Gore Would Have Been a One-Termer

[liberalpragmatist]

I've thought abt this a lot, and my impression is that Gore would have done some great things, some good things, some only adequate things, and would have on the whole been quite a decent President, but I honestly think he'd right now be on his way out. I liked Gore, and I think history would have judged him kindly, but he'd still not be popular right now.

Gore would have been a minority president and would have had the right-wing roasting him and blocking much of his agenda in Congress. Gore lacked Clinton’s political skills and there may well have been a political stalemate. 9-11 would probably have occurred, and while the country would have unified around Gore for a time, the honeymoon would have ended sooner than with Bush b/c the right-wing would have started berating Gore for his multilateralism in the Afghan endeavor and his nation-building. The economy would still have been only a mixed picture, since it is a natural business cycle. Much of it would certainly have been better, and there wouldn’t be ballooning deficits, but it still wouldn’t have been fantastic. And Gore was a free-trader, so many on the left and many unions would likely have pressured him. Nader would have given him hell over the issue.

In short, Progressives would not have been unified, b/c it has in some respects taken someone as bad as Bush for us to see the united goals of the left. Nader would have run again and would have claimed maybe 5 or even 6% of the vote. I think Frist would have been the nominee in the GE for the GOP, though Jeb Bush is a possibility. I wouldn’t be surprised if it would have been GWB again, but my thinking is that many segments of the party would have been resentful that he lost a race they expected to win, and other segments of the party would have seen it as too dynastic to select Jeb (not all GOP’ers are controlled by the Bush cabal, after all).

So I think the nominee would have been Frist and Gore would have lost the election. The results would have been something like 43% Gore, 50% Frist and 6% Nader, with Frist picking off Minnesota, maybe Wisconsin, Iowa, Florida, and possibly a couple other Blue states.

So we’d have:

President Albert A. Gore, Jr. (D): 2001-2005
President William H. Frist (R): 2005 - ?

Certainly, this is no rosy scenario, but it’s light-years ahead of what we have now.

ON EDIT: I've retyped this to make it more concise. The original text can be found in Reply 10. I also want to address one point: nobody knows what would have happened, which makes other people's scenarios just as valid. Certainly it's possible Gore could have been an incredible President, we'll never know. But based on what's realistic and what one could realistically expect, this scenario is what I think would have happened.

[coloradodem2005]

1. Do you think that Bush is on his way out?

[liberalpragmatist]

2. Yes

Definitely.

Kerry (or Edwards) will win by about 5 or 6%, it'll be competitive, and relatively close, but I think the electoral college margin will be comfortable and I think it'll be a surprisingly comfortable win on election night. Bush has polarized this country and there's a clear difference in most voters' minds about the candidates, whereas many people last time around were undecided and unclear which candidate to go with, since they both were pushing themselves as moderates and tried to minimize differences. This time there's no pretense of similarity -- for all of the DU-slurring of Kerry as Bush-lite, the mood is extremely anti-Bush and he's been extremely agressive against him, far more than Bush.

Americans will face a stark choice this November, and with Bush's record, which many Americans are starting to see for what it is, my hunch is that Kerry is going to win. Of course, I could be wrong (which would be a disaster), but really, I do see him winning.

[IronLionZion]

3. he better pack his bags

[mlawson]

40. Who knows? It's only Feb 29th.

How many prez elections have been set in concrete on Leap Year Day?? I can not think of ONE. Not one.

Well, I will give you 1936. But here are some others:
--- 1960: No one knew who our nominee would be -- LJB? JFK? Symington, Adlai again?
--- 1964: LBJ hadn't even announced by this time.
--- 1968: All bets were on McCarthy or Bobby.
--- 1972: Well, OK, Nixon was strongly favored, IN SPITE OF Vietnam.
--- 1976: Carter was surging, but being laughed off by pros.
--- 1980: Carter still had a chance to free the hostages, etc.
--- 1984: Ronnie wasn't unbeatable at that time. Gary Hart was getting a lot of Dems excited.
--- 1988: Do I need to recount this one?
--- 1992: In JUNE, Clinton was still THIRD behind Poppy and Perot.
--- 1996: Okay, maybe, but there was still time for a direct 'hit' on Big Dog.
--- 2000: Who had a clue? I *knew* Gore would not be able to do it, and was hoping for Bradley.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

4. To start: 1. Gore was legally elected in 2000........

2. Gore lacked Clinton's political skills, and it's likely much of his agenda would have been stalemated.

We don't know that, do we?

