Major Media's
Pernicious Perspective Of Al Gore


Somebody's been drugging the drinking water of our nation's major media. How else can you explain the ridiculous articles praising Al Gore for bowing out of presidential contention in 2004? How else can you explain the media's insane drivel, their mewling utterances of relief, that Al Gore's gone?

The water passed out at those press club luncheons has to be checked for LSD or some other hallucinogen. When the entire cadre of America's most esteemed columnists and commentators support such a flawed position, drugs must be involved somehow, someway.

Al Gore said he declined to run because he feared the 2004 election would inevitably hinge on past history rather than focusing on the future. This insinuates we should just get over the constitutional injustice of the last presidential election and get on with our devastated lives. Many Americans are still angry about the blatant injustice which shoved George W. Bush into the White House. The result has been a constitutional crisis of epic proportion. This isn't something we must get over. This is a serious issue we should resolve.

The most outrageous element in the media's slant on the Al Gore question is their explanation. The very reasons they outline as to why Mr. Gore shouldn't run are exactly the reasons why he should. They say he would be more help to the Democratic party as a consultant to the White House campaign. They say he would be more like himself without the political pressures. They say he could address the salient issues of the day more directly while on the sidelines. And they say he wouldn't have that luxury if he were a candidate. Why would any of this nonsense be in the best interests of America?

We must ask ourselves: Why would the country be better off with Mr. Gore as a consultant instead of a candidate? Why do we tolerate the morphing madness of campaign handlers who strive to present electable images rather than the most mature choice for office? If candidates can't speak frankly about the important issues at hand, why do we have elections in the first place?

In Al Gore, we witness the best this great country has to offer. He's a hard working man whose character and career are unassailable. Time and time again, Mr. Gore has placed the interests of others and the nation before his own. His great humanity is unmistakable and shines brightly for all to see. Throughout his entire life, Al Gore has exhibited the qualities of compassionate and humble leadership. Could any voter ask for more from a presidential candidate?

George W. Bush is the stark antithesis to Al Gore. In his smarmy, septic smirk, we see the worst aspects of the American Dream. Mr. Bush represents the class-conscious, martial attitudes of the landed gentry. He is the sinister image of voter disenfranchisement, corporate greed, police repression, a militarized foreign policy, the suppression of women, rampant unemployment and environmental degradation. Mr. Bush's list of woeful characteristics goes on and on and on.

It was no mere accident Trent Lott felt comfortable enough about the corporate takeover of our government to reveal his true colors at a birthday party for Strom Thurmond. Republican pandering to the "hooded" states' rights interests of the so-called Solid South is at the root of the evil atmosphere pervading Washington today. Rampant voter disenfranchisement and an errant Supreme Court decision propelled George Bush into the White House. The tacit approval of this vile approach to electing Republicans must be exposed and eliminated if America is to survive as a credible democracy.

Al Gore is correct. If he ran in 2004, the election would certainly revolve around what happened during the last cycle. But, this is exactly what should occur. The outright theft of the presidency by George W. Bush must be addressed. Since Mr. Gore was denied his right to serve our nation due to the unconstitutional actions in the last election, he must be given the chance to confront the serpentine usurper of the presidency.

If Mr. Gore represents the best America has to offer, why shouldn't he run for the White House? More important, history would be unkind to him if he ducked the man who ripped him off and clearly did him wrong. He would be promptly branded a coward. What's worse, he'd be labeled a hypocrite for abandoning the nation at the moment of her direst need. There's no evidence Mr. Gore is a coward or a hypocrite. He simply should be given the opportunity to confront Mr. Bush on a level political battle field.

The raging issue of who legitimately won the 2000 presidential election must be resolved. For the sake of our hallowed democratic principles, this issue must be settled at the polls in 2004. For decades, America has accumulated too many skeletons in her closet. There's simply no room for one more. Al Gore must run in 2004 for the good of the nation. And no one should be in the business of trying to persuade him to do otherwise.

Meanwhile, it's strongly suggested you bring your own water, if you plan to attend the next press luncheon.

Franklin L. Johnson
starhelix@aol.com