No. 4: Gore vs. Bush
Gore wins popular vote, Bush wins election
|
Print
E-mail
share
A protester speaks with a police officer concerning the sign he has posted decrying the 2000 presidential election recount in Palm Beach County. Photo Courtesy: wikimedia commons
The United States may be a different country today if the controversial 2000 Florida recount had ended in favor of the Democratic Party.
Many remember those nail-biting moments as Americans crowded around their televisions and radios, anxiously awaiting the announcement of who would be the next president of the United States of America on Nov. 4, 2000.
Exactly what the U.S. would be like today if Democratic nominee Al Gore had been victorious is anyone’s guess.
“It’s unknowable,” said James Hutter, associate professor of political science.
Although the United States may not have invaded Iraq, we might still have been in Afghanistan, Hutter said.
Samantha Clark, senior in political science and president of the ISU College Republicans, said she thinks Gore would still have made the decision to go into Afghanistan and may have still chosen to invade Iraq.
“Gore would be militarily aggressive and pushed a lot harder to go to war after 9/11,” Clark said. “Gore would have accepted Clinton’s goal to get rid of Saddam Hussein.”
Hamilton Cravens, professor of history, said he thinks Gore would not have even thought about going to war.
One issue that could be more prominent in the country had Gore been elected is the environment and global warming. Because Gore is such an advocate for the environment, there would have been more of a focus on renewable energy resources and different oil drilling practices if Gore had been elected, Hutter said.
“If Gore had been elected, we would not have had eight years of favoring polluters and not helping those that are for a cleaner environment and decreasing global warming,” Hutter said.
Cravens said the Republican Party seems to be more focused on dismantling the environment and has nothing against drilling oil in national parks.
Clark said in terms of cutting carbon emissions, Gore would have implemented a plan similar to the one in Germany — reduce carbon emissions by half by 2012.
“We would all be driving horses and buggies because of Gore’s ecofriendliness,” Clark said jokingly.
Paul Vidmar, junior in civil engineering and vice-chairman of the ISU College Republicans, said Gore’s environmental policies would have had negative effects.
“There would be shops closing up and going overseas because of the ‘go green’ policy,” Vidmar said.
Whether President-elect Barack Obama would still have been elected in this year’s election is yet another unknown fact.
Still, Cravens said, Gore was more in favor of supporting minority groups compared to the Republican Party, which he said is normally more interested in winning than gaining the support of minority voters.
“Gore is more sympathetic to the hopes and aspirations of minorities,” Cravens said.
As for the current economic situation, it seems no matter who was elected in the 2000 presidential election, the country would still be in a similar situation as what it is going through right now, Hutter said.
The United States has been in a recession since last December. Whether this recession would have lasted a year is questionable, Hutter said.
“The economic situation would not be strong no matter who is president,” Hutter said.
Clark said if Gore was president, the economy might still be in trouble.
“It always gets worse before it gets much better, no matter who is president,” Clark said of the current economic situation.
Cravens suggested relationships with foreign countries would be friendlier if Gore had been elected as president.
“The relations with European and Asian friends would be much better,” Cravens said.
He said when people in foreign countries see Americans, they will ask them what they think of the current president of the United States of America, and they seem to be more welcoming and friendly with you if you are not in support of Bush and his policies.
Vidmar said he believes no matter who was elected president during the 2000 presidential elections, people in foreign countries around the world would have the same feelings toward America as they do now.
“It would not have that big of an impact. They would still be anti-American,” Vidmar said.
He said this is because a lot of the information people read in foreign countries comes from sources such as The New York Times, which he said is biased in favor of the Democratic Party and does not favor Republicans.
Staff comments:
"When I first learned how bitterly and blindly divided the nation could become."
— Thomas Grundmeier, online editor
"Quite possibly the closest we’ve come to a Constitutional crisis since Nixon."
— Ryan Frederick, opinion editor
"This is when I was completely disappointed in a system that told us 'every vote counts.' Even though I wasn’t able to vote at the time, it was like we had already lost the game before we started playing."
— Amy Simmonds, designer
Comments
Why is it so important that our "friends" overseas "like" us and our president. Do the political science professors at ISU really think other nations would alter their national policies and goals because they like our president? Really?
"“It would not have that big of an impact. They would still be anti-American,” Vidmar said."
Paul Vidmar made a reckless statement. People around the world are not, by in large, anti-American. Some people around the world are opposed to American foreign policy (many of which are opposed to George W. Bush's version of American foreign policy).