3. Though some believe September 11 wouldn't have occurred had Gore been President, we'll never know.

Never would have happened because Gore would never have told the intelligence agencies to back off from spying on certain Middle Eastern groups.

4. Gore would have acted in Afghanistan in much the same way Bush did.

If 911 would never have taken place, 911 would never have happened either.

5. The economy would still be in a downturn. It's likely that more jobs would have grown under Gore than under Bush, and certainly our trade policies may well have been somewhat better, but remember that Gore was a free-trader as well, and would have been attacked for this on the left and by Nader.

Not even remotely correct. There would NEVER have been an economic downturn because Gore would never have implemented the fiscal policies implemented by Junior such as the tax-cut for the wealthy. No war in the Middle East would have caused far less strain on the economy which has resulted in six different requests to raise the debt ceiling. Gore would have also seen to it that the Federal programs subsidizing each of the fifty states would never have been cut.

[Jax]

15. Thank you!

3. Though some believe September 11 wouldn't have occurred had Gore been President, we'll never know.

Never would have happened because Gore would never have told the intelligence agencies to back off from spying on certain Middle Eastern groups.



I agree with all of your points here, especially number 3.

Jax

[liberalpragmatist]

17. Maybe. Again we'll never know

There's no way to prove my point and no way to prove yours. But in my view, hindsight's always 20-20. Al Qaeda was determined to strike no matter what, and the CIA and FBI also dropped the ball, so why there were mistakes at the top, there were plenty of mistakes that were out of Bush's hands. Even had 9-11 itself not occurred, it's likely some major terrorist attack would have occurred.

And the other point is this: preventing 9-11 wouldn't have made Gore more electable. People in this country don't seem to get overly concerned about things that "ALMOST" happened. We're unfortunately a country that ignores things until they actually happen. All it would have meant would be that Gore would have never gotten the big post 9-11 bounce; he would still likely, in my view, be a one-term president.

Besides, and here's a point to add, a 12-year Democratic cycle fits the overall pattern. Rarely does a party control the presidency for more than 12 years at a time. Even if it dominates in an overall period, control tends not to last more than 12 years at a time.

But again, you're free to disagree.

[lcordero]

5. I doubt that Gore would have gone to Afghanistan

because things like this would have been in the news really quick:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

Gore would have been carted off to Hague to face punishment for 9/11 and conspiracy to commit genocide, and Lieberman would have been President.

[bushwakker]

33. Afghan yes - Iraq no

Afghan was a no brainer - had to be done. Iraq is an unnecessary invasion and occupation.

[Webster Green]

6. Or...maybe not....

Maybe he would have taken heed of the intelligence warnings of the Clinton administration, and went and rounded up all the terrorists before they could pull off the WTC attacks. Perhaps after that, he would have created millions of new jobs with a massive nationwide infrastructure re-building public works project, including state of the art solar and wind power generating arrays, that would become pilot projects for a worldwide effort to become free from fossil fuel technologies. The rebounding economy put him into his second term with the biggest landslide ever. Since this is a history revising thread, and I kind of like Al, I like my scenario better.

:-)

[mithnanthy]

32. I agree, webster-green

I like your senario better. Ahhhh....

[SammyWinstonJack]

45. I like your scenario

:-)

[wuushew]

7. Regarding Frist...

No Senator since JFK has been elected POTUS. The modern trend is governors.

[liberalpragmatist]

8. yeah, but Frist is seen as "next in line" in the GOP

They tend to select whoever's "next in line." And Frist has deliberately cultivated an outsider profile - you know, the "citizen-politician, country-doctor." The GOP runs on an anti-Washington line, and Frist would have fit that well enough for them.

[wuushew]

11. So the GOP still would have engineered an exit for Trent Lott?

would he have run not being Senate majority leader?

[liberalpragmatist]

14. No

He's long been planning to run, from well before he was majority leader. In fact, he and his allies were opposed at first to even becoming majority leader b/c they feared that would hamper his future presidential run (he'll be the '08 nominee, I'm sure). I honestly don't think that was intentional, it was an accidental thing, but he ended up embracing it.

So Trent Lott would still be ensconed.

