Gore to Address "Constitutional Crisis"

[zimv20]

link

It sounds as if Al Gore is about to deliver what could be not just one of the more significant speeches of his political career but an essential challenge to the embattled presidency of George W. Bush.

In a major address slated for delivery Monday in Washington, the former Vice President is expected to argue that the Bush administration has created a "Constitutional crisis" by acting without the authorization of the Congress and the courts to spy on Americans and otherwise abuse basic liberties.

Aides who are familiar with the preparations for the address say that Gore will frame his remarks in Constitutional language. The Democrat who beat Bush by more than 500,000 votes in the 2000 presidential election has agreed to deliver his remarks in a symbolically powerful location: the historic Constitution Hall of the Daughters of the American Revolution. But this will not be the sort of cautious, bureacratic speech for which Gore was frequently criticized during his years in the Senate and the White House.

Indeed, his aides and allies are framing it as a "call to arms" in defense of the Bill of Rights and the rule of law in a time of executive excess.

The vice president will, according to the groups that have arranged for his appearance -- the bipartisan Liberty Coalition and the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy -- address "the threat posed by policies of the Bush Administration to the Constitution and the checks and balances it created. The speech will specifically point to domestic wiretapping and torture as examples of the administration's efforts to extend executive power beyond Congressional direction and judicial review."

Coming only a few weeks after U.S. Representative John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, introduced resolutions to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, and to explore the issue of impeachment, Gore in expected to "make the case that the country -- including the legislative and judicial branches and all Americans -- must act now to defend the systems put into place by the country's founders to curb executive power or risk permanent and irreversible damage to the Constitution."

Don't expect a direct call for impeachment from the former vice president. But do expect Gore to make reference to Richard Nixon, whose abuses of executive authority led to calls for his impeachment -- a fate the 37th president avoided by resigning in 1974.

Gore's speech will add fuel to the fire that was ignited when it was revealed that Bush had secretly authorized National Security Agency to monitor communications in the United States without warrants. Gore will argue that the domestic wiretapping policy is only the latest example of the administration exceeding its authority under the Constitution.

With a Congressional inquiry into Bush's repeated violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act scheduled to begin in February -- and with Bush already preparing to pitch an Nixon-style defense that suggests it is appropriate for the executive branch to violate the law when national security matters are involved -- Gore will articulate the more traditional view that reasonable checks and balances are required even in a time of war. And he will do so in a bipartisan context that will make it tougher for Republican critics to dismiss the former vice president's assertion that the Constitution is still the law of the land.

Former U.S. Representative Bob Barr, the Georgia Republican who served as one of the most conservative members of the House, plans to introduce Gore. Barr, an outspoken critic of the abuses of civil liberties contained in the USA Patriot Act critic who has devoted his post-Congressional years to defending the Bill of Rights, refers to the president's secret authorization of domestic wiretapping as "an egregious violation of the electronic surveillance laws."

Count on Gore, who has pulled few punches in the speeches he has delivered in recent months, to be at least as caustic.

[blackfox]

My curiousity is piqued - anyone have an idea if it will be broadcast (live or otherwise)? Either on Network, Cable or Internet? I would like to check it out.

[leekohler]

Wow. Color me impressed. It's about time.

[Sayhey]

Originally Posted by blackfox

My curiousity is piqued - anyone have an idea if it will be broadcast (live or otherwise)? Either on Network, Cable or Internet? I would like to check it out.

CSPAN has it scheduled to be broadcast Monday at 12:00 EST.

[Mike Teezie]

Originally Posted by Sayhey

CSPAN has it scheduled to be broadcast Monday at 12:00 EST.

Crap, I'll be at work. Hopefully someone can Tivo it.

[solvs]

Why do they always wait until after they've lost to start showing some guts? And humanity? Better late than never, I guess. If this was the Gore that ran for office in 2000, I would have gotten off my butt and voted for him.

Let this be a lesson to you Dems... when you run for office, act like you have nothing to lose. Don't listen to some commitee, playing it "safe". Prove you have balls. We like that.

[Thomas Veil]

The cynic in me says that words and speeches aren't going to do thing to stop this "president". They bounce off him like so many pebbles.

However, if Gore's speech stirs people to anger -- gets them to at least write their congressmen, or better yet actually march in protest -- then maybe something positive will happen.

[mactastic]

Well, in addition to the spinal implant, the Democratic party desperately needs some of it's senior members who aren't seeking higher office to come out forcefully on issues like this. It helps provide political cover for elected officials who want to make the same points, but who's ass is hanging in the wind if they do -- ie John Murtha.

I mean, Christ, how long did it take to get a handful of Democrats on the record as saying if they knew then what they know now they wouldn't have authorized Bush to go to war? Over 2 YEARS! Even Kerry wouldn't say it until long after the election...

[Sayhey]

I agree with you mac, but to be fair Gore and Carter have been doing this for years now. They just get dismissed as cranks by most of the media. Clinton (Bill, that is) is the guy who really needs to speak out forcefully, and while he has said a few things, he has largely refrained from taking on Bush. That may change on this spying scandal.

With Democratic elected officials, the current Congressional leadership, especially Reid and Pelosi, are head and shoulders above the last crop. With Daschle and Gephardt it became more of a question of "just how far should I bend over, Mr. President?"

To me the real problem is in the statements of 2008 contenders and a couple of "mavericks" (i.e. Lieberman and Nelson) who still think Bush is right on the war. Among the contenders for 2008, Clinton's (Hillary, that is) refusal to strongly come out for ending the war is the most troubling. If only because she is the presumed front runner. I take succor in the leadership of Feingold. If Russ begins to emerge as a real alternative to Hillary, we will have a much more forceful Democratic response out there - even if Clinton wins the nomination.

Perhaps the most disappointing response is coming from that mythical sector of Senators, the "moderate" republicans. I've yet to see a meaningful challenge to the Bush on the spying (read Imperial President) or on the war. The only thing that comes close is McCain's torture amendment, and we saw just what impact that had on Bush in his remarks. The worst has been Specter and his kissass approach on Alito. Pro-Choice Republicans my foot! When it comes to the most important vote to save abortion rights in a generation they all meekly go along with the far right.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Originally Posted by Sayhey

I agree with you mac, but to be fair Gore and Carter have been doing this for years now. They just get dismissed as cranks by most of the media. Clinton (Bill, that is) is the guy who really needs to speak out forcefully, and while he has said a few things, he has largely refrained from taking on Bush. That may change on this spying scandal.

Right or wrong, Clinton is the one that should be leading the Democratic Party in its debate. Despite his troubles, he is still better regarded than Bush is now.

Carter in the long term may go down as one of the better leaders during and after the fact.

Whether it was a blow job in the WH, or the wiretapping by the current administration - the people as a whole seem not to truly care here in the US. I have been impressed in the past with the actions of the people in European nations that do national strikes, and fill every plaza when they feel they are not being represented by those they elected.

IMO, we as a nation take for granted our rights and privileges. Outside of 9-11 we have not suffered the destruction that many in Europe has faced for so many more years.

The number of us that either lived in the Depression or were the next generation of those that did, are dwindling. Sacrifice is not something that about 70% of this nation knows. At least in the Depression Era or WW II concept.

Just look at how Londoners responded after the Kings Cross bombings. Or how the people of Madrid bounced back after their terrorist attack.

[mactastic]

Originally Posted by Sayhey

I agree with you mac, but to be fair Gore and Carter have been doing this for years now. They just get dismissed as cranks by most of the media. Clinton (Bill, that is) is the guy who really needs to speak out forcefully, and while he has said a few things, he has largely refrained from taking on Bush. That may change on this spying scandal.

With Democratic elected officials, the current Congressional leadership, especially Reid and Pelosi, are head and shoulders above the last crop. With Daschle and Gephardt it became more of a question of "just how far should I bend over, Mr. President?"

To me the real problem is in the statements of 2008 contenders and a couple of "mavericks" (i.e. Lieberman and Nelson) who still think Bush is right on the war. Among the contenders for 2008, Clinton's (Hillary, that is) refusal to strongly come out for ending the war is the most troubling. If only because she is the presumed front runner. I take succor in the leadership of Feingold. If Russ begins to emerge as a real alternative to Hillary, we will have a much more forceful Democratic response out there - even if Clinton wins the nomination.

Perhaps the most disappointing response is coming from that mythical sector of Senators, the "moderate" republicans. I've yet to see a meaningful challenge to the Bush on the spying (read Imperial President) or on the war. The only thing that comes close is McCain's torture amendment, and we saw just what impact that had on Bush in his remarks. The worst has been Specter and his kissass approach on Alito. Pro-Choice Republicans my foot! When it comes to the most important vote to save abortion rights in a generation they all meekly go along with the far right.

Sure individuals have been speaking out, but the organized effort at providing cover includes think-tanks, media exposure, and the money support to keep it all rolling. What the right has working for them.

[zimv20]

anyone manage to listen to a live broadcast? i was unable to, but i just finished reading the speech.

well said, imo. lots of good bits, but my favorite came near the end:

Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously?

It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.

still can't believe we got bozo bush instead of the eloquent mr gore.

[blackfox]

Originally Posted by zimv20

anyone manage to listen to a live broadcast? i was unable to, but i just finished reading the speech.

I watched it (via streaming media). Evidently there was a little trouble with the satellite feed, so Rep. Barr was unable to make his intro of Mr Gore.

As for Gore, I liked the speech also, although Gore was a little uninspiring in his delivery, though he gained considerable enthusiasm towards the end, which reminded me of the bearded Gore from a few years back - full of fire.

