An interesting article on "could have been"

[miko2d]

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=863662

 I am not a great supporter of Al Gore but I sincerely believe that if he won, the events would have happened as imagined in that article - which means about the same way as they did - includng the implications that the loser (GWB) would not have been up to the task.

 I least I hope so. If the future of this country was truly determined just by an accident of a man in the top chair, it would not have been such a great country after all.

 miko

[Udie]

Originally posted by miko2d:
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=863662

 I am not a great supporter of Al Gore but I sincerely believe that if he won, the events would have happened as imagined in that article - which means about the same way as they did - includng the implications that the loser (GWB) would not have been up to the task.

 I least I hope so. If the future of this country was truly determined just by an accident of a man in the top chair, it would not have been such a great country after all.

 miko

What a joke, thank God he didn't win...


[edit]

  After thinking about this some more I'm left with the feeling that the whole primise of the article is stupid.  Sure you can think "what if" but nobody can ever know for sure what Gore would have done, including Gore himself.   I wonder why a serious journalist would even waist time writing such an article.

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Udie ]

[fd ski]

Smear job based on assumtions and biased guesses.

I'm somewhat suprized that economist would publish such trash. I thougth they were scolarly not political magazine.

[AKDejaVu]

I voted for GW... I agree with FD Ski on this one.

I can't help but notice a heavy dose of irony in the article.

AKDejaVu

[miko2d]

Originally posted by fd ski:
[QB]Smear job based on assumtions and biased guesses.[QB]

 What makes you say that?

 The article clearly implies that Al Gore (and the country) would have performed as well as GWB - by recounting recent events and substituting the names. Where is the smear in that? Who is smeared?

 Have you read the article before condemning it as trash or was it enough that I recommended it?  

 There is a lot of irony there, but it is directed towards brainless part of american public which speculates that Gore would have screwed up - while if he won, they would speculate that Bush would have screwed up.

 miko

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: miko2d ]

[fd ski]

Main Entry: sar·casm
Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
Date: 1550
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain <tired of continual sarcasms>
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm <this is no time to indulge in sarcasm>
synonym see WIT

[miko2d]

Originally posted by fd ski:
Main Entry: sar·casm

 You mean the article said all those nice things about mr Gore while implying the opposite?
 Not many people would see it that way. I read Economist a lot and when they want to criticise someone they do it straight in your face. I wouldn't expect them to kick a guy who is down and who was never even on top before.

 All sarcasm I see there is directed towards the public/media, not Gore.

 Admittedly, publishing this article is a bit cruel towards Mr Gore - reminding him what great deeds he could have accomplished but for a few stupid floridians.
 But as a public figure he is an open target for anyone, according to american tradition. Besides, he must have nerves of steel to be able to survive 8 years of Clinton presidency (during great part of which they were apparently not on speaking terms).

 If history is any indication, mr. Bush will not get reelected after his stellar approval ratings, cutting nuclear arsenals 2/3 rd, eradicating the terrorism and finding a cure for common cold.
 If Gore succeedes him as a president, I would not be surprised nor upset in the least. I think Economist would not be either and that is the tone of their article.

 miko

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: miko2d ]

[funkedup]

I think the point of the article is that things wouldn't have gone that much differently if Gore were in office.  Maybe for different reasons and in a different manner or time frame, but ending up in basically the same place.  

I think the only sarcasm is directed at Americans who think everything would have been totally different.  Maybe that's my own bias shading my interpretation of the article though.  IMHO Democrats and Republicans are just two slightly different flavors of power grabbing socialists.  Chosing between them is like choosing between eating a bowl of toejam with whipped cream on top or eating a bowl of toejam with chocolate syrup on top.  I like chocolate syrup a LOT better but when I'm done I still ate a bowl of toejam.

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[Gunthr]

Well then, choosing Gore would be like picking the bowl with whipped creme and peanuts  


I consider Bush's greatest strength is that he operates from his inner principles, and he doesn't waiver. He makes decisions right now.

.
Gore has to take the long way around to make decisions. I don't think there's any way Gore could do the job Bush is doing.

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Gunthr ]

[Eagler]

Bush won't be elected because he'll have to raise taxes to pay for all the Dumacrat spending, just as Sr had to do ... the beginning of the end for Bush was when jumpin Jeff did his toejam...

Doesn't matter what Bush does now (approval ratings & polls be damned), 2002, 2003 or most of 2004, all the average American will remember is how the media and the tax spending dumacrats hang him out to dry 7/2004 - 11/2004 as their memory is shorter than their wazzooo....

[easymo]

I have to fess up here.  I am astonished at the performance Of The President.  I was counting on the people he had around him, far more, than on the man himself.  As we all know, he has waded into this crises
with the same unyielding determination shown by some of our best Presidents.  I could not be more pleased.

[Dowding]

His speeches are still the most unconvincing of recent times.

I thought Tony Blair was the master of feigned sincerity; he actually looks pretty convincing in comparison.  

Shame he's off making himself busy around the world doing what Bush seems unable or unwilling to do. For example visiting the 'Mecca of Terrorism', Syria, and asking them nicely to condemn all terrorist acts. Or actually do something positive to stop it. Humiliation isn't the word.

Strangely, in the time since September 11th, there's been some major policy announcements on issues previously deemed as important (Education, Health Service, Transport, Crime...).

[Sandman]

Originally posted by fd ski:
Main Entry: sar·casm
Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
Date: 1550
1[snip]

Main Entry: mas·tur·ba·tion
Pronunciation: "mas-t&r-'bA-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 1766
: erotic stimulation especially of one's own genital organs commonly resulting in orgasm and achieved by manual or other bodily contact exclusive of sexual intercourse, by instrumental manipulation, occasionally by sexual fantasies, or by various combinations of these agencies

[Gunthr]

Dowding, you have got to be kidding? Maybe you are referring to a Bush speech I haven't seen, but I have never heard Bush or a Bush speech described as "insincere". Is this a personal observation? One of his recent speeches was described as "Churchhillian" for crying out loud. He is the epitomy of sincerity - the guy means what he says.

Everyone should be skeptical of politicians. When in doubt, just check to see if the ACTIONS match the WORDS. That's all! Bush passes this test with flying colors in my book.

Prime Minister Blaire is someone who is appreciated by most Americans. I never paid much attention to him until now, but it sure feels good to know that England is standing with us. Insincere? From here, it looks like the guy is "putting his money where his mouth is" to use an American expression.

[Dowding]

Come on, to compare Bush to Churchill is a comparison too far.

Bush just doesn't inspire confidence in me. Compare Churchill's speeches to his and there's so much character behind what Churchill says. Bush's seem almost empty.

Compare the 'Never surrender' speech to Bush's recent 'With us or with them'. Surely there is no comparison?

It's not about mere words. It's about turning those words into unassailable truth. Bush hasn't done that. He's not a natural orator like Churchill or FDR.

As for Britain standing with you? Some say we might be holding you back. I'm not sure, I was surprised the US waited as long as it did before hitting Afghanistan.

But maybe I'm biased.    

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]