[MAlibdem]

12. I'm pretty sure Jeb Bush is seen as next in line

At least at the moment

[liberalpragmatist]

16. I'm not sure

Probably among the Bush inner circle he's seen that way, but I think most Republicans themselves aren't so dynastic and there's much more enthusiasm for Frist, whose got a much better personality and fits the outsider profile better than Jeb, among rank-and-file Republicans.

And I doubt Jeb will be the nominee EVER - though he'd like to, it's too dynastic, even for the GOP. He may well try, but I don't think he'll get it.

Besides, Bush is going down, so he'll be a poisoned name. Another reason why Jeb secretly never wanted W as President - it's helped ruin his own chances at being pres.

I could be wrong though. Who knows. You're free to disagree.

[MAlibdem]

21. Eh

I would truthfully rather tear down a strong candidate than a weak one, then all we have left to deal with are the weak ones

[Gore1FL]

23. That trend doesn;t bode well for 2004

I suspect we'll see it for the first time in 44 years this year.

[Yupster]

9. Don't think Gore would have gone into Afghanistan

I think Gore is far more cautious (thoughtful) than Bush.

Afghanistan presented incredible problems. We had no friendly countries nearby to base an attack in. There were no ports to use. Pressuring Musharref could cause an Islamic fundamentalist revolt in Pakistan, a nightmare scenario with the Islamic Bomb.

I think if Gore were president, we would be attempting to get the UN to tighten sanctions once more onto the Taliban government in Kabul, and they would still be publically hanging people from the goalposts of the soccer stadium.

Of course on the other hand, if Gore were president, there also would have been no war in Iraq. The Gore administration would be worried about Saddam getting WMD's, though we now know there wasn't ever any reason to worry about that.

[liberalpragmatist]

13. I'm certain Gore would have gone into Afghanistan

There was unified backing from across the political spectrum and the world. It was a tough conflict, but had 9-11 or any other terrorist attack occurred (and I think it's likely it would, regardless) Gore would have gone into Afghanistan. He would have built a more multilateral effort and utilized support from NATO in the military campaign and endorsed strong UN action and international peacekeepers in the aftermath.

But you're right, he would NEVER have gone into Iraq.

[Yupster]

30. Well for eight years we watched Osama

graduate terrorist classes from Afghanistan every few months and we watched them fan out across the world.

We watched them blow up the WTC in 93, then our two embassies in Africa, then the USS Cole.

If you think the Second WTC attack would have been the change that's fine.

I don't agree.

I think Musharef would have said he couldn't help because it would cause his downfall, and that would have been that. Bush, being a bull in a China shop, said he didn't give a Sh_t, he was going in anyway, and bullied what little help we've gotten.

I guess we'll never know, but I just dont see Gore taking those risks the way Bush did. Bush has a mad gambler quality where sometimes he wins (Afghanistan) and sometimes he loses (Iraq), but he takes gambles that I don't think Gore would have gotten anywhere near.

[liberalpragmatist]

10. The original text

Don't get me wrong. I liked Gore. He would have been lightyears ahead of Bush and certainly we'll never know what kind of President he would have been, but I honestly think this is what would have happened: Assuming Gore had won in a squeaker (i.e., had he requested a full Florida state recount that was allowed to proceed to completion), he would have entered office a minority President (48% of the a vote in which only 50% turned out), a Republican Congress, and a hostile attitude from the press and the right-wing, who's always been pugnacious and would have wasted no time in ripping Gore to shreds. Gore lacked Clinton's political skills, and it's likely much of his agenda would have been stalemated.

Though some believe September 11 wouldn't have occurred had Gore been President, we'll never know. My hunch is that it would have occurred and Gore would have acted in Afghanistan in much the same way Bush did, although NATO and possibly the UN would have been more involved. The commitment would've been stronger and more noble and we wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq. However, the Republicans would quickly have ended Gore's honeymoon far more quickly than the Democrats ended Bush's. By the following Spring, they would have been roasting Gore over nation-building and overextending our troops, all the while blocking his domestic agenda.

The economy would still be in a downturn. It's likely that more jobs would have grown under Gore than under Bush, and certainly our trade policies may well have been somewhat better, but remember that Gore was a free-trader as well, and would have been attacked for this on the left and by Nader. Part of our real-life economic sitation is a normal business cycle. That would still have happened, and I think that the economy, while it would have been better than under Bush, would still be only a mixed picture.

In the '02 midterms, the Republicans would likely have gained. While it's possible that Gore's response to 9-11 (had it occurred) and anger at the right-wing could have fueled a strong turnout by Democrats, I think it's more likely the usual midterm pattern would have held, with Democrats losing seats.

This year, Nader would have run again (as he is doing), and without a reactionary like Bush who has united Progressives against the right-wing, it's very possible that Nader, whose whole '02 candidacy was based on anger at Democratic centrism (something that Gore would likely have continued governing by) would have run, and, unlike real time, when he's unlikely to anywhere close to his 2.8% from last time, he would likely get close to 5 or 6% in the election.

Bill Frist would probably be the Republican nominee, although it's possible that Jeb would have been the nominee; I don't really get the inclination that W would have run again; although it's certainly possible (Republicans like picking previous losers) the Bush cabal was always grooming Jeb, and only picked George b/c he served 6 years as an executive sooner than Jeb. However, my hunch is the nominee would've been Frist - I think there would have been some resentment at Bush for blowing a race they expected to win and many of the party's rank-and-file may have been opposed to such dynastic rule. So I think Frist would have won the nomination and would be en route to winning the election by about 5% in the popular vote and taking victory in the e.c. by taking the same states as Bush did in real life in '00.

That's my alternate history scenario. Honestly, that's what I think would have happened.

President Albert A. Gore, Jr. (D): 2001-2005
President William H. Frist (R): 2005-

[ParanoidPat]

18. I hate to frost your crystal ball but.....

....did you forget all about the report that Al Gore did WRT airport security just before he left office? You remember, the one that the Bush* administration shelved in favor of a *new* report to be done by Dick Cheney that never happened? You know, the report that the TSA used to base their upgrade of airport security after 9/11?

Had Gore become President, the recommendations made in the report would have been implemented immediately as his own report suggested and the terrorists never would have made it onto the planes to begin with.

To say that "My hunch is that it would have occurred" is to ignore all of the causative factors of the Bush* administration in why the Taliban attacked to begin with. Do you remember the Taliban visit to meet administration officials in Texas in the months before 9/11? The "carpet of gold or carpet of bombs" threat leveled at them when this administration gave them, IIRC, US $43,000,000 in 'aid'?

Even if he had only served 1 term it would have been far, far better than 1 minute of Bush*! :evilgrin:

Off hand, just what is the purpose of this thread anyway? :shrug:

[liberalpragmatist]

19. Well

I don't disagree that 1-term of Gore would have been, say, 1.0 * 10^10000000 better than even 1 minute of Bush.

And it's possible that 9-11 would not have occurred. But Al Qaeda was determined to strike at us, and it's likely that a major terrorist attack in some way shape or form was likely to occur.

And, here's something to remember. If no terrorist attack had occurred, then, politically, Gore may have been LESS likely to win a second term. Certainly that's the case w/ Bush - had 9-11 not occurred, he'd be far more unpopular than he is right now. Americans wouldn't have liked Gore better for stopping a terrorist attack -- many would have respected him for it, but stopping something from happening lacks the drama of 9-11, something that seared something into the American psyche. Plus, many would have been unaware of anything.

So Gore would have been a good president, but a politically unpopular one. That's all that I'm saying.

You're free to disagree, and we'll never know the truth. As for the point of this, there's no great point. It's just musings on my part of an alternate history scenario. Take it for what it is - don't get angry about it. There's no way to tell if I'm right or if you're right, so just read it and if you disagree with it, fine. No biggie.

[ParanoidPat]

25. I guess that qualifies this thread as 'spam'.....

.....as it serves no useful purpose. :)

[kaitykaity]

20. Sorry, but 9/11 would NOT HAVE HAPPENED under

a Gore presidency.

I'm almost a MIHOPer, have been a LIHOPer almost since the
beginning. Bush needed 9/11 for the PNACers to implement
their imperial agenda.

Gore didn't have an imperial foreign policy.

[PlanetBev]

22. The Right Wing would have eaten Gore for lunch

Sabotaging him at every turn. He would be turned out this November for sure, taking even more Democrats from the House and Senate with him. All the stuff the press has given Bush a pass on, they would have destroyed Gore over. However, I believe we still would have gone into Afganistan under Gore, as I think the pressure would have come from all sides for him to act.

[kaitykaity]

24. The impact of 9/11 cannot be overstated.

9/11 protected Bush as the country played rally-round-
the leader. I think that protection warranty has finally
lapsed, and Bush is headed for the fate he deserves.

The wing-nuts would have driven themselves crazy trying
to destroy Gore, but I think you underestimate the man and
his political abilities.

Gore is an honorable, decent man. He does not have Bill
Clinton's 'fatal' flaw--I knew Clinton was a catabout when
I voted for him the first time, but that doesn't mean I wasn't
pissed at him for giving the wing-nuts the ammunition to
destroy him with. Gore would not have made that mistake.

The single blessing of the Bush fiasco is that now the
mainstream media is more resistant to the slandermongers trying
to push stories like the Kerry-intern bullshit into more
'respectable' publications.

[jazzsammich]

26. glossary for the acronym-impaired?

what are MIHOP and LIHOP?

--jim k.

PNAC i know.

[SoCalDem]

27. made it happen on purpose..let it happen on purpose

re 9/11

[jazzsammich]

43. got it. thanks! ^_^ (nt)

[snippy]

28. Maybe, maybe not. My complete analysis is in my post.

Maybe, maybe not.

[Toots]

29. If If If If ~ If the rabbit hadn't stopped to shit the turtle wouldn't hav

:shrug: Conjecture, speculation, belief. No facts no evidence no nothing.

[ComerPerro]

31. I kind of agree that Gore would be toast, but 9/11 wouldn't have happened

Assuming that everything Bush is doing is exactly what Gore would have done, then yes, there is no question that Gore would have been impeached and imprisoned by now. And the very FReepers who condemn us as the worst kind of traitors would be congratulating themselves on what American heros they are (you know, like they do now).

But I just do not believe 9/11 would have happened under a Gore presidency. I really don't think it would have been necessary

[bushwakker]

34. Gore would have been much stronger on homeland security

than AWOL has been. I'm talking about nuts and bolts, non headline-making efforts to protect this country from a catastrophic terrorist attack. AWOL has diverted resources to the illigal invasion of Iraq. Gore would not have gone to Iraq.

[gristy]

35. Thanks for a great thread, LP!

Verrrry interesting....

[monchie]

36. I agree that he would've been a one-termer...

...and an excellent president.

Most likely he would've prevented 9-11 from happening, but that would've been a one- or two-day story and then forgotten about. Presidents don't get political points for preventing disasters.

The media would've been hounding him relentlessly with BS from day one, just as they did during the election. It would've been the mirror image of the butt-kissing coverage Shrub has gotten for the past three years. The GOP Smear Machine, in collaboration with the so-called "liberal media," would've concocted phony "scandal" after phony "scandal" after unbelievably phony "scandal." We'd still be hearing, almost daily, sneering reports that he still refuses to admit that the Buddhist temple event was a fundraiser (when in fact it was not a fundraiser).

The economic downturn at the beginning of his term would've been less severe and we would've recovered sooner. The unemployment figure right now would be just below 5%. Job creation wouldn't have been that strong, however, but there would be a small net increase of jobs during his term, as opposed to Shrub being the first president since Hoover to preside over an actual loss of jobs.

Because of the tightness of the 2000 election and the relentless media attacks against President Gore, Shrub would've run again...and won this time by a wide margin, thanks mainly to the relentless smear campaign against him.

Perhaps Gore having an election stolen from him had some positive side effects: a) that it eventually exposed just how evil the Republicans really are, and b) that it provoked rank and file Dems into fighting back against both the Republicans and their presstitutes in the so-called "liberal media."

If Kerry wins, perhaps the Republican Party will start drifting back toward sanity and away from the far right extremism that has infected it for the past quarter century. If that does happen, then the goring of Gore in 2000 will have served a higher purpose and, in the long run, helped the USA become a normal, sane country.

[Dr Fate]

37. We have a WINNER!!!

Ding! ding! ding! ding!!!!!

[gulliver]

38. History would have been very different.

9/11 would not have happened. That has to be the presumption, because otherwise, why would Bush have blocked the 9/11 panel, then tried to put Henry Kissinger on it, then refuse to provide PDBs, then only allow the commission an hour to interview him? Clearly, evidence under Bush's control contains something that would lead to a conclusion of incompetence in preventing 9/11.

Second, the economy would be a lot better and the deficits would be a lot lower. There would have been no tax give-aways to the rich. There would have been no Iraq War.

Third, something would have been done about unregulated trade. Jobs would still be plentiful. Gore would have enforced trade agreements with an eye to protecting American jobs, not trans-national corporate profits.

Fourth, we would not have lost Congressional seats in 2002, because there would have been no need to stampede the country to war for political purposes.

