Any regret, Al Gore?

 

This is your election-year reminder that Al Gore is the major cause of division in the US that persists to this day.

Without his sore-loser ongoing legal challenges to the election he lost, we would never have had the hell that was 2020. Regardless of how you feel about Trump or the election irregularities (that did exist, please see the extensive research by our own @saintaugustine), our Republic was severely fractured by the ongoing legal challenges in Florida in 2000.

Al Gore ensured that every following election would be replayed in courts, delegitimizing any election win in the mind of whatever person disagreed with the results. Indeed, there are people who still argue that Clinton won in 2016 and distrust of the government and election proceedings seems to increase each election cycle.

While I would love to see the American experiment continue, I often wonder if that election signaled the beginning of the end of our way of life. We mock the overly sensitive responses of Gen Z, the soy-boy antics of the Left, and the entitlements demanded by people who don’t have an employment history. But where did it begin?

It all began in 2000 with a culture-shaking display of sour grapes and entitlement. It legitimized this sort of behavior, enshrining it in Supreme Court precedent.

If the adults in the room were willing to behave this way, it was only natural that their children would embrace that legacy, screaming and wailing whenever they didn’t get their way: demanding a recount, refusing to accept election results, and repeating the mantra of “not my president.” Legitimate election concerns are now easily brushed off as the whining of sore losers by whichever party succeeded, with legal challenges being held up alternately as an inability to recognize reality or rightful defense of enumerated rights.

I often wonder if Al Gore has any regret over his legal challenges in 2000 and the harm it has done our union. I do not think that in his waking hours he would ever admit it, nor would he ever dare utter a word to that effect out loud. I am fairly certain that he does not have enough self-awareness to do so and am very certain that his ego would not survive it.

But I do like to think that on occasion, just sometimes, particularly with the oncoming election, he wakes up in a cold sweat, uneasy with a deep concern for something he can’t identify.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 35 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Fritz Coolidge
    Fritz
    @Fritz

    I very much doubt Al Gore has any such second thoughts because, remember, at the time  there was “no controlling legal authority.”

    • #1
  2. Richard O'Shea Coolidge
    Richard O'Shea
    @RichardOShea

    Fritz (View Comment):

    I very much doubt Al Gore has any such second thoughts because, remember, at the time there was “no controlling legal authority.”

    He had no second thoughts because that would require a first thought. 

    • #2
  3. Kevin Schulte Member
    Kevin Schulte
    @KevinSchulte

    Are you kidding ?  The left is all about wrecking the place we call America . So that they can build utopia on it’s ashes . 

     

    Al no doubt got a Golden calf for his efforts . He keeps it in his safe on his billion dollar estate .

    • #3
  4. TheRightNurse, radiant figure of feminine kindness Member
    TheRightNurse, radiant figure of feminine kindness
    @TheRightNurse

    Richard O'Shea (View Comment):

    Fritz (View Comment):

    I very much doubt Al Gore has any such second thoughts because, remember, at the time there was “no controlling legal authority.”

    He had no second thoughts because that would require a first thought.

    That’s why I hope he just had an uncomfortable sensation.

    I don’t think he’d be aware enough to label it.

    • #4
  5. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    What they said above.

    But going back to first causes, the doom of our Republic was sealed when our Founding Fathers chose a republic. Every large republic eventually succumbs to too much democracy, and democracy is a very bad thing.

    • #5
  6. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Fritz (View Comment):

    I very much doubt Al Gore has any such second thoughts because, remember, at the time there was “no controlling legal authority.”

    I very much doubt Al Gore has second thoughts because that would require that he had first thoughts.

    • #6
  7. E. Kent Golding Moderator
    E. Kent Golding
    @EKentGolding

     

    The networks tried to call Florida before the republican areas had voted ( to suppress the republican turnout).

    • #7
  8. MWD B612 "Dawg" Inactive
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    TheRightNurse, radiant figure …: Indeed, there are people who still argue that Clinton won in 2016

    Including Hillary.

    • #8
  9. Richard O'Shea Coolidge
    Richard O'Shea
    @RichardOShea

    Percival (View Comment):

    Fritz (View Comment):

    I very much doubt Al Gore has any such second thoughts because, remember, at the time there was “no controlling legal authority.”

    I very much doubt Al Gore has second thoughts because that would require that he had first thoughts.

