or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Would you re-elect President Bush?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Would you re-elect President Bush? - Page 2  

post #31 of 126
I didn't vote for Bush, I don't like Bush, his cronies or his policies. My husband thinks it's great when Bush gives an address because he gets entertainment out of it, me screaming at the television! I'm having an especially hard time swallowing his economic recovery plan. Come on! This is trickle down economics all over again, and that is the LAST thing this country needs at this point. Hey here's an idea, tax those corporations that show so much support for you. If they can give huge contributions, safe bet that they can afford a few more tax bucks. Yes, I will give him points on handling the 9-11 crisis, but any president would have done pretty much the same thing. In fact he loses every single point I gave him over his handling of the war in Iraq. Where are all those weapons of mass destrution we heard so much about? I won't even go into what I think about how he handled the UN. I would go into a ranting slobbering tangent.
So no, I won't be voting for Bush.LOL. If it were between Bush and a dead man, the dead guy would get my vote.
post #32 of 126

Absolutely!! I voted for him last election and I will vote for him again!

post #33 of 126
Originally posted by kimward34

Absolutely!! I voted for him last election and I will vote for him again!

post #34 of 126
I'm tired of seeing the economy fall apart. We need to get him out of office. When a Republican is in charge, the only people who seem to come out ahead are the very rich, and big corporations. The regualar working people suffer. There are people out there who want to work badly, and can't get jobs. There are corporations closing down constantly, so there are an ever increasing amount of unemployed people. I'm scared. I want to get a better job, but I'm afraid, because the economy is so bad, and one just doesn't want to take any chances. Bush and his Republican party are the cause of most of this, 9-11 didn't help it, but the economy was plunging downward when 9-11 came.
post #35 of 126
undecided because i diden't vote for him the first time
post #36 of 126
I voted with the majority last time. I voted for Gore. I think the slogan needs to be "Re-elect Gore," since he was elected president once already.

It doesn't matter to me who runs against Dubya, since I'll vote for whomever it is. Mind, Dubya himself is just a figurehead--as was Reagan. Cheney, as the direct representative of corporate America, is there to tell Dubya what to do. Facists appointed to the Cabinet, such as Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, are there to help Cheney run the administration.

Colin Powell is the only person in this administration who understands how the world works; and unfortunately his wisdom has never been wanted by Dubya's clack. Powell ought to jump to the Democratic Party and run for president, since he'd be elected by a landslide if he did so. But that's not going to happen.

Dubya Junior, Governor Jeb, is already fixing Florida for the next presidential election. Oddly enough, it's that state's Geritol Generation--comprised mainly of those who did well thanks to the New Deal and post-war prosperity--which has in its dotage acquired a fixation on the Republican Party. Apparently once a person gets old enough, they no longer care what happens to their country.

Mind, I've not been a big fan of the Democratic Party since it abandoned working people during the late 1960s and took up the oddly-woven mantle of special-interest groups and the middle class. Republicans have gained political ground ever since, yet Democratic Party leadership continues to deny their party's traditional roots and has--since the advent of President and Mr. Clinton--become more Republican than the Republican Party used to be.

I'm inclined to heed the saying "Don't vote, it only encourages them." But I shall vote, for perhaps the last time, in this next presidential election. And should Dubya win, as I predict he will, I'll not bother voting again. Because then, the America I'd come to love during my youth will have vanished altogether.

post #37 of 126
Can't stand him, didn't want him in office the
first time around and not voting for him this time

That's all I'm saying on this one
post #38 of 126
Originally posted by StarDust
Can't stand him, didn't want him in office the
first time around and not voting for him this time
Same here
post #39 of 126
I voted with the majority last time. I voted for Gore. I think the slogan needs to be "Re-elect Gore," since he was elected president once already.
Hee. That's great!

Will I vote for Bush? No, I think it's fair to say that I won't be voting for that inept meanspirited zealot and his unspeakably corrupt administration. They purposely manipulated the EPA to keep New Yorkers in the dark, they sacrifice our soldiers' lives for their own personal financial benefit (e.g. Cheney/Haliburton), they take away our personal freedoms, they make wrong decision after wrong decision.

I thought Dubya would be bad. I had no idea he would be this bad.

As far as Republicans not being willing to talk about politics, I've gotta wonder who all those thousands are who call Rush Limbaugh, Bob Grant, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, et al. to loudly proclaim their partisan beliefs? No, Republicans are every bit as vocal as Democrats, if not moreso! Personally, I don't think there's anything to be proud about keeping silent, or worse, lying about one's affiliation or beliefs. Being part of the vocal dialogue in this country is nothing to be ashamed about. If you have beliefs, speak 'em!
post #40 of 126
I will vote for Bush again. My father and I had this conversation on Sunday, he is very into politics, and is a liberal republican, as am I.

We believe in our opinion that Americans like 'flare' like Clinton had. They liked the drama of the Lewinsky issue, they like Presidents w/ big charisma who can work the crowd, answer questions that are thrown at them by reporters, and basically have an entertainment venue behind their presidential persona.
For me, I think Bush is intelligent. He makes the decisions that are necessary even when not everyone agrees w/ him. He said way back when that he intended on leaving the economy to 'regain itself' and low and behold its slowly turning around. He's been uprooting terrorists, and although Bin Laden and Hussein are not captured, look how many have been caught.

I know I'm in the minority here, but I think considering who is running for the left side, Bush is our best bet.
post #41 of 126
I'm not looking for a Pres. with Flare, I just
want someone who I think can do the job with out
hurting America's Jobs and Economy too much in
the process. I wanted Gore last election he's
about as boring as they come lol

When it came to Clinton's thing with Lewinsky
I thought it wasn't as big of a deal as everyone
made it out to be. I thought there was more important
things that could have been on the news then his
fling every 15 minutes. He's not the first President
to have sexual relations with another women besides
his wife and he's not the last i'm sure.
post #42 of 126
I definitely will NOT be voting for Bush. I am actually afraid of the possibility of him being elected again, although I don't think it will happen. If it does, I think our country will be facing even harder times. Any good deeds he has done or "right" decisions he has president are not enough for him to be considered a good, or competent president. Similarly, I do not think the Monica Lewinsky scandal defined Clinton's presidency. Personally, that was one of the few things that I did not like about him... so it was not at all entertaining for me. It was all the positive changes he made and held on to during his presidency that got my respect.
post #43 of 126
Originally posted by StarDust

When it came to Clinton's thing with Lewinsky
I thought it wasn't as big of a deal as everyone
made it out to be. I thought there was more important
things that could have been on the news then his
fling every 15 minutes. He's not the first President
to have sexual relations with another women besides
his wife and he's not the last i'm sure.
People may have forgotten this by now, but the more the press harped
on Lewinsky, and the longer Mr. Starr wrote his own morality play, Bill Clinton's positive rating continued to rise with every poll. (They've also forgotten that despite all he investigated, the only thing that Starr ever validated was a contemporaneous sexual affair, not any of the stuff he spent my tax dollars investigating.)
I wasn't working at the time and saw a huge amount of the coverage,
including the utter shock by all media outlets that the citizens of the US by and large realized that what was going on had nothing to do with his Presidency. I think if Clinton was able to run for a third term, and ran against GWB, he probably would have won. No budget deficit, roaring economy, a man who felt that everyone mattered in his heart, not in bullcrap 'compassionate conservatism'..
it would have been an easy choice for me no matter how many mistresses he had. And people who roar about family values also seem to have forgotten that Senator Henry Hyde and the guy whom they initially nominated to be speaker of the house, both admitted to their own marital infidelities because they were about to be exposed by Larry Flynt.(Flynt could be accused of many things by certain people, but not for being a hypocrite.)

I believe the Republican Party wanted Bush as their nominee because he was an easily manipulated patsy, a man with what appears to be absolutely no intellectual curiousity at all. During the primaries, when Senator McCain started closing in on him and actually won one of them, the machine went into operation against him. During the primary campaign in one of the Carolinas, I believe NC, unattributed messages started appearing in public abt the fact that McCain and his wife had an adopted child who was part Native-American, and that that was somehow a bad thing. McCain was a bona-fide war hero, clearly a very intelligent man with a long history of public service, conservative on many things important to Republicans, except of course for his support of campaign finance reform. Yet, he was not who the party threw their support to, perhaps because he has a mind of his own. Despite my disagreement with many of his views, I'd feel quite a bit safer today if McCain had become President, since I'd at least know who was running the government.
post #44 of 126
Thread Starter 
This is husband of momofmany (does that make me "dadofmany?").

My reply to this question is: what do you mean "re-elect" bush? He wasn't elected the first time.

I could go on and on about his whole presidency from day one, and how badly he's screwing up the country, but I don't need the carpal tunnel, and among this group, I'd be preaching to the choir. Just pretend I put about a 12 page tirade here.

The nicest thing I can say about him (and I've been saying this since before he was appointed) is that he is certifiably insane. Then again, maybe I should stop saying that, since that gives him a defense for his actions and (just like his entire life) excuses him of responsibility.

