I believe President Biden has done a great and superhuman service these past four years of his administration. But a tremendous mistake had been made with the first debate. Watching it, it was pretty clear that he was off his game. The administration stated he tested negative for Covid, but had an onset cold (even though it has been documented that a negative test result might not detect a newer propagating variant…) But yes: some form of cold or flu is what it looked like to me.
What was the tremendous mistake? In preparing for the debate, even if the symptoms started manifesting only a few hours before the debate, his staff should have implored him to reschedule. Surely, Republicans would have carped about that delay; but look at the present consequences of the alternative course of action!
Let’s entertain the possibility that in the months remaining he was to outperform, to compensate for that horrendous performance. The next debate is before the election: that is MUCH too risky to chance that enough minds will be changed at that late juncture! Presently a number of media outlets are touting strident speeches made by Biden after the debate as proof of his competency. Hey: I’m willing to give Joe another chance; but which videos do you think the Republicans will now be saturating the media with, especially in swing states, in the run-up to the election? Never mind my personal trust in him; what will many other unaligned voters decide??
The question at this point is not whether Joe is sufficiently competent; contrasted to the numerous well-documented spasmodic jerks and changes of subject when Trump just can’t pronounce or get his words out, even with Joe’s occasional stutter, by comparison he comes off as a modern-day Cicero (when he is not battling a cold or flu, that is…) The question now is: can he preside over an electoral win? Had he rescheduled that debate until he was well, I strongly believe he could have. But what is the number one negative comment among non-party loyalist voters? They doubt either -EITHER!- candidate will be physically up to the task in the later stages of their term (I would argue Trump is not up to the task even in the first hour, let alone “first day”…) By not having decided to postpone that debate by just a week, until he was in good order, Joe just lost the electoral vote. There is insufficient time to persuade voters otherwise as to the soundness of his health, given the inevitable saturation advertising of his questionable performance.
This situation could have turned out much worse. What if Joe had turned in such a bad performance at the second debate, just before the election? There would have been no time whatsoever to course-correct. The upcoming Democratic Convention, as we know normally being an infomercial, now affords a desperately needed opportunity to transition the Democratic Party to a significant change in strategy.
An added benefit to the Democratic Party quickly adapting to a much needed course-correction is that it demonstrates to prospective voters that they are the Party of the Adults In the Room. The Republican Party will continue to be shown as one that has no ability whatsoever to adapt and can only double-down on a candidate who is clearly unfit for office.
So why Gore? What are the upsides??
So I will now recap the positive benefits of drafting Al Gore, IF he would agree to step up to the task, in spite of the risk posed by such a late start:
- Most voters recognize that he was on the money with his focus on climate change. Many young voters would accept him as “walking the walk.” He supported the movement of American car companies to EVs, which as we all know were later destroyed to discourage a transition to them. American car companies are in a very bad place at the moment against foreign competitors because such research on EVs was destroyed DECADES ago (by the Republicans: Cheney and Bush; c.f., “Who Killed the Electric Car?”…)
- Such a candidate whose health is unquestioned would energize the base.
- Many voters felt that the Florida recounts in 2000 were, at best, suspect. Many would perceive his running again to be a vindication of his legacy, and thus would be very motivated to turn out.
- He could start with a clean slate on the Gaza/Israel problem. Biden inherited the political biases that many have on Israel in his Party. He has been trying to turn the boat slowly in the harbor, given the reticence of many Democratic politicos to take on the thug behavior of extremists in the Israeli government. [Yes, yes: Hamas is bad; they and other violent perpetrators need to be neutralized -but that does not give you a blank check to perpetrate a genocide on women and children. Yes, they use them as shields -but their use as shields does not sanction your storming in and mowing the shields down. Yes, it’s a difficult problem; Trump/Kushner made it much worse by facilitating the move of the Israeli seat of government to Jerusalem.]
- Speaking faculties of Gore relative to Trump? No comparison! [I saw him recently in an interview, and he was in good form.]
- Being from Tennessee, he will be sure to add to some clinching of southern state electoral votes.
- If he wins, and if he does a good first term (and by announcing him, he might just get the majority turnout needed to shellac the Republicans in Congress and get much needed legislation passed…), that would mean EIGHT YEARS of a Democratic administration -think of what that implies with regards to Supreme Court appointments yet to come.
And the downsides?
The argument against a change in platform at this late date, simply put, is: “If you guys knew you should have enlisted this candidate, why did you not do so much earlier?”
I have a very good answer to that. Most qualified candidates have begged off of such public service because it has become a thankless task: having to work around a split Congress, and a ready perception that most American voters have become ignorant (I would argue that started in the 1980s with cuts to higher education, and you are seeing the aftermath of that now in a society of men-children and women-children…) If someone is capable of leading good strategy to improve America, what does it matter if the people you are attempting to sell it to hold incredibly ignorant notions? So is it any surprise that capable leaders like Al Gore and others have said: “No, thank you very much -I’m done with it!” when it comes to political service? We were very fortunate that Joe Biden struggled as he did these past four years to get things addressed, and that he too did not say: “I have had enough of this mass stupidity.”
