What if Al Gore Had Been President Instead

[longfisher]

I haven't heard the question, "Well, would you have preferred Al Gore had been President?" in a while. Actually, until last evening I'd never been asked it but had heard it asked of others. I got my chance to answer that question last night.

I answered equivocally. Personally, I didn't like Gore's stultifying approach to governance and I found him standoffish to the point of being elitist. But othewise I didn't have a reason to question his competence or patriotism or commitment to the job had he gotten it.

So, I didn't see a problem with Gore being president. And, given that Bush ran the country into the ground and lied us into an unwinnable war in Iraq I had to admit I'd have preferred someone else, even with my reservations I'd have preferred Gore. Bush was way too off the reservation for me.

The fellow who asked me this question, a conservative friend, was motivated to challenge my opinion of Bush, apparently, because the Repulibicans are attempting to white-wash his presidency with misinformation, undeserved platitudes and outright distortions of his record.

Some say they're trying to rehabilitate his image because they don't want it hanging around their necks in November. OK. I understand one doesn't want the skunk at the party when his presence so perturbed the partygoers in the past. But, implicit in this idea is that the Republicans recognize his faults and excesses for what they were, that they'd have preferred he not have engaged in such excesses and that they're just trying to be politically smart to molify the masses.

I don't think so.

I believe the Republicans have never rejected his ideas, his lies and deceits and his blind adherence to a right-wing view of economics that directly caused the abysmal mismanagement of the country's finances including the TARP bailout for which Obama is now unjustly accused. Let's get this straight for the purposes of this post, the financial collapse began in 2007 with Bear Stearns and the bailouts began in 2008 before Obama was in office. You and I may think what we like about how Obama's handled these many fiascos handed him by Bush, but the fiascos started under Bush.

I don't think the Republicans reject him or his record or his motivations at all. Regrettably, the Republicans only seem to have shied away from his well-deserved low approval ratings which allowed the Democrats, for better or worse, to sweep Federal elected offices.

I think the Republican ideologues are undeterred and unchanged by that sweeping defeat and I think that should they capture the House or, less likely, the House and the Senate that the same troubled ideas that were found in the otherwise empty vessel that was Bush's head will be resurrected.

Pity that. The country has suffered enough recently from the Republicans.

So, does that mean I'll support Obama. Nope. It's a connundrum for me.

I can't support Obama personally because he didn't resurrect the rule of law after Bush's many crimes and he didn't reverse the arrogation of Executive power that Bush and Cheney championed under the Theory of the Unitary Executive. Most independent voters who supported Obama's bid for the presidency did so because we thought him to be the anti-Bush. Hardly!

But I can't support the Republicans either as their ideas brought ruin on the country, left the next president saddled with what at the time of his inauguration seemed insurmountable difficulties and they've not rejected those same ideas.

God help us if a third party never arises. Even the factious Tea Party might be a breath of fresh air. That is, they might be if they're smart enough to avoid being co-opted by the Republicans as appears to be the case with Bauchman's Tea Party Caucus, a group and an effort that is on its face intent on assimilating the Tea Party into the Republican Party and sending it's major party planks into oblivion.

LongFisher

I

[Deep C]

Al Gore as president I feel would have catapulted us faster and deeper into the abyss than anyone would care to admit. No I am not saying W was the answer. I viewed him as an embarrasing dolt too. Our current oval occupant is in my opinion the single worst thing to hit this hemisphere in recorded history.

Our problem lies in the office of president itself. My old man was a high powered individual. GHW Bush worked for him. Friends with dignitaries around the world. A very gifted articulate man who would have made a dandy president.
People often asked him to run for public office... His reply was to same to each. "What in the hell would I want to do that for? Nobody in their right mind would want to expose themselves to that kind of shit..."

He touched on it in that reply. Nobody with half a brain would want that job. Doesn't pay diddly, runs you ragged, ages the hell out of those that get in, and exposes you to 24/7 scrutiny from those who live to "Spin". The only ones who want that job are there for the power rush, our current one being a prime example.

Our problem is that the job sucks so bad we can't find anyone good to fill the seat... We don't need guys who talk pretty we need em to act right. Screw political correctness we need more balls and less dialogue . Less government intervention into every facet of our lives...

[clt_capt]

You state that the financial meltdown started with GW - I do think that some of the oversight(lack of) is definitely tied to the Bush presidency, but the fact is that the roots of the meltdown goes back to Clinton and the easing of mortgage requirements to let every one buy a home - regardless of financial qualification.

Many of the very exotic mortgage instruments - Interest only loans, etc come from the Clinton Era. Same with the securitization of mortgages...

Now for Al Gore - Politics aside, I met the man, One of my best friends worked for him - Gore treated the people around him very poorly and had absolutely no loyalty to his people - He skipped off to the senate and left his staff in Tennessee on unemployment - What kind of a man is he really?

[canyongear]

[obxfish]

I hear John Edwards is getting ready to try for a comeback. Now there is a liberals liberal with moral character! Maybe you can support him?

[longfisher]

...a libertarian candidate, if one runs. I'd take Ron Paul, a constitutionalist, over any major party pol I've seen in decades.

LongFisher

[BYRD]

You said its not obama its bush. Someone else said its not bush it was clinton. Seems to me the problem is that its always someone else's fault. Haven't had any person willing to man up and say - "my fault" or "damn, that sure as hell didn't work, I'll do better next time." Why does it always have to be someone else's fault?

I guess we could go back as far as the colonist and say this is all their fault. I mean after all, if they had just paid their taxes and kept their heads down, we wouldn't have the problems we have today.

[longfisher]

The political system seems mostly about blame shifting. And, with elections every two years and the benefits enjoyed by patrons of the majority party there's a lot a stake in being blamed by the voters.

So, each of us is then obligated to come up with some formula to assign blame to one party or the other. My personal formula works like this, the party in power is responsible absolutely if it controls the Congress and the Presidency.

If that's not true then the President gets the blame for things that happen on his watch as long as he gets a brief honeymoon period of perhaps a year or 18 months to try to get control of the organs of government. If he can't get control of the government by then and fix whatever kind of mess he's inherited then he's got the problem and the credit or blame goes to him.

But I don't blame any president for crises that existed before they were inaugurated. Here's a couple of examples. I don't blame Bush for the comparatively light recession he inherited from the Clinton-Gore years. After all, that recession passed during his administration and an objective person would give him credit for that. I do.

I don't blame Obama, as many do, for the crises he inherited from Bush, some of the worst I've seen passed on to other presidents in my lifetime. But I do blame him for actions he took early in his presidency which, to my mind at least, inflamed and compounded the problem (the bailout of GM comes to mind along with the "surge" into Afghanistan).

He's also going to get my blame if he can't reform immigration and protect the borders, an issue that's become incredibly important what with the narco-state wars going on in Mexico which have the potential to spill over into the U.S. in a massive way (drug corridors don't stop at the border).

Lastly, I'll blame him if he can't resurrect the U.S. economy by 2012.

But perhaps the most important concept is that virtually all of our presidents are blame-worthy as Heck as often their actions more closely hew to gains in short-term political advantage rather than they seem aligned with the long-term interests of the country. It's the frequency of elections and the patronage with which I started this post that's the cause of this.

LongFisher

[clt_capt]

What I've noticed is that most people vote with their pocketbook - If times are seemingly good the party or politician remains in power... If times are bad, then the party in power gets voted out.

[Big Fish Billy]

The political system seems mostly about blame shifting. And, with elections every two years and the benefits enjoyed by patrons of the majority party there's a lot a stake in being blamed by the voters.

So, each of us is then obligated to come up with some formula to assign blame to one party or the other. My personal formula works like this, the party in power is responsible absolutely if it controls the Congress and the Presidency.

If that's not true then the President gets the blame for things that happen on his watch as long as he gets a brief honeymoon period of perhaps a year or 18 months to try to get control of the organs of government. If he can't get control of the government by then and fix whatever kind of mess he's inherited then he's got the problem and the credit or blame goes to him.

But I don't blame any president for crises that existed before they were inaugurated. Here's a couple of examples. I don't blame Bush for the comparatively light recession he inherited from the Clinton-Gore years. After all, that recession passed during his administration and an objective person would give him credit for that. I do.

I don't blame Obama, as many do, for the crises he inherited from Bush, some of the worst I've seen passed on to other presidents in my lifetime. But I do blame him for actions he took early in his presidency which, to my mind at least, inflamed and compounded the problem (the bailout of GM comes to mind along with the "surge" into Afghanistan).

He's also going to get my blame if he can't reform immigration and protect the borders, an issue that's become incredibly important what with the narco-state wars going on in Mexico which have the potential to spill over into the U.S. in a massive way (drug corridors don't stop at the border).

Lastly, I'll blame him if he can't resurrect the U.S. economy by 2012.

But perhaps the most important concept is that virtually all of our presidents are blame-worthy as Heck as often their actions more closely hew to gains in short-term political advantage rather than they seem aligned with the long-term interests of the country. It's the frequency of elections and the patronage with which I started this post that's the cause of this.

LongFisher

What I've noticed is that most people vote with their pocketbook - If times are seemingly good the party or politician remains in power... If times are bad, then the party in power gets voted out.

Two real good posts...I'm glad I'm not charged with trying to fix this countries woes right now...I know of no answers except one...we need to stop the bleeding of money...bring all the boys home...cut off all the billion dollar payments to other countries, and lets get our own country on course... once the deficit is zero, then we can take a look around the world and see who we want to "help."