The Best President America Never Had

By Charles Cutter (www.cuttersway.com)
Jul 29, 2005, 04:42

Americans have not yet begun to pay the price for the Bush presidency. The global ramifications of his foreign policy, the long-term impact of his budgetary excesses, our depleted military, the ongoing erosion of civil liberties and church/state separation, the unprecedented acquiescence to corporate power…all these factors, and more, will dictate the course of this nation for decades to come.
Had Al Gore assumed the presidency in 2001, he would have confronted the same challenges - a nation, and world, simmering in a mix of cultural/religious extremism and declining resources. Realistically speaking, Mr. Gore could probably not have solved any of these problems, but he would have worked in the direction of long-term solutions - and by doing so, minimized the overall impact.

George W. Bush, on the other hand, has worked feverishly to exacerbate virtually every problem confronting America and the world. The differences between these two men - on policies both foreign and domestic - are surprisingly black and white.

Mr. Gore had proposed using the now-nonexistent budget surplus to strengthen Social Security. He also backed a Medicare prescription drug program that used the government’s buying power to yield volume discounts - a tremendous savings to taxpayers. Mr. Bush has been a spendthrift of historic proportions - he first engineered huge tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy, then started screaming about how Social Security was "bankrupt." Bush’s "privatization" scheme for Social Security was designed to benefit Wall Street, not retirees. His Medicare prescription drug program was not structured to benefit the elderly, but rather the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.

Mr. Gore supported conservation and fuel-efficiency, touting the emerging technology of hybrid automobiles. Mr. Bush ridiculed those vehicles and allowed energy companies to set America’s energy policies in secret meetings with Dick Cheney. (Mr. Cheney, of course, also ridiculed the idea of using energy conservation as an aspect of a national energy policy). The result, of course, is that the foreseeable oil needs of China and India are skyrocketing, demand is at an all-time high, and domestic gasoline prices are over two dollars a gallon.

Perhaps most importantly, Mr. Gore would likely have carried over a Clinton administration focus on terrorist cells and Osama bin Laden. On the other hand, the Bush administration was actually dismantling America’s anti-terrorist infrastructure at the time of the September 11 attacks. Bush & Co., of course, totally ignored a written warning proclaiming "bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." Would a Gore administration have connected the dots and prevented the horror of 9/11? That, of course, is impossible to assess. What is crystal clear: No administration could have done worse than Mr. Bush and his people.

It’s not so difficult to assess the different responses to 9/11 we would have seen. Mr. Bush launched what has turned out to be a fairly minor excursion into Afghanistan - with surprisingly little focus on Osama bin Laden - then turned all his attention toward Iraq and Saddam Hussein. It is a fair speculation to say that bin Laden would have been Mr. Gore’s primary focus - and that we would have seen Osama brought to justice. Instead, it is now almost four years since September 11, 2001, and Osama bin Laden continues to send his taunting messages. Again, to this point, no administration could have done worse than Mr. Bush’s in capturing or killing Osama bin Laden.

It is virtually certain that Mr. Gore would not have become fixated on Bush’s wasteful, unnecessary, and illegal venture into Iraq. During the 2000 campaign, you’ll recall, Bush & Co. - with the media’s assistance - became fixated on every minor inaccuracy stated by Al Gore. (Remember the flap about whether or not Gore actually flew in the same plane with the director of FEMA?) History, apparently, has a strong sense of irony, for we’ve since been treated to the criminally deliberate deceptions of Mr. Bush-fairy tales about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and an Osama-Saddam connection.

Mr. Gore’s misstatements amounted to meaningless minutiae. Mr. Bush’s web of lies has resulted in the ongoing slaughter of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. This war will have cost the American taxpayers well over $200 billion, added to the national debt. And for what? A country reduced to bloody chaos, a training ground for a new generation of terrorists.

The difference between a Gore administration and the Bush administration is a stark reminder of what America could have been, and what it has become. Barring a political miracle, we still have more than three years remaining of Bush’s second term, with an impact horizon extending decades beyond. As we seek to endure the times we now live in, it’s worth speculating on the man who might have been the best president this country never had.

Link

Thank you shoeless. Good to remember what we are about.