I wonder how the Administration and/or the GOP will play this speech - if indeed they even give it acknowledgement. It would be fairly hard to pin the "partisan politics" label on the speech as it was obviously anything but.

I found the section of Gores' speech concerning the decline of the Senate to be particularily interesting - not because it was surprising - but because it was quite frank - and imo, therefore quite pragmatic.

Talk about a State of the Union address...

[zimv20]

Originally Posted by blackfox

Talk about a State of the Union address...

indeed. for once, i'd like to hear something other than "strong" at the end of "The state of our union is". i recommend "imperiled".

fwiw, abc world news tonight did do a segment on the speech. i noted, however, that it was short and they used gore's image and speech as background only, while elizabeth vargas gave a summary over top. i don't think a 10 or 15 second soundbite was asking too much.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Republicans will resort to name calling and swiftboating this subject into so much crap that in the end the typical TV watching, junk food eating fat arse American will think its gospel and that Gore is the Enemy. Our Govt has gone down the tubes when a draft dodging president/vice president are pushing for torture,spying on americans without warrants.

[mactastic]

I've already heard a couple versions of "Oh he's still sore about losing the '00 election."

[zimv20]

and here's the RNC reaction:

Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said the speech demonstrated Gore's "lack of understanding of the threats facing America."

She added: "While the president works to protect Americans from terrorists, Democrats deliver no solutions of their own, only diatribes laden with inaccuracies and anger."

interesting how she says "Democrats" instead of "Al Gore". the article also says the WH had no comment. at least not one they'll make directly, it seems.

[xsedrinam]

Originally Posted by mactastic

I've already heard a couple versions of "Oh he's still sore about losing the '00 election."

I don't know exactly what it is about Gore that bugs me. Whether it's his delivery and body language which seem to stifle his content, or what. I can both see and accept Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, even George Sr. as needed voices of the statesmen who have mellowed with years of experience and their positions for better or worse I can at least hear and resonate where it fits. I just can't hear Gore.

[zimv20]

Originally Posted by xsedrinam

I just can't hear Gore.

it's too bad. i'm hard pressed to think of anyone more qualified or able to lead this country.

have you read the speech? maybe words on the page will work better.

[xsedrinam]

Originally Posted by zimv20

it's too bad. i'm hard pressed to think of anyone more qualified or able to lead this country.

have you read the speech? maybe words on the page will work better.

Ya, that's the paradox. I read an article (can't remember which one) a couple of months ago having to do with integrity issues and the slippery slope politics in general is on, and thought it was well written and provided food for thought. It's the "man" himself and, though I've never met him, I've held to a general principle in rhetoric that "meaning is in people". I admit to needing to look harder at the whys and whats of it, but it's had not so much to do with content as with delivery. Maybe after all these years, I really do listen at a 7th grade level.
Added edit: Is there any chance we'll see a Hillary/Gore ticket? I think the Democratic Party has some major identity challenges to overcome in presenting any credible ticket for '08.

[blackfox]

Originally Posted by originally quoted by zimv20

Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said the speech demonstrated Gore's "lack of understanding of the threats facing America."

Well, there's today's irony award recipient.
I must say, whatever your political stripe - the things at stake right now - civil liberties, threats of international and domestic terrorism, integrity of our system of governance (to name a few) - seem to be given a back seat once again to rhetoric - which should give pause to us all.

Although portions of Gore's speech made explicit or implicit references to the Bush Administration (negatively) it was in relation to a larger series of points - to those serious threats - which I would think everyone would agree deserve some consideration - as they are NOT partisan.

I would've thought a more appropriate response from our current Administration would be to address those points with the consideration they deserve - and to make their case for their actions in reference to that context - do we as citizens not deserve as much? From any Administration?

[solvs]

Originally Posted by xsedrinam

I don't know exactly what it is about Gore that bugs me.

It's not just you. I can't stand Bush, but Gore has always rubbed me the wrong way. Nobody likes the smartest guy in school. Especially if he is too cocky. But if this was him in '00, I would have voted for him.

(for the record, I didn't vote for Bush either. Didn't vote at all because I didn't really feel it necessary, especially being in CA at the time. Almost voted for Nader, but I'm glad I didn't. If only we knew huh)

[takao]

Originally Posted by zimv20

still can't believe we got bozo bush instead of the eloquent mr gore.

that has been a mystery from the beginning

that aside he gets extra kudos for voice acting as himself in Futurama

[XNine]

Gore...Bush... is there a difference in the level of stupidity?

I think we should jsut impeach Bush, strike Gore from ever speaking again, and get George Carlin in office where someone who actually knows what the hell is going on can take charge.

[zimv20]

Originally Posted by Onizuka

strike Gore from ever speaking again

are you taking issue with his speaking style or his words?