January 31, 2007 1:19 AM

Re-Elect Al Gore

I should preface this entry by pointing out that I am an unabashed Barack Obama fanboy. He is my Senator, I voted for him, I am already volunteering for him, and will be attending two events to hear him speak in the next month. His politics exudes understanding and reason. Every position that he supports is one he has come to find through a clearly identifiable and consistent logic. I would love to see him in the White House. However, there is someone I would rather see occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 2009: Al Gore.

I know that I have an uphill struggle to explain myself to many in the Democratic Party, and perhaps an even more difficult job of convincing voters who consistently identify as “independent.” I am, for the purposes of this entry, going to discount Senator Clinton as less desirable than either Barack Obama or Al Gore. If you disagree with this contention, you might as well skip what follows and just start commenting so I can argue with you.

I am also going to assume that in a head-to-head match up between Barack Obama and John Edwards, Sen. Obama would be the favored candidate. He co-opts all of Edwards’ advantages: youth, charisma, perceived “outside the beltway-ness,” focus on the poor, etc. What’s more, he out strides Edwards on several important election issues: he came out against the invasion of Iraq from the start, he didn’t launch a failed bid at the Presidency followed by a failed bid at the Vice Presidency, he was not a trial lawyer, he’s black (which I only mention because it will get him free media), and he has more political experience. Again, if you wholeheartedly disagree with this premise, skip the writing and start arguing in the comments. With those caveats in mind, consider the following.

We know Al Gore is a talented politician. He was elected 4 times to represent Tennessee’s 4th district in the House of Representatives. He was twice elected to serve in the Senate. He left that post only to be twice elected as Vice President of the United States. The only election he has lost was the 2000 Presidential election. This is quite a record as far as reasons to support him, but is also a substantial reason to doubt his viability as a Presidential candidate. Let’s take a closer look.

The 2000 election was in many ways a rigged game for George W. Bush. He was the popular governor of Texas, he shared a name (and thus all-important name recognition) with his father and former President George H.W. Bush, and he brought something different to the national election scene. He was plainspoken, perceived as honest, and was riding a wave of public support for the Republican agenda that surged forward from the 1994 midterm elections. He offered a change from the “dirty” and “tainted” administration that preceded him, and was “compassionate” to boot. Finally, he filled a role that Conservatives hadn’t filled in 1996 - the avenger of President Bush 41, martyred at the hands of William Jefferson Clinton.

Despite these obstacles, a terrible campaign strategy (and presence), and his un-spinnable ties to the Clinton administration, Al Gore won the national popular vote in 2000. Several hundred Florida votes are all that separated us from having President Al Gore in 2001. I submit now that Al Gore would benefit in 2008 from the same rigged game that helped President Bush 43 edge him in 2000.

Gore is the popular star of an Academy Award nominated documentary, not to mention a former Vice President. He has name recognition that is not even approached by any Republican challenger. He brings something different to the national election scene: he has been right on just about everything, before everyone else, on issues that effect everyone (the internet, pollution, global warming, Iraq.) He is riding a wave of public support for the Democratic agenda that surged forward from the 2006 midterm elections. He offers a change from the “lying” and “misguided” administration that precedes him, and is “intelligent” to boot. Finally, he fills a role that Democrats didn’t fill in 2004 - avenger of his own failed campaign, martyred at the hands of George W. Bush.

Al Gore will probably get just about every vote he got in 2000, should he run. He will also benefit from right-center leaning voters who are tired of the Republican agenda, tired of Iraq, tired of… whatever. He will not lose any voters he got in 2000 to the GOP side (with the possible exception of the McCain/Giuliani superticket, but the Dems will win New York regardless and probably lose Arizona regardless.) In addition, he will be a one-man 24/7 reminder that every vote counts to every single leftist, left-leaning, progressive, centrist, green, and neutral voter in every single state. Florida and Ohio will see unprecedented Democratic voter turnout. Tennessee, which very nearly elected a black Democrat to the senate in 2006, will almost certainly go Gore’s way this time.

These arguments don’t even take into account Gore’s choice of a running mate. Should he select Mark Warner, he will win Virginia without even trying. Gov. Richardson (while a fine candidate in his own right) would sow up New Mexico and probably Nevada. Sen. Obama would be a wildcard as to his demographic appeal, but the millions of dollars, free press, and charisma he provides would be of help in every state.

Finally, many people have criticized my analysis in the discussions that lead to the conclusions I’ve presented here. They argue that either (a) All Democrats would accomplish the same agenda if elected, so we should unify behind the most electable candidate (which they usually claim is Sen. Obama or John Edwards), or (b) I focus too much on electability and not enough on ideas. I have the same answer to each of these criticisms.

First, I agree that most Democratic Presidents will approach the same high profile issues in the same way (Iraq, Balanced Budget, Universal Health Care); I think Al Gore is the only candidate who would do this and more. Gore supports withdrawal from Iraq ASAP (which, for me, is an entirely different issue regarding how little I care), supports forced balancing of the Federal budget, and supports UHC. With a Democratic Congress, all of these initiatives will pass regardless of which Democrat is in the White House. However, Gore is the only candidate we can count on to put global warming front and center as a national (and indeed moral) priority. Hidden in this simple fact is something that I think escapes most voters, and is something that separates Al Gore from everyone else running for President.

Implicit in the argument to take action against global warming now is the following assumption: far-off consequences with small windows of opportunity and little margin for error must be addressed now. This simple philosophy informs our approach to Medicare, Social Security, Energy Independence, and many other issues in a way that no other approach can touch. Gore is absolutely the only candidate who recognizes and acts upon our moral responsibility to leave the world a better place to those generations that follow us through proactive policy. Beyond any measure of electability, this central part of his public policy philosophy compels me to ask Democrats to please elect Al Gore as President of the United States.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by divabrighton published on January 31, 2007 1:19 AM.

And now for something completely different was the previous entry in this blog.

This week in Stoopid is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Contact Me

Powered by Movable Type 5.12