Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Newsweek: Gore loyalists glad Bush is the man
Newsweek ^

Posted on 10/03/2001 11:52:55 AM PDT by hawaiian

Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:21 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Here's a great article by Howard Fineman on Bush's popularity, solid maneuvering in the aftermath of 9/11 and how even Gore supporters admit Bush is better equipped to be the man right now than Gore.


(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

1 posted on 10/03/2001 11:52:55 AM PDT by hawaiian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: hawaiian
BWA HA HA HA HA!!

Liberals MUST ADMIT how WRONG they WERE/ARE/WILL BE!

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

2 posted on 10/03/2001 11:56:35 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hawaiian
Read between the lines...This article is part of the strategy to quickly eliminate Gore as a candidate for 2004. Remember, he's the favorite of 40% + of the Dem voters....and don't forget who's number two in all the polls......if the premise of the story is accepted....then there is NO viable rationale for Gore to be the nominee again..
3 posted on 10/03/2001 11:58:03 AM PDT by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hawaiian
Gore would have been a bad president regardless -- the Dems who supported him wouldn't be better off with him anyways. He's not a democrat by any means; he and Clinton are both moderate Republicans -- in other words, people with little to no convictions in their beliefs. At least the hardcore leftists who supported Nader were supporting someone who truly believed in his (nutty) platform. Gore and Clinton were both characterless, and September 11th would have seen Gore's hugest stumble. A stumble that would have costed many, many more lives in the long run.
4 posted on 10/03/2001 11:58:53 AM PDT by daniel1q
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: daniel1q
Gore --- a moderate republican ??? Oh, I'm going to sit back and watch this...
6 posted on 10/03/2001 12:02:09 PM PDT by coder2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hawaiian
How many freepers kept insisting there was no difference between Gore and President Bush? How many freepers tried to convince people to vote third party? How many freepers said a third party vote would not hurt this nation?
7 posted on 10/03/2001 12:02:36 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hawaiian
I caught a blurb on NPR the other night that the GoreBOT is driving around Iowa by himself in a rental car, carrying a cell phone.

He's just caling people he knows trying to get speaking gigs. I guess he has no idea that he's washed up.

What a poor, pathetic soul.

8 posted on 10/03/2001 12:04:12 PM PDT by visagoth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hawaiian
If Gore were president, Clinton would be all over the place -- more than he is now.
9 posted on 10/03/2001 12:05:56 PM PDT by geaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hawaiian
With his reasonably good ties to the conservative, pro-military wing of his party, the president has been able to both talk tough and take his time.

Imagine how unseemly it would have been for President Gore to call up the troops.. the very ones whose votes he had his operatives in Florida discard, in order for him to win..

10 posted on 10/03/2001 12:06:46 PM PDT by Paradox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: geaux
I wish Clinton was all over the place -- literally.
11 posted on 10/03/2001 12:07:25 PM PDT by jae471
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
I don't see Hillary going anywhere as long as the electoral college is still in place.

John Edwards and Roy Barnes though is another story.

12 posted on 10/03/2001 12:07:26 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: daniel1q
he and Clinton are both moderate Republicans

Did you skip your medication?

13 posted on 10/03/2001 12:08:48 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hawaiian
Newsweek: Gore loyalists glad Bush is the man

This same sentiment has been expressed numerous times here on talk radio in Los Angeles.
A stellar example is that of left-of-center Brian Whitman on KABC-790AM.
Both he and some of his liberal callers (some notable regulars).
The general message they have is thankfulness that Dubya, Cheney, Powell,
Rice and other adults are running the show.
14 posted on 10/03/2001 12:09:44 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daniel1q
Klinton a moderate republican? He's a "3rd way fascist".

Klinton - Socialist Health Care. Gun Grabber. Janet Reno. "Radical Constitution with a Radical Bill of Rights". Disciple of "Carrol Quigey". Wants secret searches and hates the 4th and 10th amendments.

Klinton is an authoritarian.

15 posted on 10/03/2001 12:09:59 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hawaiian
Just to keep the MSNBC from getting the hits, here's the text:

It’s not merely that they want to rally ’round our leader — though they do. It’s not that they think their man wasn’t up to the job — they think he was. But with almost audible sighs of relief, some top people who worked for Al Gore privately tell me they are glad (relieved might be a better word) that George Bush — not Bill Clinton’s veep — is in the White House now.