How significant is it that even the Pope can't think of anything nice to say about him.
post #45 of 126
Nope, I didn't like him to begin with, besides, I didn't vote for him in the first place. As far as 9/11-I think anyone politician or not during the crisis, would have done their best, and I believe just as good as Bush.
I agree with what people said earlier. I believe Clinton is a personal jerk, but he was a very good president for this nation.
And I'm laughing out loud that Bush is 'So concerned with Iraq and Afganistan', when back a couple years ago when the West Coast was having a power crisis, did he show compassion? No...he ignored California, Oregon and Washington State refusing to help them. That is one of many things he has done to make me not want to vote for him. I think to be President first off, before you look in other nations business, first look in your own backyard.
post #46 of 126
i dont feel like he was elected by the people the first time,,, pretty shady to me, thats my opinion!! i hope it dont happen again,, i will not vote for him nor did i the first time,,, im a Democrat, it seems like to me the Reb. party is for the rich man and rich im not... i am just a struggling working person
post #47 of 126
That's what I don't understand, dougbug. Everybody knows the Republican Party is the rich-folks' party, but a lot of regular working stiffs have consistently voted Republican for the past three decades.

It's my belief that's because the Democratic Party abandoned the working class during the late 1960s and have cared about nothing but special-interest groups ever since. And although neither I nor a lot of people who've posted here will vote for Dubya, he's going to be elected anyway--thanks to the middle class and the suddenly-Republican "Geritol generation" (not to mention those nutty anti-Castro Cubans in Miami who helped Dubya and Governor Jeb fix the last election).

post #48 of 126
Canadian lurking here. And I gotta tell ya, the view from this side of the border is in agreement with the general tone of responses in this thread. It's encouraging to hear it from real people -- never too sure about those polls they publish -- how do *I* know they got a representative sample?? I only hope and pray that this isn't just a "cat people" thing -- that TCS folks are representative of the population at large -- and that you will therefore boot the bum out. Good luck!
post #49 of 126
Originally posted by Mr. Cat
That's what I don't understand, dougbug. Everybody knows the Republican Party is the rich-folks' party, but a lot of regular working stiffs have consistently voted Republican for the past three decades.
A few months ago, a reporter for a very conservative publication ( I think it was David Brooks who writes for the Weekly Standard) in a visiting opinion piece in the NY Times, asked that very question.
I found his analysis somewhat questionable, but he attributed the phenomenom to the desire of the working class to be rich. As a result,they identify with those whom they would like to be, even though many of the Republican's actions, in particularly the tax cuts, will have an injurious impact on their own lives, while just increasing the size of the wealthy's investment portfolios.

He didn't say this in the article, but under his argument, I guess one could also suggest that the working/blue collar class do not want to be identified with the constituency that the Democrats are traditional believed to serve.

Perhaps the working and middle class people who do not identify with Rebublicans are many of the 50% of the country that doesn't bother to vote, since they see government as doing nothing for them.
post #50 of 126
I'm with you, Lucia, insofar as I don't buy the "wannabe" argument. That doesn't mean it isn't true, of course; but it sure seems far fetched! In my experience, working people aren't overly concerned with building castles in the air. They haven't that luxury.

As far as the constituency traditionally served by the Democratic Party: That has not included the working class since 1968 and the advent of the Party's anti-war fixation combined with its marriage to corporate funding, so the traditional constituency served by the Democratic Party has been entirely special-interest groups for 35 years now. The "old tradition," therefore, has been supplanted by a "new tradition"--much like the direction taken by the Labour Party in the United Kingdom.

In the event, I'm reminded of something the Rev. Dr. Martin L. King Jr. once said: "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Therein lies the downfall of political power for the working class, since Democratic Party leadership in its "sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" refuses a return to its old-tradition power base--continuing to pander to special-interest groups at the expense of the common weal.

post #51 of 126
Candidate---------Popular Vote--Percent Popular Vote--Electoral Vote--Percent Electoral Vote
George W. Bush--50,459,624----47.87%----------------271------------50.4%
Albert Gore, Jr.---51,003,238----48.38%----------------266------------49.4%

Statistics from http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRE...rametextj.html

post #52 of 126
In case anyone needs reminding of the rules of US presidential elections, which all sides were well aware of before the election:

Article II
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed...

Revised by Amendment XII
The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed...

Without going into a long history lesson, this is not the first time the person with the most popular votes did not have the most electorial votes, nor is it the first close or controversial election. What it does happen to be is a final, verified election and the results are absolute-whether people agree with or like it or not. George Bush WAS elected president and his primary opponent conceded as such.

