For progressives, the only sensible way to approach Byron York’s new book is by giving it “the Washington read”—index first—to find the names of your friends and allies. It’s like cracking open a high school yearbook, except the homecoming king is George Soros. Unfortunately, The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy isn’t nearly as enjoyable when read from page one. York, the… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (18)Page 1 of 1 pagesAl Gore is the best man for the job, by a long shot. Gore/Clinton 08’
Posted by Lefty on May 3, 2005 at 11:57 AM Yes he is. He’s, by far, the best chance we have...not only winning but at righting a few alarming wrongs. Gore is Dean-Type. This is the face of the party that needs to gain control. The DLC needs to be ousted. I think Gore is great. However, I’m not sure a polarizing person like Hillary is a good VP choice. I have no problem with her. Others might be less interested in Gore knowing Clinton is Number 2. Nonetheless, the combo could really win handily and/or force the GOP to soften a bit.
Posted by John on May 3, 2005 at 1:16 PM We have to make a few Red States turn Blue. Easier said than done, but getting someone who can appeal to the Nascar crowd is essential (like what Clinton did).
Gore lost Tennessee. If your homestate doesn’t support you, they sure won’t after you’ve spent a few years up in Northeastern academia as a professor.
Look to the red states in the south (Warner? Edwards?). Also, keep the focus on military service (Clark?). We need a person with enough swagger (read: Bush’s “resoluteness") that the Red States love, but someone with the progressive ideals that the traditional Dems will vote for. Hillary is but one election cycle away after that. After that, Obama.
My vote for 2008: Montana’s Gov. Schwietzer or PA’s Gov. Rendell.
Posted by Don on May 3, 2005 at 1:43 PM I think Gore had a chance in 04, and should have run, but now it’s too late and please, everyone forget about Hillary! There’s no way she can win.
Posted by Mary on May 3, 2005 at 2:10 PM How about Democrats present a coherent vision for America before we talk about who the candidate should be?? If we have the vision, the right candidate will become clear.
Posted by Beata on May 3, 2005 at 3:08 PM A coherent vision for America? Hmmm. Let’s see . . . an America that values the interest of public health, safety and welfare above the interest of corporate profit . . . an America that places the interest of free and fair elections above the interest of corporate profits . . . an America that places the interest of an open and honest media above the interest of corporate profits . . . an America that places the interest of an independent judiciary above the interest or corporate profits . . . an America that understands that there are certain things that an honest government can do better, safer, fairer and more efficiently than private enterprise (like taking and counting the vote) . . . an America that understands that the purpose of the “no establishement” and “free exercise” clauses of the 1st Amendment were intended to “build a wall of separation between church and state.” - T. J. . . . an America that also understands that the time has come for a constitutional amendment mandating a wall of separation between commerce and state.
As I see it, the government, under republican rule is more corrupt than at any other time in U.S. history, despite campaign finance reform.
Posted by Lefty on May 3, 2005 at 4:34 PM well said Lefty.
A last component for that vision that I would add is that what you wrote transcends all other issues and is a mandatory non-partisan requirement in people’s minds. Anything less is RADICAL and HARMFUL.
Posted by John on May 3, 2005 at 4:41 PM Look out Lefty,
You heathen Progressive. Do you not fear the wrath of the Corporate/Christian Right. Keep this up and Gonzales will be knocking on your door to outsourse you to Syria for “rehabilitation.”
Posted by Merlin on May 3, 2005 at 7:03 PM Gore-Clinton? I seriously doubt it would fly with the American public. Even though Hillary is moving toward the center, she would be a “lightening rod” in the red states. In fact, her moving toward the center could work against her elsewhere. I like Gore, however, he made serious misjudgments in 2000. First, he rejected anything to do with Clinton probably fearing the lingering “sex scandal” taint. Second he did not run on his record or his progressive strengths (on the environment, etc.) Third, he chose Lieberman as his VP. This last one had me in the loo regurgitating my lunch.
I’m more for a man like Dean. Someone who has the balls to speak his mind, has humor, and understands how to connect with the public. (And he is tough.) Neither Gore nor Kerry had the ability to do these things.I suggest we need a man to exude strength (to calm the terrorism frightened public.-Check the terrorism polls. Still high,) without the current foreign policy insanity of pre-emptive war etc., and without the desire to change every “regime” in the world to suit our tastes. And on the other side, a man of compassion for the people.
I nominate Bobby Kennedy…
Posted by Merlin on May 3, 2005 at 7:28 PM More duckspeak from your friendly neighborhood Ministry of Truth. Bush is a victim if he’s called a victim enough times, ala “Regime change in Iraq is payback for 9/11”; who cares if it’s true, just repeat it aggressively and pretty soon it’ll gain a life of its own.
Why we’ll try even harder next time? How ‘bout because since 2001, America’s honorability, sense of legal ethics, and role as a beneficial participant in the world community has never been so severely called into question.
