What If?
In today's Times, Paul Krugman clarifies his assertion last week that "[t]wo different news media consortiums reviewed Florida's ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore.” Today Krugman writes:
Mickey Kaus backs Krugman up on this.
So, it seems fair to conclude that Al Gore should have been our President from 2000 onward. He not only won the popular vote, but he should have won the electoral college vote as well. I often wonder how history would have unfolded had Gore been the President during 9/11. Gore, after all, was a 'hawk' his entire political career, a fairly aggressive interventionalist. I doubt, however, that his post 9/11 foreign policy would have focused so myopically on Iraq. Where would we be today if Bush had never been President?
Update: Bob Somerby's take on this is worth reading (as always).
"The 2000 election is still an open sore on the body
politic. That was clear from the outraged reaction to
my mention last week of what would have happened
with a full statewide manual recount of Florida.
This reaction seems to confuse three questions.
One is what would have happened if the U.S. Supreme
Court hadn't intervened; the answer is that unless
the judge overseeing the recount had revised his
order (which is a possibility), George W. Bush would
still have been declared the winner.
The second is what would have happened if there had
been a full, statewide manual recount - as there should
have been. The probable answer is that Al Gore would
have won, by a tiny margin.
The third is what would have happened if the
intentions of the voters hadn't been frustrated by
butterfly ballots, felon purges and more; the answer
is that Mr. Gore would have won by a much larger
margin."
Mickey Kaus backs Krugman up on this.
So, it seems fair to conclude that Al Gore should have been our President from 2000 onward. He not only won the popular vote, but he should have won the electoral college vote as well. I often wonder how history would have unfolded had Gore been the President during 9/11. Gore, after all, was a 'hawk' his entire political career, a fairly aggressive interventionalist. I doubt, however, that his post 9/11 foreign policy would have focused so myopically on Iraq. Where would we be today if Bush had never been President?
Update: Bob Somerby's take on this is worth reading (as always).
posted by A.L. at 9:17 AM
2 Comments:
What would you think about a 2008 Gore presidential run? Would he have a shot at the nomination? Would you support him?
I do think Al Gore would have a shot at the nomination, particularly if the administration fails to make significant progress in Iraq. My sense is that many Democrats have rather positive perceptions of Gore. They think he was unfairly denied victory in 2000, and perhaps more importantly, they remember that he was the only major Democrat to show any backbone on the issue of Iraq back when it mattered. His 2002 speech on Iraq now seems prescient. I would definitely consider supporting him. I always thought he was one of the more well-qualified and intelligent people to ever seek the office.
Al Gore's problem, however, is the same one that plagued him in 1999-2000: the mainstream media. For whatever reason, the Washington press corps always hated him. I've never seen a candidate get treated more brutally by the media than Gore. They made up all kinds of stories about him and savaged him on countless occasions. When he spoke up against the Iraq invasion in 2002, he was again treated mercilessly (even though time has proven his criticisms to be right on the money). I suspect if he ran again, he'd be in for more of the same, particularly if he ran against a media darling like John McCain. If I were Al Gore, I wouldn't want to go through that again.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home