I've had a really hard time taking Gore seriously since he launched on his campaign of, "I'm not a staid centrist anymore. Really. I'm an outraged leftist now."But I have an even harder time believing him getting outraged about the Bush Administration and civil liberties. Just about every power that the Bush Administration has sought since 9/11 was something that the Clinton Administration had also been trying for.The USA PATRIOT act is the best example. It was sitting with all of its provisions already drawn up so quickly after 9/11 because it was chock full of things that the Clinton FBI and Justice Department had been trying to get but the GOP Congress had denied them.I am about as impressed with Gore as I am with those Republicans who "bravely stood up to Clinton's power grabs" before meekly roling over to give the same powers to Bush.
Incidentally, you're tragically, vastly, imensely wrong about that, but I won't get involved in that debate.You know, I might very well be wrong, as I am going from memory, and I would very much like to be corrected. I thought, though, that I remembered that the bulk of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT act were powers that the Clinton Administration had asked for from the Republican Congress and been turned down? Is this incorrect?And as long as I am accepting correction (being married has gradually made me better and better at this), I am going to admit that I've read very little of the New Gore. The thing that tends to have people swooning is his rejection of DLC centrist positions he held prior to 2000 and becoming a more left wing voice. His supporters appear to be saying that he never was a centrist, but that he only pretended to be one up until around 2002.That bothers me, though. The Gore that was a part of the magnificent spate of good government from 1992 to 2000, the competent technocrat was what? A mask worn for the rubes in the heartland?