As Al Gore stated in his concession speech:

"Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it." At the same time, he called for all Americans to unite behind President Bush: "I personally will be at his disposal, and I call on all Americans -- I particularly urge all who stood with us to unite behind our next president. This is America. Just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done." Gore concluded by saying: "As for the battle that ends tonight, I do believe as my father once said, that no matter how hard the loss, defeat might serve as well as victory to shape the soul and let the glory out."

As for public support of Bush for the Gulf War, I personally know of many die hard Democrats who were at first opposed but now support this action. Most still don't like Bush, but the relevations of the mass murders, tortures, and general genecide seem to be the primary factor in their change of hearts. I believe the polls which show strong support for Bush and the war to be as accurate as any poll can be.

As far as the Republicans being the "party of the rich." Here's a partial list of some of the richest members of congress:

Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) $675 million
Senator Jon Corzine (D-N.J.) $400 million
Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) $300 million
Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) $200 million
Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Calif.) $105 million
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) $50 million
Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) $30 million (Forbes Magazine estimated the combined Kennedy family fortune at $850 million)
Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) $15 million
Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) $15 million
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) $14 million
Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) $10 million
Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) $10 million

Guess what - all Democrats. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi is on record as railing against the rich, yet she's voted for a number of measures which had the effect of putting large amounts of money in the pockets of either herself or her Democrat associates in congress.

In fact, as far as economic demographics the two parties memberships are very similar. A good friend of ours was recenlty elected to a town council position, the first Republican in that area in a long time. He's a plumber and his wife is an administrative assistant.

post #53 of 126
All I have to say is AWESOME POST GEORGE!

post #54 of 126
Let's just leave voting up to the political-party hacks who comprise the Electoral College, since that institution is obviously such a good idea. As the last presidential "election" demonstrated, there's no need for a vote by the general populace: The Electoral College knows best!

Yes, we should be glad (apparently) the popular vote didn't decide the matter. Who do we citizens think we are, that we should presume to know what's best? No, let's have a bunch of political appointees do our thinking for us. That'll free us up to flip more hamburgers and pull more weeds for the rich folks--'cause they know best, too!

Surely constitutional amendments shouldn't be made for frivolous reasons, such as returning electoral power to the electorate. No, such amendments should be reserved for vital matters bearing upon our daily lives, such as whether or not flags can be burned. Our "representatives" at Washington knew best there, too, since they all talked about doing away with the Electoral College but didn't so much as lift a finger to put forward any proposal for a relevant amendment. Form (public relations) is much more important than content (action); and we're better off accepting that fact.

Mind, that Gore was spineless and caved in to pressure from the Republican Party and its pals who own the media of communication is just as disgusting as the actions of the Electoral College and the inaction of the Congress. If another such rigging of the election takes place--Can you say "Florida"?--let's just hope a bit more courage is displayed by the individual whose votes are discounted by relatives of the opposing party's candidate.

"Power to the, erm, politicians!"

post #55 of 126
Easy to complain about the electoral college when your candidate didn't come out on top. I sure don't remember these same complaints when Clinton didn't garner close to 50% of the popular vote. It was the electoral college that let you claim such a decisive victory for him.

If you don't understand how the electoral college works, then by all means - stay home and save your vote. So I guess the weeks spent counting ballots in Florida was just another one of Bush's infamous polital-photo-ops, right? Just like his trip to Iraq for Thanksgiving....

P.S. Thank you George for so eloquently putting what I was thinking.
post #56 of 126
So, Clinton got fewer popular votes that whomever he was running against? And they made him president anyway? I'll be darned. Well, if that's the case I'm just as mad at him as I am at Dubya.

Believe me, I'm trying to understand how this works. Gore received 543,615 more popular votes than Bush; but Dubya gets to be president on the strength of 5 (count 'em) Electoral College votes--out of 537. Those five votes, representing a whopping one percent of the Electoral College, nullified the votes of more than half-a-million citizens. Hey, what a great system! Who'd want to amend the Constitution and get rid of such a stellar establishment?

As far as those several days of "vote counting" in Florida are concerned, most of that time was spent trying to locate Dade County officials who ran away rather than be required to perform a re-count. I'm sure Brother Jeb did all he could to locate those hiding officials. Well, in the event, Brother George's landslide "election" surely gives him a ringing mandate!

It's always nice when the commander-in-chief visits military personnel in a combat zone, isn't it? I recall Johnson showing up in the Republic of Viet Nam while I was there, but as it turned out he was miles away from my location. I can't remember if he landed on an aircraft carrier at some point during his trip, but it was all a long time ago anyway.

