Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


From blue to red
July 10, 2008 10:40 AM   Subscribe

What if Al Gore really had won? J. M. Kearns crafts a new, imaginative Bush conspiracy in his new short story, "The Eagle Has Landed."
posted by Menomena (50 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

 
"Everyone knows Custer died at Little Bighorn. . .
What this book presupposes is. . .what if he didn't?"
posted by spock at 10:49 AM on July 10, 2008 [17 favorites]


I assume there will be airships?
posted by Mister_A at 10:52 AM on July 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


He did win.
posted by euphorb at 10:53 AM on July 10, 2008 [14 favorites]


What if instead of moving towards the sun, and everything melting, we were actually moving away from the sun, and it was getting colder and colder?
posted by cashman at 10:54 AM on July 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


He did win.

Actually, he didn't have enough Supreme Court Justices.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:55 AM on July 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


I only made it 3 paragraphs before being inside of Cheney's head forced me to shower. With a wire brush.
posted by DU at 10:56 AM on July 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


What if Al Gore really had won?

I believe you mean, "What if the Supreme Court had not abdicated their responsibilities to justice and simply played politics?"
posted by spock at 10:59 AM on July 10, 2008


I've scanned a little bit, and it reminds me of those books by that guy with the dude who's always hitting people, and there's all these naked chicks running around? Seen here on MetaFilter. What I'm saying is, despite the plaudits on his website, perhaps JM Kearns is not such a good writer.
posted by Mister_A at 11:00 AM on July 10, 2008


Is the name of the story "The Eagle Has Landed" as in the text, or "The Eagle Had Landed" as in the page title?
posted by Plutor at 11:07 AM on July 10, 2008


those books by that guy with the dude who's always hitting people, and there's all these naked chicks running around?

You're going to have to narrow that down a little more. Which one of my books are you refering to?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:10 AM on July 10, 2008


I had to keep going back to page one and then advancing again because I got stuck on the subscribe! page, but it did let me go all the way to the end. Amusing dialogue, out-of-left-field ending. Thanks for this.
posted by mdonley at 11:13 AM on July 10, 2008


This story strains credulity. If neocons really could change history we'd be 75 years into Prescott Bush's Thousand Year Reich.
posted by felix betachat at 11:15 AM on July 10, 2008 [4 favorites]


Is the name of the story "The Eagle Has Landed" as in the text, or "The Eagle Had Landed" as in the page title?

Hmmm, looks like a web title error. It's "Has" in the print version.
posted by Menomena at 11:17 AM on July 10, 2008


Which one of my books are you refering to?

The one with the really buff dude and the scantily clad red-head on the cover.
posted by Mister_A at 11:20 AM on July 10, 2008


A better question is, "What could Gore or Kerry POSSIBLY have done that would have been worse?"

Nothing, I think.
posted by Hugh2d2 at 11:36 AM on July 10, 2008


If Gore had won, he'd pretty soon have signed some piece of legislation that would have outraged the left wing of the Democratic Party and Metafilter would have been chock full of posts about how disillusioned people were with the political process, how glad they were that they had stayed true to their ideals and voted Nader, and how "it would have made no difference at all if Bush had been president."

When Gore had appointed moderate liberals to the Supreme Court (just sit back and dream on who, believably, would take Roberts and Alito's places, and what that would have mean for American jurisprudence in the coming decades), but didn't appoint absolutely down-the-line hard-core social activists, we would similarly have seen Metafilter chock full of indignant outbursts about betrayal and the complete indistinguishability of the Republicans and the Democratic party.

Well, that's just to judge by the latest flap over the FISA legislation, of course.

One would have thought that the last 7 years would have finally drummed it into people's heads that yes, it really can be worse and that it really is a dumb idea to make the perfect the enemy of the good. But, apparently, no.
posted by yoink at 11:36 AM on July 10, 2008 [29 favorites]


I stopped reading after "Then there was stopping the 8/11 plot.." Ugh.
posted by adamms222 at 11:40 AM on July 10, 2008


bad, bad stuff
posted by matteo at 11:43 AM on July 10, 2008


One would have thought that the last 7 years would have finally drummed it into people's heads

I totally agree with you and almost posted something similar. Now that I think about it - people are behaving stupidly, whining and going on and on, thinking that they're standing tall and deciding to wait an eternity for a perfect being to show up to presumably save everybody.

