A response to the Huffington Report story (The Presidency of Al Gore, 2001-2009)

by George Dienhart

The story is here. My timeline is the same as the original author. I think this way more probable than the outcome written by Norman MacAfee.

On January 20, 2001, Al Gore, the candidate who won the most votes, becomes the 43rd president of the United States. A constitutional crisis develops as the electoral college is ignored. Years later, historians refer to this event as the American coup of 2001.
Al Gore continues the same policies as the Clinton administration. The 9/11 events still occur as they did in our timeline.

Shortly after 9/11, Al Gore refuses to send Special Forces into Afghanistan to support the Northern Alliance. He states in an interview that he will not violate another nation’s sovereignty. Terrorists pour into Afghan training camps. A follow up to 9/11 is planned by Al Qaeda. Eventually Gore authorizes (CG-48) U.S.S. Yorktown to fire a cruise missile at Bin Laden’s last known location. The missile hit’s it’s target, but the Gore administration is embarrassed as Bin Laden is seen later that day in Damascus attending a conference for Palestinian Independence. Bin Laden is the keynote speaker and appologizes fo not paying enough attention to the “plight of his Muslim brothers”. During the speech, suicide bombers simultaneously attack 25 separate targets in Israel, killing over 600 people.

Republicans are squawking that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is a threat to the safety of the country, that he has weapons of mass destruction. Gore asks the United Nations to send its weapons inspectors back into Iraq, and after six months of searching, they find none. 3 months after the inspectors leave, Iraq gasses 20,000 Kurds with the nerve agent sarin.

In 1998, as vice president, Gore proposed a NASA satellite, Triana, to provide, from a distance of 930,000 miles, a continuous view of the sunlit side of the earth. Triana would measure global warming by measuring how much sunlight is reflected and emitted from the earth and would monitor weather systems. Triana is built and launched in February 2003. In late 2004 it has no effect on the a massive Tsunami that wreaks havoc on a large swath of the Indian Ocean. Triana watches helplessly from orbit, as it is not designed to track Tsunami’s.

The president's favorite book, Stendahl's The Red and the Black, proves to be a huge embarrassment to the President as the average American associates the book's young hero as speaking about Gore when he states: "So there, this is what these rich people are like. First they humiliate you, then they think they can make it up to you by monkey business!"

Recognizing that nothing good can come from the continuing Israeli-Palestinian standoff, Gore sends Holbrooke and Vice President Joe Lieberman to broker a peace. Both men are killed in a Palestinian missile attack on their motorcade. Hillary Clinton is named Vice- President.

As vice president, Gore signed the Kyoto Accord on Climate Change in 1998, but there were not enough votes to ratify it in the Congress, and there still are not. President Gore, however, is able to implement most elements of the treaty by executive order. He begins a process of education about global warming and publishes a book on the subject. Businesses are forced to turn green, and massive lay offs occur. By the time the Kyoto Accords are fully enacted, unemployment stands at 16%. The economy slips deeper into recession. When taxes are raised yet again, some economists start to use the term depression with alarming frequency. Years later, it is noted that Global Warming was a myth, and the Great Millennial Depression started with the Kyoto.

In 2005, Katrina hits. As most of the response is at the state and local levels, the response is a disaster. Due to the ongoing depression, an additional 25,000 homeless families perish in Katrina.

No one is quoting Al Gore’s philosophers on Nov 11 2005, when Dhiren Barot succeeds in destroying the New York Stock Exchange, Chase Bank and Citicorp in New York, The Chicago Board of Trade in Chicago, and the Eurex in Frankfort. The Millennial Depression is now global.
Russia invades Georgia, claiming that they are harboiing Chechen terrorists. NATO and the United States do nothing.

Hugo Chavez invades Brazil war wages on for 10 years before Brazil regains it’s independence.
Gore enacts National Healthcare. Tens of thousands of doctors are forced out of business. Lines are long at “National Clinics” when the great flu epidemic of 2006 hits. 30,000 children and infants are dead because they died before the National Healthcare clinics could schedule an appointment.

The president invites to the White House the person who had the most influence on him, his high school art teacher. The same day Congressman Dennis Hastert file articles of Impeachment, accusing Gore of profiting illegally on a Carbon Credits scheme.

Over 20% of the United Staes now lives in poverty

The undamming of rivers, begun seriously under Clinton/Gore, continues. Energy shortages plague the areas that are no longer receiving hydro-electric power.

George Bush announces he will run for president in 2008- a nation rejoices.

President Bush sums up his legacy in one sentence.

by George Dienhart

Yahoo and the Politico held a joint online interview of President Bush. In the interview, he was asked about his low poll numbers. He answered, "Popularity is fleeting, principles are forever. This perfectly sums up Bush’s legacy as a man who was willing to make the hard decisions regardless of political fallout. He has made the choice that is right for the future of this nation, without regard to his legacy. This makes him the anti-Clinton. It seemed as though all of President Clinton’s decisions were based on polls and the Clinton’s perception of what the decision would do to hi legacy. This led the nation down a rough road. His decision to cut and run in Somalia and his reluctance to deal with bin Laden when given the opportunity are examples of Clinton putting his legacy ahead of the nations future. He put a ‘times are good” mentality ahead of making foreign policy decisions that may have proved unpopular to his constituents. Another example would be the war in Kosovo. His refusal to commit ground troops had a cost of thousands of lives.

In contrast, President Bush has confronted our enemies, knowing that it would cost him popularity. The difference between the two men obviously extends past what goes on in the oval office when they are in the company of interns…

 

Slow news day?

by George Dienhart

I’ve never been a fan of the McPaper. Today’s front page covers Jenna Bush’s wedding.

"Bucking tradition, Jenna plans low-key nuptials: Bush's daughter opts for 'private' ceremony at ranch." "Guests: About 200 close family members and friends. ... Theme: Texas nature, and state wildflower colors of green, blue, yellow and lavender. Before the weekend: Spa weekend for Jenna and friends in Boca Raton, Fla.; fishing and a bachelor party for Henry in Miami."

Sadly, my invitation must be lost in the mail…

Of Obamicans and Macacrats

By George Dienhart

IndyStar.com is reporting massive cross over voting in the Indiana primary. Is this a sign of success for Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos, a massive desertion of Republican Hoosiers to Obama, or something else? My money is on something else.

One thing that struck me about the IndyStar piece was a quote from Meghan Ward-Bopp. She said, "I'm a hardcore Republican," she said, "but it's about who I wanted in second place in case McCain doesn't make it. ... I don’t like the way this country's been run in the last 20 years. I'm sick of the dynasty (of two families) that's been running things." This taps into how voting is a personal experience, and as such cannot always be summed up by the pundits. The piece also quoted other voters as crossing over to prolong the Democrats misery. Again, a deeply personal, if not slightly twisted reason.

It is here that I must ask, what about the Obamicans and Macacrats? It is really the same pool of voters- what we are so used to calling Reagan Democrats. It is this demographic that will swing the election to the eventual winner. Obama’s supporters are constantly publicizing the Obamican- Republicans that are planning to vote for Obama. In reality, these voters were mostly independents, not Republicans. Obama is too far to the left for the vast majority of Republicans. Thus, Obamican is a misnomer. They are the same group of left leaning Democrats that the Democratic candidates traditionally court.

McDemocrats are a little different story. McCain has always done well with independents. Macacrats are security first voters and moderates. Like or not the McCain nomination has moved the party to the left. It was not a seismic shift. It was subtle- but true moderates noticed it. McCain is someone that a voter who traditionally leans slightly to the left can support- they’ll trade off issues that are not important to them for someone that will not just protect them, but also for someone who not tax them to death. McCain comes closest to this description.

This is something that McCain knows and is prepared to use. He is actually in the process of moving his campaign to the right after securing the nomination. This unprecedented move to shore up the base was made because McCain is so popular with moderates and independents. It is not something that President Bush could have done, and it is not something that Obama or Clinton can currently do. This has left the voter with three candidates- two of which are sprinting to the right, with the third floundering in past mistakes.

Candidate Obama’s past mistakes are grave. These mistakes would have sent him back to the Senate to finish his term months ago, had they happened earlier. His actions in avoiding accountability have alienated him from the right and the center- and remember, it is the center that most be one in every election. He continues to do the opposite of McCain and Clinton- he is still moving to the left. Democrats moving to the left in primary season are the traditional strategy- but this is not a traditional year. Candidate Obama has so damaged his campaign by pandering to leftist extremists that he has jeopardized what was once a sure thing nomination. He may have even destroyed any chance he has of being president.

