Decision Points: The Presidency of Al Gore

Convention Season

John McCain stood beside his wife Cindy just off stage. He looked out to watch the speaker, Governor Jeb Bush, delivering his introduction. It was a surreal moment for the candidate. He had worked for years to reach this moment, yet it didn’t feel like it was actually happening. McCain was nominated a day before, after a thrilling speech by Senator George Allen. It was a conservative rallying cry in a year where the Republican nominee was anything by a party-line voter. That was the biggest factor holding McCain back. Four years earlier, he was a beaten man. George Bush had “out-conservatived” McCain. Yet now he was accepting the nomination of the very same party that had rejected him so abruptly. He was the new Republican standard bearer, the man tasked with taking back the White House after twelve years in the desert. McCain had always been an important force in Washington, but now he was poised to take a great leap into the most important office in the world.
Corbis-42-20781628.jpg

The 2004 Republican National Convention was held in Miami. The symbolism was obvious. Florida, specifically Miami-Dade County, was the site of one the closest and most contentious episodes in American political history. The recount had deeply divided the country and the state along partisan lines. Now the Republican Party returned to the Sunshine State, with the goal of rallying their supporters around the Straight Talk Express. Florida Governor Jeb Bush attempted to defuse claims that this was a “revenge convention,” claiming that “There are dozens of reasons why the delegates would want to come to Florida: the weather, the food, the entertainment. I doubt anyone wants to come to Miami to relive all the fun we had four years ago.”

The convention was a raucous affair. Florida’s Congressional delegation proudly rang in the affair, praising Senator McCain for his consistent support for a strong foreign policy and other traditionally Republican causes. The speeches would go back and forth between praising McCain and attacking President Gore. In both cases, the emphasis was on foreign policy. Republicans praised McCain for his record of service in Vietnam and a strongly pro-defense record in the Senate. They attacked Gore for “leading from behind” and for failing to take a stronger position against Iraq and state-sponsors of terror. The party united behind their nominee and against his opponent in a profound show of strength. Former Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush both spoke, as did 2000 nominee George W. Bush. All three praised McCain for his service to the country and his record in the Senate. There were consistent references to Ronald Reagan. The late President’s legacy loomed large over the party he helped put into office. MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews noted that “it looks like the Republican Party is still looking for the next Reagan. Maybe they hope that if they keep evoking him McCain will transform into him.” The most poignant moment was a speech by Nancy Reagan that focused on her husband’s legacy as a husband and father.

Senator George Allen of Virginia delivered the convention’s keynote address. Allen was a rising star within the Republican Party. His strongly conservative voting record, youth, and charisma made him a potential Presidential candidate in the future. He was also on Senator McCain’s shortlist for Vice-President. Allen’s speech was a call-to-arms for the Republican Party. It praised the “fundamental American promise that individual freedom and liberty will lead to prosperity for all. A small government is necessary to preserve that freedom, while a strong national defense is needed to protect all our liberties.” Allen also attacked President Gore and the Democrats: “For the past twelve years, the only thing standing in the way of an every bigger government, ever higher taxes, and ever more regulation is a committed and conservative Republican Party. President Gore wants to stop us. But in November, we will say ‘no more!’ Finally, Allen wrapped up his speech with strong praise for his party’s nominee: “I’ve had the privilege to serve with John McCain for the past four years. And I look forward to having the honor to work with him when he is President of the United States!”

Senator McCain’s speech was focused squarely on foreign policy and national security. After being introduced by Governor Bush, McCain walked onto the stage to the deafening cheers of a convention hall that was readily waiting for their nominee. The candidate began his speech with praise for those who spoke before him “I could not ask for a greater welcoming committee. I’m honored to be standing here in front of you today. And as you’ve heard endless times these past few days, I’m incredibly lucky.” Then he launched into the meat of the speech: “America is a country grounded in sacred rights. It is single-greatest burden of our government to protect and defend them. We do not seek war or violence. But to ensure that our rights are not infringed, we must have a strong national defense. And we must not shrink from our responsibilities around the globe. To do so would strengthen those that wish to destroy our freedom. As your Commander-in-Chief, I promise never to retreat in the face of the threats we face.” McCain’s focus on foreign policy was telling. He almost entirely ignored social issues, merely stating that “A strong America also requires strong families, entrenched in time-tested values. We must never discard them in the name of progress.” He touched more on the economy, claiming that “Ronald Reagan proved tax cuts work. They put more money in the pockets of the American people, and ensure that government cannot grow infinitely. As President, my first act will be to cut your taxes while equally cutting spending. That is something my opponent cannot say.”

