Over at Pajamas Media, Roger Simon argues that had Al Gore won the presidency in 2000, history would not be so different: “… he would be just as knee deep in the War on Terror as George Bush is right now and fighting it in more or less the same manner. He would be in Iraq.”

Yes, you read me correctly. Forget the Nobel Prize and the global warming Oscar, if Al Gore had been elected in ‘00, he’d be burning excess Air Force One fuel, jetting behind the lines to Anbar Province, dealing with an ornery (possibly antiwar) opposition party and doing his best to ignore wretched poll numbers, a hostile media and whacko Code Pink demonstrators (not to mention his quondam allies on the Moveon-Kos end of his party who by now would be calling for his impeachment).

You may not believe me, but I don’t even think it’s much of a stretch, certainly no grand fictional scheme à la Philip Roth’s The Plot Against America in which Lindbergh defeats Roosevelt in the election of 1940 and the U. S. opts out of World War II. The Clinton-Gore administration wasn’t the least bit afraid to use force. Erratic about it - maybe. Insecure about it - maybe. But pacifist? Ask Milosevic.

Continue reading here, and then weigh in: Would Gore have gone to war in Iraq?

In this weekend’s New York Sun (July 20-22), Lawrence Kudlow argues that, “While the Democrats stand against near all of the president’s wartime policies — and in the process court defeat — the stock market is standing with Mr. Bush, and the chance for victory.”

His argument: “…when the Democratic leadership…launched their latest anti-war offensive, stocks dropped about 150 points. …[A]fter Mr.Bush discussed clear successes in Iraq’s Anbar province, the Dow Jones soared nearly 300 points….” Wall Street’s biggest worry? Another 9/11.

“The stock market, in fact, is voting for the president to stay on offense.”

Kudlow’s partisan point, though nonetheless a true one,is that Bush’s presidency is actually quite successful if measured by actual performance in areas of greatest concern to the nation’s security. He asks, “isn’t it interesting that stock markets have been booming since early 2003, when Saddam Hussein was overthrown and the president signed his supply-side tax cuts into law?”

In the media, we hear selected bad news and a storm of despairing criticism. “But here are the plain facts: The president’s tax cuts helped reinvigorate investors and businesses. The nation has been safe from attack for nearly six years…. Petraeus’s counter insurgency strategy for Iraq just may be working. In other words, Mr. Bush deserves a lot more credit than most are willing to give him.”

Once again, this points to the president’s failure not of policy, but of rhetoric. If the president would be constantly in the bully pulpit, reminding us of these successes whenever he spoke, he could move public perceptions toward what is arguably reality. Instead, Americans think that the terrorists are winning, that the war in Iraq is a failure and that our best days are behind us, according to Rasmussen. That mood seems more like 1980 than 2007.