Reading another book by Jeff Greenfield now-what if JFK hadn't been shot.
http://www.amazon.com/If-Kennedy-Lived-President-Alternate/dp/0399166963/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1462899055&sr=8-3&keywords=jeff+greenfield
I find this just a fascinating genre.
Previously I read his book on what if Al Gore had won.
https://www.amazon.com/43-When-Bush-Political-Fable-ebook/dp/B00LLO83OY?ie=UTF8&keywords=jeff%20greenfield&qid=1462899055&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
I actually tend to agree with him on Gore. It's been an article of faith for Dems like me that everything would have been different with a President Gore. Mac Stipanovich-the GOP operative that worked with Katherine Harris to shutdown the recount in 2000, more or less admits that Gore really won-if all the votes had been counted.
As he puts it, of those votes that were counted, Bush won. But for all those who intended to vote it's a different story... It's truly amazing stuff. This is a man basically admitting that, yes, he and Ms. Harris stole a Presidential election.
But Greenfield suggests a Gore Presidency would not have gone well. I think he may well be right there. Think about it. Soon after W got in office, the Dotcom bubble burst, and the country was thrown into a nasty recession. This was not any normal recession either, It was a painful structural process where many previous office and white collar workers were pushed into the service sector-I was one of them.
It was bad enough being Bush during this time, but imagine being Gore: this would have been seen as the unravelling of the Clinton-Gore economy.
Beyond that, if 9/11 did happen on his watch-certainly a reasonable bet-the recriminations would be terrible.
When you look at what the GOP did to Obama and Hillary over Benghazi, you can only imagine what they would have done in response to an attack on our own soil that claimed the lives of 3000 Americans as opposed to 4 Americans at a diplomatic compound in Libya.
The hearings would still be going on.
Then there was the financial crisis. Assuming Gore won re-election in 2004, which is a dubious proposition. Interestingly, Greenfield actually imagines Gore successfully taking out Bin Laden in a July drone strike.
But according to Greenfield's narrative, the killing of Bin Laden does not prevent Al Qaeda from executing it's 9/11 attack.
Indeed, Gore even gets penalized for this, as in this narrative Seymour Hersch comes out with a theory that 9/11 was a direct case of blowback for taking out Bin Laden. So many leftists desert Gore as the GOP demands blood.
Sounds very plausible. Emoprogs are usually very fair weather friends.
In Greenfield's book about JFK, an interesting point is touched on. When JFK selected LBJ to be his Vice President, the liberals were furious. They thought he was to close to various corporate issues in Texas and he had a poor record in civil rights.
And this was not implausible. LBJ did not have a good record on civil rights in 1960. He had once been a segregationist. When he led the Senate, he slowed down legislation.
This is the same problem with Berners saying Hillary isn't liberal enough based on her husband's Administration 20 years ago.
LBJ would actually be the one who would make history on civil rights. What is irritating about the Berners is they don't acknowledge that in the 90s most of us were at least somewhat more conservative than today.
There is this 'creationist' thing were true progressives are born with all the right positions at the time of Creation.
The Democratic party was less liberal in the 90s for a very good reason: they had been out of the White House 20 of 24 years going into 1992, losing 5 of 6 elections, 4 in complete landslides.
http://www.amazon.com/If-Kennedy-Lived-President-Alternate/dp/0399166963/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1462899055&sr=8-3&keywords=jeff+greenfield
I find this just a fascinating genre.
Previously I read his book on what if Al Gore had won.
https://www.amazon.com/43-When-Bush-Political-Fable-ebook/dp/B00LLO83OY?ie=UTF8&keywords=jeff%20greenfield&qid=1462899055&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
I actually tend to agree with him on Gore. It's been an article of faith for Dems like me that everything would have been different with a President Gore. Mac Stipanovich-the GOP operative that worked with Katherine Harris to shutdown the recount in 2000, more or less admits that Gore really won-if all the votes had been counted.
As he puts it, of those votes that were counted, Bush won. But for all those who intended to vote it's a different story... It's truly amazing stuff. This is a man basically admitting that, yes, he and Ms. Harris stole a Presidential election.
But Greenfield suggests a Gore Presidency would not have gone well. I think he may well be right there. Think about it. Soon after W got in office, the Dotcom bubble burst, and the country was thrown into a nasty recession. This was not any normal recession either, It was a painful structural process where many previous office and white collar workers were pushed into the service sector-I was one of them.
It was bad enough being Bush during this time, but imagine being Gore: this would have been seen as the unravelling of the Clinton-Gore economy.
Beyond that, if 9/11 did happen on his watch-certainly a reasonable bet-the recriminations would be terrible.
When you look at what the GOP did to Obama and Hillary over Benghazi, you can only imagine what they would have done in response to an attack on our own soil that claimed the lives of 3000 Americans as opposed to 4 Americans at a diplomatic compound in Libya.
The hearings would still be going on.
Then there was the financial crisis. Assuming Gore won re-election in 2004, which is a dubious proposition. Interestingly, Greenfield actually imagines Gore successfully taking out Bin Laden in a July drone strike.
But according to Greenfield's narrative, the killing of Bin Laden does not prevent Al Qaeda from executing it's 9/11 attack.
Indeed, Gore even gets penalized for this, as in this narrative Seymour Hersch comes out with a theory that 9/11 was a direct case of blowback for taking out Bin Laden. So many leftists desert Gore as the GOP demands blood.
Sounds very plausible. Emoprogs are usually very fair weather friends.
In Greenfield's book about JFK, an interesting point is touched on. When JFK selected LBJ to be his Vice President, the liberals were furious. They thought he was to close to various corporate issues in Texas and he had a poor record in civil rights.
And this was not implausible. LBJ did not have a good record on civil rights in 1960. He had once been a segregationist. When he led the Senate, he slowed down legislation.
This is the same problem with Berners saying Hillary isn't liberal enough based on her husband's Administration 20 years ago.
LBJ would actually be the one who would make history on civil rights. What is irritating about the Berners is they don't acknowledge that in the 90s most of us were at least somewhat more conservative than today.
There is this 'creationist' thing were true progressives are born with all the right positions at the time of Creation.
The Democratic party was less liberal in the 90s for a very good reason: they had been out of the White House 20 of 24 years going into 1992, losing 5 of 6 elections, 4 in complete landslides.
No comments:
Post a Comment