Candidate Clinton has also embraced the moderates, by moving to the right. Her bombastic statements on Iran are only part of a strategy to shift her stance to be closer to her those of her husband. She is trying to make up for being far more liberal on social issues by pretending to be a hawk on security. This has left her with a gaping hole in her left flank. Obama has marched straight through this hole and has almost sewn up the nomination due to Clinton’s miscalculation. It was this decision that leaves the Democrats where they are today. Clinton thought she had the nomination wrapped up last summer, so she started moving to the right. The hard-core liberals in the cities and suburbs deserted here, turning in droves to Obama. This left the Democrats fragmented, and with little chance of uniting in the upcoming general election.

That last point was important. Polls show that over a third of Hillary supporters will not vote for Obama in a general election. Polls show that the same is true for Obama supporters, in that they will not vote for Clinton. These voters are the true phenomenon here. They are the true Macacrats- voters that will actually cross party lines to vote. McCain has to ensure that he does not run so far to the right as to push these voters back to which ever Democrat eventually wins.

Quote of the Day

Quote from U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, dated April 11^th

"[W]hen I hear people say let's bring the troops home and end the war, good God, it's not going to end the war. ... I think it's going to give you a war of significantly increased proportions. ... I remember how we reacted to Rwanda. How could we have let that happen? Why didn't we step in? Why didn't we get the international community engaged? Well, you know, what if you have a humanitarian catastrophe in Iraq and it's not a question of why didn't we step in, it's we stepped out. How is that going to affect people?"

Financial Services forum- Democratic President would be a disaster

By George Dienhart

Cross-posted at IllinoisReview

I ran across this at the excellent Politico website-

'On average, (Financial Services) Forum CEOs saw an 88% chance of recession this year with one out of three members putting that chance at 100%. ... The survey also showed that Forum CEOs believe that the turmoil in credit markets has not yet fully run its course.' But they gave the Fed good marks. They peg overall 2008 real GDP growth to just under 1% (0.92%).
***Rising protectionist sentiment and higher tax rates were seen as significant threats to growth.

The asterisks are part of the Politico piece. I did not add them. The Politico is a non-partisan publication. When they covered this forum, they did so in a fair and balanced manner. If the Politico reported that the top concerns were protectionism and higher taxes, then it is a good bet that those were the main points of conversation. They are also nearly guaranteed to accompany a Democratic president.

To translate- we now have an economy that will grow slowly (the 1% forecast above) over the course of the year. This means we most likely are not in a recession. The economy is growing, and will grow modestly throughout the year. The problem begins next year. After a Dem is potentially elected president. Both Hillary and Obama have rather grandiose spending plans, and neither will extend President Bush’s tax cuts. Both plan new spending to roll out their visions for health care. Both have spoken out against free trade agreements. This behavior is exactly what would be categorized as “Rising protectionist sentiment”. Both would willingly throw the nation into a recession in order to pander to voters. Either would be a disaster as president.

I recently heard a liberal state that Obama would "save the country from economic collapse?" A good conservative pointed out that President Obama would punish the rich (and the middle class) with tax increases. He would punish businesses with more tax increases. Oil companies would be the recipient of a “double-whammy” tax on their profits. Obama is curiously silent when it comes to Sen. McCain’s proposal to suspend the federal gasoline taxes. This real tax relief would be a boon not only to truckers, but also to suburbanites commuting to work. Sen. McCain points out that his plan would be a real economic stimulus. Extra money in the monthly family budget. Extra money that could be spent on mortgages. Lowering diesel costs would also lower the prices on everything that people buy that is shipped by the trucking industry. For those who are interested, that would be everything …

The eerie silence emanating from the Obama and Clinton camps on this matter is purposeful. Both remaining Democratic presidential candidates know that they cannot win with a good economy. If you are Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, to win, you need a recession. In typical Democrat fashion, they are more concerned with their own future than they are with your future. Not only do they keep repeating the recession mantra- they are happy to ignore the realities of simple economics and propose policies that will suffocate the economy. All in order to be elected. To these two politicians, a November victory is far more important than any pesky voter. The only thing that counts is power, and they are perfectly happy to see countless Americans taxed to the brink of bankruptcy to amass more power.

Conservatives know that tax increases don’t grow the economy, they only grow spending. I only wish that Democrats could learn this…