Hypothetical: what would republicans do if Gore won the 2000 election?

[0rganism]

I know some will claim this is a trick question, as Gore DID win the popular vote, and those of us who've reviewed the results know that under any possible scenario of chaddery, any recount of ALL Florida votes goes to Gore. So... flashback to the 2000 election.

Let's set up the hypothesis thusly: either Justice Kennedy or O'Conner decides that by 14th ammendment standards, the only way to ensure equal protection of both litigants and voters is to recount the entire state according to a single standard.

Gore wins the electoral college vote, and takes the presidency he earned.

I challenge your imaginations here.

1. Would the GOP EVER "get over it"? What would they have done in January 2001? Barring other exceptional events, would Al Gore be alive today, or assasinated as was JFK? Would there be armed revolt, or perhaps a military coup? Would the GOP mercilessly attack the SCOTUS as hopelessly politicized?

2. Suppose the terrorist attacks occurred as they did on Sept. 11, 2001. Would the GOP have rallied behind Al Gore in a show of unity? Would he EVER have reached 90% support? Or would he have been mercilessly attacked by conservative media punditry 24/7 on every network available?

3. Now suppose Al Gore decides to invade Iraq and give sweetheart deals to the companies that supported his campaign. Would "support the troops" be the conservative mantra, or "I can support the troops without supporting the president"?

4. If Al Gore required a federal budget deficit of $500 BILLION per year, out into the foreseeable future, would the republicans still support his "war on terror"?

5. If the GOP lost both houses of congress in the 2002 midterms, would they concede a liberal mandate in America? Would they run candidates based on appeals to "centrist Democrats who could be getting larger tax cuts"? Or would they run a mad-dog smear campaign to energize their angry white male base? Would they have a 9-way primary race, or simply put forth shrub once again as "the man deprived of rightful officeholding", thus saving campaign funds for the general election offensive?

I guess what I'm saying is, we ought to be examining the tactics used by the right wingers very carefully. In 1992, the GOP got their collective arse handed to them by Clinton and the Democrats. By 1995, the GOP black ops had essentially neutralized Clinton, and firmly blocked his grand hope of universal health coverage. Furthermore, they managed to deregulate damn near everything related to media ownership in 1996, and even passed crazy-ass accounting standards reforms over Clinton's veto. By 1998, the GOP was able to sublimate years of weak personal attacks into a media blitzkrieg circus focused on Clinton's dalliance with a whitehouse intern.

This is no accident. These people play hardball. Who in Democratic leadership is willing to do the same?

[Ambassador Hope]

1. What we need to remember

If we dems make a lot of rules, we must live by them. Clinton broke rules being forced on executives that they should never play around with hired help. I heard very liberal instructors on affirmative action teach us that you should never play around with the help. It could be favoritism.

He knew this. He should have thought of Hillary and his daughter.

What we need to do is be different then the repubs. The voters will flock back to us.

[JackSwift]

4. There is no rule against

a consensual relationship between an executive and an employee. As a lawyer who represents both sides, I'd heavily caution a company into having such a policy, because it is none of the company's business about consensual relationships. I do advise executives against such relationships as a personal policy to avoid their own trouble, but I would never advise a company to adopt such a policy because it would be illegal. Can't do it on company time or company property is a good rule. But it would not apply to a captive executive who is working 24/7 in a secure environment like the WH.

The Clinton/Lewinsky affair was a consensual affair between legally consenting adults, and there was nothing illegal about it. Hillary was the only aggreived party.

[0rganism]

6. Excuse me?

Are you saying that elected Democrats should somehow prove they aren't having affairs? And this will somehow bring the voters back?

Why would moral voters be more inclined to support republicans like the adulterous Gingrich than Clinton? I'll tell you why: it's the media, stupid.

[ComerPerro]

7. Well,

he obviously seems to only be offended by the fact that Clinton had an affair. I don't want to point any fingers (otherwise my post will be deleted, while his right-leaning and sixtieth post remains). But I will say, on a completely related topic, that we get a lot of right-wingers that come here and post.

[Paschall]

2. As a matter of fact, the GOP was prepared for just this eventuality

I don't have a link, but it was reported in multiple media sources during and after the Florida debacle, that the GOP was prepared to wage war on the Electoral College if Gore had pulled it off.

