If Al Gore got a few more votes in Florida, he would've won the election. So, going off of that, let's say that Gore/Lieberman is elected over Bush/Cheney in 2000. 9/11 still happens anyways, and Gore goes into Afghanistan, as IOTL. The USA PATRIOT Act is passed anyways, and the GOP still makes gains in the 2002 midterms. There is no invasion of Iraq. By 2004, the world is generally similar to OTL, with the lack of an Iraq War, but not a lack of high tensions between the USA and Iraq, being the biggest difference. However, Iraq is still suspected to have or be building "weapons of mass destruction". If John McCain, a close friend and colleague of Vice President Joe Lieberman, is the Republican nominee in 2004, does Lieberman toe the party line and defend Gore's foreign policy, or does he stick to his hawkish guns and speak out in favor of McCain? If the latter, does Gore keep him, or does he replace Lieberman as his running mate?
President Gore vs. John McCain, 2004 - What happens to Lieberman?
- Thread starter Superman
- Start date
For a re-election, he sticks around the one that brung him.
Victory in 2000 makes him feel better about lots of things.
Edit: Keep in mind a wide variety of potentialities with a Gore-Lieberman administration. (I know you specify 9/11 happening, but, still... With the intelligence community presided over by folks openly worried about Bin Laden et al, a communique sent up the ladder might get that extra dash of attention that would lead to investigation and arrests.) At the risk of sounding a touch biased, without a lot of smoke and mirrors, plausible reasons to invade Iraq and Iran are hard to come by.
If Gore is in Afghanistan, and pursuing with adequate vigor and competence, Lieberman has little reason to ditch.
Victory in 2000 makes him feel better about lots of things.
Edit: Keep in mind a wide variety of potentialities with a Gore-Lieberman administration. (I know you specify 9/11 happening, but, still... With the intelligence community presided over by folks openly worried about Bin Laden et al, a communique sent up the ladder might get that extra dash of attention that would lead to investigation and arrests.) At the risk of sounding a touch biased, without a lot of smoke and mirrors, plausible reasons to invade Iraq and Iran are hard to come by.
If Gore is in Afghanistan, and pursuing with adequate vigor and competence, Lieberman has little reason to ditch.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I can see a vice-president publicly disagreeing with the president late in the second term, as he or she is gearing up for a run on their own. I guess it could happen earlier, would certainly make for some drama.
Okay, so if Lieberman does it the right way, he decides to bow out and gives President Gore at least a couple of months notice before the '04 Democratic Convention, and maybe a week or two before the information is made public. Or, maybe Gore is a good delegator and says, I just need three days. And says, Joe, we'll miss you. And with matter-of-fact confidence embraces a public search for another highly qualified vice-presidential candidate.
And yes, even in a world in which we don't invade Iraq in '03, we'll probably be talking about ATLs where we do! And although I would like to see a timeline where Afghanistan goes considerably better, even with more attention, there's no guarantee of that.
Okay, so if Lieberman does it the right way, he decides to bow out and gives President Gore at least a couple of months notice before the '04 Democratic Convention, and maybe a week or two before the information is made public. Or, maybe Gore is a good delegator and says, I just need three days. And says, Joe, we'll miss you. And with matter-of-fact confidence embraces a public search for another highly qualified vice-presidential candidate.
And yes, even in a world in which we don't invade Iraq in '03, we'll probably be talking about ATLs where we do! And although I would like to see a timeline where Afghanistan goes considerably better, even with more attention, there's no guarantee of that.
Last edited:
Paul V McNutt
Banned
, and the GOP still makes gains in the 2002 midterms.
It would be the same political atmosphere as OTL. The President's party wins the 2002 midterms.
It would be the same political atmosphere as OTL. The President's party wins the 2002 midterms.
Iraq became an issue because the administration made it an issue, which meant everyone (including Lieberman) had to take a position on it. A Gore administration probably wouldn't contemplate invading Iraq (as a combination of having bigger fish to fry, being less hawkish in general, and not being in as strong a political position as post-9/11 Bush), so it wouldn't really have become an issue, and that fissure wouldn't have emerged. Lieberman sees no reason to break with Gore, and while he might be friends with McCain, that won't cause him to defect on his own.
Remember that McCain will almost certainly have been attacking the record of the Gore-Lieberman administration (else he wouldn't have been nominated), which may also sour their relationship. The Republican position on 9/11 is also likely to be very different in a world where a Democratic candidate was in office (and one who had been a fairly active VP for the previous 8 years, making him much easier to blame). You'll still see an initial rally-round-the-flag situation, but the honeymoon will wear off even faster.
Remember that McCain will almost certainly have been attacking the record of the Gore-Lieberman administration (else he wouldn't have been nominated), which may also sour their relationship. The Republican position on 9/11 is also likely to be very different in a world where a Democratic candidate was in office (and one who had been a fairly active VP for the previous 8 years, making him much easier to blame). You'll still see an initial rally-round-the-flag situation, but the honeymoon will wear off even faster.
Is it still possible McCain becomes a Democrat?
I'm still not sold Iraq wouldn't happen.
I'm still not sold Iraq wouldn't happen.
Maybe Lieberman would convince Gore to give McCain SecDef as a sign of bipartisanship or something (and to eliminate a 2004 rival)