Languish.org

I'm curious; Bush may have been a crappy President, but was he better than the alternative? If you could revote (or vote at all) in the 2000/2004 US Presidential elections, would your vote have changed at all with hindsight? If your votes would not have changed in either election, vote in the 'unchanged' category. If, however, you would change your vote in either 2000 or 2004, vote in the 'changed' category. If you wasted your vote on a third-party candidate, well, congratulations on finding a way to make your vote matter less.

My vote, btw, would probably be unchanged: Gore/Bush.

I live in Texas so what I think doesn't matter.

The second term Bush wasn't actually nearly as horrendous as the first term Bush, especially after he was de-testicled following his attempt to end Social Security.  I'm not sure how his second term would stack up against a hypothetical Kerry term, though.  My guess is Kerry would be about as weak and ineffective as Obama.

Of course. You wouldn't have the craziest deficit ever!

My letters to the American voter telling him how to vote would have been the same.

A Kerry victory in 2004 would have meant a withdrawal from Iraq before Teh Surge.  I'm happy with my vote for Bush in 04.

Still Bush over Al Bore and Longface and his eggplant wife.

There is a possibility that Kerry or Gore could have been worse Presidents than Bush, but it is hard to see how.  I am not sure that Kerry would have withdrawn from Iraq before the surge, but the odds are good enough to make him worth voting for.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2011, 01:45:25 PM
A Kerry victory in 2004 would have meant a withdrawal from Iraq before Teh Surge.  I'm happy with my vote for Bush in 04.

Did Kerry say he was going to withdraw during the election?

I have a hard time imagining anyone but Bush would have invaded Iraq.  It's not really the most obvious thing someone would do.

Quote from: Kleves on September 08, 2011, 01:37:52 PM
I'm curious; Bush may have been a crappy President, but was he better than the alternative? If you could revote (or vote at all) in the 2000/2004 US Presidential elections, would your vote have changed at all with hindsight? If your votes would not have changed in either election, vote in the 'unchanged' category. If, however, you would change your vote in either 2000 or 2004, vote in the 'changed' category. If you wasted your vote on a third-party candidate, well, congratulations on finding a way to make your vote matter less.

My vote, btw, would probably be unchanged: Gore/Bush.

This is hard to answer with the choices listed.  I'd have voted, had I voted, in 2000 for Bush, because I wanted civilizational war, and Bush seemed likelier to deliver that.  However, once that was accomplished, I'd have voted for Kerry in 2004, which I did in fact do and would not change.  In retrospect, Bush was damaging enough that, despite the trade of blood for precious oil/freedom, that I would now cast a vote for Gore in 2000.

It helps that Al Gormless doesn't seem as much of a statue these days, and because he's pimped causes which I care about, e.g., the environment.  I also care a lot less about bombing Muslims than I did in 2000.  Is this because we've already bombed them quite a bit, and now I'm tired of it, and ready to bomb someone else?  The end of a relationship is always hard, I guess.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 02:36:36 PM
Did Kerry say he was going to withdraw during the election?

IIRC correctly he said something about drawing down US troops and replacing them with suddenly enthusiastic Europeans.  :lol:

I don't know this for a fact, but I'm willing to bet one foot rub that he voted for the supplemental appropriation for Iraq that included a deadline for withdrawal before the surge began.  The same one Obama voted for.

Quote from: Ed Anger on September 08, 2011, 02:17:49 PM
Still Bush over Al Bore and Longface and his eggplant wife.

You, sir, are...well you know.

i am prepared to vote for anybody named after a female body part

when the democrats get around to running Senator Gash, Governor Split-tail, or Represenative Melons for president they will have my vote; until then I'm sticking with the bush

Voted for Bush in 2004 and certainly would do that if I had it to do over again.

Voted for a 3rd party candidate in 2000.  Not sure if I would still do that, but probably.

Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 02:37:55 PM
I have a hard time imagining anyone but Bush would have invaded Iraq.  It's not really the most obvious thing someone would do.

I have a hard time imagining any hypothetical electable US President who would not have invaded Iraq. It was bound to happen. If Gore didn't, Kerry definitely would have.

Why? 

Saddam was determined to push the issue. Eventually, he'd have pushed far enough for the security council to want to smash him.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 08, 2011, 04:55:32 PM
I have a hard time imagining any hypothetical electable US President who would not have invaded Iraq. It was bound to happen. If Gore didn't, Kerry definitely would have.

That's nuts.