When the GOP nabbed it, all their "principled objections" to the EC suddenly never made headlines. No surprise there, huh?

[0rganism]

5. "wage war on the electoral college"... sounds treasonous, no?

Do you think it would have come down to assasinating electors? Perhaps a widespread armed revolt? Or is it just metaphorical?

I've heard before that the GOP was planning to do whatever it took to overthrow the EC, but what that means is still vague IMHO. Other than a proposed constitutional ammendment, I haven't heard too many specifics.

[Rabrrrrrr]

3. Oh, hell, these are easy to answer

1. No, they would not have gotten over it, and they'd be hounding him, and he might very well be dead right now. Probably not likely on being assassinated, but certainly his life would be a living hell, both as a human being, and as trying to get anything done as president.


2. GOP would have immediately called for impeachment, they and the media would have questioned every decision he made - even his decision to bomb Afghanistan and go after the Taliban. He wuold certainly have been blamed for it. And if Al had taken August off like whistle-ass did, you can bet your last dollar that he'd have been impeached or worse.


3. No, we'd be right back to the ol' repuke mantra of "It's totally okay to be against the president and still be a troops-supporter" like with Kosovo; the exact thing the repukes say now is impossible. he'd also be in constant subpeonas, senater hearings, and God knows what else, to force him to disclose every secret bidding process, every connection he has to every company rebuilding Iraq, etc. (Though if this were reality, Gore would still have been forced to deal with Haliburton and Brown and Root, since none of Gore's friends are in those industries, so he might have been able to make a good political deal on that one and perhaps NOT be criticized for invading Iraq).

4. Of course not. Even if Gore managed to have a trillion dollar surplus, while funding everything, the repukes would not support his war on terror, even if he was spending a trillion a year on it. They'd always say "Gore is light on terror! He's not funding enough! He's not doing enough! He hates this country, and we won't stand for it!" Then they'd impeach him, bring in some repuke dickwad who would cut the anti-terror budget down to $30 billion, and the repukes would all be chanting, "Thank God someone is doing something about terror!"


5. They would have gone apeshit, would have demanded every voting machine be checked for tampering, called for recounts all over the place, and even if it were conclusively shown and proven that America wanted a democrat majority, the repukes would claim that the dems only won because unions and the ACLU hired buses to bring people to vote, or that the dsitrictings were all off to favor the democrats, or some other bullshit reason to not admit that the democrats had both moral authority and the will of the people behind them, and the right wing media shows and media in general would constantly be questioning everything that happened with "Well, we're just convinced that this is the senate and congress that America wanted. We're sure they wanted republicans in those seats, but somehow the dems stole it from them, so it's our moral duty to remind America of what's really happening, and watchdog these political leaders who lead by agenda, and not by the will of the people etc etc etc ad nauseum", except that apart from William Safire, no repuke pundit media whore would know the term "ad nauseum".

[0rganism]

8. Double standards. You know it. I know it. These are the e-z questions.

Does your congressional representative know it?

Does your senator know it?

Does the DNC know it?

I would bet money that they do. But it's the goddam elephant in the living room syndrome that no one dares talk about, let alone do anything remotely serious.

"You know, that elephant in the living room doesn't match the drapes or the upholstery."

"Yes Gladys, I think we'd better plan on getting the room redone in gray, then."

"It's eating the credenza."

"Stupid credenza, it's about time we got rid of it."

"Whoa! It just laid a 50-pound turd on the oriental rug."

"Really? I'll get the shovel. You know, with these elephants, you just can't lay out enough old newspaper."

"The Smiths said their elephant is box-trained. Why isn't ours?"

"Well, you know how the Smiths are, always on the cutting edge of the new trends."

[Iverson]

9. too easy

1. No. Their reactions, in whatever combination, would be those of unceasing hostility.
2. No.
3. the latter
4. No.
5. They would concede nothing.

These are people who put party before country. They wish to acquire power without end, and subverting democracy is merely one element of the strategy. They have repeatedly shown contempt for democratic institutions, including free and fair elections and the rule of law.

The lesson here is to avoid accomodating them and granting them legitimacy. The movers and shakers should be behind bars.