Why was Bush re-elected?

[SickBeast]

Is that an ignorant viewpoint?

Why did people like him, and continue to like him? What has he done that is actually good? Has he left any sort of positive legacy in any regard? What did he accomplish during his first term that made people think "Hey, we should re-elect this guy!"?

As a Canadian outwardly viewing your situation down there, I fail to comprehend the answer to any of my above questions. I saw right through his invasion of Iraq before it happened (and thankfully so did our PM at the time).

I'm assuming it's die-hard Republicans that I need to hear from here.

The thing is, I view Al Gore as a more formidable opponent than Hilary or Obama. That's the incredible thing. Bush actually beat him. Is there any chance that the elections are rigged down there? Based on the previous results I can't see a Democrat winning anything in the upcoming vote.

 

[Colt45]

Because ~25% of the US population fails at vote?

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Colt45
Because ~25% of the US population fails at vote?

:Q W T F

 

[Czar]

the gay issue and stupid people falling for it

 

[Bowfinger]

Because too many Americans are frankly not very bright, and are easily manipulated thanks to years of vegetating in front of the idiot box.

 

[quest55720]

Because the democrats nominated a ultra liberal. If they nominate any sort of moderate they win 2004. I blame the dems for the 2004 loss I don't like bush but was not going to vote for kerry.

 

[MadRat]

Many catholic bishops ordered their flock to vote for Bush and called a vote for Kerry a sin. Unfortunately it's true.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: quest55720
Because the democrats nominated a ultra liberal. If they nominate any sort of moderate they win 2004. I blame the dems for the 2004 loss I don't like bush but was not going to vote for kerry.

this.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: quest55720
Because the democrats nominated a ultra liberal. If they nominate any sort of moderate they win 2004. I blame the dems for the 2004 loss I don't like bush but was not going to vote for kerry.

this.

Ok thanks. I don't know why I was under the impression that it was Al Gore. I watched that "Inconvenient Truth" movie and it made it look as though he lost against dubya in the election. Was he running for VP or something? Or did he run against Bush in 2000?

 

[nageov3t]

Al Gore ran against Bush in 2000 and kinda sorta won/lost depending on who you listen to... I blame most of his campaign's failure on his insistence on running away from Clinton.

John Kerry.... oh, John Kerry. 2004 should have been one of the easiest elections to win ever. he ran an awful, awful, awful campaign (though the Kerry '04 campaign looks like a team of special ops compared to the McCain '08 campaign).

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: quest55720
Because the democrats nominated a ultra liberal. If they nominate any sort of moderate they win 2004. I blame the dems for the 2004 loss I don't like bush but was not going to vote for kerry.

this.

Ok thanks. I don't know why I was under the impression that it was Al Gore. I watched that "Inconvenient Truth" movie and it made it look as though he lost against dubya in the election. Was he running for VP or something? Or did he run against Bush in 2000?

He ran against him in 2000.

 

[32fear]

I voted for Bush not once, but twice. I have to say that both times I've gotten to vote for a president, I've had to choose the "lesser of 2 evils" approach. Honestly, I wouldn't have minded Gore in 2000 (before he went hyper-environmental), but I definitely couldn't stand Kerry's pomp, inability to take a position, and general lack of transparency. We knew how bad Bush was going to be. He was already that bad. Kerry could have taken us to all new levels. This election, I will vote likely based on vice-pres nominations as I don't think either president is going to be making it all 4 years anyway (just my opinion).

 

[Nebor]

He's a straight shooter, and I looked the man in the eye and got a sense of his soul.

Plus he ran the Texas Rangers baseball organization, who better to run our country?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: quest55720
Because the democrats nominated a ultra liberal. If they nominate any sort of moderate they win 2004. I blame the dems for the 2004 loss I don't like bush but was not going to vote for kerry.

this.

Two examples of exactly what I was talking about. First, there's the absurd belief that Kerry is somehow an "ultra liberal". Left of center? Sure. Ultra liberal? ROFLMAO!

Second, there's the underlying attitude that being "liberal" is somehow horrific, overriding all the known problems with GWB. I'm afraid I can't muster up a laugh at that lunacy. I can only sigh at the levels of base ignorance and partisan brainwashing that's destroying America.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: quest55720
Because the democrats nominated a ultra liberal. If they nominate any sort of moderate they win 2004. I blame the dems for the 2004 loss I don't like bush but was not going to vote for kerry.

+1

Kerry got so much less moderate vote than he should have. I honestly don't know who the country would have been off better with even at this point.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why?

Pride, fear, greed, pandering and the hidden shame of denial evoked by the swiftliar attack... backed up by 25 years of rightwing talk radio mindrot and thinktank formulation...

Oh, yeh, and we wuz goin' to Mars! Remember?