It's also very debateable whether a Democratic president would have invaded Afghanistan.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 08, 2011, 04:55:32 PMI have a hard time imagining any hypothetical electable US President who would not have invaded Iraq. It was bound to happen. If Gore didn't, Kerry definitely would have.

I disagree.  I don't think Iraq would have happened under Gore and I think he'd still be benefiting from the post-9/11 and Afghanistan boost that would make it difficult for the right or anyone else to challenge him.

Incidentally it's worth remembering that Bush 2000 ran on the idea of a 'humble foreign policy': no more nation building and pointless intervention in far-away lands.  So the Republicans wouldn't necessarily be identified as the neo-con party without the White House. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2011, 04:59:39 PMIt's also very debateable whether a Democratic president would have invaded Afghanistan.

That's insane.  Any President, even Kucinich, would have invaded Afghanistan.

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2011, 05:02:58 PM
That's insane.  Any President, even Kucinich, would have invaded Afghanistan.

It's very easy for me to imagine a scenario in which Gore or Kerry accept the Taliban's request to "consider" the US's request for extradition.  Then OBL slips off to another country.  No invasion.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2011, 05:06:38 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2011, 05:02:58 PM
That's insane.  Any President, even Kucinich, would have invaded Afghanistan.

It's very easy for me to imagine a scenario in which Gore or Kerry accept the Taliban's request to "consider" the US's request for extradition.  Then OBL slips off to another country.  No invasion.

I don't buy it.  Besides, it's not like it was much of an invasion at first by the US - just air strikes and special forces.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 08, 2011, 04:59:05 PM
Saddam was determined to push the issue. Eventually, he'd have pushed far enough for the security council to want to smash him.

He was?

And remember, even in reality, the security council didn't want to smash him.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2011, 05:06:38 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2011, 05:02:58 PM
That's insane.  Any President, even Kucinich, would have invaded Afghanistan.

It's very easy for me to imagine a scenario in which Gore or Kerry accept the Taliban's request to "consider" the US's request for extradition.  Then OBL slips off to another country.  No invasion.

That's insane.  Taliban was already at "dishonorable scum" level in 2001 even before 9/11, and there is no conceivable way they would've escaped heavy retribution after such an act of war. 

Invasion of Afghanistan wasn't prompted by Bush or Republicans; it was pretty much a foregone conclusion on 9/12 that we'd be there, it was just a matter of figuring out the sequence of events that would culminate in that.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2011, 05:06:38 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2011, 05:02:58 PM
That's insane.  Any President, even Kucinich, would have invaded Afghanistan.

It's very easy for me to imagine a scenario in which Gore or Kerry accept the Taliban's request to "consider" the US's request for extradition.  Then OBL slips off to another country.  No invasion.

This must be the stupidest thing that's ever been posted on Languish. It goes beyond Hansian in its absolute delusion. Congress would declare war against Afghansitan and quickly impeach and convict any President who refused to invade Afghanistan.

Yeah.  I've literally never met anyone who opposed the Afghan war.  I can't believe that someone could believe that it somehow depended on the President.

I'm not gonna name-call, but it is a pretty absurd notion, old friend.

Quote from: DGuller on September 08, 2011, 05:13:22 PM
That's insane.  Taliban was already at "dishonorable scum" level in 2001 even before 9/11, and there is no conceivable way they would've escaped heavy retribution after such an act of war. 

Invasion of Afghanistan wasn't prompted by Bush or Republicans; it was pretty much a foregone conclusion on 9/12 that we'd be there, it was just a matter of figuring out the sequence of events that would culminate in that.

The Taliban didn't commit any act of war.  That's why Bush gave them the option of surrendering OBL instead of invading right away.

But they harbored and supported those that did, a fact that wasn't lost on anyone.  Anything short of unconditional surrender to our demands would've been insufficient from them, since America was out for blood.

I can't imaging the 9/11 under Gore.
He would have surrended before the towers fell.
He would have excused the attackers, blaming their behavior on the american disregard for the enviroment.

There would've been no need to vote for Kerry, as Al Gore would've won reelection.

Quote from: DGuller on September 08, 2011, 05:13:22 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2011, 05:06:38 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2011, 05:02:58 PM
That's insane.  Any President, even Kucinich, would have invaded Afghanistan.

It's very easy for me to imagine a scenario in which Gore or Kerry accept the Taliban's request to "consider" the US's request for extradition.  Then OBL slips off to another country.  No invasion.

That's insane.  Taliban was already at "dishonorable scum" level in 2001 even before 9/11, and there is no conceivable way they would've escaped heavy retribution after such an act of war. 

