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."
They told him that back in June, and that is when he started to sprout wiskers. - This story is really saying
"Bush's performance is fantastic, considering his limitations..."
I never specifically went for Gomez Adams, although I have married my own Gomez who can do all the fabulous things you mention except stand on his head, but I remember knowing in spite of my prolonged naivete that Gomez and Morticia had a really, REALLY good love life!
The Gore supporters say that he won the popular vote anyway, even without Clinton's support. Put Gore on the '04 ticket with a more liberal veep than Lieberman, and get Gore to swallow his pride and let Clinton do some campaigning for him, and he should win convincingly. (These people also try to claim that he deserves another shot at the presidency, after what happened to him last year, but of course that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee. =)
The detractors point out that, if he had won his home state of Tennessee like every other candidate was able to do before him, then Florida would have been a moot point and Gore would be the CIC right now. He was too stubborn to reach out the the Greens, too stubborn to accept Clinton's aid, and he has done almost nil publicly since the election to criticize Bush et. al. Finally, he's no longer the sitting veep, so he doesn't have the help of the same insider connections and of Air Force Two. Therefore, he's content with a "loser" tag and shouldn't be considered as a serious candidate again.
Which of the above do I believe? Not sure. I'm going to wait until election time in a couple of years and see where Gore's at and what he's saying before I decide whether I should vote for him. But no matter who gets the nod, whether it's Gore or John Edwards or Bill Bradley, I take comfort in the fact that Bush Sr. had almost 90% approval ratings last year after the Gulf War and still managed to be a one-termer. =)
This statement represents the great problem with people who view the world through the liberal grid.
They simply have no understanding that people don't just "rise to an occasion" equipped with the ability to inspire trust and act appropriately unless they are grounded in a principled belief system.
Contrary to what we were told for 8 years, character does matter! honesty matters! ability to know the difference between right and wrong matters! willingness to act decisively without regard to opinion polls matters! and an inner core of belief founded on truths learned from the teachings of his favorite "political philosopher" (though he was ridiculed when he admitted it) matters!
American citizens are responding to a real person--not to a caricature of a person. After 8 years of charade and show, of controlled and controlling "feel your pain" performances and Gore's "no controlling legal authority" condescensions, Americans are drawing a contrast between shadow and substance, between a man of principle and men of no principle, and they like what they see.
Yes, they did all that they were equipped to do: they catered to the teachers' union and its huge political contributions, which enlarged their power base.
We must not ever elect American presidents because they will take the hard earned dollars of American workers and coercively use them for the benefit of any special interest--even the one of our own choosing, for if we do, then such people will almost certainly use the same delegated power to benefit other special interests, if those special interests will offer them sufficient votes.
Unprincipled politicians use promises like the rest of us use dollar bills as currency. They trade promises for votes, and results are disastrous to liberty.
The same pair that traded the interests of children and teachers for union dollars, traded our safety and security on airlines for DNC contributions (check out the Gore record associated with the Task Force on Airlines Security as recorded here on Free Republic).
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.