What could have been

[Matoro]

Does anyone wish that Gore was President right now instead of Bush? When you look at how an 'idiot' like Bush is handling this situation, it makes you wonder what a really smart guy, like Gore, would have done.

[Higher Authority]

In response to the first implication, I won't argue too much. In response to the allusion that Gore is anything other than an Idiot I would have to dissagree. Politicians are a subset of the set of Idiots.
Now! a smart person would develope a device that could track the offending parties and make them vanish. That person wouldn't use a patent either. He would develope the device so that any tampering would make the device un observeable.
Unfortunately we are all human and humanity is a subset of idiots as well. :smile:

[Intents]

A staunch liberal Democrat tried to convince me that we would not have had the terrorist attack if Bush did not come across as a simple minded tough guy. I about puked at the rationalization. just what I want ... three cheers for Warren Christopher instead of Donald Rumsfeld.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

The Democrats are even more pro-Israel than the Republicans, although to a radical Arab the difference isn't noticeable. Gore wouldn't have upset other countries over treaty issues the way Bush did, but again this would be meaningless to a terrorist.

Also, these guys were in the US and training for their mission well before Bush took office.

[Hierophant]

How things could have been different.

1. Gore would push for approval of the Kyoto Accord; signalling that he is an elite liberal America-hater just like the Europeons.

2. Gore includes Jesse Jackson in the U.S. delegation to the UN "human rights" meeting in South Africa. Appeasement on the issue of Israel and the Palestinians results in concessions to the Palestinians. Arafat puts in a call to Bin Laden and tells him to hold off, since the attacks would generate adverse PR.

3. Johnnie Cochran is called in by Jesse on the issue of reparations for slavery, but that is another issue.

4. Meanwhile, China releases the hostages from our downed surveillance plane. Gore concedes a 1,000 mile territorial air and water buffer around mainland China, and promises not to make surveillance flights there.

5. Two months later, China invades Taiwan. Gore blinks. Another friend bites the dust.

[Guerilla poster]

Sorry, I never understand the equation between pro-environmental and anti-American. Some in the environmental movement are American hating wackos but that is like equating the anti-abortion movement to those who kill abortion doctors

I do however see the flaws in the Kyoto agreement.

2) Your statements on China are silly at best and stupid at worst. They do not deserve a thougtful reply.

[Huki]

On 2001-10-10 11:10, Guerilla Poster wrote:
Sorry, I never understand the equation between pro-environmental and anti-American. Some in the environmental movement are American hating wackos but that is like equating the anti-abortion movement to those who kill abortion doctors

I do however see the flaws in the Kyoto agreement.


No one is saying that Pro-Environment ==> Anti-American. Hierophant was implying that the Kyoto treaty is more of an anti-America treaty than it is a pro-environment treaty.

[Guerilla poster]

Yes, you are right this was not Hiero's conclusion but this is the sense I get from many right-wing commentators:

- Being American means you must be pro-oil, and pro-development.

If you are anything else, you are American-hating and a liberal elite who should move to Europe.

[Hierophant]

We can disagree on the environmental wisdom of the Kyoto Accord, but compliance with those provisions would have been disastrous for our economy.

GP - My China comments are framed in a silly fashion, but they are not stupid.

Al Gore would have been a weak president, in the sense that he would concede U.S. interests in order to "get along" in the "global community." Hence, my comments on Kyoto and the Palestinians.

I felt before the election that Taiwan would fall if Gore was elected, and I continue to believe that would have been a plausible scenario. The willingness of Gore to concede would have emboldened the Chinese to take action with respect to Taiwan. I don't think Gore would have had the political will to risk U.S. troops, or the possibility of a nuclear confrontation, to protect the Taiwan Chinese.

[Guerilla poster]

Yes, but Bush hardly knew where Taiwan was before he ran for election.

Thankfully, he picked good people for his cabinet and has proven to be a good leader in our current crisis. He is a quick learner when he tries, I give him that (I guess there is something said for cramming for exams).

[Hierophant]

On 2001-10-10 16:13, Guerilla Poster wrote:
Yes, but Bush hardly knew where Taiwan was before he ran for election.

Thankfully, he picked good people for his cabinet and has proven to be a good leader in our current crisis. He is a quick learner when he tries, I give him that (I guess there is something said for cramming for exams).


Well, GP, you are showing yourself (if it isn't already a matter of public record) to be in the "Bush is an idiot" camp.

At least he passed the exams he took. Al Gore failed or dropped out of both law and divinity (?) schools. I don't think Al Gore is particularly stupid, except in that he would be too willing to believe that the government knows better than the individual in matters of everyday life.

Did Bush know where Taiwan was? I don't know; but Bush knows what side his bread is buttered on, and a large majority of the world has apparently discovered this just recently. I am not so sure the Gore shares in this knowledge - sure, he kinda knows the formula, but I don't think he can work it backwards under time pressure in an SOA exam (with a geometric progression thrown in, just to make it interesting.)

[Guerilla poster]

Hiero,

You are too predictable. I have never accused Bush of being an idiot. i do not think he is an idiot. I think he is a smart man.

My only view of Bush is that he is lazy intellectually (or not intellectually curious). This is no crime and should not impact the effectiveness of his presidency. His general leadership principle is that he does not have to know everything as long as he has good people around him. He will consult them and make an informed decision.

This is the opposite of Clinton who was intellectually curious but not necessarily an effective president. I do not believe he trusted anyone's consultations so he felt he had know everything in order to make the right decision.

My comment was purely meant to rip on your preconceived notions on Gore. You do not know how Gore would have behaved as President in different situations. Just like I would not know how Bush would perform until he had to step up.

[Guerilla poster]

I wouldn't expect to find Bush hanging out with Laocoon and Blackladder having philosophical discussions about the Middle East and countless other issues.

I could see Clinton doing this provided there was some eye candy there as well.

Gore - he would probably bore Laocoon and Blackladder to death if that is possible.

[Huki]

On 2001-10-10 16:13, Guerilla Poster wrote:
Yes, but Bush hardly knew where Taiwan was before he ran for election.


Now who is being silly at best and stupid at worst?

[Hierophant]

GP - Your comments on Bush's intellect are baffling.

Bush's leadership principle is based on a notion of right and wrong; that there are principles which he believes in with which his actions should be consistent.

Clinton's guiding principle was politics, and not leadership. Day 1: Clinton's moral compass tells him it is not right to discriminate against gays in the military; his political compass tells him "Why did I bring this up on day 1?" He ends up with "Don't ask, don't tell."

Clinton was Commander in Chief, and he did not have the courage or principles to follow what he thought was right (assuming - generously - that he believes or cares that anything is right or wrong.)

Perhaps gays in the military would have been demoralizing to old timers, but I have to think "don't ask don't tell" is demoralizing to a greater extent.

My notions about Gore are not totally preconceived. He appears to be a genuine liberal and elitist; I think he truly believes in the environmental cause, in particular. He has a Utopian vision: for example, he envisions a world where the internal combustion engine is eliminated with 25 years, due in part to global cooperation and regulation.

I think China would have tested Gore, and he would have failed.

[Guerilla poster]

I do not think my views on Bush's intellect are baffling. I am basically saying he is not a policy wonk. His decisions are based on advice from others and he uses his sound principles to make a decision.

I am sure in your working lifetime, you have come across managers like Bush and managers like Clinton. Bush is a 'big' picture manager, Clinton is a control freak type. That is the picture I am painting.

I am not getting into the whole Clinton is immoral argument. I agree Clinton did many things purely for the symbolic effect. However, when he came into office I think he had a clear vision of ways he wanted to improve the country. Whether, you agree or disagree with these policies is another point.

Sorry, once again, I do not see why replacing the internal combustion engine is such a bad goal long term. If we can come up with a better product, why not? Of course, I would not support the government mandating the use of an alternative while restricting the use of the automobile. I never understand this argument that the automobile is the only way. I think the propaganda machine over the last 40 years by the carmakers does not allow many people to even think about alternatives.

[Huki]

GP:
My apologies. I didn't realize that when you said "Bush hardly knew where Taiwan was before he ran for election", what you meant was "he is not a policy wonk".

[Guerilla poster]

What percentage of the American population do you think knows where Taiwan is? knows the capital of Taiwan? Knows the leader of Taiwan? Knows the history of China and Taiwan?

I admit ignorance only on the third question.

[Actuary321]

On 2001-10-11 10:10, Guerilla Poster wrote:
What percentage of the American population do you think knows where Taiwan is? knows the capital of Taiwan? Knows the leader of Taiwan? Knows the history of China and Taiwan?

I admit ignorance only on the third question.


Let's refine that a little. George W. Bush would not be considered a common american. Let's ask first what percentage of the Governors, or candidates for national office know that?

Then to say GWB doesn't know anything about Taiwan or China is a bit naive. His father was Ambassador to China in the 70's. Come on, I wouldn't be suprised if GWB even visited his dad in china.

[Guerilla poster]

Ok ok, you people are tough. What do you want a full retractment? I have already said I believe GWB is smart.

[Hierophant]

GP: I am with Huki; your comments on Bush keep slipping around.

My Clinton comment was not about his morality, but about his lack of leadership.

A true leader will have principles, and the leader follows those principles; the leader leads the people in the direction of those principles. The true leader runs the risk that no one will follow. I believe Bush, and even Al Gore, follow this model of leadership.

Clinton was not a true leader. Clinton followed the people, and let his principles (if any) come dragging behind him.

The morality comes into play as an illustration of this. If Clinton adhered to feminist principles, he would never have had sex with an intern, Monica. If we assume he does hold these principles, then he is immoral because he violates his own sense of morality. However, it seems more likely that his support of feminist issues was guided by politics. Hence, he was a follower rather than a leader.

There is, of course, a "fuzzy logic" notion to this; between the extremes, I think Bush and Gore tend more to true leadership, while Clinton tends far more to being a true follower.

Of course, the difference between Bush and Gore are the principles they adhere to. Gore's principles tell him that he knows better than the market, and so we should get rid of the internal combustion engine; Bush's principles will let the market follow its course.

[Hierophant]

GP: I didn't see the intervening posts before my last, so I won't pile on.

On Taiwan, though, the key point that most people don't realize is this: Taiwan technically is not a separate country from China (even though it is.) In other words, Taiwan has never formally declared independence from China. This makes for stranger politics than the Israeli-Palestinian issue, I think.

A recent news link with the answer to your third question:

http://www.csis.org/pacfor/pac0119B.htm

[Guerilla poster]

I do not equate being stupid (or an idiot) with being blissfully uninformed. No slippage here.

Clinton is a leader not a follower no matter what you say. You can argue his lack of principles all you want and I agree. Please remember he spent much of his terms in a political system that was so divided (partially his fault) it would have been impossible for even the best leader to get anything constructive done. Bush was doing an admirable job trying to change this before Sept.11 but the clear road was getting slippier by the day.

First, you say Gore would cave in at a time of trouble to get along, then you say Gore is a leader. Which one is it?

[Hierophant]

Gore would cave on Taiwan because his principles place greater value on the U.S. getting along in the "global community" than on protecting democracy in Taiwan.

Values can be in conflict; the Elian Gonzalez case is a good example. Should a boy be with his father? Yes. Should a person escaping from Cuba be forcibly returned there? No.

Do leaders actually lead? In other words, do people follow? For example, if Clinton had stood up and said: "Too bad, Castro, we're not sending the kid back to that repressed rat-hole you're running in Cuba!" Would U.S. public opinion have gone the other way? Note that how you ask a question will reflect your underlying beliefs and will also influence the answers you get from the public.

"Should we allow the Cuban exiles to keep a boy from his father?" (NO!!)

"Should we condemn a boy to return to a repressive totalitarian state?" (NO!!)

In either case: "Are you willing to die to support your case?" (...blink)

When values are in conflict, the blink factor goes way up.

[Guerilla poster]

Obviously, the Cuban exiles were not willing to die to support there cause. Now they are suing Janet Reno. God, I love America.

[Hierophant]

They were willing to die with just a little air support; instead they got slaughtered at Bay of Pigs.

The Elian stand-off was a peaceful dissent; they trusted the system of justice in this country and were let down. That's twice now.

[Guerilla poster]

Obviously, they did not trust the system of government in the country or the Feds would not have had to go in and grab the boy at gunpoint.

They thought they could use their political will to beat the system.

[Indep]

"Clinton was not a true leader. Clinton followed the people"

Sometimes the peoples' voice should be heard. Granted, not on things like particulars of military action, but other things I don't see the harm in. I'd rather not have a "leader" shove something I don't want down my throat.

As for you liberals, you're weak! After puttin up with any off the wall arguement at all to bash clinton, you are now saying GWB is smart because he got on TV and said that bombing the WTC is not OK. Weak! What has he really done? Well, he's done exactly what any politician would do if they were in the same circumstances. That's about it. I think patriotism is blinding in America as well as in the middle-east. He's still completely unworthy of being the president. And don't bother comparing Gore to GWB, they both deserved to lose. GWB never earned anything in life on his own, and failed miserably at the few things he did put some effort in on. Sorry guys, he's still a moron, even if we do all feel a little more patriotic now.

Weak liberals!

[Damn, Dirty Ape]

re:Clinton

"I'd rather not have a "leader" shove something I don't want down my throat."

... nah, too easy.

[Hierophant]

Here's a scary "What could have been" thought/scenario:

Gore wins the election, the jet hits the White House instead of the Pentagon, and Gore gets killed (because he's in the White House, not some school in Florida.)

Joe Lieberman becomes President and has to deal with the situation.

(The parallel scenario is Bush gets killed, then Cheney dies of a heart attack, then ...)

[Guerilla poster]

But if Cheney and Bush were killed simultaneously. Who would sucede(sp?) them?

[E. Blackadder]

Dennis [thanks, AB] Hastert, the current Speaker of the House.

Followed by the President Pro-tem of the Senate, and the Cabinet secretaries in order of their department becoming a cabinet-level entity -- if they are eligible to be president.

If things went further than that, we could have a problem. (as if that wouldn't be enought of one!) Probably something extra-constitutional would occur, until the legislature were reconstituted. and a Vice President were determined by the Senate. (following this, the VP would become president.)

There may be a project extending the succession process beyond the constitutional limits in case of national disaster. I thought I saw a reference to that in Progressive review's web site. The article focused on the extra-constitutional nature of the project.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: E. Blackadder on 2001-10-12 18:42 ]</font>

[E. Blackadder]

The topic has been "What could have been, had Gore won the election." Small potatoes, I say.

How's THIS for "What could have been?" Fascinating. Apparently the English King John dabbled with converting England to Islam.

http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire101201.shtml

[WQN]

I don't think Gore would've said "No negotiations" to the Taliban and managed to follow through. I give kudos to Bush on that one. He may not be slick with words but he has stuck to his word and his principles. Also Clinton couldn't even pull off the 92% approval rating that Bush got yesterday.

[Hierophant]

GW Bush has achieved the highest ratings of any President since Gallup began polling on this topic.

It isn't fair to compare to Clinton, since wars tend to elevate the ratings - and Bush 41 had high ratings during the Gulf War but lost to Clinton.

For more info, see http://www.pollingreport.com

[Aaron Brachowitz]

EB, you might want to re-edit your post -- it's Dennis Hastert, not Tom. (You were thinking of Daschle, maybe?)

[Standtall]

Hiero,

You are too predictable. I have never accused Bush of being an idiot. i do not think he is an idiot. I think he is a smart man.
My only view of Bush is that he is lazy intellectually (or not intellectually curious). This is no crime and should not impact the effectiveness of his presidency. His general leadership principle is that he does not have to know everything as long as he has good people around him. He will consult them and make an informed decision.

This is the opposite of Clinton who was intellectually curious but not necessarily an effective president. I do not believe he trusted anyone's consultations so he felt he had know everything in order to make the right decision.

My comment was purely meant to rip on your preconceived notions on Gore. You do not know how Gore would have behaved as President in different situations. Just like I would not know how Bush would perform until he had to step up.

:yellowcard:

[Guerilla poster]

:yellowcard:


Go on. Bush is smart, I just disagreed with alot of his policies.

[Standtall]

Go on. Bush is smart, I just disagreed with alot of his policies.

This was bumped in your defense. You are not as much of a partisan hack as others portray you to be.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

For 8.5 years I was sure I had killed this thread. Guess not.

[Standtall]

For 8.5 years I was sure I had killed this thread. Guess not.

Take that point off the board.

[Wigmeister General]

Does anyone wish that Gore was President right now instead of Bush? When you look at how an 'idiot' like Bush is handling this situation, it makes you wonder what a really smart guy, like Gore, would have done.

If Gore had been POTUS, we would have been obliterated on inauguration day.

[X-37B]

This was bumped in your defense. You are not as much of a partisan hack as others portray you to be.Maybe he's just a hack.

I disagree, I think running a campaign is a good test of leadership ability. Some sucked at it, John Kerry for one.
Otherwise, how can we come close to justify this two year nonsense we go through.

[Guerilla poster]

Maybe he's just a hack.


Most likely. :toth:

[Aw Yeah]

ohhh yeaahhhhh

I remember this thread...