Decision ‘08

Al Gore As The New Nixon?

Like Gore in the 2000 presidential race, Nixon in 1960 was a charm-free vice-president who lost a heartbreakingly close White House election (to John Kennedy). Like Gore in 2000, Nixon in 1960 drifted off into the political wilderness to lick his wounds for a time after the devastating loss.

Eight years later, at the height of American opposition to the Vietnam War, Nixon returned triumphant and soundly defeated Hubert Humphrey to become president of the United States.

Could the same sort of happy ending be in store for Gore?

Umm…well, no, but it’s an entertaining scenario. Gore’s chances, if any, lie in his un-Hillaryness:

The liberal blogosphere and progressive magazines like The American Prospect are already panting at the thought of a Gore candidacy, the same way they did when Howard Dean burst onto the U.S. political scene in 2003.

If Gore has a political opportunity, it has its foundation in Democratic unease with Hillary Clinton, the party’s acknowledged presidential frontrunner. Many grassroots liberals have soured on her for marching in near-lockstep with the White House on Iraq.

A poll for Fox News this week showed Gore a surprising second among prospective 2008 candidates with 12% support, far behind Clinton’s 43%.

Underlying those numbers, however, is an oft-expressed concern that Clinton may be unelectable in Republican strongholds like the South.

“To nominate Hillary is to practically beg to be shut out of the White House for another four to eight years,” says Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. “She has got no ‘red state’ appeal.”

Well, there’s certainly a growing panic at Hillary as the Democratic nominee…but the beneficiary of that panic, by all indications, will be Mark Warner (or - God forbid - John Edwards)…

You know what I’d like to see? Gore, Kerry, and Clinton duking it out for the Democratic nomination - now that would be one for the ages (of course, I would say that, as a partisan Republican)…

14 Responses to “Al Gore As The New Nixon?”

1 Aaron Says:
April 2nd, 2006 at 8:28 pm
I wouldn’t worry much about Edwards, either. He’s the most obvious hypocrite in politics today — a multimillionaire who talks about nothing but how America doesn’t take care of its poor — and has only six years of experience in politics as one of the most unsuccessful legislators in US history. All Edwards has going for him is name recognition and a pretty face.
2 Shawn Says:
April 2nd, 2006 at 8:52 pm
“…Eight years later, at the height of American opposition to the Vietnam War, Nixon returned triumphant and soundly defeated Hubert Humphrey to become president of the United States.

Could the same sort of happy ending be in store for Gore?”

Mark this down as the first time anyone has ever described Nixon winning the Presidency as a “happy ending” in decades.
3 Fargus Says:
April 2nd, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Aaron, you may or may not have a point about Edwards’ hypocrisy, but don’t just point to “being rich and talking about the poor” as evidence of hypocrisy. Were that the indicator, then nothing anybody ever did to try to motivate people could ever be viewed in any way but disingenuously.

If you’re claiming that Edwards made his money off the backs of the poor that he now claims to support, then say that. But you do a disservice to yourself and your argument by asserting it in such an incoherent, nonsensical fashion.
4 Dave Says:
April 2nd, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Students of history will remember that before there was either Gore OR Nixon there was William Jennings Bryan, a populist Democrat who lost the 1896 election to McKinley by a modest margin (and in an election that divided the country in half regionally, much like 2000 and 2004). Bryan went on to successfully seek the Democratic nod at least a couple of more times, yet each time, those pesky voters sent him home. The second time ain’t always the charm for a would-be president, and far more general election losers fail to attain the office upon a second nomination than succeed at it. Just look at Tom Dewey’s back to back nominations, and back to back losses, for another more recent example.
5 Aaron Says:
April 2nd, 2006 at 10:59 pm
I think it’s hypocritical for Edwards to be a multimillionaire and preach about poverty no matter how he got rich. If he really cared about the poor, he wouldn’t be a multimillionaire anymore as he’d have donated his money to charities. I assume that if Edwards had given 31 million dollars out of the 32 he made as a trial lawyer to the Salvation Army or another such organization, I would have heard about it.
6 Mark Says:
April 2nd, 2006 at 11:03 pm
Well, I’ll state for the record that my own distaste for Edwards is just that I think he’s far too much of a lightweight to be President…and I thought he was pretty bitter on election eve, 2004. I realize Bush opponents will say he was (is) a lightweight, too, but Bush had been governor of the nation’s third most populous state - it’s not like he had no executive experience…
7 Fargus Says:
April 3rd, 2006 at 6:43 am
So unless they’re advocating voluntary redistribution of wealth on the part of everybody who makes above the median salary, they have no right to talk about the poor? Pardon me, but that’s absurd.
8 Dennis Says:
April 3rd, 2006 at 6:47 am
I’m on record as being someone initially who believed in the Nixon parallel for Gore and went on to disavow it, and a couple of things occur to me now which I probably hadn’t given enough thought to before. Nixon had the advantage of running in a wide-open primary, something which Gore won’t have, unless Hillary drops out. Nixon also had the edge in the general election of running against a Democratic Party that had the most tumultuous nomination process in memory - the incumbent unexpectedly dropped out, his rival was assassinated, and the eventual nominee got the nod at a convention still remembered today as a benchmark for riots.

