Ten Years After Bush v. Gore, Imagining a Different Outcome

Friday, December 10, 2010

What if, ten years ago this Sunday, the Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore had gone another way? If the court had found the methods of recounting ballots to be fair; and instead of George W. Bush, then Vice-President Al Gore won Florida's recount, and thus the 2000 presidential election? How different would our world look today? Would it look different at all? 

That’s a question that Kurt Andersen tried to answer, or at least ... ponder ... in this week's issue of New York Magazine. Kurt is the host of PRI’s Studio 360, and in this conversation we hear some unexpected predictions in this bizarro-USA scenario. Like: What would happen to The Daily Show and Stephen Colbert? Would Eminem’s career be the same if Tipper Gore were to be the First Lady?


Kurt Andersen

Produced by:

Hsi-Chang Lin

Comments [6]

UE from outside the USA

Gore's supporters say that, in all likelihood, had he been elected in 2000 instead of Dubya, the 9-11 attacks would NEVER have occurred. And they may well
be right.

Jan. 04 2011 01:00 PM
Jed from Scarsdale

1. We would not have invaded Iraq
2. Iran would not be empowered
3. Research would have achieved more - i.e. no cutbacks at wither NIH or NSF
4. Economic meltdown probably would have happened
5. Immigration would have been fixed

Dec. 10 2010 03:05 PM

There is no reason to believe that any but a Bush Cheney Administration would have been dumb and corrupt enough to attempt to invade Iraq to kidnap the Iraqi oil fields and confer them to the Bush and Cheney allies in the oil and gas industry!

There is no political operative but Cheney who could have bullied Congress and the public into letting Bush order the war *after* the CIA stated on the record that Hussein and Iraq were no threat.

There is no reason to believe that any but a Bush and Cheney team would have been arrogant enough to attempt to bully the Taliban, when they had an RFP out for a gas pipeline project across Afghanistan from Tajikistan to the Pakistani ports, and demand that the Taliban award the contract to Occidental Petroleum - or else.

So: no 9-11 *nor* Iraq War except for the "unique" characteristics of the Bush Cheney Administration.

Dec. 10 2010 09:30 AM
Jason from Berkley, MI

There would not have been a war in Iraq, because Gore's daddy had no personal stake in the first Gulf War. We would be out of Afghanistan because our focus would have been there the whole time instead of being distracted by Iraq. Our economy would be in much better shape because the Dems would not have looked the other way while the bankers robbed us blind.

Dec. 10 2010 09:05 AM
jane thomas

Beginning with Mr. Hockenberry's snide remark about Mr. Gore's "invention of the internet," this morning's Takeaway went on to conjecture that Al Gore would probably have started a war in Iraq as did the man who didn't win the general vote in 2000. How about inviting Mr. Gore to comment on that? I would bet the farm that Gore would never have even considered this, given the ridiculous evidence. Way over the top today, Mr. Hockenberry and crew. Disgraceful. Tell that to the parents and spouses of the soldiers lying dead as a result of that war to say nothing of the shape of our economy because of it. Again, disgraceful.

Dec. 10 2010 07:24 AM
Hamden Rice from New York

Kurt Andersen's article is a disgraceful example of "false equivalence" -- trying to exonerate the Bush administration, which professional university based historians and economists overwhelmingly believe to have been one of the most disastrous in American history. Among the many reasons it was a disaster was Bush's decision to invade Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, by bamboozling the American people with fear and lies. To suggest that Gore would have invaded Iraq just as Bush did is disgraceful. At the time of the invasion, Gore was a vehement, articulate, passionate opponent of the war in many speeches. To suggest as president he would have done what he opposed as a citizen is downright silly and dishonest.

Moreover, the transition on national security and terrorism issues from Clinton to Gore would have been more seamless, and we know that the outgoing Clinton administration had concluded that terrorism would be the next administration's most pressing issue. The Bush administration wasn't interested and was focused on Russia and China.

More to the point, a President Gore would not have been vacationing on his pig farm in Texas while the intelligence agencies were "flashing red" about an imminent attack, and would not have told the director of central intelligence, you can go back to Washington now, you've covered your a**.

Dec. 10 2010 07:15 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.