    I approve this message.

    • #9
  10. TheRightNurse, radiant figure of feminine kindness Member
    TheRightNurse, radiant figure of feminine kindness
    @TheRightNurse

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    TheRightNurse, radiant figure …: Indeed, there are people who still argue that Clinton won in 2016

    Including Hillary.

    And Al Gore legitimized that sort of behavior.

    The woke culture probably would’ve descended anyway, however, much of the election-based entitlement and sour grapes could have been delayed by 20-40 years, in my opinion.

    Much like other social-contagion issues, if people didn’t start it, publicize it, and legitimize it, the concept would not have entered common acceptable thought. It would’ve remained as an insane fringe idea that no one would be willing to publicly support, much less encourage. Like other atrocities that are visited upon the US culture, it is now an actual option to these people, as opposed to a completely bizarre, bordering on unthinkable concept.

    • #10
  11. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):

    Are you kidding ? The left is all about wrecking the place we call America . So that they can build utopia on it’s ashes .

     

    Al no doubt got a Golden calf for his efforts . He keeps it in his safe on his billion dollar estate .

    I question whether Al Gore has a billion dollar estate.  Putin had a billion dollar estate, so the confusion is understandable, but he has dismantled it so Ukraine wouldn’t be able to drone it.  

    • #11
  12. GlennAmurgis Coolidge
    GlennAmurgis
    @GlennAmurgis

    remember selected not elected – that’s when election denial was celebrated 

    • #12
  13. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    TheRightNurse, radiant figure … (View Comment):

    Richard O’Shea (View Comment):

    Fritz (View Comment):

    I very much doubt Al Gore has any such second thoughts because, remember, at the time there was “no controlling legal authority.”

    He had no second thoughts because that would require a first thought.

    That’s why I hope he just had an uncomfortable sensation.

    I don’t think he’d be aware enough to label it.

    If he had a bad feeling he would demand that  a masseuse to release his chakra point….

    • #13
  14. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    The real sleaze of the Gore legal challenge was he sought to only do recounts in counties he won- b/c someone with math ability came up with the plan. In a very narrow contest ( like Florida in 2000) if you do a statewide recount (assuming a honest election) the typical result is that the winner adds to his margin. But if you only recount in counties where the “loser” won, the loser will gain votes and possibly gain enough votes to flip the result.

    Additionally, Gore hoped that the recount officials in Democratic majority precincts would be more likely to interpret “hanging chads” in his favor.

    Fortunately, the SCOTUS understood the gambit……

    BTW- a consortium of newspapers & magazines actually did the recount as sought by Gore and GWB won.

    • #14
  15. Steve C. Member
    Steve C.
    @user_531302

    MiMac (View Comment):

    The real sleaze of the Gore legal challenge was he sought to only do recounts in counties he won- b/c someone with math ability came up with the plan. In a very narrow contest ( like Florida in 2000) if you do a statewide recount (assuming a honest election) the typical result is that the winner adds to his margin. But if you only recount in counties where the “loser” won, the loser will gain votes and possibly gain enough votes to flip the result.

    Additionally, Gore hoped that the recount officials in Democratic majority precincts would be more likely to interpret “hanging chads” in his favor.

    Fortunately, the SCOTUS understood the gambit……

    BTW- a consortium of newspapers & magazines actually did the recount as sought by Gore and GWB won.

    Yes. As much as I despise Gore, he wasn’t wrong to challenge the results in Florida. The methods revealed his lack of character.

    • #15
  16. GlennAmurgis Coolidge
    GlennAmurgis
    @GlennAmurgis

    Steve C. (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    The real sleaze of the Gore legal challenge was he sought to only do recounts in counties he won- b/c someone with math ability came up with the plan. In a very narrow contest ( like Florida in 2000) if you do a statewide recount (assuming a honest election) the typical result is that the winner adds to his margin. But if you only recount in counties where the “loser” won, the loser will gain votes and possibly gain enough votes to flip the result.

    Additionally, Gore hoped that the recount officials in Democratic majority precincts would be more likely to interpret “hanging chads” in his favor.

    Fortunately, the SCOTUS understood the gambit……

    BTW- a consortium of newspapers & magazines actually did the recount as sought by Gore and GWB won.

    Yes. As much as I despise Gore, he wasn’t wrong to challenge the results in Florida. The methods revealed his lack of character.

