Posted on 10/19/2001 9:02:34 PM PDT by summer
October 20, 2001
THE DEMOCRATS
Bush Winning Gore Backers' High Praises
By RICHARD L. BERKE
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 — As he leads the country in a war on terrorism, President Bush has won over some unlikely supporters, prominent Democrats who campaigned for Al Gore in last year's presidential campaign.
Many Democrats who once dismissed Mr. Bush as too naïve and too dependent on advisers to steer the United States through an international crisis are now praising his and his advisers' performance. Some are even privately expressing satisfaction that Mr. Gore, who tried to make his foreign affairs expertise an issue in the campaign, did not win.
Sounding relieved that Mr. Gore is not president, Representative Jim Moran, a Virginia Democrat, said: "I feel comfortable with President Bush. I never thought I would utter those words."
He continued: "Even though I'm a Democrat and think the Supreme Court selected our president, I don't think it's to our disadvantage to have George Bush as president. Sometimes you need a certain amount of braggadocio in your leaders."
Perhaps out of a desire to rally around Mr. Bush, not one of more than 15 prominent Gore loyalists interviewed said their candidate would have done a better job.
The most blunt assessments were from Democrats who spoke on the condition that they not be identified. Several said the nation was fortunate to have Mr. Bush in power, and they questioned whether Mr. Gore would have surrounded himself with as experienced a foreign policy team as Mr. Bush did. Citing Mr. Gore's sometimes rambling speech in Des Moines on Sept. 29 in which he praised Mr. Bush, some Democrats also questioned whether the former vice president would have been as nimble at communicating to the public.
One former senator who was a staunch Gore backer said he was relieved that Mr. Bush was president because he feared that the former vice president would think he had all the answers.
"He may know too much," he said. "And he would have tried to micromanage everything."
A top appointee in the Clinton administration. criticizing the qualifications of those he expected to be Mr. Gore's foreign policy team, said he could not imagine Mr. Gore's foreign policy advisers "running a war against Afghanistan."
Representative Norm Dicks, a Washington Democrat who was one of Mr. Gore's most ardent supporters, said his candidate might have handled the crisis as well as Mr. Bush — but not necessarily any better.
"People were wondering if Bush was up to it," Mr. Dicks said. "I think he's answered that. The guy has really impressed people. One of the real strengths of this administration is that people do feel comfortable about Colin Powell and Dick Cheney in particular."
Of course, no one will ever know how the crisis would have unfolded in a Gore administration. But discussions about how Mr. Gore might have tackled the crisis have reverberated in the capital, perhaps because last year's election was so close.
In a statement today through an aide, Mr. Gore declined to join in the speculation. "I have consistently declined either in public or private to say what I would have done or what I would do now during this war on terrorism," he said. "As I said in Iowa, George W. Bush is my commander in chief, he is president of the United States. And I refuse to second guess his decisions in this matter."
Several Gore loyalists said Mr. Gore probably would have also turned to seasoned professionals to staff his administration. Richard Holbrooke, the veteran diplomat, was frequently mentioned as a likely choice for secretary of state. Leon Fuerth, Mr. Gore's longtime foreign policy adviser, might have served as White House national security adviser.
Still, many Democrats said they felt particularly reassured by Mr. Bush's team, particularly Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, the secretary of state and Donald H. Rumsfeld, the defense secretary.
The diminished confidence in Mr. Gore that some Democrats are expressing is a big change from last year's campaign, when Gore supporters argued that Mr. Gore should be elected because of his grasp of world affairs, if for no other reason. At a rally only days before the election, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, Mr. Gore's running mate, asserted, "When I think of a solitary figure standing in the Oval Office, weighing life and death decisions that can affect the security of our country and the stability of our world, I see Al Gore."
Now, not even Mr. Gore's closest aides would assert that their candidate would have done any better.
"The Bush administration has a number of people with tremendous experience in foreign policy and crises," said Carter Eskew, one of Mr. Gore's top political advisers. "They were able to add a sense of stability to the situation, and the president has led them well. Gore himself would have had that experience."
One foreign policy adviser to Mr. Gore said that he would have been more assertive earlier in engaging other nations. But, he said, "I don't think our conduct at the tactical or strategic level would be that much different."
Whatever Mr. Gore's capabilities, others Democrats noted that members of their party are known to be more aggressive defenders of Israel than Republicans, which may have complicated diplomatic objectives in the region.
"Because of the politics of the Democratic Party," Mr. Moran said, "it may have been more difficult to work with Pakistan versus India and to have worked with some of the Arab nations against the wishes of Israel."
Not all Democrats were skeptical about Mr. Gore. Some noted that he was much more emphatic during the campaign than Mr. Bush about the need to deal with terrorists and for nation building. Others said Mr. Gore did not need to rely on as talented advisers because he was far more steeped in international affairs.
For better or worse, they added, he would probably have been more hawkish about military action than Mr. Bush, because he often pressed President Clinton to be more aggressive, particularly in the Balkans.
"I don't think there would have been a lick of difference," said Rahm Emanuel, a senior adviser in the Clinton White House. "I remember the counsel the vice president provided to the president many times during military action."
Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the majority leader, said it was unfair to assume that Mr. Gore would not have done as well.
"I am very comforted by the way the president has handled all this," he said. "He has more than risen to the occasion. He's impressed me a lot. Al Gore could have been every bit as capable of rising to an occasion like this."
Isn't gore the guy that said he didn't know the Buddist Temple was a fund raiser? Didn't get the memo? Barf.
5.56mm
Anyhow, I see this as the first torpedo from the liberal press to sink any chance Gore might have of rising to the top of the Democrat ticket for 2004. In some circles, Gore, with his new and improved rugged appearance and easygoing confidence, has stirred quite a bit of interest. The NY Times is putting the kobosh on that real quick.
Be on the lookout in a week or two for a glowing trial balloon piece from the NY Times on some leading Democrat--my guess is that it will be on Hillary, but could be Lieberman or Kerry. Expect that piece to be filled with descriptions of how that person "feels our pain", "identifies with out plight" and is "committed with every ounce of his/her being to make this world safe for our children".
Then we'll know the NY Times is officially on the campaign trail for their favorite liberal again.
Several said the nation was fortunate to have Mr. Bush in power, and they questioned whether Mr. Gore would have surrounded himself with as experienced a foreign policy team as Mr. Bush did.
Do you recall when Sandy Berger and Maddy Albright traipsed around the country holding town meetings on what we should do about the Serbia-Kosovo situation? I can't begin to imagine Powell, Rice or Rumsfeld doing that--thank goodness.
I can hardly believe I actually agree with something Gore said. Will wonders never cease?
The only criticism I have of the article is the author still is insisting that the reason Gore would have done a poor job is because he is soooo intellegent and would have tried to make all decisions himself. This is B.S. Algore got a free ride from the press on the inteligence thing. Algore's brillance was constantly and laughingly demonstrated when Rush had his TV program.
Kennedy ... principles? In the same breath ... come'on you've got to be kidding. Grant you, Nixon was no shining paragon of virtue, that's acknowledged by most ... especially those who remember those years. I have the distinct advantage of having been around when both Kennedy and Nixon served, in fact, remember the fall of 1960 when the two of them were seeking the presidency. Voting irregularities in the Chicago area (Mayor Daly's Chicago) put Kennedy over the top in a very close election.
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.