The drive to split the left does us no good--eye on the prize as MLK always said.

Where I work I consider myself the "Token Liberal"
Thanks to Bush, lately that seems to have placed me in a leadership role.

But the morning of 9-11, I was in a hostile environment!
We were all angry and upset by what were watching on LIVE TV!
That morning I had several, including my immediate Manager toe to toe with me in my face telling me that what we were witnessing was a direct connection to President Clinton, and that had Gore been elected, the US reaction would be to do nothing!

These guys were hot, so hot I left that lunch room and worked the day alone and distant. I had no one to share my anger and hostility with.

All this time later, I still will not sit with those guys in that lunchroom and enjoy a noon meal. In that moment these people showed me their true colors. And though today my manager are able to respect each other, I have explained to him that what he did and said to me that morning, can never be forgotten, or forgiven.

The point is, ignorant conservatives, (deliberate distinction from intelligent conservatives, which in it's self comes very close to being an oxymoron) did then and still do believe the so called "talking points." This Friendly Fascism actually appeals to them as it removes them from personal responsibility. (Much in the same way religion has the same potential, and in fact, many times both aspects are two sides of the same coin!)

When I made the mistake, after watching the towers comes down, of saying it didn't matter who was president, that whom ever was, they would have no choice but to take military action after this. Little did I know at that moment just how much I wish Gore WERE president, and the national anger had been focused on those behind 9-11, and not wasted on a personal agenda that had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11.


Friendly Fascism. What an eye opener! Thank you POAC!
I knew it was there during Reagan, just couldn't put my finger on it.
It's there now, in fact, it's very difficult to avoid it!

Friendly Fascism = as long as I get mine, who the fuck cares!

Agreed.

True, but would he have been able to get these proposals through Congress? Even with Republicans in a minority, they never refrained from using any tricks they could to block progressive legislation, including the filibuster. And too many Democrats are beholden to Wall Street and the pharmaceutical industry to be certain that they'd vote with their own party instead of with the Republicans.

I don't think Gore could have slowed the economic development of China. While a Gore administration would have been more effective in penalizing Enron, I doubt if they could have prevented their shenanigans. And while Americans do want fuel-efficient cars, they are also deeply protective of the cars they already have--particularly if they're still making payments on them. Energy conservation and hybrid vehicles would have had more support under a Gore administration, but I suspect that energy companies would still have had a controlling, if less overt, influence on energy policies.

Agreed. However, just for the sake of argument, suppose that PNAC really was behind bin Laden and 9/11. In that case wouldn't Gore also have been focusing on the patsies instead of the perps?

Agreed again. The proverbial ham sandwich could have been a better president, and Gore is a lot smarter than a ham sandwich.

Is it? If peak oil is a reality, and Iraq, with the world's second largest oil deposit, has the most accessible oil supply, is it really "virtually certain" that we wouldn't have gone after it no matter who was in charge? I think it virtually certain that we wouldn't have done it in such a blatantly illegal manner under Gore, but I'm not certain that it wouldn't have happened.

Yes. But it might also be worth thinking about whether or not we'd be dependent on foreign oil no matter who was president, and whether or not corporations (energy, pharmaceutical, etc.) would be calling the shots no matter who was president or which party controlled Congress.

The term "ad hominem," means "at the man." It refers to arguments directed at the messenger instead of at the message. I think this country has deep, systemic problems that we need to focus on, such as our addiction to nonrenewable resources, the way our military-industrial complex drives foreign policy, the fact that we're the only developed country in the world without a national health plan, that we have more prisoners than any other country in the world, our failing education system, and many more. We know that Republicans will only exacerbate these problems. We know, from past experience, that Democrats will also exacerbate these problems, but not as badly. In other words, Democrats will alleviate the symptoms, but they're not going to root out the disease.

So, while I agree that Gore would have been a better president than Bush (the proverbial ham sandwich would have been a better president than Bush), I don't think that an "ad hominem" focus on electing a Democrat will begin to solve our problems. I think that in order to begin to solve our problems, we have to begin to focus on the problems, not on the men or women who may promise much, but really won't be able to solve our problems for us.