Go Back   Alternate History Discussion Board > Discussion > Alternate History Discussion: After 1900

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 8th, 2009, 10:50 AM
AltSptHst AltSptHst is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 855
Colin Powell: President of US, 1996

I was reading this blog that a guy near Kansas City has, and, last year, he was talking about past elections. He was saying something about Colin Powell and him running for President in 1996 against Clinton and how he wished he would have.

My questions to this board:

1. What kind of president would Powell have made?
2. If he was elected for a second term in 00, how might he have handled 9/11?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old February 8th, 2009, 12:20 PM
Corbell Mark IV Corbell Mark IV is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1000 or more
Moderate Republican with a divided Congress (assuming a Clinton Loss means midterm gains not made, but not assuming a blowout )

He inherents a good economy. No reason to assume that changes.

If he gets a Republican Congress that ends the "gridlock" of the two branches, recent history suggests higher spending.

Less impact of Clinton sex scandals, probably meaning a less discredited NOW/feminist movement. Perhaps that butterflies away Gov. Arnold (because of his minor sex scandals?)

As a former general and a moderate Republican of the GH Bush school might scale back on the foriegn entanglements, since the Cold War is over. But how to respond to Osama's attacks when they happen anyway?

But even if he did pickup Osama would that end the 9-11? I find it likely that Osama has made arrangements that his resources would be at the disposal of Al-quida if something happens to him.

Oh, and he get reelected. Good economy, no big scandals, moderate as hell might lead to primary fight but that never works out, being black gets him a little space form the press (not Obama space of course, but some).

If 9-11 or something of that scale happens on his second term, probably goes for a larger scale, more conventail invasion of Afganistan.

No Iraqi war.

Who's VP?

His VP gets to run, while fighting still going on in Afganistan? COuld that be a win? We're talking lot of republinca rule broken only by one term of Clinton.

Who would his VP be? Who would he be running against?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old February 8th, 2009, 01:12 PM
Jon0815 Jon0815 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corbell Mark IV View Post

As a former general and a moderate Republican of the GH Bush school might scale back on the foriegn entanglements, since the Cold War is over.
So, probably no Kosovo War.

Quote:
Who would his VP be?
Someone to his right. Given Powell's history with the Bush family, maybe Gov GW Bush of Texas?

Quote:
Who would he be running against?
Maybe Hillary, since in this ATL there is no incumbent in 2004, and the GOP has been in power 8 years (not sure if she pledged to serve out her full Senate term when she was elected in 2000).
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old February 8th, 2009, 01:58 PM
Jon0815 Jon0815 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 219
President Powell might get to make a single SCOTUS appointment. It's speculated that in OTL, O'Connor didn't retire until Bush's second term because of the Bush v. Gore controversy.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old February 8th, 2009, 08:03 PM
Lord Grattan Lord Grattan is offline
quinquagenarian
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Michigan USA
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon0815 View Post
So, probably no Kosovo War.

Someone to his right. Given Powell's history with the Bush family, maybe Gov GW Bush of Texas?

Maybe Hillary, since in this ATL there is no incumbent in 2004, and the GOP has been in power 8 years (not sure if she pledged to serve out her full Senate term when she was elected in 2000).
Why no Kosovo war?

In a TL where Bill Clinton loses in 1996 Hillary Clinton is probably not going to be elected to the US Senate from New York in 2000. Now she may however run for Senate in 1998, 2002 (Arkansas) or 2004 (Illinois). Perhaps Bill could also.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old February 9th, 2009, 01:46 AM
Jon0815 Jon0815 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Grattan View Post
Why no Kosovo war?
As a limited war in pursuit of no major US strategic interest, Kosovo was in violation of the "Powell Doctrine".

And intervening in Kosovo was not popular among Republicans: In OTL, 38 of the 55 Senate republicans voted against the airstikes before they began.

Quote:
In a TL where Bill Clinton loses in 1996 Hillary Clinton is probably not going to be elected to the US Senate from New York in 2000. Now she may however run for Senate in 1998, 2002 (Arkansas) or 2004 (Illinois). Perhaps Bill could also.
That's true, in this ATL it might be more likely that she would run for the Arkansas seat in 1998. However, she might decide to pass up that opportunity, because to win in Arkansas, she wouldn't be able to run as a liberal. And then Rangel might still encourage her to run for the NY seat when it opened up.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.