

More and more, Bush reminds me of Nixon.... On domestic policy, Bush seems like he'll say or do anything, so long as it advances his short-term political advantage. -- Drezner

You're half-right. The same is true of foreign policy (from the Moonies' UPI):

Bush and his key political strategist Karl Rove carefully calibrated the debate on going to war with Iraq to push through the Senate authorization they won in early October, just four weeks before the November elections. As we predicted in UPI Analysis, this successfully maximized the patriotic "bounce" the GOP expected to get -- and did -- from the much higher trust and rating the public still gives them on national security issues over the Democrats.

...[T]he Republicans succeeded in moving the ground away from the slip-sliding stock market, the mushrooming federal budget deficit and the worrying upward creep of unemployment figures to the war on Iraq and against terror, and this maximized their chances.

Gore may be the wrong messenger, but the message is right. The Dems need somebody else to convey that message in Boston. Care to volunteer Dan?

You guys are pathetic. Make up your mind: is this a thoughtful blog (as I and others had come to believe) or a partisan hack job (of which there are too many already.) This was a rally of the party faithful (I was there), and the words were extemporaneous (at least there was no text) Surely as little leeway is justified here. Portentious conclusions about this make you look silly. I like the thoughtful Dan better. Aathras can play in other sandboxes where his kind of nonsense if more appreciated.

"...if Gore delivers an address like this one in July, the historical analogy won't be to the Democrats of 1976 or to the Republicans of 1994. Instead, the comparison will be to the disastrous Republican convention of 1992."

From his lips to Gods' ears'.

One thing, though: I will admit it's a little fuzzy for me, being THIRTY FIVE FREAKING YEARS AGO ... sorry, it just unnerves me that that whole time was THIRTY FIVE ...

(ahem)

... but Nixon was a conservative Republican? Compared to who? Ah, whom?

Drezner:; I've explained why this "preordained and planned" meme is a pile of horseshit.

Bush: Fuck Hussein, we're taking him out.

oh yes dan, you're the only individual to make that comparison. George Bush is a panderer? I would never have figured it out without your absolutely brilliant insights!

You are a treasure to your students!

“This was a rally of the party faithful (I was there), and the words were extemporaneous (at least there was no text) Surely as little leeway is justified here.”

No, not at all. The possible extemporaneous aspects of this speech do not deserve a “little leeway.” Al Gore is similar to the employee who gets drunk at the office Christmas party and call the boss a scum bag *&^%$ piece of dog excrement. No court in the land would protect him from being fired. Al Gore has made such a fool of himself that the Democrats will have to think twice about inviting him to their national convention. At the very best, they will have to demand a copy of Gore’s speech before he gets on the podium. The former Vice President could literally cause a 20 point drop in the polls for the Democrat nominee!

The so-called “mainstream” Democrats seem highly influenced by Noam Chomsky. It appears that this is no longer a left of center phenomenon.

Dave Thomson again proves he is a idiot: "Al Gore is similar to the employee who gets drunk at the office Christmas party and call the boss a scum bag *&^%$ piece of dog excrement."

QED

I have a slightly different take on the comparison with Nixon.

I personally group Nixon and Clinton together in a category (not because of their scandalous presidencies) because they adopted the popular policies of the opposing party in order to co-opt their opponents and get elected. Neither had an ideological compass (although Nixon was a true died in the wool anti-communist) and put the members of both parties in a strange position that neither of them were comfortable with. In Clinton's time it was described as "triangulation". These respective "moves to the center" are personified in Nixon's statement "I am a Keynesian now" (ironically at the beginning of the decade that dealt John Maynard Keynes a serious blow) and Clinton's "the era of big government is over".

During the 2000 race I bought in to the Democratic party's version of George W Bush: That "compassionate" conservatism was just a smoke screen to get Bush into office, where a Republican Congress and Senate would allow him to decimate the National Register, elimiate whole departments, cut taxes, and shrink the size of the government considerably before the baby boom generation retires and bankrupts us all.

Obviously I just wasn't paying attention well enough. George W. Bush really IS a "compassionate" conservative, which means he DOES believe in the goodness of Big Government and has no such intentions of eliminating the Department of Education He actually gave it a big raise with help from Ted Kennedy. That SHOULD have raised my antena, but it didn't.

At the time I thought to myself: His dad was a big disappointment who never believed in Ronald Reagan and never understood his vision. But Dubya gets it. He understands.

Unfortunately, he doesn't.

When I looked more closely I realized that the RNC and many Republican Congressmen have been going around the last couple of years not just downplaying the idea of cutting the size of government, but ridiculing it! Now I understand why Dick Armey and Phil Gramm retired. This is one of the big disappointments of my life. The Goldwater/Reagan revolution is officially dead.

You'd think that would make Democrats happy, but if George Bush is the candidate of Big Government giving everybody a helping hand, then what role is left for them?

Could it be that America politics could turn full circle back to the 19th century when the Democratic party was the party of small government, free trade and individual liberty?

Nahhhhhhh, I doubt it.

Dan:

"I've explained why this "preordained and planned" meme is a pile of horseshit...

Jeez, Dan! Such vehemence is unusual for you, and, if I may say, rather unbecoming. More importantly, your analysis is just as wrong as Gore's. Was it predetermined that the Bush Administration would find a way to invade Iraq? Certainly not. However, the reality is that many of Bush's top appointees have been advocating just such an action since long before Bush became president, and pushed twice as hard almost from the moment of 9/11. O'Neill and Gore are far from the only ones who've noted that fact. Given that, it's not a stretch in the least to think that there was a pre-dilection for war, if not a true pre-determination.

Gore's comments of late have indeed been over the top, but nevertheless, the reality of the situation simply doesn't justify your completely dismissive and offended tone.

Another Dave is a idiot: Was it predetermined that the Bush Administration would find a way to invade Iraq? Certainly not.

Bush: Fuck Hussein, we're taking him out.

Well duh, Dan. Who the hell do you think Catsy is?

“Dave Thomson again proves he is a idiot: "Al Gore is similar to the employee who gets drunk at the office Christmas party and call the boss a scum bag *&^%$ piece of dog excrement."

Al Gore has publicly claimed that "He (President Bush) betrayed this country!....and “played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place." This is far beyond the bounds of allowable political discourse. It is literally similar to Noam Chomsky’s style of rhetoric. And yes, the national Democrat Party will be very wary of Gore’s speech during the convention. The man will now be treated like the uncle who is known to occasionally get drunk and make a fool of himself. Such a person can no longer be relied upon to do the sensible thing. Al Gore has now burned his bridges with the sane American voters. The consensus liberal opinion will likely agree with me. After all, I’m not aware that Chris Suellentrop is a member of the radical right-wing conspiracy.

Jojo:

"Another Dave is a idiot: Was it predetermined that the Bush Administration would find a way to invade Iraq? Certainly not.

Bush: Fuck Hussein, we're taking him out"

It's a question of timing jojo. Bush made that statement after 9/11. Gore is claiming that war was planned even before that. As I said, I don't doubt that many in the Bush Administration wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, but without that casus belli, it's unlikely in the extreme that Bush, or any other president, would have signed on. Hence my claim that there was a predilection for war, but no predetermination. Without the spark of 9/11 there would have been no fire.

It's a question of timing jojo. Bush made that statement after 9/11

WTF does 9/11 have to do with it? Are you a idiot? (He asked politely.)

You're upset because GORE says Bush planned to remove Saddam before 9-11? Hell, O'Neill said it! Deal with it.

After years of the Republican/Extreme Right using slanderous language against anyone in their way (remember Clinton the murderer?), now that liberals and Democrats are getting a little heated in their language, we're supposed to be shocked? Sorry, too late!

Tom is correct, IMHO. This is the right-leaning blog of choice. I cant predict Prof Dan's reaction to events with the same dead-on certainty as I can on in many/most others places. (This is not always true of the comments, however.)

BTW , Jojo, 9/11 may or may not have been the reason, but it sure was the cover. That is WTF 9/11 had to do with it.

“Extreme Right using slanderous language against anyone in their way (remember Clinton the murderer...”

I never believed, even for a moment, that the Clintons murdered their enemies. On the contrary, I’m utterly convinced that Vince Foster committed suicide. Moreover, I defended Hillary Clinton’s future trades and thought that the White Water investigation was a joke. I have also often praised Bill Clinton for his free trade polices, welfare reform, and military actions in the Balkans. Earlier today, on this very blog, I said that I even suspect that Bill Clinton is innately more intelligent than the current occupant of the White House.

Say Dan...

Do you ever go hunting with Cheney and Scalia?

If not, do you wish you did?

What do you think they talk about?

See any problem with Scalia hearing Cheney's case?

I do. But I am a idiot. I just want to hear from someone wise and impartial.

Poor Dan,

He tries to be reasonable and is called a partisan hack for his trouble. What a bunch of clowns.

Yeah, Thomson? Let's see how far qualifying yourself gets you with Jojo. I'm guessing nowhere.