Corbis-42-36254855.jpg

The Republican nominee’s speech was widely praised and well received by conservatives and moderates alike. McCain’s focus on foreign policy and national security was seen by observers as wise decision. Despite his strong performance in the primaries, McCain still faced a party with many skeptical elements. Social conservatives doubted his drive on the issues of abortion and gay marriage, while supply-siders were uncertain of his faith in tax cuts. But the party was united behind McCain’s dedication to protecting America and taking a more aggressive stance in foreign policy. The selection of Michigan Governor John Engler to be his running-mate further reinforced the unity doctrine. Engler was a “get-it-done” Governor who alienated no members of the Republican tent. The McCain campaign hoped that by keeping the party united, they could exploit the country’s dissatisfaction with President Gore.

The Democrats gathered for their convention at the end of August, a month later. The convention was held in New York City just days before the third anniversary of the September 11th attacks. Thematically, the Democrats chose to focus primarily on President Gore’s response to 9/11 and his “ongoing fight for working families.” This contrasted with the Gore campaign’s more aggressive, anti-GOP, rhetoric. The first night of the convention was a patriotic roll-out. Mayor Mark Green opened the evening with a passionate speech about New York’s response to 9/11: “So tonight, I’m here to tell America that New York is back and ready to go!” He was followed by former Governor and hero of liberals, Mario Cuomo. Other speakers included former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, a number of Senators and Congress-people, and Senator Hillary Clinton. The next night the focus was more domestic. Labor, women’s rights, environmentalists, and minority leaders all spoke in praise of President Gore. The message was clear: Despite his centrist policies, Gore’s heart was with the right people. The First Lady, Tipper Gore, also spoke about the President’s advocacy for women’s issues despite Republican opposition.

The fireworks came out on the third night. Senator John Edwards, “the Democrats’ Rock Star,” delivered the keynote address. In it, he focused on poverty in America, growing social inequality, and the shrinking middle class. But the speech was also an aggressive one. Edwards targeted the Republicans tax plan as an example of how they weren’t serious about addressing these problems: “Take a look at John McCain’s tax plan. It calls for record cuts for the wealthiest Americans, cuts for big business, and it preserves tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. That’s not going to help the middle class.” Edwards also defended the Gore Administration’s policies in this regard, specifically emphasizing Medicare expansion: “There are too many seniors who have to choose between food and medicine, housing and their prescriptions. That is morally wrong. But John McCain and the Republican Party don’t see it that way. They think it’s bad for business to allow Medicare to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices, or to allow us to import affordable, high quality medication. But here’s the truth: We can’t afford to keep the status quo. It’s bad for America, and that’s bad for business.” The Senator’s speech was well received by the base, but heavily criticized by Republicans. Edwards was seen as a rising star in the party and a potential future Presidential candidate, and his speech improved his name recognition with the Democratic base.
Corbis-DWF15-828520.jpg

Vice-President Lieberman followed. His speech focused on foreign policy, applauding Gore for his efforts to keep America safe following 9/11 and “acting decisively to destroy al-Qaeda and put Osama bin Laden on the run.” His speech was an attempt to enforce the President’s national security credentials in the aftermath of the highly patriotic Republican Convention. Lieberman also spoke of his friendship with McCain: “I’ve been a good friend of John McCain’s for many years. We were both elected in 1986, and we both spent our careers in the Senate looking out for America’s fighting men and women and our national security. But I don’t recognize this John McCain. Whether it’s ignoring climate change, eschewing fiscal responsibility in favor of massive tax cuts, or attacking President Gore’s leadership in the war on terror, I don’t recognize the Republican nominee.” The speech was once again music to the ears of Democrats, but deeply angered Republicans.

