David Remnick, writing in the "New Yorker", has done a service to psychologists; he has demonstrated not only a cause for the now-infamous "Bush Derangement Syndrome", which has inspired countless luminaries to spew the most vacuous yet vitriol-laced screeds against the President seen in the past half-century, but also demonstrated the depth of insanity to which BDS sufferers not only sink, but indeed cling, preferring their malicious delusion to the truth, no matter what.

In the column, entitled 'Party Talk', Mr. Remnick gushes with prolonged and wholly undeserved praise for failed Presidential candidate Al Gore. After hinting that a Gore Presidency beginning in 2001 would somehow have been fantastically better in results than the real-world version (and fantasy is a key component to Remnick's thoughts), Remnick falls back on a convenient lie, saying: "It is worse than painful to reflect on how much better off the United States and the world would be today if the outcome of the 2000 election had been permitted to correspond with the wishes of the electorate."

While Gore did win a greater percentage of the Popular Vote in 2000 than Bush, it was a small amount, but more to the point the "wishes of the electorate" are constitutionally established through the results of the Electoral College. Not only is Remnick claiming that we should have ignored the Constitution of the United States, he is claiming that the electorate of thirty states which preferred Bush to Gore should have been ignored.

Remnick, having started lying, smoothly moves on to the next big lie, claiming that "the attacks of September 11, 2001, would likely not have been avoided, though there is ample evidence, in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere, that Gore and his circle were far more alert to the threat of Islamist terrorism than Bush and his."

I will say bluntly, that no such evidence existed, or exists now. Al Qaeda engaged in a declaration of war against the United States in 1995, and the Clinton-Gore Administration took no specific action at all to address the threat from Osama bin Laden whatsoever. It is, again, a typical tactic of the Left, to throw out a lie and hope it is unchallenged.

Personally, I have to say I see a bitter irony that a man unwilling to address the threat of Global Terrorism, to such a degree that he pretends Gore's timidity would be preferable to Bush's decisiveness in the Middle East, should try to claim that an election long proven to have been decided to have been both valid and Constitutional, should be the case to claim that "the historical damage is too profound."

So why bring up Gore again? His reputation in the Democratic Party, circa 2004, should have been lesson enough, but no. Remnick and other minions gush about Gore's "quality of judgment", never mind his episode of campaigning for funds at Buddhist temples, that his campaign to coerce selected nations to be punished for unproven charges in climate change somehow makes him a man with "visionary leadership". And of course, to Liberal minds the nomination for an Academy Award and the Nobel Prize (in demagoguery) makes him all but a front-runner.

When the Republican Party deserted President Bush in 2006 because they wanted to play up their own egos, the voters saw little difference between the corruption of the Right and the corruption of the Left, and put the Democrats back into power. I was worried that the Democrats would learn the lesson the Republicans ignored, and that we might see an honest, sane, candidate from their party in 2008. When so many of the left see the pompous, self-serving Al Gore as qualified in any way, they seem to me to be repeating their blunders of the last two Presidential campaigns, and thank God if they do it again. Provided of course, that the Republicans can ignore their strong desire to present a buffoon of their own.