Hmm, I know I've seen that before somewhere.
posted by cashman at 11:46 AM on July 10, 2008


yoink: "When Gore had appointed moderate liberals to the Supreme Court (just sit back and dream on who, believably, would take Roberts and Alito's places, and what that would have mean for American jurisprudence in the coming decades), but didn't appoint absolutely down-the-line hard-core social activists, we would similarly have seen Metafilter chock full of indignant outbursts about betrayal and the complete indistinguishability of the Republicans and the Democratic party."

It's so sad you think you would have needed to compromise your ideals just because it "could have been worse". I'd like to think most people aren't simply satisfied with the lesser of two evils. "Don't complain, at least he's a centrist liberal" is almost as sickening as "Don't complain, he's the president, you unpatriotic noob".
posted by Plutor at 11:46 AM on July 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


It's so sad you think you would have needed to compromise your ideals just because it "could have been worse". I'd like to think most people aren't simply satisfied with the lesser of two evils. "Don't complain, at least he's a centrist liberal" is almost as sickening as "Don't complain, he's the president, you unpatriotic noob".

So, you're saying that it made no difference at all having Bush as president for the last seven years rather than Gore? Really?
posted by yoink at 11:50 AM on July 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


If Gore had won Joe Lieberman woud have been sitting at Dick Cheney's console.

Instead of the War in Iraq, we'd have carbon caps and the War in Iraq.
posted by three blind mice at 11:54 AM on July 10, 2008


Sorry, this reads more like a rabid Democrat political wet-dream than anything interesting or, even better, entertaining.

And I say this as someone who sincerely regrets where we are now... but at least I can call out lame story-writing when I see it.
posted by incongruity at 12:07 PM on July 10, 2008


Instead of the War in Iraq, we'd have carbon caps and the War in Iraq.

Sounds like progress to me.
posted by fusinski at 12:09 PM on July 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


yoink: "So, you're saying that it made no difference at all having Bush as president for the last seven years rather than Gore? Really?"

No. You really think all complaints are equivalent?
posted by Plutor at 12:26 PM on July 10, 2008


That's the stupidest thing I've ever read in my life. Sounds like Al Gore wrote it.

And why are we still talking about Al Gore?
posted by tadellin at 12:28 PM on July 10, 2008


Sounds like progress to me.

No doubt, but only a pollyanna would believe that Corporate Party A's candidate is really going to be any different than Corporate Party B's candidate. The voters only get to choose the crumbs. The main course is always red meat.
posted by three blind mice at 12:28 PM on July 10, 2008


Would all the revolutionary-in-waiting idealists please commence the overthrow.
posted by cashman at 12:56 PM on July 10, 2008 [3 favorites]


No doubt, but only a pollyanna would believe that Corporate Party A's candidate is really going to be any different than Corporate Party B's candidate.

OK, say what you will about both parties being corporate shills, but even with an apathetic attitude you have to admit that there are real differences between the Republicans and Democrats in terms of foreign policy, which makes your vote worth more than bread crumbs.
posted by fusinski at 1:03 PM on July 10, 2008


Super predictable and not particularly well written.
I believe Gore should have won in 2000, just like a lot of people but come on.
This whole thing plays out like some Opposites Day Bizzaro World (albeit a pleasant one) essay written by a 9th grader.
posted by Senor Cardgage at 1:05 PM on July 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Awful rubbish, worst sort of wishful wanking
posted by A189Nut at 1:07 PM on July 10, 2008


I thought Al Gore did it better himself on Saturday Night Live.
posted by briank at 1:10 PM on July 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


No. You really think all complaints are equivalent?

I think you're getting confused. I'm the one who is saying that we should prioritize our complaints. By all means be ticked off that Obama voted for a FISA bill that included immunity, but don't pretend that this means somehow that he's "just the same" as McCain. If McCain were president you would have far more, and more grave, things to complain about than if Obama were president.

You're the one who is saying that any such prioritization of complaints is the same thing as "compromising your ideals."
posted by yoink at 1:15 PM on July 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


The voters only get to choose the crumbs.

Some of us think that, say, the continued relevance of Roe v. Wade is a pretty big crumb. McCain is pledged to nominate justices who will overturn it. That's just one concrete issue that will affect the lives of thousands of American citizens which your vote has a chance of directly influencing.

Although, I'm sure it's nowhere near as important as the feeling of smug satisfaction you could get from casting a worthless protest vote.
posted by yoink at 1:19 PM on July 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Although, I'm sure it's nowhere near as important as the feeling of smug satisfaction you could get from casting a worthless protest vote.

