Many observers have noted that if, indeed, Vice President Al Gore is
denied the presidency, it won’t only be due to a few hundred votes in
Florida, but also to the fact that he couldn’t carry his own home state
I’ve held off long enough on making this somewhat sensational claim
pending the arrival of all the evidence, but I now believe, with nearly
100 percent certainty, that a series of WorldNetDaily exposes on Gore’s
activities in Tennessee made the difference in the presidential
There, I said it.
Now, let’s look at the facts.
Had Gore won Tennessee, he wouldn’t have needed Florida. The whole
shooting match would have been over on election night. Tennessee’s 11
electoral votes would have placed Gore at 271 and he would have been the
president-elect, right now, rather than the designated sore loser.
The conventional explanations for Gore’s defeat — not only in his
own state, but in his own congressional district — don’t hold water.
Some suggest Tennessee is turning Republican. But the Republican
candidate didn’t win Al Gore’s old congressional seat. In fact, Rep.
Bart Gordon, a Democrat, soundly beat his challenger and outpolled Gore
significantly. Likewise, Rep. Bob Clement, another Democrat, outpolled
the vice president in his Nashville-based district by more than 28,000
So, what happened to Gore? He was the victim of two forces — talk
radio programs such as Nashville’s Phil Valentine’s and a series on
Gore’s ties to corruption in his home state by WorldNetDaily.
Here’s how Valentine explains it: “Thanks to talk radio and sources
like WorldNetDaily getting out the truth, I believe it tipped the state
to Bush. They (the stories) stayed under the radar nationally, but
around here they were on everyone’s lips.”
In addition to appearing on the Internet, the WorldNetDaily stories were reprinted in local newspapers and talked about extensively on local talk radio programs.
Charlotte Alexander, editor of the Decatur County Chronicle in Parsons, Tenn., reprinted the WorldNetDaily “Tennessee Underworld” stories.
“We sold out every edition that carried those stories,” she says. “People literally drove in from hundreds of miles away to buy 25, 50, 100 copies, whatever they could afford, to take back with them. We had well-known Democrats come in here after reading those stories and say out loud that they couldn’t be associated with somebody that behaved as Gore had.”
Ironic, isn’t it? Al Gore invented the Internet, and it may have turned out to be his undoing.
I tell you all this not simply to blow my own horn — though I have no problem doing that and no shortage of reasons. But I think it’s important for people to understand the impact of the New Media on the political culture of the United States. It may well be, in the long run, the most positive development of Election 2000.
Right after Election Day, I was pummeled with criticism from George W. Bush supporters who stated emphatically that my own frequent and sometimes harsh criticism of the Texas governor during the campaign had negatively impacted an election that was, at that time, still too close to call. Reader after reader wrote blaming me for the stalemate. Hundreds of them said that had I simply done “the right thing” and endorsed Bush that I could have provided the margin of victory for him.
Well, folks, I have no regrets about my position. I cannot and will not ever endorse for any office a candidate who does not uphold the major tenets of the U.S. Constitution. And I still believe Bush, in that department, has a long way to go to qualify for my personal support.
However, what these folks failed to realize is that our investigative reporting into the obvious corruption of Gore — in both his character and in his political life — had a far greater impact on the national election than my own principled agnosticism toward the Republican alternative. And, after all, investigative reporting is and always will be at the heart of what we do here at WorldNetDaily.
Now, for those of you who missed them the first time, go back and read those powerful and persuasive investigative articles by Charles Thompson and Tony Hays. Their work should, in the annals of journalism history, be as highly regarded as the work of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein during Watergate.