I wish Al Gore had won the 2000 Presidential Election. Every time I say that, my wife looks at me as if I were on fire and tells me that is a horrible thing to say. She may be right, but I’ll explain the logic underlying that conclusion.

The economy was already beginning to come unglued by the time of the election, though it would not become evident until the next quarter. President Bush saw tax cuts as a way to avoid a recession or at least soften the blow. Gore would never have thought to lower taxes. He probably would have spent government money trying to fix the problem, raising the deficit in the process, but he would not have lowered taxes. Did the lower taxes help keep the economy from entering a deep recession? Who knows? I am sure that economists will be debating this issue for the next 20 years or so. Intuitively, I would have to say that they helped. I know for a fact that the child tax credit and the lower tax bracket helped my family out a lot. I received two checks and I used each one to purchase goods and services. One went towards a beach vacation in Florida and the other went towards some remodeling I was having done to the house. I helped the economy. But it is clear that Gore would have not raised taxes, it is not in is nature. Would we still be in a recession? Hard to say.

On economic issues I will be fair to the hypothetical President Gore. I do not believe that Presidents have much control over the economy, within reason that is. President Clinton can claim success because he stayed out of the way of the economy. He did try to kill it with the tax increase of 1993, but the rest of the time he stayed out of the way and the economy roared on. Congress can be viewed in the same light. As long as they are not putting undo constraints on industry, then they too can claim responsibility.

But politics means someone has to be blamed and someone has to take credit. The first President Bush lost to Clinton in large part to the “recession” that was underway at the time of the election. Although, again, later analysis of the data shows that the economy was out of recession by the time of the 1992 election, but Bush got blamed. Conversely, Clinton got the credit when the economy, already rebounding under Bush, continued to improve. The same thing happened in 2000. The economy was tanking the last quarter of 2000, under Clinton, but Bush got the blame when the official recession began when he took office. (see here for an more information) Someone please explain to me how you can blame someone for a recession when that person had just taken office? Anyway. Gore would have been in the same boat as Bush. I am sure that Republicans would be denouncing President Gore for leading the country into recession. Check out here and here for some good information.

9-11 would still have happened. I know, I know, some of you just had your head spin around like the little girl in The Exorcist, but 9-11 would have happened. Bush and Chaney did not hatch the plan in Texas. These people were planning to kill as many Americans as possible and had been watching America for the past decade to get a sense of what we were made of. I firmly believe that it would not have mattered who was president, the planes still would have hit the buildings. The nation just was not thinking about being attacked and would have been just as unprepared under President Gore as we were under President Bush.

What matters is how a President Gore would have responded. It is doubtful, and I mean doubtful that Gore would have responded in the way that Bush has responded. You may say that is a great thing, but all I ask you to do is look at the world today. Yes, Iraq is still a mess and probably will be for awhile. Yes, Afghanistan is still a mess, but has it ever not been a mess? However you feel about President Bush, millions, and I do mean millions, of people in those two countries are better off today than they were pre-9-11. I dare you to debate me on that fact.

Yes, Bush has made some serious mistakes. Intelligence sucked, but the official reports show that everyone else’s sucked as well. Maybe Bush did exaggerate some threats, I do not believe he did, but rational people can have a civil debate about such items. The central fact remains that people in Iraq and Afghanistan are better off today than they were 3 years ago.

In my opinion, Gore would have done just as Clinton did. He would have gone to the United Nations to get more resolutions passed. He may have even tried to pressure the Taliban and Pakistan to turn over Osama and may have even launched a few cruise missiles or air strikes at suspected terror camps. But in general, he would have treated the matter as a legal/police matter. Just like Clinton did with the first Trade Center attack and the USS Cole attack. That would be the extent of our response. As a result, our enemy, seeing our weakness, would have launched more attacks against the US. Resulting in more lives lost.

Republicans of course would be clamoring for Gore’s head, just as the Democrats have been clamoring for Bush’s. A 9-11 Commission would have been convened as well. The results? Hopefully the same: the US was just not prepared for this kind of attack.

So why do I wish Gore had been elected? First, there would be no controversy about the 2000 election. Democrats would have nothing left to stand on as they are bereft of any new ideas. Second, I believe the recession would have gotten worse and Gore would have been blamed for it. Third, Gore’s response to the terror attacks would have been weak at best and the Democrats would be seen how they truly are, weak on National Security. Fourth, the weak economy coupled with the weak response to the attacks would have lead to massive gains in the Senate and the House for Republicans after the 2002 mid-term elections. Fifth, the electorate would be so turned off by: 12 years of Clinton/Gore “leadership”, a weak economy and a weak military response that Republicans – probably Bush again – would win in a landslide this November. This would pave the way for at least 25 years of Republican dominance and it would be a cold day in Hell before the American people elected another Democrat President. The lasting negative legacy of a Gore Presidency is why I wish he had won.

However.

I am grateful for the tax cut. I am grateful for having a job and seeing the economy turn around and that people who lost jobs are beginning to find new ones. I am grateful there has not been another terror attack on the US and that no more lives have been lost. Yes, I know others have died since 9-11, but no more Americans on US soil. I do feel that I am allowed to make that distinction. That is why we elect leaders: to keep us safe. I am grateful and I am sure the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are as well, that Saddam is gone and that the Taliban is gone. There are no more rape rooms, no more child prisons, new brides are not raped by Saddam’s sons, innocent woman and children are not gassed, woman can show there face in public…the list goes on and on.

President Bush has made mistakes. Big ones. He and the Republican House and Senate have spent like drunken Democrats. Other than the tax cuts, he has stunk of the domestic side. On the Foreign Policy side of things, he has done better. The intelligence was what is was and Gore would have had access to the same stuff, just as Clinton did, but the difference is that Bush made some tough decisions and went out and actually did something. This reminds me of one of my favorite sayings “Better to do something, even if it is wrong, than sit on your ass and do nothing”. Was Bush right? History will judge that. At least he did something and that speaks volumes to our enemies. Why do you suppose they want Bush to lose this election? They know that he is a person who will do something. In the future, I hope the intelligence is better and that we have more of a plan post-conflict, but at least millions of people are free today who were not free three years ago.

Could a President Gore have said such a thing at the end of his first term?