Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Mad = Nuts, not Mad = Angry: Probably the best article I've read on former Vice President Al Gore's speech yesterday comes from National Review's Byron York entitled "Al Gore's Mad Message."
I stopped taking Al Gore seriously more than a decade ago, but the incredibly laughable part of Gore's speech -- and what convinced me that it really wasn't worth fisking the beejeezus out of -- was this:
A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. Indeed, they recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution - our system of checks and balances - was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said: "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."
An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the Founders sought to nullify in the Constitution - an all-powerful executive too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free.
All this coming from a man who repeatedly defended his boss even though he had lied to a grand jury and attempted to suborn perjury. Not to mention repeatedly raising claims of executive privlege in an attempt to hide personal acts.
The scary thing is that had Bill Clinton done the honorable thing and resigned, then Al Gore -- as the incumbent president -- probably would've been able to defeat George W. Bush in 2000. It's abundantly clear now that Gore would've been a disaster when it comes to protecting America.