President Gore, a Moderate?

[Ben.]

I’m a firm beliver that Gore in 2000 and even before that could be called a moderate-populist, had he won I think he would have governed as such and in adition might well have been quite hawkish (what with Jo and the folks lined up to go to state, defence etc…). His Swing to the Left IMHO is the result of embitterment over the 2000 election and misgivings over the nature of the Bush team’s campaign (be they true or not) so had he won I think he’d have been a fairly moderate president, perhaps marginally to the left of Clinton but not much.       

Agree or Disagree?

[opebo]

Gore would've been a Moderate, just like Clinton. 

However I disagree that Gore has swung left since 2000.  He's been rather extreme in his criticisms of the Bush administration, but everything he's said has been accurate.  His basic political position doesn't appear to me to have changed.

[Keystone Phil]

Strongly disagree.

[Sam Spade]

So, in other words, you're making the assumption that his looniness post-2000 election and especially post-9/11 was entirely due to 9/11 and the post-2000 election stuff.

I remember when Al Gore first ran for President in 1988.  He ran on an anti-abortion, anti-gun control platform. 

Then in 1992, he wrote that environmental nut book "Earth in the Balance".  I swear I'm probably the only person, liberal or conservative, who's actually read the book all the way through without throwing it in the garbage.  It may be the worst book written ever.

I watched him through the Clinton Presidency try to "reinvent government" and of course never get anywhere and then take illegal campaign contributions from Buddhist temples.  Those were the highlights.

Then I watched him campaign in 2000 on a pro-abortion, pro-gun control message and lose.

I am convinced that if he were to have been elected, he would have governed as a far leftist.  Most Democrats who move all over the board from center to left tend to try to govern as leftists when they get in (witness Clinton 1992-94).

9/11 (unless you believe Bush was behind it) would have sunk his popularity down to ridiculously low levels, because the left would have had no one else to blame it on (though they would have tried).  It would have been clear it would have been the Clinton/Gore mess.

As to what would have happened afterwards, I really don't know, though every day I wake up thanking God that Al Gore was not at the helm after 9/11.

[Erc]

I sincerely doubt Gore would have invaded Afghanistan--and as such, he'd be seen as wishy-washy on the war.  Democrats get smushed in the '02 midterms.  If Gore repaired his image enough, it might have helped him in time...but I doubt it.  We'd be preparing for President-elect Bush (note that I didn't specify which one) now.

[Wakie]

I sincerely doubt Gore would have invaded Afghanistan--and as such, he'd be seen as wishy-washy on the war.  Democrats get smushed in the '02 midterms.  If Gore repaired his image enough, it might have helped him in time...but I doubt it.  We'd be preparing for President-elect Bush (note that I didn't specify which one) now.

Oh please ... Afghanistan was a no-brainer.  The entire country was calling for it.  Gore would not have gone into Iraq though.

[Ben.]

I sincerely doubt Gore would have invaded Afghanistan--and as such, he'd be seen as wishy-washy on the war.  Democrats get smushed in the '02 midterms.  If Gore repaired his image enough, it might have helped him in time...but I doubt it.  We'd be preparing for President-elect Bush (note that I didn't specify which one) now.

Oh please ... Afghanistan was a no-brainer.  The entire country was calling for it.  Gore would not have gone into Iraq though.

He have gone into both, although Iraq latter IMHO perhaps after 2004, Clinton was already pledged to a doctrine of overthrowing Saddam and Lieberman and most what would have been Gore's foreign policy team supported the invasion in reality. 

I doubt that Gore would have as successfully handled the midterms as Bush, and things would have probably remained pretty much the same but perhaps a modest democratic majority (Cleland and Wellstone probably still in the Senate, with the latter preparing to challenge Gore from the anti-war left in 2004 perhaps)… the House remains very solidly GOP though. 2004 a very energised GOP goes up against a president most see as satisfactory and a less motivated and perhaps even divided (depending on if Gore goes after Iraq before or after the 2004 election) Democratic Party, I don’t know who the GOP would nominate though, I doubt either Bush, I guess obvious names would be Frist, Santorum (if they’re really pissed), Allen, Pataki (doubtful), Owens, perhaps even Powel or McCain (but I doubt that). GOP would have a better shot than Kerry did, but only if Gore goes into Iraq and faces a challenge for the nomination from Wellstone and the Liberal Left, And while I think Gore would without question have gone into Afghanistan and probably Iraq, I don’t know when he would have moved against Iraq.                   

[Nym90]

He would have had no choice but to go to the middle, with a Republican Congress. He was more liberal than Clinton instinctually, but would have governed towards the center like Clinton did.

[Nym90]

The reinventing government initiatives, by the way, did not "go nowhere". They had a tremendous impact on reducing the amount of paperwork and bureaucracy that is dealt with in government. It was a real godsend for public administrators, and did cut costs significantly.

[Nym90]

So, in other words, you're making the assumption that his looniness post-2000 election and especially post-9/11 was entirely due to 9/11 and the post-2000 election stuff.

I remember when Al Gore first ran for President in 1988. He ran on an anti-abortion, anti-gun control platform.

Then in 1992, he wrote that environmental nut book "Earth in the Balance". I swear I'm probably the only person, liberal or conservative, who's actually read the book all the way through without throwing it in the garbage. It may be the worst book written ever.

I watched him through the Clinton Presidency try to "reinvent government" and of course never get anywhere and then take illegal campaign contributions from Buddhist temples. Those were the highlights.

Then I watched him campaign in 2000 on a pro-abortion, pro-gun control message and lose.

I am convinced that if he were to have been elected, he would have governed as a far leftist. Most Democrats who move all over the board from center to left tend to try to govern as leftists when they get in (witness Clinton 1992-94).

9/11 (unless you believe Bush was behind it) would have sunk his popularity down to ridiculously low levels, because the left would have had no one else to blame it on (though they would have tried). It would have been clear it would have been the Clinton/Gore mess.

As to what would have happened afterwards, I really don't know, though every day I wake up thanking God that Al Gore was not at the helm after 9/11.

As for 9/11, I find it hard to believe that Gore would not have had the same 90% approval ratings as Clinton. You are saying that the public would have blamed Gore and Clinton for it, and his approval ratings would go way down post 9/11? The American people would have rallied around the President no matter who it was.

[A18]

Clinton never had 90% approval ratings. Bush did.

Gore wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan. His approval ratings would have gone up, and there would have been some kind of military action, but it would have been Clintonesque. Like Iraq, which took Bush to finish the job.

[Beet]

I still think that for every terrorist attack that succeeds, at least 10 are thwarted.

Was there not a CIA memo in spring 2001 warning of a bin Laden aviation cadre flying planes into towers? And suspicious classes being taken in Arizona? Did not Zacarias Moussaoui get arrested 4 weeks before 9/11? Did not the Clinton-Gore exit team put together a counter-terrorism plan that the Bush team didn't implement? Was not one of the hijackers nearly arrested the night before on a traffic violation? Was not their decision to go ahead on 9/11 partly due to the Moussaoui arrest? Wasn't the focus on missile defense in the spring and summer of 2001 a distraction from terrorism? Was not the Millenium bomb plot thwarted? Or the plan to blow up 15 airliners in the Pacific in 1995?

Heck, the hijackers went out and did drugs and video games the last night, didn't they? What if during one of the months prior one of them got into a situation of loose lips? In my view there are just too many variables, presidential policy is just too big and sweeping a factor. Event A leads to event B... which leads to Event C... which leads to Event D, which is so unrecognizable to what would have happened without Event A that no one would have guessed...

In other words, it is simply impossible to say with certainty that the Sept 11 attacks would have happened as they did had such a momentous event as an entirely different president being chosen 11 months earlier have happened. Nor do we have the mathematical tools to do that kind of gargantuan probability calculation. We can't even estimate the weather! There is a good chance in fact that the attacks might not have happened at all.

[The Duke]

I still think that for every terrorist attack that succeeds, at least 10 are thwarted.

Was there not a CIA memo in spring 2001 warning of a bin Laden aviation cadre flying planes into towers? And suspicious classes being taken in Arizona? Did not Zacarias Moussaoui get arrested 4 weeks before 9/11? Did not the Clinton-Gore exit team put together a counter-terrorism plan that the Bush team didn't implement? Was not one of the hijackers nearly arrested the night before on a traffic violation? Was not their decision to go ahead on 9/11 partly due to the Moussaoui arrest? Wasn't the focus on missile defense in the spring and summer of 2001 a distraction from terrorism? Was not the Millenium bomb plot thwarted? Or the plan to blow up 15 airliners in the Pacific in 1995?

Heck, the hijackers went out and did drugs and video games the last night, didn't they? What if during one of the months prior one of them got into a situation of loose lips? In my view there are just too many variables, presidential policy is just too big and sweeping a factor. Event A leads to event B... which leads to Event C... which leads to Event D, which is so unrecognizable to what would have happened without Event A that no one would have guessed...

In other words, it is simply impossible to say with certainty that the Sept 11 attacks would have happened as they did had such a momentous event as an entirely different president being chosen 11 months earlier have happened. Nor do we have the mathematical tools to do that kind of gargantuan probability calculation. We can't even estimate the weather! There is a good chance in fact that the attacks might not have happened at all.

The memo warned of attacks, but not against the twin twoers and not using airplanes.  Airplanes were supposed to be held hostage and held for ransom to get the Blind Sheik freed.

There is no reason NMD and anti-terrorism cannot be pursued simultaneously.

There was no Clinton "Plan" to beat Al Qaeda.  Clinton's people have never pretended such.

9/11 was preventable, but not by the institutional culture we had at CIA and FBI at the time.  Regardless of what Preisdential decisions were made, the low levels of bureacracy missed the attack.