    Didn’t he concede on election night and then take it back?

    • #16
  17. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    GlennAmurgis (View Comment):

    Steve C. (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    The real sleaze of the Gore legal challenge was he sought to only do recounts in counties he won- b/c someone with math ability came up with the plan. In a very narrow contest ( like Florida in 2000) if you do a statewide recount (assuming a honest election) the typical result is that the winner adds to his margin. But if you only recount in counties where the “loser” won, the loser will gain votes and possibly gain enough votes to flip the result.

    Additionally, Gore hoped that the recount officials in Democratic majority precincts would be more likely to interpret “hanging chads” in his favor.

    Fortunately, the SCOTUS understood the gambit……

    BTW- a consortium of newspapers & magazines actually did the recount as sought by Gore and GWB won.

    Yes. As much as I despise Gore, he wasn’t wrong to challenge the results in Florida. The methods revealed his lack of character.

    Didn’t he concede on election night and then take it back?

    Before the election Hillary said, “Never concede.”  Then, when Trump followed her advice, Democrats acted like it was a terrible thing.  Weird.  

    • #17
  18. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    The real problem is that the loser in the presidential elections in 2000, 2004, 2016, 2020 all made statements that implied (at least) the election was stolen. And 3 of the 4 were Democrats. The only losers of recent presidential elections who went quietly were McCain & Romney. It is undeniable that we have a problem with the perception of election integrity-yet the Dems refuse to do anything to improve the situation. 

    • #18
  19. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    MiMac (View Comment):

    The real problem is that the loser in the presidential elections in 2000, 2004, 2016, 2020 all made statements that implied (at least) the election was stolen. And 3 of the 4 were Democrats. The only losers of recent presidential elections who went quietly were McCain & Romney. It is undeniable that we have a problem with the perception of election integrity-yet the Dems refuse to do anything to improve the situation.

    The two that went quietly were the “designated losers.” They weren’t told that of course. In 2016, the designated loser lost prematurely, to the ongoing consternation of Those Who Decide.

    • #19
  20. Rightfromthestart Coolidge
    Rightfromthestart
    @Rightfromthestart

    All caused by the networks calling Florida for Gore with Bush leading and the polls still open in the panhandle, I’ve read that the panhandle vote was 30,000 votes lower than 1996 because people went home. 2/3 of those votes would have gone to Bush, I never believed it was an ‘accident’

    • #20
  21. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Rightfromthestart (View Comment):

    All caused by the networks calling Florida for Gore with Bush leading and the polls still open in the panhandle, I’ve read that the panhandle vote was 30,000 votes lower than 1996 because people went home. 2/3 of those votes would have gone to Bush, I never believed it was an ‘accident’

    Next up:  9:01am Eastern on the 5th, they announce that Harris has won.

    • #21
  22. Steve C. Member
    Steve C.
    @user_531302

    GlennAmurgis (View Comment):

    Steve C. (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    The real sleaze of the Gore legal challenge was he sought to only do recounts in counties he won- b/c someone with math ability came up with the plan. In a very narrow contest ( like Florida in 2000) if you do a statewide recount (assuming a honest election) the typical result is that the winner adds to his margin. But if you only recount in counties where the “loser” won, the loser will gain votes and possibly gain enough votes to flip the result.

    Additionally, Gore hoped that the recount officials in Democratic majority precincts would be more likely to interpret “hanging chads” in his favor.

    Fortunately, the SCOTUS understood the gambit……

    BTW- a consortium of newspapers & magazines actually did the recount as sought by Gore and GWB won.

    Yes. As much as I despise Gore, he wasn’t wrong to challenge the results in Florida. The methods revealed his lack of character.

    Didn’t he concede on election night and then take it back?

    He did make a concession call to Bush. Then called back when it looked like he had a chance. 

     

    • #22
  23. Al Sparks Coolidge
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    The 2000 election was the first time in 112 years where a president won office without winning the popular vote.  Since then, no Republican has won the office, unless as an incumbent, while also winning the popular vote.

    That is a part of the bitterness.

    If it were the other way around, where Democrats were winning the electoral vote but not the popular vote, I’d be bitter too.

    I believe in the electoral college, and the slight edge it gives less populous states.  It’s one of the provisions in our constitution that still helps preserve state’s rights against the federal  government.

    Yet, if my candidate won the popular vote and still lost the election, I’d stilll be bitter.  I’m pretty sure that winning the popular vote was a factor in Gore’s willingness to use every legal avenue he could to reverse the electoral college results.

    These popular vote losses with electoral college wins, are a part of why there is less confidence in the outcomes.

    • #23
  24. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    I think Al Gore had many regrets about the 2000 election. Until September 12 2001, then all his regret turned to relief.

     

    • #24
  25. Annefy Inactive
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    I’m confused. While we’ve been lied to for decades in more ways that I can count; are you claiming that elections are beyond question in their methods? And elections, not like members of the military and everyone who has a bank account, is beyond hacking?

    Any system beyond question is going to be corrupted. Every. Single. Time.

    Hats off to Al Gore. Until I vote in an election that is auditable and verifiable, and not decided whether someone or other has “standing” in our pathetic excuse for a court, I’ll continue to believe that I’ve never voted in an uncorrupted election in my lifetime. 

    So here’s to you, Al Gore. Cheers.

    • #25
  26. Al Sparks Coolidge
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    I think Al Gore had many regrets about the 2000 election. Until September 12 2001, then all his regret turned to relief.

    I doubt it.  Bill Clinton complained that he didn’t have a 9/11 like event during his administration.  Those kind of events are an opportunity to be remembered in history.

    Most people who win the office, next look towards their legacy.  Probably the only president in the 20th century who wasn’t interested in his legacy as president was Dwight Eisenhower.  He had already commanded the allies, as a general, in winning the most consequential war of that century.

    He knew he wasn’t going to top that as president, so he didn’t try.  It probably made him a better president.

    • #26
  27. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    The 2000 election was the first time in 112 years where a president won office without winning the popular vote. Since then, no Republican has won the office, unless as an incumbent, while also winning the popular vote.

    That is a part of the bitterness.

    If it were the other way around, where Democrats were winning the electoral vote but not the popular vote, I’d be bitter too.

    I believe in the electoral college, and the slight edge it gives less populous states. It’s one of the provisions in our constitution that still helps preserve state’s rights against the federal government.

    Yet, if my candidate won the popular vote and still lost the election, I’d stilll be bitter. I’m pretty sure that winning the popular vote was a factor in Gore’s willingness to use every legal avenue he could to reverse the electoral college results.

    These popular vote losses with electoral college wins, are a part of why there is less confidence in the outcomes.

     

    A long-time favorite:

     

    • #27
  28. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    We could let Congress pick our leader for us. Then we would get a truly inspiring leader like Keir Starmer.

    • #28
  29. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    The 2000 election was the first time in 112 years where a president won office without winning the popular vote. Since then, no Republican has won the office, unless as an incumbent, while also winning the popular vote.

    That is a part of the bitterness.

    If it were the other way around, where Democrats were winning the electoral vote but not the popular vote, I’d be bitter too.

    I believe in the electoral college, and the slight edge it gives less populous states. It’s one of the provisions in our constitution that still helps preserve state’s rights against the federal government.

    Yet, if my candidate won the popular vote and still lost the election, I’d stilll be bitter. I’m pretty sure that winning the popular vote was a factor in Gore’s willingness to use every legal avenue he could to reverse the electoral college results.

    These popular vote losses with electoral college wins, are a part of why there is less confidence in the outcomes.

    Except there really is no such thing as the popular vote.  It’s an artificial metric.   If candidates were elected by popular vote, the way they campaign for votes would be completely different.  

    • #29
  30. Sisyphus Member
    Sisyphus
    @Sisyphus

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    The 2000 election was the first time in 112 years where a president won office without winning the popular vote. Since then, no Republican has won the office, unless as an incumbent, while also winning the popular vote.

    That is a part of the bitterness.

    If it were the other way around, where Democrats were winning the electoral vote but not the popular vote, I’d be bitter too.

    I believe in the electoral college, and the slight edge it gives less populous states. It’s one of the provisions in our constitution that still helps preserve state’s rights against the federal government.

    Yet, if my candidate won the popular vote and still lost the election, I’d stilll be bitter. I’m pretty sure that winning the popular vote was a factor in Gore’s willingness to use every legal avenue he could to reverse the electoral college results.

    These popular vote losses with electoral college wins, are a part of why there is less confidence in the outcomes.

    I’ve seen his Macarana. A great nation was spared.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.