I guess Dubya's Thanksgiving Day visit to a combat zone makes up, in part, for his having failed to report to his military unit for duty during the Viet Nam War. I don't suppose being absent without leave was a very serious matter back then, since George wasn't punished. Maybe his superior officers at the time figured he might have subsequently felt badly about skeedadling and hence they probably believed that was punishment enough.

We were lucky in Viet Nam insofar as everybody I knew had some kind of projectile-resistant vest, either the older steel-plate version or the then-current Kevlar model. These young people serving in Iraq today apparently aren't uniformly issued that kind of body armor, which is puzzling since I'm quite sure they're occasionally exposed to hostile fire. You'd think their commander-in-chief would make such protection a priority, but since he's already cut the budget at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs I don't suppose he's got the money for things like vests for soldiers.

post #57 of 126
Joe, you're an intelligent man so I know that you do understand the logistics of the process. Regardless of what you think of the man who did, indeed, win the presidential election, he did win it legally. It was challenged by Gore who lost the case. The process, good or bad, was well in place before this particular election. I'm just sick to death of hearing how he didn't win. He DID win by the process that has been in place for a long time. Get over it, Bush won fair and square, and legally.

As for the working class voting Republican - has it occurred to any of you that maybe, just maybe it could be because we BELIEVE it? Because we think that is the better way to do things? You can't say we're brainwashed - after all, the majority of the media is overtly liberal and puts quite a negative spin on conservative ideas.
post #58 of 126
Originally posted by valanhb
Easy to complain about the electoral college when your candidate didn't come out on top. I sure don't remember these same complaints when Clinton didn't garner close to 50% of the popular vote. It was the electoral college that let you claim such a decisive victory for him.

The reason that Clinton did not get 50% of the votes in either election was because of Ross Perot, as I assume you and charm's dad know. He did get 49.2% of the votes in 1996, compared to Doles 40.71%
In 1992, Clinton got 43% of the votes vs 37% for GB the First.

Leaving aside party affiliation side, I thought that the electoral college was intended to make sure that states were fairly represented in elections based upon population. (Please refrain from quoting the constitution again.) What I don't understand is why the votes for the electoral college were not apportioned to each candidate based upon the distribution of votes in the state. The winner take all system dismisses the opinions of large numbers of voters in every state, whether they were voting for Clinton, Dole or Ross Perot. At a minimum, it would make the smaller states a lot more important in each election than they are now, because their votes could count for every candidate.

And to Mr. Cat, the thing that convinced me more than anything else that the Florida voting system if not rigged, was profoundly confusing, was the number of folks in Palm Beach County, which is heavily Jewish, who voted for Pat Buchanan on those interesting 'butterfly' ballots. That seems a bit implausible to me since Buchanan is a classic and unabashed anti-Semite.

Charm's Dad, do be sure to post the worth of the Republican congressman when you get a chance, or the web site where we can look it up. Although in truth, I have no trouble with people amassing wealth. What I have a problem with is the very wealthy who believe that they have no moral imperative to help people less fortunate than themselves. Forget compassionate conservatism, and deductible contributions. It's the reduction in the annual tax rate on the wealthy which is driving prospective deficits, and at the rate the Republicans are going, will destroy the Medicare system. You may feel sympathy for someone with a multi-million dollar income losing 5% of that income to pay for drugs for the elderly, and think that it is better off in a brokerage account, making them even wealthier.
I however do not.
post #59 of 126
I will certainly agree with all of you that the electoral college system is flawed, which is why a candidate can win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote. If it were set up differently, Gore would have won, but it isn't and he didn't and I'm quite tired of hearing the same thing from Gore supporters for 3 years. It was over when he lost the legal challenge. But quite frankly, I don't see anyone pushing for a change to the system, from either the Democrats or Republicans.

Back to the original topic, regardless of the job that Bush has done at this point I don't think that the Democrats are putting up a strong enough candidate to sway the independent and swing voters. Not unless they really change their tune in the campaign. So far all of their political platforms are based on one thing - "Bush sucks!" Their campaigns so far is based on who can bash Bush the best. That may go far with the hard-core liberals who hate Bush with a passion, but I don't see it going well with the undecided votes. And considering last night's debate was more about who Gore put his support behind than issues....
post #60 of 126
wow, do politics get people going or what??? i guess we all have different views on this one, and thats great,, i guess we will just have to wait and see what happens, but no matter what,, I still have no use for Bush, and if he takes away my overtime pay like he is after, i will like him even less!!!!!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
This thread is locked  
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Would you re-elect President Bush?