Editor says, what if Al Gore was elected in 2000 and later wins the Nobel Peace Prize? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s).

Share this Article on:

Facebook

Twitter

Scott Palter commented on 2009-12-11 23:55:16 ~ US accepts Kyoto? ROFLMAO.

David Atwell commented on 2009-12-12 01:00:23 ~ So does Dubya run again in 2004? And if so, what's the result?

Eric Lipps commented on 2009-12-12 02:52:50 ~ Surely it's not THAT hard to believe the U.S. would accept the Kyoto protocols. As for GWB running again, I hadn't figured the GOP would nominate him (it didn't pick Nixon in '64, after all, despite his razor-thin loss to JFK in 1960). 2008 might be another matter (as 1968 was for Nixon), but it would depend on there being a juicy wedge issue or two for him to exploit (race and Vietnam were Nixon's).

Eric Oppen commented on 2009-12-12 06:56:48 ~ Kyoto would mean nothing unless it was imposed on the third world, who'd never accept it.

Michael Balikoff commented on 2010-08-11 02:26:38 ~ That is a marvelous piece of fiction especially with Gore who made grunts and groans about nothing at least it does give him a reason to be noticed if only in a fictitious manner. The best piece of comedy is the part being the award of a Noble Peace Prize and the part of GWB it would be interesting but as neither had much brains except to glorify oneself ..........jazzman

Bruce Johnson commented on 2010-08-11 03:30:39 ~ I assume you have Gore winning re-election (not quite spelled out), then accepting the Nobel Peace Prize JUST after leaving office. // Now let me play the skeptic -- not on the difficult notion of the Senate moving to ratifying Kyoto from near unanimous refusal -- but on the Nobel Peace Prize part of it. It's so hard NOT to see the awards to Carter (2002), Gore (2007) and Obama (2009) as politically motivated jabs at Bush (rather sad comment on the committee, but also sad in denying the award to some other very worthy contenders). But with no Bush in office, that particular motivation evaporates. Still possible, though, I suppose. // Another slight credibility problem is having Bush emerge as a major open critic of a Gore administration. I see nothing in his own history (including current behavior) or his family's (cf. his father) to suggest he's the sort that would have adopted such a role (unlike, say, Carter), probably least of all on this sort of issue, though I get it that you wanted to slip him into the story. Might be some subtler way to tweak that. // Of course you can't cover everything, and it's not directly related to Kyoto, but it's hard to see how one covers this time period wihtout some sort of answer to the 9/11 question -- how was it avoided or handled? // Finally, you might want to fine-tune your change on the Bush v. Gore decision (rather key to the scenario!) It appears you may share a popular misconception of the ruling (cf. my comment on "Dubya dies"). Democrats (not surprisingly) and the media never seem to mention that the FIRST part of the ruling -- that what WAS happening in the FSSC ordered statewide recount violated the Equal Protection Clause -- was 7-2, NOT 5-4. The latter split was on the question of whether it was still possible for a recount to be carried out under as yet unadopted rules to ensure uniform counting (NOT simply continuing on they had been doing). Of course, reversal of that second vote could still 'get you there'; just be clear about what you're doing.

Eric Lipps commented on 2010-08-11 11:48:16 ~ Re the recount issue, the Court's margin on the matter of equal protection was as Bruce Johnson says, but it's always been odd--since only weeks earlier the same court had REJECTED the"equal protection" argument by Bush's lawyers. In the meantime, however, Bush's margin had shriveled. Even some conservative jurists who've commented on the matter (e.g., famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, who has been quite heated on the subject) have suggested that this creates the appearance of a Court desperately rushing to find some way, ANY way, to simply end the matter before the count swung, however slightly, in Gore's favor. In any event, though I'm not certain that all the justices involved lined up on partisan lines, that 7-2 margin just happens to reflect the Court's makeup as of 2000: 7 Republican nominees, 2 Democratic ones. (And yes, the media do mention that first part of the ruling, though the conclusion, ending the recount, quite naturally gets more play.) As for 9/11, I've indicated elsewhere that President Gore would have paid more attention to the warnings of an impending attack. In my version, only Flight 93 is successfu;lly hijacked, and crashes as in our history.