Some would argue precisely that.
posted by Durin's Bane at 1:31 PM on July 10, 2008


Imaginary ≠ imaginative.
posted by Mister_A at 2:07 PM on July 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


It reads like it should be in a pile of political pamphlets and magazines you stumble across in the middle of the woods when you were a kid.

It's the first time you'd ever seen a progressive tax plan, well, except for your mother's. And look at how that senator is putting his FICA tax into her lockbox. Do Democrats really do that to each other?
posted by dw at 2:09 PM on July 10, 2008


"craft" is not a word I would use to describe this writing.
posted by asfuller at 3:17 PM on July 10, 2008


By all means be ticked off that Obama voted for a FISA bill that included immunity, but don't pretend that this means somehow that he's "just the same" as McCain.

He's now a complete unknown. He states 'I will fight this bill to the last', then, three months later, he *votes for the bill.*

So, when he says 'I will withdraw troops from Iraq in 18 months' or 'I will not bar a woman's right to an aborition' or 'I will appoint moderate and reasonable justices', why should I believe him.

He lied. He lied to ours faces. *Everything* he states is now suspect.

Just. Like. John. McCain.
posted by eriko at 5:07 PM on July 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


He's now a complete unknown.

He went to the finest schools, alright.
(But you know he only used to get juiced in it).

Something tells me that nobody's ever taught you, eriko, how to live out on the (political) streets, but now you're going to have to get used to it.

You say you never compromise, with the mystery tramp, but now you realize, he's not selling any alibis, as you stare into the vacuum of his eyes and say, do you want to, make a deeeaaaaaaaaal.

So. How does it feel, to be without a home?

(Weird how much of that seems almost to make sense in this context.)
posted by yoink at 5:16 PM on July 10, 2008



The one with the really buff dude and the scantily clad red-head on the cover.


Close enough...

posted by gimonca at 5:46 PM on July 10, 2008


DELUSIONAL? WELL I SAY WE'RE NOT DELUSIONAL ENOUGH!
posted by Krrrlson at 6:08 PM on July 10, 2008


Some of us think that, say, the continued relevance of Roe v. Wade is a pretty big crumb.

There is no evidence that he won't "compromise" on that, as well. He will need to be re-elected, after all.
posted by dirigibleman at 9:19 PM on July 10, 2008


asfuller: Remember, macrame is also a craft.
posted by Jilder at 4:39 AM on July 11, 2008


Jesus Monkeys and Joseph, people. If you're harrumphing over Obama right now and *honestly* thinking he's the same as McCain, then you are walking around with your head so far up your own ass that it's a wonder you can't see this morning's breakfast being digested firsthand.

Shame on you.
posted by grubi at 5:29 AM on July 11, 2008


If you're harrumphing over Obama right now and *honestly* thinking he's the same as McCain.

The problem is, we don't know anymore. We know what he *says* -- but we've also just seen that he will happily abandon forceful positions if it thinks it will win us votes.

So what we're saying to us is when you state that he won't do X, and McCain will, we're saying you have no evidence of that anymore. Things like the Reverend Wright issue suddenly become vastly more important. He told us, forcefully, that he rejected Rev. Wright's hate mongering rhetoric completely.

Just like he rejected Telcom Immunity.

Which Obama do we believe? The one trying to get nominated? Or the one trying to get elected? And why are these two separate people?
posted by eriko at 6:19 AM on July 11, 2008


We know what he *says* -- but we've also just seen that he will happily abandon forceful positions if it thinks it will win us votes.

No, you haven't. You know what you *think* he said. Look again at what he actually said and then tell me where he contradicted it.
posted by grubi at 7:27 AM on July 11, 2008


"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." -- from a statement released by Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, October 2007.
posted by Plutor at 6:41 AM on July 14, 2008


To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster

What filibuster was initiated that he failed to support? Oh, I know -- you wanted him to stop his presidential campaign and start one. Which is, ya know, totally reasonable.

Ahem.

Still haven't shown he's contradicted himself.
posted by grubi at 6:48 AM on July 28, 2008


Al Gore Places Infant Son In Rocket To Escape Dying Planet
posted by homunculus at 5:42 PM on August 1, 2008


« Older Doug Skinner translates Paul Vibert's House of Fle...  |  Pickens Plan... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments