Posted on 10/28/2004 11:06:10 AM PDT by del griffith
Let me ask a question. It's loaded.
If Al Gore had won in 2000 and had executed his administration exactly as President Bush has with the exact same results, exact same actions, exact same bills signed, exact same actions, bills and speeches given, the exact same situation in Iraq and the WOT....everything exactly the same as has been done to this point by President Bush, would your support for Al Gore be as strong and would you find fault in Gore what you see as success in President Bush?
Please, not Gore wouldn't have done this or Gore wouldn't have supported that. Everything under Gore would have identically mirrored the actions and results that we've experienced under President Bush. Would you be fighting for Al Gore's re-election citing the same accomplishments as you will President Bush?
I won't bite on your hypo question but will tell you this, given the choice between Gore and Kerry, I would prefer Gore.
My mouse outpaced my mind when I hit post! Sorry, Howlin, for confusing you with del griffith. Here’s the correct post (only the names were changed to negate my earlier error):
Your question is very well put, and the premise is not at all unlikely. Al Gore would not have governed like Bill Clinton, because Al doesn't have Bill's great political instincts. Actually, based on the erratic behavior that Al Gore has exhibited since 2000, who knows what he would have done!
As for supporting Al Gore, granted that he would have done everything that GW Bush has done to date, it’s really a moot point. With the passage of tax cuts like GW’s, the far left (i.e., Howard Dean, et al) would have successfully denied Al the Democrat Party nomination. So, the race might have been a bit like 1968, with a Democrat “lame duck” in the White House, and a Republican challenger running with “a secret plan to end the war”.
GW’s war plan seems to be based on Thomas PM Barnett’s worldview:
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/index.htm
Thomas PM Barnett is a Kerry supporter. His worldview calls for many decades of Americans to take up the “Davos Man’s Burden” to interconnect the world and eliminate the Gap where the wild things thrive. Samuel P. Huntington presents a different worldview:
http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html
So, del griffith, in your hypothetical alternate history, whose worldview would form the basis of the Republican challenger’s “secret plan to end the war”? I’d bet it would be Huntington’s, and that it would involve the USA developing a stronger national identity, and fending off the Jihad from the Islamic civilization.
That’s not a bad plan, but as always the Devil is in the details. It’s like the Roman Empire vs. Islam. Would the hypothetical Republican challenger, if he won, get to play the role of Romanus IV Diogenes at Mantzikert, or would he be akin to Basil I in his successful campaign to keep the Abbasid caliphate out of Southern Italy?
Er...It's not Howlin's question.
LOL!
I accept faults in my friends more readily than I do in my enemies.
The question is are you voting for the results or the party. If Al Gore did win in 2000 as a democrat and for whatever odd reason his decision process identically mirror President Bush's with the same actions and outcomes, would you be defending or saying glowing things about Al Gore as we see here for President Bush. Yes it's a big leap of faith, but it was a discussion we had at lunch today. It got a lot of people thinking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.