In a long interview/profile with writer David Remnick, in this week’s New Yorker, Al Gore perfectly describes George W. Bush:

“The real distinction of this Presidency is that, at its core, he is a very weak man. He projects himself as incredibly strong, but behind closed doors he is incapable of saying no to his biggest financial supporters and his coalition in the Oval Office. He’s been shockingly malleable to Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and the whole New American Century bunch. He was rolled in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. He was too weak to resist it.

“I’m not of the school that questions his intelligence,” Gore went on. “There are different kinds of intelligence, and it’s arrogant for a person with one kind of intelligence to question someone with another kind. He certainly is a master at some things, and he has a following. He seeks strength in simplicity. But, in today’s world, that’s often a problem. I don’t think that he’s weak intellectually. I think that he is incurious. It’s astonishing to me that he’d spend an hour with his incoming Secretary of the Treasury and not ask him a single question. But I think his weakness is a moral weakness. I think he is a bully, and, like all bullies, he’s a coward when confronted with a force that he’s fearful of. His reaction to the extravagant and unbelievably selfish wish list of the wealthy interest groups that put him in the White House is obsequious. The degree of obsequiousness that is involved in saying ‘yes, yes, yes, yes, yes’ to whatever these people want, no matter the damage and harm done to the nation as a whole—that can come only from genuine moral cowardice. I don’t see any other explanation for it, because it’s not a question of principle. The only common denominator is each of the groups has a lot of money that they’re willing to put in service to his political fortunes and their ferocious and unyielding pursuit of public policies that benefit them at the expense of the nation.”

Wow. Perfect. And he has this to say about Bush’s “blessed are the rich and powerful” brand of Christianity:

“It’s a particular kind of religiosity,” he said. “It’s the American version of the same fundamentalist impulse that we see in Saudi Arabia, in Kashmir, in religions around the world: Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Muslim. They all have certain features in common. In a world of disconcerting change, when large and complex forces threaten familiar and comfortable guideposts, the natural impulse is to grab hold of the tree trunk that seems to have the deepest roots and hold on for dear life and never question the possibility that it’s not going to be the source of your salvation. And the deepest roots are in philosophical and religious traditions that go way back. You don’t hear very much from them about the Sermon on the Mount, you don’t hear very much about the teachings of Jesus on giving to the poor, or the beatitudes. It’s the vengeance, the brimstone.”

Read the whole profile. He’s a funny, angry, adaptable, passionate, complicated figure. (And remember, he not only won the popular vote in 2000; he won “more than any Democrat in history, more than any candidate in history except Ronald Reagan in 1984…”)


One thought on “

Add yours

  1. MizM, you deserve a nationally syndicated column in a big newspaper given your ability to read and report your opinion on so much–and integrated to well! I don’t need to read anything else!! (Sound familiar?) What strikes me, very sadly, is that anyone can say ANYTHING about a candidate including blatant lies and fabrications and get away with it!! In the past (if I remember correctly) once ‘proof’ of a lie was exposed, it was the end of the issue and the lier lost credibility. Now it seems that no amount of substantiated fact, nor documented records a la Bush’s AWOL records, or the ‘confessions’ of retired officers who have publicly said, “I never saw him in my unit, as he professes. . .” seem to bring an end to the issue. Documents are presented as fabricated, medals as ‘fake,’ or not really earned . . .!! What’s going on here?!? Has the country’s fear and protection of one’s ideological imagery obliterated any rational understanding of ‘fair test’? Have the standards for ascertaining fact, not to mention truth, changed so radically that they are no longer used to measure things? Seems like anyone can say anything with impunity!
    . . .and that’s pretty scary. So “bring it on” MizM and continue showing us the inanities of what’s going down and the madness that has invaded and is distroying ‘tried and true’ discourse. Thanks, SirReal

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: