Was there ever?
― Rockist Scientist, Friday, 21 March 2003 19:25 (twenty-three years ago)
― g--ff c-nn-n (gcannon), Friday, 21 March 2003 19:28 (twenty-three years ago)
― badgerminor, Friday, 21 March 2003 19:29 (twenty-three years ago)
This was the man who was a heartbeat away from a potential Gore presidency as much as Cheney is to the Bush one. His influence in that presidency cannot be guessed but it could well have been tremendous.
I have said before that I actually think the situation might well have been worse -- yes, WORSE -- after 9/11 with Gore as president, facing an equally unsettled economy and doubtless being hounded by a right outraged that they would have to 'put up with' four more years of an administration inherited from Clinton. The pressures on him to act even more swiftly and to be shown to 'do something' might well have been overwhelming, and it might have led to an election in 2004 where someone even more rabid than BushCo got in. That's how potentially terrifying it might have been, and now is bad enough.
Obviously there's no way to prove this, and now it is water long under the bridge, a battle admittedly not worth refighting. I am hardly saying I am happy with the current administration, at all. But still, I think it has to be said.
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 21 March 2003 19:37 (twenty-three years ago)
Perhaps, but how much worse could they be? Its narrow victory has hardly reined BushCo in. The Alaskan oil drilling vote is about the only domestic gambit I can recall them not getting away with.
Having now spent my $.02, I declare this line of reasoning closed, as one can never know what would have been. ;-)
― mookieproof (mookieproof), Friday, 21 March 2003 19:44 (twenty-three years ago)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 21 March 2003 19:46 (twenty-three years ago)
― badgerminor, Friday, 21 March 2003 19:48 (twenty-three years ago)
― Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Friday, 21 March 2003 20:32 (twenty-three years ago)
― badgerminor, Friday, 21 March 2003 20:34 (twenty-three years ago)
― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 21 March 2003 20:37 (twenty-three years ago)
― badgerminor, Friday, 21 March 2003 20:44 (twenty-three years ago)
― badgerminor, Friday, 21 March 2003 20:45 (twenty-three years ago)
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), yesterday on the Bill Press Show: "I've spoken to Joe Lieberman and he knows he's out there alone. I mean, literally alone. Joe is a fine man, he has strong feelings, but he's just alone. Even Republicans don't agree with Joe."
Well, somebody must, if he's gonna be Sec of Def.
― Hunter (Hunter), Friday, 9 December 2005 23:23 (twenty years ago)
― kingfish trampycakes (kingfish 2.0), Saturday, 10 December 2005 02:28 (twenty years ago)
― latebloomer: The Corridor (Yes, The Corridor) (latebloomer), Saturday, 10 December 2005 05:25 (twenty years ago)
― kingfish trampycakes (kingfish 2.0), Saturday, 10 December 2005 05:29 (twenty years ago)
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Saturday, 10 December 2005 06:14 (twenty years ago)
― latebloomer: The Corridor (Yes, The Corridor) (latebloomer), Saturday, 10 December 2005 06:35 (twenty years ago)
― latebloomer: The Corridor (Yes, The Corridor) (latebloomer), Saturday, 10 December 2005 06:42 (twenty years ago)
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Saturday, 10 December 2005 07:42 (twenty years ago)
― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Saturday, 10 December 2005 07:55 (twenty years ago)
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Saturday, 10 December 2005 07:59 (twenty years ago)
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Saturday, 10 December 2005 08:01 (twenty years ago)
...Why so much affection? Lieberman, a conservative Democrat, has credibility, and Bush is trying to regain his. When Bush says there's progress in Iraq, moderates think he's spinning. When Lieberman says it, they might actually believe it. Quoting Lieberman highlights the Democratic Party's confused position on the war. White House aides hope Lieberman becomes the anti-Murtha, the sage Democrat who slows the push for speedy withdrawal.
Bush hasn't just cherry-picked Lieberman's complimentary remarks about Iraq policy. The president has also embraced Lieberman's criticism. He said the senator was correct to charge that "mistakes had been made" in the prosecution of the war. That's just a flicker of candor, but it's new for the president. The old Bush would have tweezed the good bits from Lieberman and pretended the criticisms didn't exist. Today's embattled Bush is trying to show those who doubt him that he sees things clearly. Embracing Lieberman's criticisms, however gingerly, helps Bush show that he's awake without looking like he's caving to political pressure from lefty partisans.
Lieberman benefits by the association as well. He gets to do a McCain. He has a free pass to candor. He can beat up President Bush and praise him—both help his image. As with McCain, Lieberman's showy acts of centrism inspire the hatred of the ideological core of his party. Lieberman rattled their blogs when he preached recently: "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril..."
Though one would think the "anti-Murtha" bit would be a non-starter...
― kingfish trampycakes (kingfish 2.0), Sunday, 11 December 2005 00:29 (twenty years ago)
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 11 December 2005 03:33 (twenty years ago)
― Mitya (mitya), Sunday, 11 December 2005 04:00 (twenty years ago)
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 11 December 2005 04:17 (twenty years ago)
― Eisbär (llamasfur), Sunday, 11 December 2005 04:49 (twenty years ago)