Decision Points: The Presidency of Al Gore

bguy

Donor
John Farson said:
Thirded. No tens of thousands of deaths here. And America's international reputation and prestige are still intact.
Click to expand...

There will still be tens of thousands of premature deaths in Iraq. Remember the sanctions against Iraq (which are estimated to have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children) are still in place ITL.

What's happening in regards to the Sudan anyway? I would think that a U.S. not engaged in Iraq would take a more active role there, especially now with McCain in the White House.
 

THE OBSERVER

Update coming soon? Want to know what McCain does in response to Katrina and who he puts on the Supreme Court. Would he place a Democrat on the court as well? Or just Centrists, like O'Connor?
 

hcallega

THE OBSERVER said:
Update coming soon? Want to know what McCain does in response to Katrina and who he puts on the Supreme Court. Would he place a Democrat on the court as well? Or just Centrists, like O'Connor?
Click to expand...

Particularly busy week for me, but I should be able to publish something on Thursday or Friday.
 

THE OBSERVER

Today, or tomorrow, we will have a new update. Also wondering, how will the Abramoff scandal play out ITTL. Democrats make gains in '06, like IOTL? With McCain in The White House, I think McCain is gonna ensure the judge throws the book at Abramoff, since he and his buddies destroyed McCain in the primaries in 2000 with lies and smears. Laser-guided-karma. Maybe Grover Norquist will be in jail too, ITTL.
 
Last edited:
DTanza

DTanza

Banned
I disagree. We should capture hcallega, extract his DNA and splice it with that of a cow. We will then clone bovinehcallega, and have someone go around every now and then and milk him. This milk will contain the pure essence of storywriting genius.

We will then forcefeed this milk to hyperintelligent monkeys in a sweatshop, who will furiously type away at a thousand typewriters, thus solving our update deficit.
 

Black Belt Jones

DTanza said:
I disagree. We should capture hcallega, extract his DNA and splice it with that of a cow. We will then clone bovinehcallega, and have someone go around every now and then and milk him. This milk will contain the pure essence of storywriting genius.

We will then forcefeed this milk to hyperintelligent monkeys in a sweatshop, who will furiously type away at a thousand typewriters, thus solving our update deficit.
Click to expand...

I must say, I concur.
 

THE OBSERVER

DTanza said:
I disagree. We should capture hcallega, extract his DNA and splice it with that of a cow. We will then clone bovinehcallega, and have someone go around every now and then and milk him. This milk will contain the pure essence of storywriting genius.

We will then forcefeed this milk to hyperintelligent monkeys in a sweatshop, who will furiously type away at a thousand typewriters, thus solving our update deficit.
Click to expand...

It was the best of Al Gore, it was the BLURST of Al Gore! Outstanding solution! Once again, I'm sorry. I just don't want this TL to die early. Edited my original post from earlier, changing it. Do-over for today?
 
Last edited:
DanMcCollum

DanMcCollum

THE OBSERVER said:
Thanks for the advice. Would 3 weeks past the last update be long enough?
Click to expand...

Well, my own timeline, Prodigal Sons, ain't dead, but I only update it about once or twice a month. This is frequent, in comparison to the far superior, but more infreqiluently updates, All Along the Watch Tower, or Fear and Loathing in the Decade of Tears.

Patience, young Padawan! :)
 

THE OBSERVER

DanMcCollum said:
Well, my own timeline, Prodigal Sons, ain't dead, but I only update it about once or twice a month. This is frequent, in comparison to the far superior, but more infreqiluently updates, All Along the Watch Tower, or Fear and Loathing in the Decade of Tears.

Patience, young Padawan! :)
Click to expand...

