If Santa Claus was Superman, would kryptonite affect him?If pigs could fly.
That being said, people vote for the incumbent president based on his actions to date - not his name.
"Would you be fighting for Al Gore's re-election citing the same accomplishments as you will President Bush?"
No, I would be screaming at his fiscal liberal tendencies, same as I am now.
Like Bush, he would've done nothing to reform Socialist Security.
If Santa Claus was Superman, would kryptonite affect him?It's a useless hypothetical. It's like saying "If Hitler was not a dictator and didn't kill anyone, would you still think he was one of the greatest mass-murderers of the 20th century?" By gutting the possible choices of the elements that make them what they are, you've made the choice completely meaningless.
If my grandmother had balls, she'd have been my grandfather.
I'd support him, especially if he was running against a Kerry or Kerryesque candidate. However if the R's ran a candidate that was tougher on illegal immigration and lower domestic spending, I'd support the R candidate.
IF he were running against W (exact same views, but one R, one D), I'd support Gore just for the sake of not changing horses in mid stream.
Owl_Eagle
" WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
DIVERSITY IS STRENGTH"
It would depend on the opponent, now wouldn't it? If the GOP was running a UN-appeasing, anti-American, terrorist-enabling traitor, I'd be voting for Gore in a heartbeat.
I have a hard time getting by anyone who would support Kerry. He's a UN loving, commie loving, America hating traitor. Can't get by that. He's also an abortionist pig. Can't put lipstick on that. He's a tax and spend Massachusetts liberal. In fact, even more liberal than Kennedy. Can't get by that. And he's a fraud and a liar to boot. Anyone who would even remotely consider Kerry as presidential material is NO conservative.
"Hey Red Sox fans, if the NY Yankees were the Boston Red Sox, would you still hate them?"
Oh, but wait! That didn't happen.
No.
Well, in the first place, from the infamous date of
9/11, the Gore administration would still have its
finger in the air in order to govern by the polls.
Your question just will not compute with reality.
The Clinton/Gore administration hadn't yet answered
any terrorist attack with meaningfulaction, so how could I
assume that would change?
Or as Uday and Qusay Hussein once said, "This is the
end. Bush is not Clinton." Neither is he Gore.
It's not the man himself, but what has been done...that I have a problem with, along with a few in the administration....
I'm not sure this question makes sense to me.
If Al Gore's thoughts, actions, decisions, leadership, integrity, etc., were identical to Bush, then the only thing different would be the name.
So, if Gore=Bush, then I would support Gore (just another name for Bush, right?) for re-election.
I don't think we have to worry about Gore acting like Bush, though. Gore has come unhinged since 2000. He spends his days ranting about Bush's "incompetence", and nights whinning about Bush's every decision.
Fletcher J
Talk about a waste of time
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?
I accept faults in my friends more readily than I do in my enemies.