loomixguy said:
You can moan and whine all you want, but I wish someone would enlighten all of us just how much better off we would be today with a lib president and/or congress.
Had Gore been elected in 2000, could he have stopped the 9/11 attacks that the libs blame W for? With Algore at the controls, would we have been attacked again? Could Algore have prevented Katrina? WithAlgore at the helm, would you try to tell me that gas and diesel would probably cost less than a dollar/gallon now, even though China and India have an even more insatiable appetite for fuel the we here in the US do? And tell me just exactly what Pelosi, Boxer and Company have done for me in the past year, cause I'd like to know.
All you liberal bedwetters better be careful what you wish for, cause you damn well just might get it, and it scares the hell out of me to think how much worse things could be today if there had been a lib in the Oval office for the past seven years. Anybody who lived through the Carter years should be able to relate.
What Gore would have done is simply speculation. But we can infer from what he did as part of the prior administration as to what might have been accomplished.
Would Al Qaeda have attacked? We have no way of knowing, but I think the entire country was behind going after Bin Laden, so there is a VERY good chance that had Bin Laden attacked us he would have gone into Afghanistan after him. But remember, under Clinton we were in a "hot pursuit" mode on Bin Laden anyway. That would have continued under Gore. Would Gore have gone into Iraq? I doubt it. Gore was well aware of the Iraqi quagmire......he actually listened to the former President Bush after Desert Storm......and Iraq was effectively contained with the no-fly zones and the food for oil.....and yes, there were some contraband making it's way into it, and there were problems, but they were manageable problems.
As the economy was obviously heading into a depression in 2000, Gore would have initiated some substantial tax cuts. But the tax cuts would have been for middle America rather than the wealthiest 1%. Remember, Gore had been part of the administration that had balanced the budget.....he would not have willingly put us into serious debt to give rich folks a tax cut. Although he was a free trade proponent, I seriously doubt he would have authorized tax deductions for moving jobs overseas. Only an economic moron would have allowed that (like dubya).
Again, in looking at the past record, Katrina and Rita would both have hit just like it did. The difference would have been the competency of FEMA's response to that crisis. A "good old boy" who contributed lots of money to the campaign would not have been appointed to head FEMA. There would have been no "brownie."
Would gas and Diesel still have been under a dollar? I doubt it, but by not taking out Saddam, the chances are we would not be looking for $4.00 a gallon fuel by summer, like AAA is saying. Further, with his focus on minimizing fossil fuel consumption, it is probable that we would have had substantially more funding of alternate energy sources. Research would have produced better and cleaner energy, faster if we had not had our energy policy dictated by big oil and Enron.
If you hadn't noticed, until the Democrats get a solid majority, they are still tied to the Presidents agenda. They have done what they could do......they have blocked many of the excesses of the administration. This time next year, when a decent president takes office, and there is a filibuster proof senate, you can expect to see a lot of changes........and I think that most of them will for the good of the nation.