Please, though, no Gore or Clinton in 2008! Flirtin’ with disaster…
Posted by Kuya on May 3, 2005 at 7:49 PM Merlin,
Her proposed universal health care plan aside, Hillary is otherwise firmly right of center. JMHO.
Ralph Nader on the other hand is one of the few public figures I can think of who is still left of center. If he would only run as a Democrat (even if they are 1/4 as corrupt as republicans), at least he would have a chance.
Posted by Lefty on May 3, 2005 at 8:02 PM Gov. Mark Warner(President)of Virginia and Sen. Barrack Obama of Illinois(Vice-President)is the best ticket the Democrats can run in 2008.
Posted by Mark Cartwright on May 3, 2005 at 10:36 PM Hi Kuya,
You Said:“As for conspiracies, perhaps the PNAC gang might qualify.”
The most frightening part of this neocon disaster is that it has all been done out in the open! There never been anything hidden as in a conspiracy. This in your face “Bend over, I’m going to screw you!,” attitude has been going on since Reagan started doing it in 1980. Of course he honed his skills on California as Governor before that. It has been the same script from then until now.
Magic only works when both the magician and the audience accept the program. The American public has always loved Disneyland and magic. They want to believe in the magician. They reject unmasking the fraud. (I know a couple of people who argue emotionally that WMDs are there. Just haven’t been found yet. Even now that Bush has now admitted they never existed. Saddam buried them in the desert, they say. This, almost 2 years into the war.) Kicking that habit is hard to do. Like kicking drugs. Or admitting that the husband that regularly beats you is not a wonderful husband. Fear, Disneyland and magic…
Posted by Merlin on May 3, 2005 at 10:36 PM Hello Merlin,
I think it’s clear that the audience continues to accept the program, sadly. I remarked on the credulousness of Americans in another post somewhere in here, and honestly I’m not too surprised that you have an acquaintance who still “believes in” Bush’s justifications for war even after they’ve stopped being used. York’s book will likely set off more credulous responses, “the creeping scourge of conspiratorial liberalism”, I could almost write Hannity’s or Coulter’s scripts. I’m not saying Americans are entirely gullible or dumb, mind you (Mike Moore shot himself in the foot with that off-the-cuff remark a while back), but they WANT to believe. Belief is very emotionally satisfying, it feels good when faced with a bizarre and contrary world. I can relate, there’s things I hold onto as beliefs too that others would think simplistic or foolish. But the ingredient of democracy that I’d hoped would grow in America is skepticism toward authority, at least insofar as holding the powerful ones responsible for their mistakes, deceptions, or acts of bad faith. I just don’t see that sort of thing playing out, other than partisan-style skepticism, my-guy-is-good, their-guy-is-bad. Any more, it seems that whether one gets the critical eye or the unquestioning acceptance depends more on the political label you wear or what state you won in the last election.Hell, maybe it’s to be expected during wartime. There’s definitely a side-choosing ethic that gets handed around when a war is on. Are you loyal or a traitor, a believer or a heretic? Red or blue?
So are you with me or against me???
<sigh> This too shall pass.
Posted by Kuya on May 4, 2005 at 12:02 AM Please let it be Gore. The only person better than Gore would be Dean, who has promised not to run, followed by Hillary.
Posted by U Scare Me on May 4, 2005 at 5:44 AM Hi Ho,
Oh,yes,Byron York.
Does this party mouthpiece not look like a bad rendering of an intellectual from a “B” movie starring Shannon Tweed?We’re supposed to take him seriously?Why?His book is nothing more than the same old quasi-fascist paranoia,in this case designed to appeal to the almost white-collar section of the republican party.
Harsh?Maybe.Nonetheless,like the author,York’s book is intended to be displayed and give the illusion of intellect and philosophy.Unfortunately,for the way-right,they cannot cover their intent with a veneer no matter how well concocted.Glasses and a book do not make you an intellectual.Unfortunately,the red-staters,who live by the formulas amd mechanisms of authors like Malloy,can’t seem to grasp this.
Posted by wwoods on May 5, 2005 at 5:28 AM I love the story but I’m going to disagree on a point. Re: “Dallas.”
I have family in Texas. York’s data may or may not go into this but in Dallas Moore’s film played at the independent theater. Not at any of the large chains. My sister works at that theater and she can tell you that the film played to packed audiences and frequently was sold out.
To argue that it didn’t play as well as it did in Seattle (where it had more theaters showing it) is to accept York’s point.
As for “Red States” b.s. can we lose the phrase. To focus on my family, I have family in East Texas. They didn’t buy tickets to the film. That proves they’re “red” staters?
I don’t think so. I think it proves that the film didn’t play in East Texas. Not in Kilgore, not in Tyler, not in Longview.
The people didn’t decide that. Owners and chains did. Please don’t paint the people “red” for decisions they had no say in. To buy a ticket and see the film, they had to either go 2 1/2 hours (or more) to Dallas or drive to Louis.
But the film made no money in East Texas. Not because people didn’t want to see it, but because no theater would show it.
Posted by Dona on May 5, 2005 at 11:24 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Craig Aaron
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
