http://www.flyernews.com/article.php?secti...ue=12&artnum=04

Volume 53, Number 12


Sophomore wonders how America and world would be if Al Gore had won in 2000

The year was 2000, the country was in the final days of the Clinton administration and I was in the ninth grade. The paranoia of “Y2K” bringing an end to life as I knew it was just beginning to subside. Along with these other memories, I remember a teacher suggesting that whoever ended up in the White House after the upcoming election would probably be an insignificant president. The winner, after an uneventful four years, would be ousted in the next election by whoever ran against them. Well, let’s just say I have lost a lot of respect for the political views of that particular teacher.

In any case, I decided to break into my “lockbox” and consider how this country would be if Al Gore, not George W. Bush, had become president.

Many people speculate as to how Mr. Gore would have handled the economy. Though the economy had already begun to cool down prior to Bush taking office, Al Gore would not have been able to prevent the economic downturn that occurred.

Everyone was still buzzing from the economic boom of the Clinton years and any fall from this uncharacteristically successful economic period would be noticed. President Bush just happened to be the guard on watch when this happened. Though Clinton had about as much to do with the success of the economy as I’ve had to do with the increase in the cost of vegetables, the fact remains.

The largest event of the Bush presidency thus far has been the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the events that have followed it. The outcome of the events to follow 9/11 will be how his presidency is defined.

Had Al Gore been president, would U.S. forces be in Afghanistan? The answer is, overwhelmingly, yes. Mr. Gore would not and could not have done nothing after the attacks. There was and is incredible evidence that individuals who happened to be in Afghanistan had much to do with the attacks that day and that their leader, Osama bin Laden, might very well be within the countries borders. You have to protect the homeland from attack, so Gore would have acted as Bush did.

Now, would U.S. forces be in Iraq right now? Probably not. I can not know for sure, because I am not Al Gore, but I suspect we would not. The failure of the intelligence community was big, and had Al Gore relied on the same information that President Bush did, perhaps we would be. There are, however, many other allegations as to why President Bush went to war in Iraq. These may or may not be true, so I think basing arguments on them doesn’t hold up.

Would Al Gore have done a better job? There are many who believe this answer is yes, but I say no. There are no arguments that can really prove without a doubt that he would have, simply because he did not get the chance.

Would he have done a worse job? Probably not. But, that depends upon your definition of worse.

Perhaps the attacks of 9/11 would not have happened during Gore’s administration. Imagine how U.S. foreign policy would appear if this had been the case. These are things we can not know for sure and thus do not have the grounds to speculate on. Extreme circumstances often call upon extraordinarily brilliant judgments that will be judged harshly by history. I think neither Al Gore or George Bush exactly fall under the category of brilliant, so their judgments probably would not be.

So, would Al Gore have been a better president and thus have been able to make the country a better place than George W. Bush has? It is too early to tell. I know this answer isn’t sexy, but it’s the truth. Many people will jump to say that our image around the world has been irreversibly damaged thanks to President Bush. This is also not true and a hasty falsely-founded accusation.

The last thing this country needed was another 700 words on why George W. Bush sucks. Many of you may say that the last thing that this country needs is a president like George Bush. Well, you’re entitled to that. But, I don’t think Al Gore would have done much better.

I fear that there are too many on college campuses around the country who feel this way.

:huh: ...That had to be the most anti-Climatic thing ever written in the history of the internet.

I mean, of course there are the factual inaccuracies and the obvious fact that this person has no handle on anything that isn't reported on Fox News (or CNN) - but at least if it was "George Bush is great, etc." I could get angry about it. This is just - the epitomy of anti-climax.

This author took 3 minutes of my life - and I want them back. :lol:

Here's a little morale-booster that might heighten peoples' confidence in "the youth of today" :P

http://liberalkids.org - I first heard the admin of this site as a guest on a show on Air America a few Saturdays ago. (and I'll make a separate topic about it too) :)

My point was exactly that, GS. The youth of today (of which you're one and I'm not :P ) seem to want someone new. They're disgruntled with Bush. They're disgruntled with Gore. Both are seen as establishment (and we all know how youth hate the establishment :lol: ). In their view, Bush and Gore are cut from the same cloth--old and washed up. So, I'm afraid that Gore will be viewed by this demographic group as a has-been. They want a fresh face, someone who speaks to them, someone young and outside the Beltway, not some "old" man like Al Gore, who already "lost" once.