Invasion of Afghanistan wasn't prompted by Bush or Republicans; it was pretty much a foregone conclusion on 9/12 that we'd be there, it was just a matter of figuring out the sequence of events that would culminate in that.

FWIW, one of my distinct memories from the aftermath of 9/11 was watching the BBC on what I think was the morning of 9/12, and it was said that NATO was working on potential plans for a ground invasion of Afghanistan. One of the BBC anchors was incredulous, saying that Afghanistan was the graveyard of empires, and reciting a list of failed incursions into the country.

I think the aftermath of 9/11 was one of those times where a political leader had quite a bit of latitude in choosing the direction of the country/western world. Bush had the decisiveness to take full advantage of that, unfortunately he didn't have the sense to make good decisions. I don't think it was at all in stone that we would be attacked from a terrorist from country A, who would then run to country B after we launched a war on country A. And then continue a 10+ year war in country A, plus launching a war on country C, while leaving country B free from troops on the ground and sending it billions in aid money in a futile attempt to get them to help us.

Quote from: alfred russel on September 08, 2011, 07:01:32 PM
I think the aftermath of 9/11 was one of those times where a political leader had quite a bit of latitude in choosing the direction of the country/western world. Bush had the decisiveness to take full advantage of that,

Any president would've had the decisiveness to take full advantage of that.

Quoteunfortunately he didn't have the sense to make good decisions. I don't think it was at all in stone that we would be attacked from a terrorist from country A, who would then run to country B after we launched a war on country A. And then continue a 10+ year war in country A, plus launching a war on country C, while leaving country B free from troops on the ground and sending it billions in aid money in a futile attempt to get them to help us.

Saddam never tried to whack Al Gore's daddy, nor would he have had members of his administration still pissed about not going "all the way" in '91.  Which is all it was ever about.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2011, 05:06:38 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2011, 05:02:58 PM
That's insane.  Any President, even Kucinich, would have invaded Afghanistan.

It's very easy for me to imagine a scenario in which Gore or Kerry accept the Taliban's request to "consider" the US's request for extradition.  Then OBL slips off to another country.  No invasion.

Yes, but you're a kool-aid drinker so your difficulty imagining ways the Dems disappoint you is not out of the ordinary.

Quote from: Siege on September 08, 2011, 06:43:28 PM
I can't imaging the 9/11 under Gore.
He would have surrended before the towers fell.
He would have excused the attackers, blaming their behavior on the american disregard for the enviroment.

You didn't live in the US during the 1990's.  When Clinton made air strikes against Bin Laden in Sudan and Afghanistan conservative cried foul.  I remember Rush Limbaugh whining about how Clinton had ruthlessly destroyed an Asprin factory.

Didn't vote. Would've voted for Bush. Now would've voted for Gore. Iraq was a big mistake.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 09, 2011, 02:31:27 AM
Didn't vote. Would've voted for Bush. Now would've voted for Gore. Iraq was a big mistake.

Were you to young?  I actually liked John McCain at the time.  His stance campaign finance intrigued me.  I would have voted for him over Gore.  McCain had a temper problem, and was prone to rash decisions, but I don't think he would have invaded Iraq.  If the US had not invaded Iraq I think we would have a much stronger hand to oppose Iran.  I could see a Gore or McCain presidency in the early 2000's bombing Iran.

Voted Bush, but would have voted for Gore if I could do it over.

Would still vote for Bush over Kerry though. Iraq was a mistake, but once it began we had to see it through.

Gore/Kerry.  Loath their personas (and to an extent Obama's), but they were the left-leaning of the major candidates, and that's how I vote. 

Voted for the Libertarian candidate for Attorney General in Penna. for her death penalty and drug law positions.  :ph34r:

Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2011, 05:11:44 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2011, 05:06:38 PM
It's very easy for me to imagine a scenario in which Gore or Kerry accept the Taliban's request to "consider" the US's request for extradition.  Then OBL slips off to another country.  No invasion.

I don't buy it.  Besides, it's not like it was much of an invasion at first by the US - just air strikes and special forces.

It is always easy for a forum member to imagine a scenario that supports their otherwise ludicrous contentions.

Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2011, 01:39:46 PM
I live in Texas so what I think doesn't matter.

Unless you sat on the USSC in 2000 it wouldn't matter anyway.

what i thought turned out to have been one of the 800 opinions that mattered a lot

i blame me but even with what i know now, it's hard to say I'd have done anything different then