Presently the people left running for office are often doing so for personal gain. How else to explain the fact that:
- There are no requirements for blind trusts by members of Congress investing in finance?
- The present penalty for failing to report offshore holdings by members of Congress, even if it is a stratospheric sum, is a mere parking ticket in an expensive neighborhood: $500? (c.f., the “STOCK Act”…)
- And now, in just this past week, the Supreme Court decision pushed through by the Trump-appointed majority, Snyder v. United States, which green-lights bribery effected by means of lucrative contract awards? How absurd was it that Thomas was not recused from THAT decision??
Yes: clearly the Saudis gave TWO BILLION DOLLARS to Jared Kushner in order to gain access to his expertise in real estate.
So to succinctly answer the question: “If you guys knew you should have enlisted this candidate, why did you not do so much earlier?”; because qualified candidates were few and far between. But with Biden having to step down due to an error in judgement and the horrible alternative, maybe -just maybe- Al Gore would be willing to take on the long odds to save the country from a cabal of lunatics, given the dire situation. We’re in a new crisis, and the country (not just the Democratic Party…) has to adapt.
A significant time-sensitive challenge that a replacement candidate would need to address is that if s/he does not choose Harris as a running mate, funds raised to date for the Biden campaign could not be used for the new candidate’s campaign. This is the most time-sensitive issue that needs to be remedied IMMEDIATELY! The formation of Democratic fundraising campaigns that are to raise money for a blank-slate ticket -whoever is nominated at the Democratic Convention- could sidestep that issue; but time is tight! To induce more donors, an option could be afforded to obtain a refund right after the Convention within a short time-window, should the donor not like who is later chosen at the Convention. Given the added logistics of that refund option, a considerable minimum deposit amount could be required. Frankly, I believe that is a better option than getting the handicap of having Harris as a VP, who has been polling poorly and will not be an effective attack dog. Gore could also request sufficient funding from third parties by a fixed date to assure a possibility of success, should he not want to be encumbered by Harris being on his ticket. [A further discussion on the VP is below…]
The only other negative thing that Republicans would inevitably use against Gore is “massage-gate”. But given the ridiculous antics that Trump has engaged in and continues to deny in spite of an overwhelming majority not finding it at all credible (sexual assault, no less -I was blown away when Giuliani tried to soft-sell it as technically not being rape…), at this point it’s pretty much a “nothing-burger”. That incident was rather borderline, boiling down to a he-said/she-said; and charges were never filed.
What about the VP?
Given the extraordinary time handicap Gore would be dealing with, I think he would need somebody who is much more of a “junkyard dog”, to attack Republicans, than Kamala Harris has been to date. Let’s face it: that is NOT her forte!
Since Al Gore would desperately need all the ammo he can get going into this fight, he could make the choice of the VP as a precondition to his accepting the mission. And I would hope he would prioritize the criteria of merit over loyalty. With time now being as tight as it is, he needs the most capable person to back him.
To this end I would like to suggest Jerry Brown of California. Like Gore, my read has been that he was no longer interested in dealing with the prevalent ignorance of voters. But he should be approached though to ask if he too would be patriotic and step up to save the country in this dire time of need, given the reprehensible and clearly stated objectives of the present Republican Party.
The advantages to Jerry Brown:
- He is a cogent speaker who has previously shown to be adroit in attacking absurd Republican talking points (“Alternative Facts? What the hell is that?!”)
- He has conservative cred now, having acted as a successful prosecutor for multiple terms in California.
Can this be done?
To pull off this dramatic course-correction, three things would need to take place:
- The candidates would have to be approached on a plausibly-deniable basis by someone of significant authority in the DNC to ask if they would step up to the task, if so asked. Hey, I would accept James Carville as an informal envoy, to get the ball rolling.
- The candidates would have to accept that mission. I would understand their passing on it, but to be honest there is not a doubt in my mind that such a decision would be a most unfortunate conclusion to the Great American Experiment. The personal risk to them might be a blemished Wikipedia page should they fail to accomplish an election victory. But I believe this is one case where the country’s vital need to function in a principled manner far outweighs the risk of any negative personal legacy. I would also like to point out to Al Gore that if his stated life objective is to address climate and ecology, with his failing to rise to this challenge and leaving a Trump presidency in the driver’s seat, what outcome on climate does he think that would have on the world? (never mind just the country…)
- At that point Joe Biden would have to be informed it is an option, and it is up to him. I understand that given the demented personal attacks thrown out against him by Trump to date, there is nothing more that he would like than to personally clean Trump’s clock. I would point out to him that this does not come down to a matter of personal will or benefit, but what is possible given the current electoral outlook after that egregious debate mistake, and what will be best for the health and viability of the country. I would also point out to him that he would probably enjoy prevailing over Trump as a senior advisor in a Gore administration than to have the heavy guilt of not having won against Trump, simply because of a single error in judgment with regards to rescheduling the first debate, and the present level of ignorance of many American voters.
There you have it, DNC; the choice is yours. Dig in your heels on what you had perceived as the only playbook and make “Project 2025” a reality; or try to pursue a strategy that has a chance of winning. Please have a private discussion with Al Gore and Jerry Brown.