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: quest55720
Because the democrats nominated a ultra liberal. If they nominate any sort of moderate they win 2004. I blame the dems for the 2004 loss I don't like bush but was not going to vote for kerry.

this.

Two examples of exactly what I was talking about. First, there's the absurd belief that Kerry is somehow an "ultra liberal". Left of center? Sure. Ultra liberal? ROFLMAO!

Second, there's the underlying attitude that being "liberal" is somehow horrific, overriding all the known problems with GWB. I'm afraid I can't muster up a laugh at that lunacy. I can only sigh at the levels of base ignorance and partisan brainwashing that's destroying America.

Generally, when a senator ranks 100% liberal by their voting record, beating out every other democrat in congress, he is referred to as an ultra-liberal.

We (conservatives) think that liberalism is horrific, because it is anathema to the intentions of the founding fathers and the purpose of America (i.e. Freedom). I, for one, think it hilarious, yet extremely telling, that liberals hate it when other people call them liberals. It's as if they know what they are doing is wrong, want to do it anyway, but are afraid of being called out on their agenda. How elitist is that?

 

[Deudalus]

I'll break it down for you:

1: Gore was a robotic candidate who had no emotion and was incredibly boring, and ran away from the Clintons. He didn't want their support because of all of their scandals but it was still probably a mistake.

2: Kerry was also a robotic candidate who has a host of other issues for example:

a: He touted his military service constantly.
b: He protested the war he fought in.
c: He ran as an anti-war guy.
d: He showed up to his convention saying he is "reporting for duty" and touting his military record again.
e: Married a real bitch of a wife who just happened to be worth a billion dollars.
f: Generally couldn't figure out whether he was coming or going on just about any issue.


This might come across as a little racist though I don't mean for it to be, I'm just pointing some things out.

There is no way Bush should have won in 2000 but he did because Gore was weak.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY Bush should have won in 2004, but the Dems nominated a liberal from Massachusetts who married a billion dollars worth of wife and literally could not make a decision on whether or not he supported or opposed anything including his own past.

Now 2008 is here and Republicans fucked up everything, ruined their base, nominated a robotic candidate with little to no emotion, who is despised by many within his own party, and is older than dirt so who do the Dems run........

A black dude, with a crazy wife, a crazier preacher, and little to no experience in anything.


Its like the Dems relish losing. They are the Chicago Cubs of politics.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: quest55720
Because the democrats nominated a ultra liberal. If they nominate any sort of moderate they win 2004. I blame the dems for the 2004 loss I don't like bush but was not going to vote for kerry.

this.

Two examples of exactly what I was talking about. First, there's the absurd belief that Kerry is somehow an "ultra liberal". Left of center? Sure. Ultra liberal? ROFLMAO!

Second, there's the underlying attitude that being "liberal" is somehow horrific, overriding all the known problems with GWB. I'm afraid I can't muster up a laugh at that lunacy. I can only sigh at the levels of base ignorance and partisan brainwashing that's destroying America.

This.

I would also add that the GOP ran an incredibly tight and offensive campaign. They did their homework and framed the arguments to somehow make people think that Bush had a better position on things (which clearly isn't the case).

They were also able to get gay marriage amendments on the ballots of states that were considered or being considered battleground states to bring out their base of idiots who think that their marriage would somehow be in jeopardy if it was allowed (I'm guessing that they were worried they could come out of the closet then but prefer to live in denial instead).

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: quest55720
Because the democrats nominated a ultra liberal. If they nominate any sort of moderate they win 2004. I blame the dems for the 2004 loss I don't like bush but was not going to vote for kerry.

this.

Two examples of exactly what I was talking about. First, there's the absurd belief that Kerry is somehow an "ultra liberal". Left of center? Sure. Ultra liberal? ROFLMAO!

Second, there's the underlying attitude that being "liberal" is somehow horrific, overriding all the known problems with GWB. I'm afraid I can't muster up a laugh at that lunacy. I can only sigh at the levels of base ignorance and partisan brainwashing that's destroying America.

Generally, when a senator ranks 100% liberal by their voting record, beating out every other democrat in congress, he is referred to as an ultra-liberal.

We (conservatives) think that liberalism is horrific, because it is anathema to the intentions of the founding fathers and the purpose of America (i.e. Freedom). I, for one, think it hilarious, yet extremely telling, that liberals hate it when other people call them liberals. It's as if they know what they are doing is wrong, want to do it anyway, but are afraid of being called out on their agenda. How elitist is that?

Most liberals I meet are proud of being called liberal. Same with conservative. TBH, liberalism is the future anyways. Compare people 100 years ago to those today and almost everyone living today would be considered a liberal. As humans become smarter they become more liberal. The liberal-conservative barometer keeps moving to the left every year. BTW, liberal was something people actually liked being called until Reagan demonized it.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: quest55720
Because the democrats nominated a ultra liberal. If they nominate any sort of moderate they win 2004. I blame the dems for the 2004 loss I don't like bush but was not going to vote for kerry.

this.