But even with all that would have gone right in a Gore administration, you can bet that the Republicans would have been investigating and slandering him non-stop for the last four years. Corrupt corporations don't want someone who balances their interests with those of the population and the environment. The corporations (the nasty ones behind Bush, not all of them) want a bought-and-paid-for front boy. Bush would be running again this year.

[Tactical Progressive]

39. Every single thing would have been vastly different

Gore would have been savaged by the right wing and the media as relentlessly as Clinton and Gore had always been. The Democratic-media environment would be the complete opposite of the Republican-media environment.

First off, 9/11 wouldn't have happened because Clinton and Gore had been paying alot of attention to the problem, and here's the thing about the 9/11 plot: there are a minimum of 19 threads to it, any one of which would have unraveled the whole thing.

When Gore announced the prevention of a plot that would have killed hundreds on four planes and could have taken down the World Trade Centers both, wingers and the media would be chanting everywhere that the FBI stopped the terrorists, and look at how Gore takes credit, and look how he exaggerates about the World Trade Towers coming down because stopping a terrorist plot isn't enough to satisfy his pathological need to stretch the truth.

There would be no way to show them a video of the alternate timeline, the one where Bush ignored strong Clinton admin warnings, ignored major domestic security studies, and ignored intelligence warnings coming in from everywhere. The one where skyscrapers come crashing down. That would be nothing more than a simulation.

If 9/11 did somehow happen anyway, the wingers would have started screaming immediately about how it was Gore's fault. The pundits would be asking "Is Gore's popularity going to be affected by the widespread belief that he didn't do enough to protect the American people?" about thirty thousand times a month, for years. There would be no rallying around. There would be immediate investigations with unlimited budgets run by Clinton-Gore antagonists 'to assure credibility'.

Economically, do you really think Greenspan would open up the money spigot for Gore like he did for his fellow hard-right wingers? Forget it. Not in your wildest imagination. Money would have only slowly freed up. Economics would be bad and can you imagine the amount of spittle flying from Republicans if this were a Democrat's economy? Go ahead and try.

Gore wouldn't have had tax cuts for the wealthy or an Iraq war, which would be a big economic plus, but a down economy along with increased federal budget due to security expenses, a deficit and no friend in Greenspan would still be pretty bleak, which is all people understand. They don't get 'It would be worse if ....'.

So all in all: bad economics though not this bad, little credit for 9/11 prevention, and huge culpability it it wasn't prevented.

And the media playing right along with the worst of the right-wing impulses as they have for well over a decade now.

Gore would be up against a different, phony 'compassionate Conservative' in 2004 and he would lose.

[MasonJar]

41. I do not for one moment think that we would have had 9/11 if Gore

had not been cheated out of the election that he won. Gore had a whole workup on Osama which was turned over to Bush, who in turn did nothing despite numerous warning. Can you really see Al Gore on vacation with a national emergency in the making. For sure our environment would not be under attack and our rights would still be Constitutionally sound. The rest of the world would still be working with us, and science would be performing miracles. Haliburton would not be leading the world. I find this topic unnecessary and unworthy.

[liberalpragmatist]

42. I'm not attacking Gore

I've said it many times: Gore would have been a good president, FAR better than even 1 day of Bush. History would have redeemed him. All I'm saying is that the political climate would likely have been such that he would win reelection this fall. It doesn't reflect badly on Gore -- it's just a statement of what the political reality is.

[Florida_Geek]

44. For the people that say 9-11 would not have happened under Gore so what

Clinton stopped a couple attacks did it get him any respect from the Repugs.

Picture the US without 9-11, The Repugs in Congress would be attacking Gore on China etc and attack and attack and attack...

[osaMABUSh]

46. 9/11 helped * more than preventing 9/11 would've helped Gore

I think it is a given that 9/11 is the only thing that gives Bush any hope of 're-election'. As we all know, he was quite unpopulor prior to 9/11. Only his complete mis-handling of just about everything since has finally brought his numbers down.

Let's say 9/11 happens under Gore. After a couple of months, he would have been destroyed by the RW Congress and hate radio. OK, let's say Gore prevents 9/11 - it would have meant nothing positive politcally because who would have known? I mean people weren't running around in 2001 saying "jeez, I wonder when the next Pearl Harbor is going to strike? Oh, it's now 2003 and nothing happened - great job President Gore"

Either way Gore gets the short end.