The proof is in the worldwide opinions about America during the Clinton Administration as opposed to the current one. If Gore had been elected the trend is that world opinions would have probably remained as they were.
World Public Opinion is a pretty good site that accesses global public opinions. It is clear that the world opinion of Obama is very high, especially compared to Bush. There are also several articles that chronicle the lowering positive opinion rate as the Bush years continued (just like the domestic polls).
Pew also has some insights: Overview: Bush and Public Opinion: Bush and Public Opinion
So, Mr. Vidmar, to say that had Gore been elected "they" would still be anti-American is a generalization without basis.
It's worth remembering that under the Clinton-Gore administration, they spent far more effort attacking Bill Gates than Osama Bin Laden. It seems unlikely that Gore would have retaliated so quickly and effectively as Bush after Sep 11. It's highly unlikely that he would have fought Islamic terrorists to the standstill that they are at now. It's very likely that Gore's weak response to the terror attacks would have invited follow on attacks in other American cities, with thousands dead from chemical weapons and poison gas attacks. Gore's main interaction with the military as VP was to try to stop them from using lead bullets and make them use more environmentally friendly, but less powerful, vehicles.
"It seems unlikely that Gore would have retaliated so quickly and effectively as Bush after Sep 11."--Steve Gregg
It is very likely that Gore would have heeded the August 6th PDB and, perhaps, thwarted the attacks of 9/11. It is ludicrous to somehow credit Bush with keeping us safe but not assigning him any responsiblity for 9/11.
"It's highly unlikely that he would have fought Islamic terrorists to the standstill that they are at now."
Standstill? In what universe?
Afghanistan is getting worse and terrorist attacks in Iraq continue. As well as in Israel. And in India. And elsewhere.
"In the face of a weak central government, the Taliban has stepped in, creating shadow governments in remote and not-so-remote provinces. The Taliban moves in and doles out its unique form of brutal but bribery-free justice—and Afghan locals have been begging for some system of justice for more than half a decade now. The Taliban is also bulking up in provinces that border Kabul, where insurgents have threatened to "draw a noose" around the Afghan capital."
No Longer the Forgotten War, Afghanistan Will Be a Hard One ...
"A suicide car bomb in Afghanistan today killed 14 primary school children in what officials said was a failed attempt to blow up a meeting of tribal elders."--December 28, 2008
Suicide car bomb in Afghanistan kills 14 primary school chil...
"Canadian forces and other NATO troops have been deployed to Kandahar after the main prison in the southern Afghan city was attacked by militants, who set most of the prisoners free."
Insurgent attack frees hundreds from Kandahar prison
"Ten French soldiers have been killed in an ambush by Taleban fighters east of the Afghan capital, Kabul."
BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Afghan ambush kills French t...
Some standstill.
Harry Selby: "It is very likely that Gore would have heeded the August 6th PDB and, perhaps, thwarted the attacks of 9/11. It is ludicrous to somehow credit Bush with keeping us safe but not assigning him any responsiblity for 9/11."
Yes, the PDB that said Bin Laden was determined to strike the US from somewhere unknown at somewhere unknown at sometime unknown. Gosh, what a helpful warning! That's like the FBI getting a bulletin from you saying bank robbers are determined to strike somewhere in the US sometime soon. It's a bogus argument from a cheap propagandist.
Harry Selby: "Standstill? In what universe? Afghanistan is getting worse and terrorist attacks in Iraq continue. As well as in Israel. And in India. And elsewhere."
I'm in this universe, Harry, the real one, not the alternate one you live in. We didn't fight the war on terror to defend Israel nor India, but the United States. We fought the Islamic nutcases to stop follow-on attacks on the US and have succeeded handsomely in doing so. Not only have Al Qaeda's big attacks been foiled but also all of the attacks in progress by your garden variety Muslim nutjobs right here in America. Considering how easy it is for Muslim terror attacks to be mounted, that demonstrates considerable competence by Bush, the military, intelligence, finance, and police agencies of America. Good job!
Likewise, the Muslim campaign of terror against the West, or more precisely the Saudi Wahhabi terror, has been halted in its tracks. If you peruse the news, you'll find a decided absence of suicide skyjackings, train bombings, disco bombings, et al. That didn't happen because the wackadoo Muslims decided to start pledging allegiance to the Flag. It happenned because Bush unleased the dogs on those terrorist bastards.