On the final night, President Gore took to the stage. His speech was titled “Defending the American Dream,” and it dealt with both domestic and foreign policy. Gore talked about the need for action to help the middle class and working families, thinking back to his upbringing “My parents engrained in me a sense of shared responsibility when I was a young boy. I remember being taught that I was no better or worse than anyone else, and that what defined me was how hard I worked for others. That message bears true today. America rises and falls through our shared commitment to the American Dream. We cannot simply expect that all of us will be successful. We must work to make it happen. We must ensure that we have the greatest schools in the world, the highest quality healthcare, and the greatest businesses. But we also have to ensure that these great elements of America are accessible to all Americans.” Gore then shifted towards foreign policy: “On September 11th, this city and this country were attacked. The people who planned and carried out the attacks thought we would retreat or surrender. They were damn wrong. Out of the ashes of those towers we have grown stronger. Our fighting men and women brought democracy to Afghanistan and put Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda on the ropes. Now is not the time to take the crosshairs off them. Now is the time to double down and ensure that there will never be another attack on this country. I need your help; your country needs your help. It’s time to finish what we started.”

Corbis-42-26624832.jpg
 

John Farson

Banned
Great chapter. The battle lines are drawn and next is the debates.

I noticed there was no mention of Obama at the Democratic convention. I take it that without the Iraq War as a rallying cry his political rise is still-born TTL? As it is, if anyone at all has heard of him, they'll only know him as "that state senator from Illinois with the funny name.":p
 

DTanza

Banned
Great chapter. The battle lines are drawn and next is the debates.

I noticed there was no mention of Obama at the Democratic convention. I take it that without the Iraq War as a rallying cry his political rise is still-born TTL? As it is, if anyone at all has heard of him, they'll only know him as "that state senator from Illinois with the funny name.":p

Well he'll probably still win his Senate seat. Any Presidential ambitions are probably shelved for another decade or two though.
 
Well he'll probably still win his Senate seat. Any Presidential ambitions are probably shelved for another decade or two though.
It's likely that he'll win by much smaller margins. Will he face Jack Ryan, or will Ryan's past catch up to him? If not, will Keyes replace Ryan (expect a blowout Obama win) or someone else (not so much)?
 
If Gore wins reelection, let's hope it butterflies away John Edwards meeting Rielle Hunter.

(And to think he thought he had a shot at being VP under Obama. If Obama made that mistake (unlikely, I think Obama's people would warn him against it), he would have lost, IMO, even running against McCain/Palin.)
 
McCain could win with 286 votes like IOTL or 290 votes, if he can win New Hampshire. Does his choice of Engler as a running mate put Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin into play? And will Gore win his home state this time around? If he does, and Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin go to the Democrats, McCain still wins with 279 votes in the E.C.
 
I want to thank all the readers of this timeline. It's been a long-term project, and occasionally I've considered walking away. But it's the response of the readers that has kept me working. I didn't set out to write an award-winning timeline. My goal was simple: tell a compelling and plausible story about an Al Gore presidency. The response I've gotten is wonderfully surprising, and winning the Turtledove was a total shock. All I can say is thank you for your support. This timeline isn't going away anytime soon, and I can't wait to keep it going!
 
Congrats! :)

I have to say that i enjoy your TL greatly. As someone whose experience with the American politics is limited (i'm a Spaniard working in China), it has been really instructive to see how limited is actually the power of a president by himself. How many of the decisions follow the same path no matter who is elected (which is also a good thing in many cases).

And well, it's very well written and delivered, plus it's a character i've always felt sympathy for.
 
I want to thank all the readers of this timeline. It's been a long-term project, and occasionally I've considered walking away. But it's the response of the readers that has kept me working. I didn't set out to write an award-winning timeline. My goal was simple: tell a compelling and plausible story about an Al Gore presidency. The response I've gotten is wonderfully surprising, and winning the Turtledove was a total shock. All I can say is thank you for your support. This timeline isn't going away anytime soon, and I can't wait to keep it going!

Congratulations. Let me know if you need my help in anyway. You should probably write a book about Alternate History. Your stories are probably better and more realistic than the stuff that Jeff Greenfield writes.
 

d32123

Banned
Congrats on the Turtledove this TL is freaking awesome! Glad to see you're going to continue this after the 2004 election at least.
 