Two examples of exactly what I was talking about. First, there's the absurd belief that Kerry is somehow an "ultra liberal". Left of center? Sure. Ultra liberal? ROFLMAO!

Second, there's the underlying attitude that being "liberal" is somehow horrific, overriding all the known problems with GWB. I'm afraid I can't muster up a laugh at that lunacy. I can only sigh at the levels of base ignorance and partisan brainwashing that's destroying America.

Some people are more conservative than they are liberal, so they are going to vote for the candidate that is more conservative. No one said that being liberal is horrific. I can't believe that has to be spelled out for you.

Edit - Ok, well, it looks like QuantomPion said that being liberal is horrific, but I did not, so please don't attribute that attitude to me.

 

[nageov3t]

by and large, this country is right of center, so yeah, Kerry could be construed as being a leftist by some people (not that it stopped me from voting with him).

I think the only reason Obama's got this thing locked up is because it's the perfect confluence of events for him -- an impressive public speaker running as the first kinda-sorta-maybe black candidate of a major party in a year that couldn't possibly have looked worse for the republicans to start with that's only been compounded by the lackluster campaign that McCain has waged thus far. it seems like the perfect year to run as a blank slate.

throw his record/resume onto a white guy with a boring and uncharismatic personality like Kerry's and we could have '04 all over again.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: quest55720
Because the democrats nominated a ultra liberal. If they nominate any sort of moderate they win 2004. I blame the dems for the 2004 loss I don't like bush but was not going to vote for kerry.

this.

Two examples of exactly what I was talking about. First, there's the absurd belief that Kerry is somehow an "ultra liberal". Left of center? Sure. Ultra liberal? ROFLMAO!

Second, there's the underlying attitude that being "liberal" is somehow horrific, overriding all the known problems with GWB. I'm afraid I can't muster up a laugh at that lunacy. I can only sigh at the levels of base ignorance and partisan brainwashing that's destroying America.

Generally, when a senator ranks 100% liberal by their voting record, beating out every other democrat in congress, he is referred to as an ultra-liberal.

We (conservatives) think that liberalism is horrific, because it is anathema to the intentions of the founding fathers and the purpose of America (i.e. Freedom). I, for one, think it hilarious, yet extremely telling, that liberals hate it when other people call them liberals. It's as if they know what they are doing is wrong, want to do it anyway, but are afraid of being called out on their agenda. How elitist is that?

Most liberals I meet are proud of being called liberal. Same with conservative. TBH, liberalism is the future anyways. Compare people 100 years ago to those today and almost everyone living today would be considered a liberal. As humans become smarter they become more liberal. The liberal-conservative barometer keeps moving to the left every year. BTW, liberal was something people actually liked being called until Reagan demonized it.

It goes in circles. You already see it in the so called progressive liberal democratic party touting nationalism and protectionism. Clearly conservative traits. Meanwhile you have the republicans touting social welfare programs like the drug bill and their expansion of govt.

Now what we will lose is small govt minded politicians. Which is different than liberal vs conservative. Afterall Musolini's Italy was considered conservative but it was an all encompassing oppressing big govt. On its polar opposite was a leftist leaning all encompassing oppressing big govt in the Communist Soviet Union under Stalin.

Another sign, democrat candidates touting healthcare reform that wreaks of fascism. A conservative ideology.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Many catholic bishops ordered their flock to vote for Bush and called a vote for Kerry a sin. Unfortunately it's true.

Hmmm, I figured it was religion but I thought it was more of a christain thing?

Wasn't bush a born again idiot? I'm sure he was and all the religious base idiots had to vote for him, not only that but a little corruption never hurt anyone!



I mean 4-5K votes for bush in a town with a population of only 500? How does that work?

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Deudalus


Now 2008 is here and Republicans fucked up everything, ruined their base, nominated a robotic candidate with little to no emotion, who is despised by many within his own party, and is older than dirt so who do the Dems run........

A black dude, with a crazy wife, a crazier preacher, and little to no experience in anything.


Its like the Dems relish losing. They are the Chicago Cubs of politics.

Right now because of all the hype, I'm not sure who is going to win this Nov. It was the same situation in '04. Everyone thought Kerry was going to win 4 months before the election because of how much Bush f'd up. Then when the votes were finally counted Bush came up on top. This could be the same situation. I remember when the foreign presses were covering the election. The BBC in particular. They had the banners, the confetti, the champaign, etc.. they were ready for Kerry to win. When the results came back, they were confounded since they "knew" Kerry had the "people's" vote and most polls had kerry on top.

Not sure.. but it also seems that Obama is losing his messiah aura.