Neither is BL interested in the context, conditions or facts. To equate the One-time (and I do mean 'one') presidential wannabee's vitriol and slipping grasp on reality with comments made by 3d bit anti-clinton radio baiters in the 90's says everything I need to know about you, BL.

Oh, and BTW this would be your turn at Senator War-hero vs the Incumbent - ought to work just about as nicelyu as it did for the r's in '96.
Enjoy.

It's up to you, Dan, but you might want to monitor the personal exchanges among posters on your board. Every now and then rhetoric is bound to get a little heated, which is fine, but routine throwing around of gratuitous (and unimaginative) insults like "idiot" and equally gratuitous profanity has been a signal of a community in decline on other boards (e.g. Slate's Fray) in the past. As your blog becomes (deservedly) more popular you are likely to have increasing problems with this kind of thing, and it is likely to mean less work for you in the long run if you take steps to police the board now.

Dan Drezner will never have to say that he's become Gore. He will never accomplish in his life anywhere near what Gore has.

As for the claim that he's a partisan hack; if the shoe fits, wear it. It's pretty much the definition of partisan hackery to have to admit that someone has said exactly what you did, but still try to advance the meme that the speaker is somehow out of bounds for saying it.

Zathras: routine throwing around of gratuitous (and unimaginative) insults like "idiot" and equally gratuitous profanity has been a signal of a community in decline on other boards (e.g. Slate's Fray) in the past.

If you are referring to my posts, I would note that the profanity is quoted from our host and our president. I would never stoop to foul language. I hope you are not a idiot too.

Pat Buchanan calling for a white guys religious holy war against domestic infidels is analogous to Al Gore accusing Bush of invading Iraq on a pretext? Huh?

Brother Bluto:
"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

(Whispering) "The Germans?"
(Whispering) "Forget it; he's rolling..."

I read exchanges like these and I am forced to wonder how one of the most thoughtful and polite bloggers I read can have a comment section so full of peurile shitslinging. The mind boggles.

Andy Danger: peurile shitslinging

Wash your mouth (and check your spelling). But while I've got you here...

Do you ever go hunting with Cheney and Scalia?

If not, do you wish you did?

What do you think they talk about?

See any problem with Scalia hearing Cheney's case?

I do. But I am a idiot. I just want to hear from someone wise and impartial.

The war was planned before 9/11.

I recommend a little research into the Orange war plans of thge US Navy, and all of the other Blue/color plans that were devised. It may surprise some.

Hint: that is part of the military's job

Daniel,

A little overblown and self-important, don't you think? You should get back to the classroom as well as spend more time thinking "serious" thoughts.

Just some friendly advice from a loyal reader.

Congratulations to JoJo for being the first non-spammer I've had to ban from the blog!! There have been others who have come close, but the 435th use of the word "idiot" in lieu of argumentation pushed JoJo over the top.

Dan's right. Cheney and the rest of Bush pere's advisers, esp Scowcroft, were dead-set against taking out Saddam prior to 9/11/2001. Cheney even wrote a book in the late 1990's arguing for the exact OPPOSITE course of action from the one GW Bush followed. On top of this, it was the Clinton admin that made "regime change" in Iraq official US policy!

The only Bush admin official who consistently argued for overthrowing Saddam was Wolfowitz, who had been arguing for this since 1991. 9/11, not the 2000 election, gave WOlfowitz the upper hand and helped to persuade Cheney to abandon his realpolitik belief in doing business with, not overthrowing, Saddam. Note that Scowcroft and GHW Bush did not change their opposition to the war.

Channeling this blog? I took the initiative in creating this blog!

algore04

Jojo:

9/11 had everything to do with why we needed to overthrow Hussein, and the failure of John Kerry to understand this is why I won't consider voting for him. 9/11 showed that undeterrable non-state actors were intent on killing as many of us as they can. Becuase the enemy of my enemy is my friend, those undeterrable non-state actors will, as soon as they can, enjoy the non-traceable aid of a state to multiply their force w/WMD. If that happens we're all in deep trouble. Thus Saddam, our sworn enemy in the geographic heart of the region swarming with the undeterrable non-state actors out to kill us, who ran an opaque tyranny with a history of weaopons development we had lost track of, had to go. That Bush dared to act decisively is to his everlasting credit. Kerry's finger in the wind act was pathetic.

Wow. Way to go JoJo. I get all misty when I think of the other 'powerhouses' you beat out. Skol!

Tastefully Done, Prof.

I think Bush should not be president and I do not trust Cheney and Rumsfeld. I don't know about Kerry, but I think i will vote against bush. These people give me a really bad feeling