The race is on now hcallega. One question, I believe that if the RNC was held in Miami in 2004, the appropriate venue would be the American Airlines Arena. Was that the exact location, or were you planning to hold it in the old Miami Arena, or the BankAtlantic Center (Now the BB&T Center) in Sunrise FL? I am looking forward to the next update.
 
The race is on now hcallega. One question, I believe that if the RNC was held in Miami in 2004, the appropriate venue would be the American Airlines Arena. Was that the exact location, or were you planning to hold it in the old Miami Arena, or the BankAtlantic Center (Now the BB&T Center) in Sunrise FL? I am looking forward to the next update.

American Airlines Arena was the location.
 
The Great Debate
Televised presidential debates are a quintessentially American creation. They encompass many of our country’s favorite pastimes: television, competition, and 20/20 hindsight. Most viewers of the 1960 incarnation of the debates attributed John Kennedy’s win to his appearance, which was magnified in contrast to the “just out of bed look” employed by Richard Nixon. Had he just spent a little more time outsides instead of wearing the “insta-shave,” the race might have turned out differently. But that’s the way it goes in politics, and especially in debates where one slip-up can decide who sits behind the Oval Office and who gets an early start to their memoirs. In recent elections, the debates had been less than enthralling. The candidates played it safe, rarely going for a game changing haymaker. Instead, the rivals trade ticky-tack hits with the hope that their opponent might slip up. The 2000 debates personified this trend. In fact the most important moments had nothing to do with what either Al Gore or George Bush said. The first debate was marked by Gore’s frequent sighs when Bush was speaking. This did not play well with the public, and only further reinforced the perception that the Vice-President was a little on the arrogant side. In the town hall debate, Gore attempted to correct the perception that he was a pushover by bizarrely walking closer and closer towards Bush as he answered a question. The Texan played it cool, turning to his rapidly approaching opponent and giving a slight nod of the head. The audience loved it. Not that it made much of a difference in the end. Al Gore was President of the United States, and George Bush was enjoying the simple life on his ranch.
Corbis-U1251417.jpg

Four years later, the debates had the potential to be something much more exciting. This wasn’t a peacetime race between two centrist candidates. It wouldn’t be a debate over how much to cut taxes, or what kind of HMO reform was best. The press would have a lot more to talk about than a candidate’s posture or facial expressions. This was a serious contest fought over serious issues. America was at war with terror. The economy was weak, with middle-class wage growth stagnant. The budget, which was running a surplus in October of 2000, was now running a growing budget deficit. President Gore had slogged through all of this, and received generally positive marks. But voters were frustrated. They wanted to see a more aggressive foreign policy, one that challenged Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and China. They wanted to see tax cuts, even if they were mostly going to the wealthy. They wanted economic growth and jobs coming back to America. And, perhaps most importantly, they wanted change after twelve years of being governed by Democratic Presidents. History was not on Al Gore’s side.

Senator John McCain, the Republican challenger, entered the debates with a game plan. He would do what he did best: attack. McCain’s goal was to poke holes in Gore’s likely argument: I’ve prevented another terrorist attack and have put Osama bin Laden on the run. The Republican nominee would counter that the President took strong steps forward after 9/11, but took his foot off the gas. Then he would offer a crystal-clear version of a McCain presidency: tougher foreign policy, sanctions with the threat of force behind them, an end-game in Afghanistan, and a renewed commitment to homeland security. The first debate would only be on foreign policy, McCain’s strong suit. Expectations were high in Phoenix as the campaign prepared for what could be a turning-point in the race.

It was John McCain’s friend who coached the President in the lead-up to the debates. Senator John Kerry went way back with his colleague from Arizona. Both were Vietnam veterans who became politically active after they came home. They were heroes to their respective parties. Kerry was the soldier who spoke out against the war, McCain the heroic prisoner who never gave up. They were both very concerned about the plight of veterans, and co-chaired a commission looking into whether American POWs were still being held in Vietnam. Despite their policy differences, both men respected one another. They worked together on a myriad of issues, and forged a partnership akin to an earlier generation in Washington. But now it was John Kerry’s job to keep John McCain out of the White House. Unlike the Republican nominee, Al Gore would take a much more stoic approach in the debates. He wouldn’t come out and defend every action and praise every proposal. No, Al Gore was Commander-in-Chief and would emphasize that he was working every day to keep America safe. He would go on the offensive from time to time, but this wasn’t a campaign speech. It was a debate, and voters expected a degree of civility absent from the trail.
Corbis-42-43034910.jpg

