Although Joe can be a little monotone, a little sanctimonious, and a little passive-aggressive..

Eddie Izzard was right when he said "success is 70% in how you look, 20% in how you sound and 10% in what you say."

So when John Kennedy said, "I am a jelly donut" that day in Berlin, well, there you are.

Now the first thing I like about Joe Lieberman as President is that he is Jewish.

"In your face" you Wahhabi ****s!

One of my fantasies is that I'll leave long enough to hear the following words:

"Chairman Arafat, President Lieberman will see you now."

I believe that the unspoken litmus test for future presidential candidates in the foreseeable future will be: What would they have done on September 11, 2001?

It was this question that made me more than anything regret voting for Al Gore in 2000 (although I already felt his behavior during the election debacle was less than honorable).

I know I'll be asking myself this next time around. I believe it is a valid question. If you prefer an alternative: Ask yourself--looking back, what would the world look like if Wendell Wilke had been in the Whitehouse on Dec. 7th 1941?

Paul:

YOu regretted voting for the guy who DIDN'T hold the reins of power on 9/11?? Just what are you saying, anyway?

If you're saying you're glad Bush was President, well, I can understand that.

Still, it's odd that there seemed to be a number of people who insisted on going "WHEW!" on 9/12.

I suspect it was an effort to rationalize the less than firm mandate that the Bush Presidency had enjoyed up to that point.

Fact is, no one will ever know how a Gore Presidency would have handled it. One thing is for sure, the dynamics of a Dem President and GOP Congress would have been, er, "different."

As for "parallel universe" thought experiments in general, the fact is the experiment reveals more about the person performing it than anything else.

>>You regretted voting for the guy who DIDN'T hold the reins of power on 9/11? Just what are you saying, anyway?

Ara,

What Paul is saying is that he is glad Bush is President instead of Gore. Democrats just cannot do that foreign policy thing, you see. He’s right. You do not want a Democrat in the White House when foreigners threaten our country from the outside. Even Dick Morris, who counseled Clinton for six years, stated on Hannity and Colmes that we are better off with Bush in the White House than either Clinton or Gore. He’s right, too.

One thing Morris did not state is that one reason 9/11 occurred is specifically BECAUSE of Clinton, and by association and to a lesser extent, Gore. Clinton had plenty of opportunity to do something about Osama bin Laden, but did not. Clinton also had plenty of opportunity to do something about Saddam Hussein, but did not do anything about him, either. Hussein has always been in violation of the cease-fire ending the Gulf War. You know Clinton had better worries than that annoying foreign policy stuff. That is why he never even once visited with his CIA Director, James Woolsey, either. Then 9/11 occurs and guess who is responsible?

>>Fact is, no one will ever know how a Gore Presidency would have handled it.

I do. Worse, far worse, Democrats always do far worse dealing with foreign threats than Republicans do. I guess it is just part of the liberal disease. One thing is almost certain. If Gore were in the White House, he would have been in full damage control mode making it appear that 9/11 was not his fault even though he was V.P. the previous eight years. You realize that is the leadership style that top Democrats exhibited the last eight years of the twentieth century: deny responsibility and place blame. They still exhibit this outstanding trait, too! It’s the new American way. I guess that is just part of the liberal disease.

>>I believe that the unspoken litmus test for future presidential candidates in the foreseeable future will be: What would they have done on September 11, 2001? It was this question that made me more than anything regret voting for Al Gore in 2000 (although I already felt his behavior during the election debacle was less than honorable).
I know I'll be asking myself this next time around. I believe it is a valid question. If you prefer an alternative: Ask yourself--looking back, what would the world look like if Wendell Wilke had been in the Whitehouse on Dec. 7th 1941?

Paul,

I cannot believe you did not consider this before. I always do. That is why I just cannot bring myself to vote for a Democrat President. They are simply as awful on foreign policy as they are on any other issue. Why did you not see this man for what he is during the impeachment debacle if you agree his performance was less than honorable?

Paul and Kevin:

You guys crack me up!

I believe that the unspoken litmus test for future presidential candidates in the foreseeable future will be: What would they have done on September 11, 2001?

According to this looney logic, no one is entitled to be elected president ever again except for George W. Bush.

Hoo ha!

For that statement alone you are convicted and sentenced to read this article by Martin Peretz of the New Republic.

No, Ara, it reveals only how people view Democrats in general, and the Clinton/Gore administration in specific, on issues involving defense, moral clarity, and America's role in the world.

This is Democrats' problem, not the problem of those who hold these views. Notably, the party as a whole has done little but vindicate the view of those who are relieved that Gore wasn't in charge on 9/11. Certain Democrats have been admirable. Others have been execrable.

And the execrable element appears to be the one taking charge in the House, doesn't it?

It was easy for me to be relieved that Gore wasn't in charge on 9/11. I voted against the man. But quite a few Gore voters came to the same conclusion. That you can't see that they may at least have a rational basis for this view this says a lot more about you than it does about them.

So nyah. :-P

One thing that Democrats badly needed after 9/11 was a lot of soul-searching. Well they've only barely begun it, and over the last two years the disgustingly self-flagellating, self-hating, blame-America-first element that's been a huge part of that party for the last 30 years has finally been exposed. We all knew it was there all along--but 9/11 forced a lot of people to confront it head on, rather than hide from it.

I bet that alot of Democrats are saying "Whew!" on Gore's right decision not to run.

BRING BACK BILL!