Given the tension between social conservatives and those of a more free-market, libertarian bent, it’s possible the Republicans will be battling their own divisions in 2008, but I’m guessing they won’t be quite as frayed an opposing party as Nixon faced.
9 Aaron Says:
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:35 pm
“So unless they’re advocating voluntary redistribution of wealth on the part of everybody who makes above the median salary, they have no right to talk about the poor? Pardon me, but that’s absurd.”

I agree; that is absurd, and it’s not what I said at all. If someone doesn’t practice what they preach, especially when the individual doing the preaching is more able than most to take action, then it is hypocrisy. If someone is wealthy and points his or her finger at others, accusing everyone else of not caring enough, when he or she has done nothing to help, it is hypocrisy.
10 Aaron Says:
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:39 pm
To further clarify, if Edwards had donated a substantial sum of money to charities to actually help the poor, then I wouldn’t have so much of a problem with his advocacy of socialism.
11 peter Says:
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:33 pm
I’m not here to bang a drum for John Edwards, but it is unfair to call him hypocritical because he is a wealthy man concerned about the poor. First, he may have contributed lots of money to charity – if he did so quietly or anonymously, so much the better. Bill Gates has given hundreds of millions of dollars to various causes, and he still has lots more left – I wouldn’t call him a hypocrite – he may not give speeches about poverty, but he’s not in politics. Robert Kennedy was a wealthy man who genuinely cared for the poor. Saying that a wealthy man who hasn’t given every last dollar to the poor is hypocritical is like saying that you’re a hypocrite if you support the war in Iraq without also joining the army to be there.
12 megapotamus Says:
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:54 pm
The big problem with Edwards, which may be an electoral advantage in some respects, is that he is a blank slate. He is now, a one term Senator. At the time of the election he was a half-term Senator. Just what insight or accomplisment catapulted this freshman onto the first string? Being a self-financer from a border state. That is it unless you count the hair and as frivolous as that sounds (and is) anyone awake in ‘04 knows that oceans of ink, hectares of trees and gigajoules of electrons were expended examining seriously this very facet. His legal career was lucrative but a moderately close examination of the details shows, well, ambulance chaser doesn’t quite convey the vapidity and opportunism not to mention vanity that characterized the man’s courthouse manner and repute with the bar. To dismiss Edwards as an empty suit is an insult to fine, productive American suits everywhere. Some trial transcripts are available and reveal that Edwards is meringue from the neck up. If the Dems were to nominate this fellow it would be a shocking embarrassment to them. So I encourage that course.
13 Aaron Says:
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:32 pm
I wasn’t saying every last dollar. If I had 32 million, I could probably part with ten, twenty, or even thirty.

And supporting a war is a poor analogy. For one, not everyone who supports the war may be eligible (too old, too young, disabled) or capable of serving in the military. Any multimullionaire who advocates socialism is more than capable of helping the poor. Furthermore, joining the military is much more of a sacrifice than giving up millions of dollars when you still have millions left.

Money is always useful when you are trying to combat poverty (not that that’s all you need), but not every healthy 18-to-35-year-old male would be useful in the military.
14 Aaron #2 Says:
May 31st, 2006 at 12:26 pm
Aaron, your arguments are, for the most part, ridiculous. The “American Dream” is built upon the very essence of John Edwards’ story. Coming from a poor background and finally being able to “make it” is exactly what this country was founded upon and, through capitalism, promotes! For this reason, it is a mistake to say that a person who earns a large amount of money (you keep speaking of Edwards fortune as being around the $30 million mark; it was, in fact, closer to $12 million) should give a large majority of it away. It’s called the American Dream for a reason. A rich man promoting the plite of the poor is not a hypocrite but a champion of the cause. Get over it.

(I voted for Bush. I did not support Edwards.)