The University of Miami Convention Center was the site of the first debate in 2004. The night of September 30th was warm; still summer in the South. The candidates took advantage of the location, campaigning during the day before getting in some last minute debate prep that night. Jim Lehrer would moderate. His PBS career and previous experiences moderating debates made him a strong choice. He went to the heart of the contest right off the bat, asking Senator McCain “do you believe you could do a better job than President Gore at preventing another 9/11?” This was the perfect opportunity for the challenger “Yes I do, Jim. For the past three years, this Administration has been on the defensive. I’ve supported many of the things that the President has proposed and enacted; the anti-terrorism act, our effort in Afghanistan, and the Department of Homeland Security. But we need to go on the offensive, and as President I’ll do that. I’ll aggressively target the financial bakers behind al-Qaeda and their allies. I’ll put pressure on countries that support terrorism. And I’ll make sure that we finish the job in Afghanistan. That means capturing Osama bin Laden, and it means destroying al-Qaeda.”

McCain’s attack was spot on. He didn’t make out Gore to be a failure, but emphasized that he would do more. Now it was time to see if the President could adequately defend himself: “What Senator McCain said is wrong. It’s just totally incorrect. We’ve gone on the offensive. We sent troops to Afghanistan to help take down the Taliban. That worked. Osama bin Laden and his operatives are on the run. But unlike my opponent, I don’t support sending America’s fighting men into battle against countries with no connection to 9/11. That’s a bridge too far, and it’s going to take our eye off the ball.”
Corbis-0000371855-009.jpg

The rest of the debate followed a similar pattern. McCain promised to do more, and attacked Gore for doing too little. The President adamantly defended his record, especially in regards to the claim that he had not done enough to keep America safe. Questions ranged from Afghanistan to China to port security. Neither candidate made any gaffes. Gore’s slow speaking style was occasionally monotonic and boring, while McCain frequently stumbled over his sentences. In the aftermath, there was no clear winner. Polls showed that McCain won on substance, though Gore’s performance surprised many voters. In head-to-head matchups, the President still held a very narrow lead. But McCain closed the gap in the aggregate from being down by 2% to just 1%, essentially a tie. The next two debates would provide an opportunity for the Senator to comeback.

In between the first and second presidential debates, the Vice-Presidential candidates met in Battleground USA: Cleveland, Ohio. The matchup presented a contrast in style and experience. Vice-President Lieberman was a fairly reserved and dutiful presence. John Engler was large and outgoing, the sort of candidate who was as comfortable in a union hall as he was sitting around a board meeting. Much like the first Presidential debate, the VP debate focused on foreign policy. Lieberman was in his element, defending Gore’s record as a defender of America. But Engler was not entirely lost. He praised his running-mate, calling John McCain “an American hero, and the sort of man who can keep this country safe.” When the debate did shift to domestic policy, Engler was much more comfortable. He argued for passing “tax cuts, cutting waste, and slashing through the red tape which holds back our businesses and entrepreneurs.” Once again, there was no clear winner in the debate, though Lieberman did come out on top in the polls.

The second presidential debate was town-hall style, not a natural fit for either candidate. Gore often came off as stiff and had trouble showing empathy towards voters. McCain was more natural, but also had a habit of coming off as overly aggressive and confrontational. Both campaign teams worked to minimize their candidates’ weaknesses. They also had to be prepared for the unexpected, as well as rapid shifts in the tone and focus on the questioning. Gore had experience in this area, whereas McCain was used to the more structured debate of the Senate. Nonetheless, neither nominee was unprepared. The questions varied from defense to health care to abortion. Gore attempted to appear more down to earth than in the first debate, and “pulled a Clinton” on the issue of taxes. When a middle-class man asked why Gore vetoed legislation that would “put more money in the pocket of hard-working Americans,” Gore responded “This economy has been tough for every American, especially the middle-class. Now I support a tax cut for working Americans. But I won’t sign a bill into law that costs hundreds of billions of dollars on cuts for people who don’t need them. If I signed either one of those tax cuts, we’d have to cut funding for education, research and development, homeland security, or national defense. You deserve a break, and I’ll fight for that.” McCain was hit with an equally tough question. How would he address the growth in entitlements? “That’s an important question, one of the most important in fact. Because we’re heading for a big problem in the future. That means we’re going to have to make some tough decisions, whether that’s raising the retirement age, changing how we structure benefits, and looking into more choice in the program. Now I’m a believer in straight talk. So is it going to hurt? Sure is. But it’s better to take a hit today than in the long-term.” That answer, was controversial, though it reinforced McCain’s reputation for telling tough truths. Democrats attacked the response, running ads claiming that the Republican nominee would “Weaken our safety net, not strengthen it.” But polls showed that voters didn’t particularly care about entitlement reform and, if anything, were impressed with McCain’s honesty. Once again, there was little major poll movement.

The final debate would be the most important. With a focus on domestic issues, Gore was expected to perform well. He had a great deal more experience in that field than McCain, who frequently broke with his party on the home front. So when it was the Arizona Senator, not the President, who thrived, pundits and voters alike were surprised. Gore was asked primarily about three subjects: taxes, the economy, and his unsuccessful efforts to pass legislation. On the question of his infamous tax cut veto, the President reiterated his talking points: “I was sent a bill that would have ballooned the deficit, once before 9/11, and once after. In both cases, I vetoed the bill because any short-term gains for our economy would have been whipped out by the long-term damage to our budget.” This technocratic answer failed to satisfy McCain, who asked “Mr. President, how can you say that to folks who are struggling to make ends meet? If you were serious about cutting the deficit, you would cut waste or ban earmarks.” Gore fired back “No, you can’t make up for a trillion-dollar tax cut for the wealthy with waste. We’ve cut waste in government. But that won’t make up for a massive tax break. The American people can do the math.” That comment came back to bite the President. His apparent arrogance and lack of empathy reinforced the worst image of Gore, as well as the sense McCain was a fighter. The President performed better when he attacked Congress for “failing to pass bipartisan HMO reform, failing to sure up our entitlement programs, failing pass a bipartisan energy bill, and ultimately failing the American people.” These responses were strong, but were diminished by Gore’s earlier gaffe. John McCain performed very strongly. On the issue of taxes, he came down very strongly: “Look, I voted twice to cut taxes for all Americans, and if I’m elected President, then I will sign that bill. President Gore hasn’t, and won’t.” On the issue of the ‘do-nothing congress,’ one of the strongest weapons in Gore’s arsenal, McCain was adamant: “President Gore is trying to tie me my colleagues in Congress. In some cases, he’s right. I support cutting taxes, cutting waste from government, and taking a tough stance in foreign policy. But I’ve also broken with the majority in Congress. I supported strong HMO reform, an all-of-the-above energy policy, education reform, and immigration reform. As President, I’ll work with Congress, instead of attacking them, to get these proposals enacted.” John McCain’s strong performance in the third and final debate gave him momentum, and as the election rolled into the last two weeks, polls showed McCain with a one to two point lead. It would be another photo finish.
Corbis-42-18308877.jpg
 

John Farson

Banned
It would be great if Gore wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote. :D

Yeah, it would sure be ironic, and kind of mirror Obama's re-election (winning less of the popular vote than the first time). In general, it looks like neither Gore nor McCain really "won" the debates, but the little things (like Gore's 'gaffe' in the last debate) have nudged the edge ever so slightly to McCain. Gore didn't really say anything wrong, IMHO, but like I pointed out earlier, people rarely get credit for preventing problems and disasters.

Either way, it's going to be another close election, with the country once again divided between Red and Blue.
 
With the benefit of hindsight, I know that Gore's policies of not expanding the war, not cutting taxes on the wealthy and keeping the budget under control are the correct ones, but if I were a voter in that alt 2004 campaign, not knowing these things, I could seriously consider voting for McCain. McCain has been very impressive in those debates, and has also waged a very strong and aggressive campaign that has a bulldog appeal. Just like in 2000, this one is going to go down to the wire.
 
Top