Apples and oranges. I think the difference is that Gore is qualified regardless of whether you like his policies. I saw, and still see, Palin as unqualified. McCain was not scary. McCain-Palin was.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
What if - Al Gore had won the 2000 election?
- Thread starter Rolfe
- Start date
Apples and oranges. I think the difference is that Gore is qualified regardless of whether you like his policies. I saw, and still see, Palin as unqualified. McCain was not scary. McCain-Palin was.
Right. At the time AlGore ran, he was at least 35 years of age and was a natural born citizen of the United States. He met all the qualifications necessary.
Well, I guess on that basis you are qualified to quarterback the Steelers in the Superbowl next year. Good luck.
Well, I guess on that basis you are qualified to quarterback the Steelers in the Superbowl next year. Good luck.
If the NFL relied on voting to decide on who should fill what position, and I put myself in contention, you might have actually made a valid analogy. Not to mention the Bolts will be representing the AFC in the SB in 2010.
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 17,396
Yep, as if the disaster Bush created certainly is less scary than to think about what if Gore had won.
Gore-Palin 2012!
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,846
Remember that this is all post-loss, though. Had he won, he'd never go anywhere near this 3rd rail. He was just trying to gin up some support for 2004, or even 2008, but that never materialized. So he's now an also-ran elder statesman, I guess. Wherever failed presidential candidates go to retire.
I'm in a room, more like a hole.
O'er there is Kerry; e'er there sits Dole.
I'd like to introduce you to a much simpler explanation. It is parsimonious and has high explanatory and predictive power: Politicians just want the power, that's all.
Don't treat their issues or planks as anything but tools to be used and discarded in that goal. Hell, thanks to meme theory, they may even believe some of it, yet we realize that is just an enabler for their actual activities in the real world regarding the gaining and holding of power. Even more astoundingly, some of 'em may even be true, or "work", but if you're debating that, you're already too close to the forest to see the trees.
Last edited:
If you mention AlGore, or the sci-fi flick he narrated, in the JREFer global warming threads, the warmers don't exactly warm up to him.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4009978#post4009978
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4010558#post4010558
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 17,396
drainbread
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 101
Gore won the national popular vote, not the election. For Gore to have won the election then the established rules would have to have been broken by the Supreme Court.
Bush won Florida, it really is that simple, the only way you can say that Gore "might" have won is by counting every over and under vote as a vote for Gore.
And on the outside, there is Gore, one year at the Academy Awards, another in Stockholm accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.
Drives the right wing nuts, it does.
One day AlGore will be forced to show the Academy Award that sports his name, and after rummaging in his Sub Zero, he will produce a package of bologna. The only Oscar related item in his house.
That isn't correct.
The Media Consortium Florida Ballot Project found that if all Florida ballots had been counted using consistent standards, Gore would have won the election. No matter what standard for counting votes was used.
Gangularis
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 980
Boy, people just love to tear down Gore..
I honestly really wonder if 9/11 would've happened. It would've been a completely different national security team. Gore probably would've been on vacation a lot less...
I honestly really wonder if 9/11 would've happened. It would've been a completely different national security team. Gore probably would've been on vacation a lot less...
davefoc
Philosopher
As people have suggested above it is wildly unlikely that Gore would have taken the country to war in Iraq. I think, it is unlikely that any other main stream Republican would have taken the country to war in Iraq either.
And for that matter, not only would a Gore administration have been much different than Bush's, so would that of any other mainstream Republican candidate.
In the 2000 election the country spent hundreds of millions of dollars to select the president and the result was the selection of the most corrupt and inept candidate from either party.
Would any of the other mainstream presidential candidates have allowed the congressional cronyism, ear marks and wild fiscal irresponsibility to go unchecked? I doubt it.
Would any other president have allowed the massive real estate ponzi scheme that has savaged the nation to continue without any attempt to rein it in? I doubt it but I'm not sure. Clearly the Democrats and the Republicans played key roles in starting it and allowing it to go forward. I think a competent president may have been able to improve the situation but maybe not.
Overall, the country suffered through the effects of a bumbling, narcissistic presidency that savaged the nation. In the end, my sense of it is that the worst effect of the Bush administration will be that the country has learned the wrong lessons out of all this. The country is full of people today declaring the Bush presidency proof of the idea that small government, free market ideas are disastrous. The Bush presidency only proved that ineptitude, corruption, jingoistic militarism and bury your head in the sand ideas about science are not good qualities in a president.
And for that matter, not only would a Gore administration have been much different than Bush's, so would that of any other mainstream Republican candidate.
In the 2000 election the country spent hundreds of millions of dollars to select the president and the result was the selection of the most corrupt and inept candidate from either party.
Would any of the other mainstream presidential candidates have allowed the congressional cronyism, ear marks and wild fiscal irresponsibility to go unchecked? I doubt it.
Would any other president have allowed the massive real estate ponzi scheme that has savaged the nation to continue without any attempt to rein it in? I doubt it but I'm not sure. Clearly the Democrats and the Republicans played key roles in starting it and allowing it to go forward. I think a competent president may have been able to improve the situation but maybe not.
Overall, the country suffered through the effects of a bumbling, narcissistic presidency that savaged the nation. In the end, my sense of it is that the worst effect of the Bush administration will be that the country has learned the wrong lessons out of all this. The country is full of people today declaring the Bush presidency proof of the idea that small government, free market ideas are disastrous. The Bush presidency only proved that ineptitude, corruption, jingoistic militarism and bury your head in the sand ideas about science are not good qualities in a president.
Do you think AlGore would have been more or less sympathetic to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, the chief enablers of the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac ponzi scheme?
davefoc
Philosopher
I'm not sure. I think he would have been more receptive to rebuilding the FBI fraud division that was redeployed in the wake of 9/11. I think he would have been more receptive to enforcing regulations with regard to the large financial institutions that had switched over to almost pure ponzi scheme implementers while the real estate bubble grew.
In general, I think any reasonably competent president, Democrat or Republican would have been very wary of the situation that was developing. Would Gore have fought against the partisan pressures to do the right thing. Maybe. The only thing for certain here is that Bush did not effectively deal with the problem and somebody else might have.
I'm just curious what you base this on. It seems to me there is a common belief by many people that Bush only went to Iraq to win "daddy's war" or other such explanations. But just saying it doesn't make it true.
I'm curious to know why you suspect that other main stream Republican leaders would have not have taken the country to war in Iraq? What do you base this on? Why is there a belief that the Iraq was some completely personal cowboy moment for Bush?
Things may not have gone rather swimmingly over there in the long run. But I'll always remember the cries of dread before it started. 50k dead! Endless urban warfare! Unwinnable! Vietnam 2! But things actually went so much better than any of that. I'm not in any way convinced it wasn't a good idea to fight the terrorists there, as they came in from Syria, Iran, etc. And I'm not convinced we haven't put a huge hurt on terrorism worldwide.
But I am convinced my previous two sentences will be ridiculed, and seen as the height of stupidity, and laughed at by some here. I'm certain of it. I just find it sad because I never actually see good reasoning behind such ridicule. Just a mentality that said person must be a fool if they don't agree. I'm sure you guys can do better than that. In your worlds, Bush sucks (worst president ever), Iraq was an unmitigated disaster, and everything conservative sucks, is evil, is fundamentalist, is stupid, and is dangerous. And you gang together in this mentality and ridicule those that disagree. But you are only marginalizing the opposition as much as possible, not actually taking on their ideals or beliefs at all. You just seek to ridicule them into non-existence?
My belief is that after 9-11, everyone came together in a truly honest and touching way. But it wasn't long before Bush haters couldn't stomach it. Not out of a hatred of America, but a hatred of Bush and conservatives. Everyone "went along" with the idea of attack on Afghanistan. There was a handful of protesters, but not very much. But once it got to be Iraq, many on the left simply couldn't withhold their hatred of the man and just let loose on him. They played the patriotic act long enough. They simply couldn't stomach it anymore. And he absolutely could not be allowed to have any kind of victories. Anywhere. Ever.
And now, for some, the idea of even giving the slightest credit (even begrudgingly), is something that is well beyond them.
Last edited:
Gangularis
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 980
I couldn't disagree, more. After 9/11, a lot of us had a new appreciation for Bush and his cowboy way...He shed a few tears and let us know he was going to "hunt down" the culprits behind those atrocious events.. But then..he started going on about Invading Iraq.. and a lot of us were just left with jaws agape, in wonderment...... "Umm.. UBL is that way.. wtf??"
I think most of us weren't looking to hate bush.. he gave us all the reason in the world..
This is the first time I've seen someone suggest that Bush didn't, in fact, blow the good will everyone had for him.. but rather, we didn't really have the good will, to begin with, and it was just an act.
Last edited:
It's interesting how you spin everything in terms of "Bush haters" and ignore the substantial damage that Bush and his minions have done to civil liberties, the economy, our international standing, and so on.
It is plain as day that Bush took advantage of people uniting, in order to lead us off down a disastrous path to a necessary police action, a completely unnecessary war, enormous deficit spending in money that was blown up overseas, not coming back into our economy, and in his final hours, resorted to doing as much damage to the remaining economy as he could, witness Lehman and such.
This is not "Bush hatred" it is simple, obvious fact. Since you want to lay blame, the only conceivable honest blame can be set firmly at the feet of the Bush administration and the lunatic-fringe-right that supported him, and on their attempt to seize the government of the USA.
Given the vote counting in 2004, it's very clear that in fact they succeeded in doing so by fraud for 4 years. Ask Mr. Blackwell where that data went, why don't you?