If only they knew . . .

To whoever wrote that, you couldn't be more wrong. The country as well as the world is pretty much a disaster area right now thanks to the Bush Administration. Not just because he stole the elections, but he sure has made a mess of everything, the economy, war on terror, Iraq war and lets not forget his disasterous handling of hurricane Katrina. And I'm sure many of us have our personal reasons on why George W. Bush 'sucks.' But as for AL GORE he would have made a far better president. The world wouldn't be perfect and never will, but it wouldn't be the disaster area it is now. More than ever we need AL GORE as our president.

George W. Bush is the worst of the worst this country has ever seen.

Oh, I just noticed that E.M., some "old" man like AL GORE???? :?:

Balancing the budget and passing legislation that gave incentives to build internet commerce did nothing to help the economy??? This kid needs to go back and retake Economics 101.

That seems to be a common talking point I get from right-wingers, that (the subject is usually Clinton) whenever a Democrat presides over a good economy, then they had nothing to do with it - of course if there's a bad economy, or a perceived bad econmy, it's Clinton's fault. (That goes for Hillary too, I recently had somene tell me Hillary hasn't "created one job" until I showed her NYS has had an increase of 83,000 jobs over the past year).

From the perspective of youth, AGIML, from the perspective of youth. Maybe it's changed since I was a kid, but I come from the days when anyone over 30 wasn't to be trusted. Of course, now that I'm 53, I see that a bit differently. :P Anyway, I was just saying that I think many college-age kids see people like Bush and Gore (and Biden and Hillary and the rest of them) as being over the hill--old. Of course, they don't have the historical perspective to know that's not the case, but I still think it's their perception. That's all I was sayiing.

And for the record: Al Gore is NOT old. At 57, he's prime age to be president. Even in three more years, he'll still only be 60. Old enough to be experienced and wise, young enough to be vital. He's P-E-R-F-E-C-T. ;)

That's a common Republican position. They will ALWAYS say that if the economy is good while a Dem. is in office, it's because of the groundwork that was laid by the Republican who was in office before that. Always.

Yes, I remember as a kid anyone over 30 was considered "old," but since you have to be atleast 35 years old to run for president, I guess this generation of students will think that whoever runs is old and used up.

This is the funniest saddest line, Bush has been sleeping the past five years, he only woke from his nap long enough to give a tax break to the mega rich and the corporations and send America off to a war in Iraq based on lies thus exploding the national debt and costing thousands of lives.

This is another bogus assumption, the only failure of intelligence was in the Bush White House who thought that if we bombed the hell out of Iraq "Shock and Awe" our troops would be greeted with flowers and candy. I wonder how this sophomore would feel if another nation dropped a 2000 bomb on their neighbors house or inadvertently killed their baby all for the sake of "freedom", would they run out to give the invading army roses and Snickers? It is also a fact that Bush took all of the contingencies and subject tos out of those intelligence reports regarding WMDs and the threat posed by Iraq, when he spoke to the American People it was a sure thing, he lied to us, that is not only bad intelligence on his part, that is bad integrity.
Also considering the fact that Bush apparently never read his Presidential Daily Briefings such as the one that stated Bin Laden determined to attack in the United States a month before 9/11, I think he was on guard duty, I mean vacation when that happened. The primary problem was not with the intelligence community, it is the fact that Bush downgraded the intelligence community from cabinet level status to a lower priority, read Richard Clark's book "Against All Enemies" for details.

As Al Gore tried to warn the American People to put social security in a lockbox during a 2000 debate because he knew Bush would try to bankrupt it with his privatization scheme only to be ridiculed by the corpwhorate owned MSM, this sophomore will not have to worry about breaking in to that lockbox if Bush gets his way, there will be nothing there.

Oh, I'm sure he'd feel quite "liberated".