Your contention that the insurgency in Iraq is flourishing is patent nonsense, the argument of somebody who has not kept up with current events enough to know that violence is down to next to nothing in Iraq, the war just about over, that peace is blooming enough for people to carry on normal lives again.
Your argument that we're losing in Afghanistan is equally foolish. Random attacks by incompetent Taliban in Afghanistan is far improved situation than the previous Afghanistan which was wholly controlled by the Taliban and a base for Al Qaeda attacks everywhere in the world. An Afghanistan where USAF gunships regularly chew up bands of Taliban is a very satisfactory Afghanistan indeed.
I imagine the current victorious campaign against terror must leave lefties like quite desperate indeed, pining for failure somewhere, anywhere. However, there's always the hope that Obama will roll up the war on terror and let the Muslim nutcases start winning. That would make you happy, wouldn't it?
"It is very likely that Gore would have heeded the August 6th PDB and, perhaps, thwarted the attacks of 9/11. It is ludicrous to somehow credit Bush with keeping us safe but not assigning him any responsiblity for 9/11."--harry
Good response Steve, and very accurate. I've read the declassified (or leaked) briefing and it's three paragraphs were a treasure trove of info; "Some tall terrorist wants to attack us, much like he did almost a dozen times during the last administration. beyond that, it's the same old chatter. We have nothing credible to go with at this time since our human intel (HUMINT) ties have been severed based on the former administration precluding us from paying 'unsavory characters with criminal backgrounds'. So far, we have not been able to recruit people with clean records from the Ivy League to infiltrate al queada".
Good one harry.
"We fought the Islamic nutcases to stop follow-on attacks on the US and have succeeded handsomely in doing so."
You cannot prove that statement. Just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean that something caused it not to.
"Not only have Al Qaeda's big attacks been foiled but also all of the attacks in progress by your garden variety Muslim nutjobs right here in America."
Examples? The guy who was going to dismantle the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch? The kids in Miami who talked about blowing up the Sears Tower?
The only plot that was foiled was the "liquid" terrorists in London and they were taken down by the British. And their scheme wouldn't have worked anyway.
Next.
"Considering how easy it is for Muslim terror attacks to be mounted, that demonstrates considerable competence by Bush"
What the hell was he doing prior to 9/11 then?
"Likewise, the Muslim campaign of terror against the West, or more precisely the Saudi Wahhabi terror, has been halted in its tracks."
Flat-out false.
--August 19, 2008:Taliban forces kill 9 French troops (with a 10th death in an accident) near Kabul.
--June 3, 2008: Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan on 2 June 2008. A car bomb killed six persons and injuring several.
--December 7: 2008: Taliban armed with RPGs and automatic weapons attack two NATO supply depots outside of Peshawar destroying 100 vehicles packed with supplies intended to support the NATO effort in Afghanistan.
--December 8: 2008: Taliban armed with RPGs and automatic weapons attack a NATO supply depot outside of Peshawar destroying 53 container trucks packed with supplies intended to support the NATO effort in Afghanistan.
"Your contention that the insurgency in Iraq is flourishing is patent nonsense"
I never made any such claim. I said, "terrorist attacks in Iraq continue." And they do. And you haven't refuted that statement.
"Your argument that we're losing in Afghanistan is equally foolish"
I never said that, either. I said, "Afghanistan is getting worse." And that is the truth, at least according to military sources and the recent list of attacks. And you haven't refuted it.
Steve, you make false claims and then you get your panties in a bunch when they are disproven with credible sources. As a response, you make false claims against your opponents even though the original statements are clear and obvious to everyone who can read English.
Why did Bush let 9/11 happen? Why have over 4,000 American troops been killed in Iraq? Why is the Taliban strong in Afghanistan again? You'd like to sweep the answers to those questions under the rug so you don't have to admit that Bush's so-called "War on terror" has been a miserable failure.
this is a moot point... but with people like harry and steve and craig continually butting heads and pointing the finger (all the while showing indications of being quite intelligent individuals) is quite upsetting. You all ask plenty of tough questions of one another, but nobody ever seems to find the time to actually figure it out. How about instead of questioning your opponents and their representatives and blaming them and asking "why why why why did they do this and that", you spend less time on the ISUDaily's online forums bickering and more time solving the worlds issues. I mean it's apparent to me that you all follow everything enough and some of you even seem to know just about everything. Just curious... and i'm not pointing the finger at any of you in particular.