THE REASONS are complex, but the bottom line is not: “I’m glad Bush is in there and Gore is not,” is the blunt way one former top Gore lieutenant put it to me.
        As Bush returned this week to a Democratic bastion — New York City — he remains, at least in pure numerical terms, the most popular president in modern history. More interesting, to me, is that — for now, at least — Bush’s successes and the nature of the war against terrorism have combined to erase the corrosive sense of bitterness left behind in the hearts of Democrats by the 2000 election.
        First, it’s fair to say that Bush’s performance since Black Tuesday has impressed Democrats, even, if not especially, those who thought he was dumber than Will Ferrell’s amiable dunce on “Saturday Night Live.” Since his home-run speech of Sept. 20 — which solidified confidence in him — his sure and patient coalition-building (and noose-tightening) has impressed the Democrats, too.

MORE ROOM TO MANEUVER
       The Democratic strategists also have realized that Bush has far more political room to maneuver at home than Al Gore would have had. With his reasonably good ties to the conservative, pro-military wing of his party, the president has been able to both talk tough and take his time. Bush can issue threats, and then wait while the world helps us by other means — financial, diplomatic, investigative — to prepare the ground for whatever, presumably surgical, use of force he orders. Gore may not have had the time to execute a waiting game. “The Republican Right would have been all over us,” said one Gorean.

But it’s more than that. While they won’t say so publicly, former Gore lieutenants think their man might have been seriously hampered as a war leader, at least in this war at this time, by the controversies and personalities of the past.
       Even now, former aides to Clinton are fighting a rear-guard action against accusations that they did too little too late to stop Osama bin Laden as he ramped up his global jihad against America. The papers these days are full of stories from the Clinton era about what was, or was not, done to make the country more secure — or to capture or kill bin Laden and his terrorist cells.
       As usual, The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward got the goods, quoting the lament of a top Clinton administration defense official: “I wish we’d recognized it then” — the Bin Laden threat — “and started the campaign that they have started now. That’s my main regret. In hindsight, we were at war.”

Well, duh. Had Gore won, many of those now defending their past efforts — or lack of them — would still be in place, part of what inevitably (if unfairly) would have been seen as the third term of “Clinton-Gore.” To be sure, transition to an “All-Al” government would have been under way by Labor Day, but probably not complete, given the slow, contentious pace of nominations on the Hill. “We would have had a ton of Clinton folks to deal with,” said a former Gore adviser, “and they would have been part of the problem.”

THE CLINTON BAGGAGE
       Not the least of Gore’s burdens would have been Bill Clinton who, it turns out, was far more actively engaged in trying to find and kill Bin Laden than we knew. Other than inviting Clinton to the National Cathedral for a memorial service on Sept. 14, Bush has kept the former president entirely at arms length. Would Gore have been able to do the same? Would he have wanted to?
       Another part of the equation is diplomatic. Democratic presidents, using the trust they have built up with Israel, have specialized in trying to bring peace between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East. Jimmy Carter made considerable progress, and Clinton tried to do the same. Republicans, by and large, have tended to focus both their public and private efforts on the oil-rich Persian Gulf.

The plain fact is, the Republican war commanders — from Dick Cheney to Donald Rumsfeld (in the region now) — have wider and deeper contacts than the Democrats in that region, especially in Saudi Arabia, whose support is indispensable to the success of any anti-terrorism effort. Bush’s commanders undoubtedly have a better sense of the sentiment of Saudi CEOs in air-conditioned ballrooms than of impoverished fellaheen in the dusty streets.
       But at least the GOP has some ties to go on, and Democrats generally admire Colin Powell. “Frankly, I feel a whole lot better with Bush’s team in there,” said a top Gore guy I know. “We’d have had less experience, and a harder time."

16 posted on 10/03/2001 12:09:59 PM PDT by RobFromGa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coder2
Well, Gore during his years in the senate can be just about anything. If you compare 1986 Gore to 1996 Gore, it is 2 different people. We still don't know his true colors.
17 posted on 10/03/2001 12:12:38 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: hawaiian,JMJ333
 “Frankly, I feel a whole lot better with Bush’s
team in there,” said a top Gore
 guy I know. “We’d have had less
experience, and a harder time.”

Really?  Gore was vice president
of the country for eight years.  He
was supposed to be ready to
step in as president on a moment's
notice.  Plus, the Democratic party
has a lot of experience getting the
country into wars.

18 posted on 10/03/2001 12:13:08 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa
Woo Hoo!
19 posted on 10/03/2001 12:15:17 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: hawaiian
"Bill Clinton who, it turns out, was far more actively engaged in trying to find and kill Bin Laden than we knew...."

Don'tcha just LOVE this one? KEEP TRYIN', clintonistas.

20 posted on 10/03/2001 12:16:38 PM PDT by Irene Adler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson