Why would you still give GW Bush your vote?

[Aldebaran]

Everytime I come across a post stating that the poster want to vote for that man I just can't believe my eyes.
I really would like to become informed how this is possible. Why on earth would anyone have such a president for an other term.

Salaam. A

[pervert]

Because some people simply believe that his policies were overall correct. It is really that simple.

[milroyj]

Originally Posted by Aldebaran

Everytime I come across a post stating that the poster want to vote for that man I just can't believe my eyes.
I really would like to become informed how this is possible. Why on earth would anyone have such a president for an other term.

Salaam. A

Just to piss you off.

[Blalron]

Originally Posted by milroyj

Just to piss you off.

I suspect those who still support Bush suffer from True Believer Syndrome:

"no amount of logic can shatter a faith consciously based on a lie."

[Plan B]

I support him because he's done a great job of handling the economy and the war with the Jihadis.

If the question is sincere and you really want to know why people support him then I'd recommend that you go to Instapundit or BelmontClub and follow the links for a few days and I'm sure you'll understand. You may not agree but if you truly want to understand you will. It's really not that complicated.

[TeaElle]

Perhaps it's as simple as having made a decision that given the options, Bush is choice which most closely aligns with their beliefs and desires for a president.

Aldebaran, given that you don't live in the U.S., have admittedly not been to the U.S. in quite a while (if at all, forgive me for not remembering your entire CV) and could not possibly be as informed about the nuances of American politics as those of us who actually live here, why do you think that you have standing to question Americans on their political decisions in such an arrogant and condescending manner?

[Revtim]

Originally Posted by TeaElle

Perhaps it's as simple as having made a decision that given the options, Bush is choice which most closely aligns with their beliefs and desires for a president.

I can see that if Kerry, with whom I share a lot views on issues, had screwed up as bad as Bush, I still might vote for him. To me, issues are nearly all-important. It would take a lot for me to not vote for the candidate that shares my views, over the one the shares nearly none of them. The worst that can happen, really, is that I vote for neither. I would *never*, for example, vote for a social conservative, no matter what the other guys does.

It seems reasonable to assume that people who share Bush's views also wouldn't care so much over recent scandals or whatever.

[Martin Hyde]

Aldebaran is specifically the type of person I do not like.

He can't look at any opinions other than his own with anything other than condescension. Unfortunately here in America that is becoming more and more the case on both sides of the aisle and it is polarizing American society.

Even as probably the most far right wing person on this forum (at least that I have seen) I can point to Democratic policies/politicians who I agree with and that I would vote for.

[cheddarsnax]

The real question, Aldebaran, is why wouldn't someone give their vote to President Bush? He's lowered taxes for every American, something we all need during the slow economy. And even that is recovering, thanks to Bush's tax cuts and other economic programs. Kerry's campaign pisses all over any good news; we get hundreds of thousands of good jobs thanks to President Bush, and Kerry says we still have work to do?! The economy is recovering, and only Bush recognizes this and is responsible for it.

Of course, all the economic success we have here in America isn't worth it if our nation isn't secure. And Bush has done great things for America's security! Under Bush, the new Department of Homeland Security was created, airport security was transferred from shady private organizations to its rightful place as a federal law enforcement program, billions have been allocated to fund first responders, and our nation is safer and more secure as a result. Bush has also taken the fight against terror to the homes of terrorists, demolishing the al-Qaeda-harboring Taliban regime, freeing millions living in fear of the Taliban's wicked rule. He rebuilt Afghanistan into a nation far better than it ever was before, a prime example of how American democracy can work for the world. He then took the fight to Iraq, ending the hellish reign of Saddam Hussein and liberating millions of Iraqis. And unlike many liberals and pessimists like John Kerry, Bush is willing to stay the course and not be deterred by terrorists attacks. The goal of actions like Berg's beheading is to damage our resolve, but Bush's committment to ensuring peace and prosperity in Iraq is unwavering.

Bush is also committed to giving each and every child the education he never had. He's giving more money to schools to ensure student's success, and the No Child Left Behind act ensures that we will not continue the Democratic tradition of only allowing "successful" students advance in our society.

The President is a very religious man, something too many of our leaders are afraid to be. He's not afraid to take common-sense religious positions, like his faith based initiatives and marriage amendment. Senator Kerry is anti-religion to the core; he even disagrees with the core tenets of the Catholic faith, yet continues the sham of "worshipping" every Sunday. Bush is also consistent in his views, unlike "flip-flop" Kerry, who can't even decide if he owns an SUV!

Unfortunately, far too many Americans have been swayed by recent setbacks in Iraq. But in the end, only through Bush's leadership will we stay the course in Iraq and at home, and create a safer, freer world for everyone.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Bush man, but I am playing one in this post...

[Aldebaran]

TeaElle,

I was in the US last month. (I'm rather frequently in the US, by the way.)

May I ask you: Who do you think you are to answer my honest question in such a blatant condescending manner?


Salaam. A

[Aldebaran]

To the other members:

I shall come back to this tomorrow. Thank you for the replies so far.

Salaam.A

[Zagadka]

Originally Posted by cheddarsnax

The real question, Aldebaran, is why wouldn't someone give their vote to President Bush? He's lowered taxes for every American, something we all need during the slow economy.

I still see it yet to be proven that a government that cuts taxes is able to pull a country out of recession. Though you are right, this whole "tax cuts are always good" mentality is why a lot of people support Bush.

I don't exactly want to be around in 4-6 years when the high-spending-low-tax policy stops purring like a kitty and bites our heads off. It is just plain stupid economics, ESPECIALLY in a time when you are dumping hundreds of billions of dollars into foreign wars.

My theory is that as soon as the polling stations report in, massive tax hikes are announced (though, of course, not as much for the rich).

And even that is recovering, thanks to Bush's tax cuts and other economic programs.

Right, and it was Clinton's economic genius that led to the skyrocketting market values when he was president. Please. That's like spitting in the ocean and hoping to change the tides. Welcome to economics! Market goes up, market crashes, market corrects, jackass who wins the presidential lotto takes all the credit. I haven't seen one halfway smart economic move by the Bush OR Clinton administration yet.

Next thing you know, Bush is going to say, "Hey, let's give all the rich people $50 million! They will invest it, and everyone else will magically get 50 million!" to crowds of cheering morons whose foresight extends only to the amount of time they can cash their checks.

Enjoy that $300, hope you have a good retirement plan, have a nice day!

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Aldebaran

TeaElle,

I was in the US last month. (I'm rather frequently in the US, by the way.)

May I ask you: Who do you think you are to answer my honest question in such a blatant condescending manner?


Salaam. A

Not that I speak on behalf of TeaElle, but condescending questions deserve condescending answers.

[Martin Hyde]

Not all economists think that boom and bust cycles are natural.

[Abbie Carmichael]

Among other reasons, because Bush stands for something while Kerry has no clue what he believes.

[Israfel]

Revtim sums up my reasoning. As much as I dislike the way that Bush has handled certain things, I don't think that voting in favor of someone who's overall philosophy is contrary to my own makes a whole lot of sense. And I imagine many democrats would react similarly if the situation were reversed.

It's a two party system, and since Bush is more sympathetic to my views than Kerry is, I'll vote for Bush. It's a fairly straightforward decision.

[Weird_AL_Einstein]

Why will I give GW Bush my vote? Because it's him or Kerry, and I believe that he has been, and will be, a far better president than Kerry ever could be.

[Zagadka]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Not all economists think that boom and bust cycles are natural.

Not all economists are smart, either O_o For the record, I don't think they are natural. By nature, they are manmade, and are subject to influences of the actions of mankind. However, I would give more credit to Greenspan than Bush for nudging the economy along. I just wouldn't jump to the conclusion that cutting taxes did much for the economy, any more than Clinton did anything to boost the economy when he was president. THe point is, the economy then and now was driven by non-government forces - namely, a rush of investment capital, the collapse of the bubble economy, and is followed by it evening out. Hell, we saw this happen several times, from car companies to airlines. There was a time when there were hundreds of automobile companies in the country, and people invested crazily in them. After much badness happening to most of them, there are five left. It is rather common when new technology is introduced, and we shouldn't be acting surprised now. But we are. And we think cutting taxes will solve all our problems. Like I said, I hope I live in Canada in a few years, because BOY is that going to hurt.

[Plan B]

Originally Posted by TeaElle

Aldebaran..... why do you think that you have standing to question Americans on their political decisions in such an arrogant and condescending manner?

I don't know Aldebaran at all, but in a generic sense, I think that it may flow from the overall world view. Rightists believe that if you're smart enough to earn it, you're smart enough to spend it. Leftists disagree. Whenever I mention vouchers to leftists they point out that ghetto parents are too dumb to choose the right schools for their kids.

I think it's logical that people who believe in individual rights have more respect for the individual, and vice versa.

Having said that, no doubt we have our share of overly critical posters on our side, but I think it's a much lower share.

[Zagadka]

Originally Posted by Plan B

Whenever I mention vouchers to leftists they point out that ghetto parents are too dumb to choose the right schools for their kids.

Says a lot about hte people you hang out with O_o

[cheddarsnax]

Originally Posted by Plan B

Whenever I mention vouchers to leftists they point out that ghetto parents are too dumb to choose the right schools for their kids.

Are you sure that's what they're saying? If so, you may be confusing leftists and racists...

Originally Posted by Plan B

I think it's logical that people who believe in individual rights have more respect for the individual, and vice versa.

Is it not possible that both a "leftist" and "rightist" could believe in individual rights and respect the individual?

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by cheddarsnax

Are you sure that's what they're saying? If so, you may be confusing leftists and racists...

Leftists are the ones with the pointy hoods and white robes, I think.

[Plan B]

Originally Posted by cheddarsnax

Are you sure that's what they're saying? If so, you may be confusing leftists and racists...


Is it not possible that both a "leftist" and "rightist" could believe in individual rights and respect the individual?

On the first point, no doubt about it. Maybe we connect with different groups of leftists, but I'd advise you to give it a try. See if a leftist can discuss vouchers for five minutes without saying something disparaging about ghetto parents.

On the second point, it's definitely possible. I've seen very little of it from leftists, but enough to know it's possible.

BTW, do you believe "If you're smart enough to earn it, you're smart enough to spend it?" You didn't comment on that.

[Plan B]

Originally Posted by cheddarsnax

you may be confusing leftists and racists...

Alternate response: Is this just one more example of a leftist who can't respond without showing contempt for another human being? Or am I reading something into this?

[Revtim]

Originally Posted by Abbie Carmichael

Among other reasons, because Bush stands for something while Kerry has no clue what he believes.

Not to start a debate or anything here, but Kerry's views on issues are spelled out on his web site.
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/

Agree or not, you can't say he doesn't have an opinion.

[Reeder]

Originally Posted by Brutus

Leftists are the ones with the pointy hoods and white robes, I think.

You do realize Hitler was a "rightist" don't you?

Do your beliefs align with his?

[cheddarsnax]

Originally Posted by Plan B

On the first point, no doubt about it. Maybe we connect with different groups of leftists, but I'd advise you to give it a try. See if a leftist can discuss vouchers for five minutes without saying something disparaging about ghetto parents.

I've done so in the past. I'll concede that there are "leftists" out there who would oppose vouchers on racist grounds, but there are legitimate reasons to oppose vouchers (I'm sure somewhere in the GD archives there's a thread on vouchers full of their non-racist opponents), and I doubt that all, or most, "leftists" share the views of those you've spoken to. And I'm sure that somewhere there's a "rightist" justifying his support of vouchers in a racist manner, but again, I highly doubt that all, or most, "rightists" share that view. There's wackjobs on both sides of pretty much every debate, but most people's views, while differing, are fairly reasonable.

Originally Posted by Plan B

BTW, do you believe "If you're smart enough to earn it, you're smart enough to spend it?" You didn't comment on that.

Perhaps I'm starting to show my lack of sleep, but I'm not quite sure what you mean. Could you explain?

Originally Posted by Plan B

Alternate response: Is this just one more example of a leftist who can't respond without showing contempt for another human being? Or am I reading something into this?

I meant nothing more than to creatively disagree with your position.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Reeder

You do realize Hitler was a "rightist" don't you?

Do your beliefs align with his?

Ya. Sure. The leader of the National Socialist party, who is on record as favoring socialized health care and land redistribution for poor farmers, is a Right-winger. Whatever.

Saying that Hitler was a Right-winger may be a useful fiction that the Left needs to repeat to itself, but that don't make it so. That Hitler was also a bit racist and known to be a tad authoritarian is more important than that, but Hitler was a Leftist. Sure, Hitler may not have been as far to the Left as Stalin, but they would have been sitting on the same side of the aisle.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by Plan B

BTW, do you believe "If you're smart enough to earn it, you're smart enough to spend it?" You didn't comment on that.

I will point out that your question implies that wealth is the product of intelligence. Ninety five percent of all people die in the same economic class they are born in. Smarts ain't got a whole lot to do with it. Your phrase would more accurately be rephrased, "If you're lucky enough to earn it, you're lucky enough to spend it" and you'll see why your ideas are full of shit.

[Reeder]

Originally Posted by Brutus

Ya. Sure. The leader of the National Socialist party, who is on record as favoring socialized health care and land redistribution for poor farmers, is a Right-winger. Whatever.

Saying that Hitler was a Right-winger may be a useful fiction that the Left needs to repeat to itself, but that don't make it so. That Hitler was also a bit racist and known to be a tad authoritarian is more important than that, but Hitler was a Leftist. Sure, Hitler may not have been as far to the Left as Stalin, but they would have been sitting on the same side of the aisle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

David Schoenbaum argued in his book Hitler's Social Revolution: Class and Status in Nazi Germany, 1933-1939 that Nazism contained certain revolutionary and socialist aspects (although more in rhetoric than in reality), and it was no coincidence that the Nazis often found themselves in a struggle with the Communists for the same constituency. However, it is a historical truth that the DAP, which later became the Nazi Party, was begun in response to a brief Communist revolt in Bavaria. While the Nazis opposed individualism and laissez faire capitalism, vigorous opposition to international socialism was a founding and continuing tenet of Nazi fascism.

http://www.germanculture.com.ua/libr...se_of_nazi.htm

As leader of the NSDAP, Hitler reorganized the party and encouraged the assimilation of other radical right-wing groups.

http://www.aicgs.org/at-issue/ai-ruschmann.shtml

The ideological and theoretical reference for Hitler-ideology is often seen in the ideas of Carl Schmitt, who is sometimes called the "crown-jurist of the Nazis." In his works, especially in the book "Der Begriff des Politischen", Schmitt develops a definition of a political group as "friends," who demarcate themselves from their political "enemies." These categories were used, or better, abused by the Nazis.
Biological and anthropological categories are also used as a basis of right-wing extremist ideologies, which come to concepts of racism, social rank orders or claims to political power, by stressing real or unreal differences of social groups.

Need more?

[pervert]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

INinety five percent of all people die in the same economic class they are born in.

You've said this before in a "I believe" sort of way many times. But this is the first time I've seen you use numbers. Do you have any evidence for this at all? Not trying to be rude, or anything, I'm just curious.

[Sevastopol]

Aldebaran,

many people are:

- evil;
- pig-headed and;
- ignorant.

Often all three at once. It's a sizeable constituency.

Salaam.

[Master Wang-Ka]

Well, first of all, having read and reread the OP several times now, I can't say I find it "condescending."

"Appalled" might be a better term.

I can understand that. Bush appalls me, too. So do people who mindlessly support him. Then again, rabid aggressive mindlessness in the pursuit or support of ANY cause appalls me. I've NEVER understood how someone can be so willing to cut his own throat in support of a leader who ain't got the best interests of the country or his own people at heart.

I'd die for my country, sure... but I ain't gonna die for Wal-Mart, or Pfizer, or even Halliburton. No matter how much Dick and Ashcroft and the boys wanna tell me that they are all one and the same.

Patriotism is one thing... but Bush is not America. A lot of people don't seem to understand this. Then again, a lot of people never understood that Nixon wasn't America, either, at least not until he resigned and got in the big helicopter and flew away. And even then, they didn't wanna hear that they were wrong.

Bush is a President who took command of a country at peace with a burgeoning economy, and within four years the economy's in a shambles, we have thousands fewer jobs than we did when he started, and we're fighting two separate wars. Sure, 9/11 could be blamed... but 9/11 was not quite three years ago. Man, we cleaned up half the PLANET in only FOUR years, 1941-1945!

But, then, the men in charge back then weren't "improving education" by screwing it sideways, "improving the economy" by frittering away a tax surplus, then cutting taxes for the rich, and starting wars in Iraq for reasons that change periodically, based on whichever way the political wind is blowing.

To answer your question, Aldebaran, I have no freakin' clue. I'm appalled, too. Not condescending. Appalled.

[litost]

Originally Posted by Plan B

I support him because he's done a great job of handling the economy and the war with the Jihadis.

Which Jihadis?

[litost]

Originally Posted by Master Wang-Ka

Patriotism is one thing... but Bush is not America. A lot of people don't seem to understand this. Then again, a lot of people never understood that Nixon wasn't America, either, at least not until he resigned and got in the big helicopter and flew away. And even then, they didn't wanna hear that they were wrong.

How can you say Bush isn't America? He won the election and has had consistently high approval ratings. He isn't terribly liked in the big cities but as far as I can gather, middle America loves him.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Reeder

Need more?

More useful fiction? Nah.

Your first cite in no way contradicts what I said. Nazism and Communism may have been in conflict, but that in no way makes one Right just because the other is Left. Both ideologies share many ideas. Too many to make one the polar opposite of the other. Nazism can be summed up as low-grade socialism with some racism tacked on. The added helping of racism doesn't push them to the ther end of the spectrum.

Your third 'cites' makes little sense:

Biological and anthropological categories are also used as a basis of right-wing extremist ideologies, which come to concepts of racism, social rank orders or claims to political power, by stressing real or unreal differences of social groups.

Oh? I was unaware that left-wing groups do not stress the differences of social groups. I suppose I must accept the National Organization of Women as a right-wing extremist ideology? Or the Black Panthers? Or Mecha? The list of left wing groups that use one of the above mentioned criteria goes on for quite some time. That cite is just plain stupid.

[cheddarsnax]

Originally Posted by litost

How can you say Bush isn't America? He won the election and has had consistently high approval ratings. He isn't terribly liked in the big cities but as far as I can gather, middle America loves him.

Zogby: Bush approval hits record low of 42%, Kerry leads Bush 47/42
CNN/Time: Bush disapproval (49%) higher than approval, Kerry leads Bush 51/46

Take a look at this graph of Bush's approval throughout his presidency. There's a downward trend since 9/11, with the start of the war and Saddam's capture providing small, fleeting bounces.

[pkbites]

Originally Posted by Master Wang-Ka

Then again, a lot of people never understood that Nixon wasn't America, either,

For a guy who "wasn't America", how did he win one of the biggest landslides in American history?

The very simple answer to the OP is this: sometimes the American voter has to choose between getting a kick in the ass, and a huge kick square in the f*cking nuts!

As others have said, why would I vote for someone who is completely opposite to my positions? As a social/economic conservative (with some libertarian slants) I find W. a bit (just a bit) of a kick in the ass. But John Kerry would definately be a huge kick square in my f*cking nuts. I will vote for Bush in 2004.