I know, I know.
 

hcallega

A Matter of Principle​

The House Republican leadership met every week in Speaker Dennis Hastert’s chambers. The usual guests were the Speaker, Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and Whip Roy Blunt. Also included were Conference Chairwoman Deb Pryce and Campaign Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds, along with the occasional committee chairman. These were the men and women who charted the course of the People’s House. 2004 brought them great opportunities. A Republican sat in the Oval Office for the first time since 1992, and it was time to reap the rewards. Unfortunately, that Republican happened to be John McCain. The maverick had no desire to enact a sweeping conservative agenda that would eliminate departments, slash regulations, and uncork a tidal wave of pork barrel appropriations for hungry constituents. Much like liberals were frustrated with the Clinton and Gore Administration, so too was the conservative brass concerned with the shortcomings of President McCain.


Tom DeLay hadn’t come to Congress looking to compromise. His rise in politics was based on power; getting it, using it, and most importantly, holding on to it. 1994 had brought with it a new wave of conservative power, and DeLay had gained the most from it. As majority whip, it was his job to get 218 votes. His office became the center of horse trading, and his staff was seen as a combination between “the Plaza and the mob.” Then, in 1999, opportunity struck. Newt Gingrich, DeLay’s personal if not ideological rival, retired under pressure from the caucus. Now it was “the hammer’s” turn. Members began to surround the hard-charging Texan instead of his senior, the more passive though more ideologically committed Dick Armey. But for all of his strength with the Republican ranks, DeLay was simply too nuclear for the speaker’s seat. The whip recognized that, and moved quickly to put the well liked Dennis Hastert in the top spot. His work paid off, and few inside the Beltway doubted who really held the power in the House majority. The rest of the leadership team knew it, and while the Speaker occasionally prevailed in disputes with the Leader, they rarely broke on the big issues.
Corbis-42-15127997.jpg
​


On June 10th, the big issue was the energy bill. The White House wanted comprehensive legislation that would “put the United States on the path to energy independence” in a generation. It was a mighty task, but was supported by the grand majority of Americans. With a steady stream of oil coming from the Middle East, and a renewed focus by the European Union and China to invest in alternative energy, there was a clear need to develop more domestic energy. The big question was how. Democrats wanted a focus on green technologies like wind, solar, and electric cars. Most Republicans weren’t opposed to that approach, but were more focused on expanding access to fossil fuels. Despite these differences, there was an opportunity to forge a “grand bargain” that would look good for both parties and potentially peel away some Democratic voters to the Republican side. But doing so would be tough, and it would take strong leadership from the President. That was what the Republican leadership was meeting about.


DeLay had crafted a plan that would encapsulate the Party’s position on energy. It included preserving tax subsidies to oil and gas companies, expanding the number of permits for drilling, opening up the continental shelf for oil rigs, and opening ANWR. These would be the core of any proposal and were non-negotiable. It was his view that any additions Democrats or Northern Republicans wanted to add would be fine, as long as they did not interfere with his core goals. Subsidies for green energy? Fine. More money for R&D? All good, as long as they were part of a bigger package. The rest of the leadership team agreed, as did Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Thomas Bliley, who had always been more interested in the commerce side. They would take their views to the Senate leadership. Trent Lott, a pragmatist and fellow lover of pork, would most likely do along. DeLay’s openness to the inclusion of alternative energy additions would help get the legislation past any Democratic opposition.


The President unveiled his energy plan in early July. With the success of the tax cut and budget resolution, it was time to move on to a bigger target. McCain traveled to Massachusetts to unveil his plan, named the Lexington Project. It was a clear appeal to the environmentally minded Northeast Congressmen to act. He wasn’t visiting an oil rig in Texas or a coal mine in West Virginia. No, he was in the eco-friendly heartland. The President was clear about his long term coals: “By 2030, the United States will be strategically energy independent. My friends, we cannot wait any longer to face this challenge. If we do, our national security will be threatened, our economy will miss a valuable chance at long-term growth, and consumers will continue to feel the pain at the pump.” The specific elements of the Project were not particularly detailed: expand domestic oil and natural gas production, incentives for clean energy and lower emissions, more nuclear power plants, and a cap-and-trade system. It would be up to Congress to implement these changes. For the members watching, it was the last point that caught their attention. Cap-and-trade sounded a lot like a carbon tax to representatives from industrial states.


While the President’s proposal didn’t run headfirst into DeLay’s objective, it did run afoul of his broader conservative principles. Cap-and-trade was straight out of the Al Gore playbook and was certainly not good news for industry. Stiffer penalties for carbon emissions were one thing: a new system of penalties and credits was another. The President met with the Congressional leadership to massage these differences several days after he made his proposal. It was tense. McCain had never gotten along well with his leaders when he was in the Senate, and it was little different in the White House. They had already agreed that energy should be tackled before immigration, but now that looked like it would bite both branches. The President had already thrown down the gauntlet without clearing his proposal with the House. That went against everything the Republican Party had stood for since the days of Reagan. McCain’s goal had been to force the hand of Congress, but he did so at the risk of alienating his own party. But DeLay had a card up his sleeve. He didn’t have to be confrontational. He just had to be honest. There was no way that a bill with cap-and-trade could pass the House. But DeLay couldn’t be the one to say it. McCain didn’t trust the fiery Majority Leader. No, this honor would fall to the Speaker. Hastert, defending the rule which bore his name, made it very clear that “we cannot bring a bill to the floor unless it has the support of a majority of our members.” The President resisted. He claimed there were enough Democrats to get to 218. Roy Blunt, the Whip, chimed in “If it looks like we’re trying to get this thing passed with their support, we’re going to lose a lot more Republicans. At that point, I can’t do my job.” It was clear that cap-and-trade was DOA. McCain began to lose his temper. “This bill has my stamp of approval. That carries weight, I’m the President. If you can’t get enough Republicans and Democrats together to pass it, then why the heck are you the whip?” This back-and-forth continued for over an hour. The irascible President and his stalwart colleagues were at an impasse. Unfortunately, McCain was caught between a rock and a hard place. Hastert and DeLay would present legislation protecting the fossil fuel and manufacturing industries, while supporting alternative energy as well. If the President threatened to veto it, he would be defeating a bill that he largely supported. It would also show that he lacked control over his party, empowering Democrats to obstruct further conservative legislation. But if McCain supported the Republican bill, he would be conceding a golden opportunity to leave his mark on an important national issue.



The President called on his old friend from the Senate, Tom Daschle, for advice. The two Senators hailed from opposite parties, but both were moderates who sought to work across the aisle. With the ability to filibuster any legislation he deemed fit, Daschle was a major power player despite his minority status. He was also much closer to McCain than Trent Lott, the Republican leader in the Upper Chamber. Daschle recommended that the President look to the long-term: sign on to a compromise “all of the above” energy bill in 2005, and then come back to the issue after the midterm elections. McCain was hesitant. The implication was that Daschle’s party would pick up seats, giving the President leverage in negotiations. The President didn’t want to embrace a plan predicated on his unpopularity, but there were few alternatives. In a one-on-one meeting between McCain’s Chief of Staff Mark Salter and Tom DeLay, the point got across: “He’ll sign it.”
Corbis-42-29870766.jpg


At the end of July, the House voted to pass the Invest in Energy Act of 2005 by a solid margin of 271-160. Thirty Republicans opposed the measure, many claiming it invested too much money in industry. Maryland Congressman Roscoe Bartlett spoke for many dissenters: “It’s not the job of the market, the job of consumers, to pick winners and losers, not the federal government. To put it simply, our track record isn’t very good, but the market’s is.” 64 Democrats broke ranks to support the Administration, largely due to plentiful subsidies to alternative energy and incentives for car companies to develop low emission vehicles. Standing at the back of the chamber, Tom DeLay surveyed the scene. He had effectively steered a second major piece of legislation through the House. Despite Ron Paul’s claim that “Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave,” Delay was proud. He had delivered for his state and his party.


The Senate took a similarly bipartisan approach. That body’s bill was more liberal, with no provision opening up ANWR to drilling and expanded CAFÉ protections. The final vote was 75-25, with a bevy of Democrats including Daschle crossing party lines. Notable nay votes included Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Paul Wellstone. The conference report drew less support in that body, as it was slightly less generous to alternative energy and less restrictive on emissions. Nonetheless, the final energy bill arrived on John McCain’s desk in early August. Flanked by the leaders of his party and Energy Secretary John Breaux, the frustrated President sucked up his frustration at the plentiful pork barrel subsidies and lack of a cap-and signed the legislation. He praised Congress for “taking swift, strong action to put our nation on the path to energy independence.” Secretary Breaux hit the networks in the following days, touting the legislation as “a really solid bipartisan achievement” and “the sort of policy that’s gonna help bring down the price at the pump for the folks everyone in Washington’s accountable to.”
Corbis-DWF15-1011196.jpg


Privately, it was clear to the President that he was in trouble. The Republicans in Congress expected a conservative revolution, not a return to the Eisenhower era. They were also eager to help their supporters back home through ear-marks and favorable subsidies. That was not John McCain’s style, but he couldn’t do much about it. If he wanted to pass laws and make something of a legacy in domestic politics, he would have to give a little. The President understood how Congress worked, even if he didn’t like it. He did not want to remembered as the Republican Jimmy Carter, an idealist who failed to play the power politics game. Winning this game would take savvy and good fortune, not hard-headed bullying.

Despite the President’s disappointment with the energy bill, he did receive some good news from Congress. Legislation renewing the Anti-Terrorism Act and funding for federal highways both passed with strong support. Negotiations on the Central American Free Trade Agreement, a project started by President Gore, were moving along swiftly and would likely receive a vote for ratification in the fall. On July 1st, Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Conner (the first woman on the high court) announced her pending retirement. Edith Jones, a strongly conservative judge, was nominated to fill the seat. This appeal to social conservatives drew the scorn of the left, but Senator Daschle was quick to squelch rumors of a filibuster: “While I strongly disagree with many of the previous opinions offered by Judge Jones, obstructionism is not an appropriate solution to such an important position.” Democrats were under additional pressure to allow an up-or-down vote for Jones due to her gender, and a desire to maintain two women on the Court. Her confirmation hearings began at the end of July in the Judiciary Committee, chaired by the socially conservative Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah. A tough spring and summer had yielded would hopefully yield hard-fought rewards for a White House that prided itself on a maverick, outside-the-beltway mentality, yet was forced to play insider hardball.
Corbis-42-20978709.jpg
 

THE OBSERVER

Wonderful update. Can we have a list of the senators who voted yes and who voted no for the climate change legislation? As the fall of 2005 comes Katrina and the fall of DeLay. For the former, a chance for McCain to push for changes to the climate change bill (Mainly Cap and Trade and Offshore Drilling). For the latter, a chance for the Democrats to take back the House, and probably the Senate, allowing McCain to amend his climate change bill and pass immigration reform. To quote a song by The Who from Tommy, "Got a feeling '06 is gonna be a good year."

Two more things, think Edith Jones will be the first Female Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and does the final energy bill not have the AWNR drilling provisions? Let's hope that standards and regulations for drilling are strengthened here in exchange for offshore drilling, possibly preventing Deepwater Horizon.
 
Last edited:

Expat

If Jones is voted on quickly, she'll be confirmed well before Rehnquist dies. OTOH, if butterflies shift Rehnquist's death into an election year, we'll get a very different nominee to the court than if he dies in September. Even then September might be close enough to the midterms to affect his choice. I'm also interested to hear if ANWR was opened up in the final energy bill.
 

hcallega

ANWR was not opened up. It would have caused a significant enough backlash among Democrats to threaten a filibuster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top