[cheddarsnax]

But pkbites, isn't it a kick square in the bizzalls to vote for someone so flagrantly dishonest, partisan, and corrupt as Bush? Would it not be better to vote for Kerry, or a third party candidate, and not be complicit in the trainwreck that is the Bush administration? At some point, doesn't a candidate's stunning disrespect for American democracy overrule their politics?

For what it's worth, if Bush was a Democrat who I agreed with on most issues, my answers would be no, no, and no. I can see your point, pk; this is just a roundabout way of saying that.

[cheddarsnax]

no, yes, no. I think. Damn confusing post.

[gum]

Aldebaran, Why aren't you concerned about your own countrymen's voting behaviour? Don't you know the right-wing 'Vlaams Blok' is getting more votes every year?

Considering their goal is stricter laws for Turkish and Maroccon immigrants, I would have thought that might worry you.

[syncrolecyne]

Originally Posted by Brutus

More useful fiction? Nah.

Your first cite in no way contradicts what I said. Nazism and Communism may have been in conflict, but that in no way makes one Right just because the other is Left. Both ideologies share many ideas. Too many to make one the polar opposite of the other. Nazism can be summed up as low-grade socialism with some racism tacked on. The added helping of racism doesn't push them to the ther end of the spectrum.

Your third 'cites' makes little sense:


Oh? I was unaware that left-wing groups do not stress the differences of social groups. I suppose I must accept the National Organization of Women as a right-wing extremist ideology? Or the Black Panthers? Or Mecha? The list of left wing groups that use one of the above mentioned criteria goes on for quite some time. That cite is just plain stupid.

"Right wing" and "left wing" are short hand labels that vary in meaning from time and place. A Swedish "right winger" might be politically indistinguishable from the average Democrat in the United States.

It is clear that Nazism in the context of Weimar Republic German politics was a right wing faction. Hitler indeed was a "socialist" of sorts, but not a Marxist. His brand of socialism (largely a gambit to appeal to the working classes) was a half baked version of fascist corporatism, which in turn was based on an idealized vision of feudal life where everyone knew their place (as long as they were members of the "Volk" of course - Jews were not let into this happy family).

Nineteenth century "conservatives" generally advocated a sort of "social contract" while the "liberals" of that time backed laissez-faire capitalism. Old school European right-wing politicians such as Benjamin Disraeli, Napoleon III, Otto von Bismarck, and Karl Lueger actually tended to support generous social welfare measures as a means of keeping order among the classes and staving off the sort of social levelling that "Liberals" advocated. So in this context, Hitler drew much of his inspiration from conservative European ideas.

Now I can see why you are peturbed by this. Someone might say..."wait Hitler was right wing, George W. Bush is right wing...that makes Dubya a Nazi!". But that is just utter stupidity. Bush is right-wing in the context of contemporary American politics. Hitler was right wing in his own setting. That doesn't mean they are alike.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Brutus, Hitler was in fact a right winger, as was Stalin. Of course, in Germany and Russia right wing and left wing were descriptors that were then (and in Russia are still) completely opposite of the meaning we give them.

Regardless, it's simply a political appellation, and frankly both you and Reeder are stupid for getting into an absurd pissing contest about a damn adjective.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by pervert

You've said this before in a "I believe" sort of way many times. But this is the first time I've seen you use numbers. Do you have any evidence for this at all? Not trying to be rude, or anything, I'm just curious.

I read it in a book called "The Rich and the Super Rich".

Quite a few years ago, but that stat stuck with me. It may be out of date now, but I doubt it.

[Zagadka]

I believe the underlying question of this thread is - at what point will you vote against someone even though he most accurately represents your ideas? Does he have to personally push people into ovens, or is there some other line where you would accept a less radical but differently-opinioned alternative?

[Hazel]

Originally Posted by Revtim

I can see that if Kerry, with whom I share a lot views on issues, had screwed up as bad as Bush, I still might vote for him. To me, issues are nearly all-important. It would take a lot for me to not vote for the candidate that shares my views, over the one the shares nearly none of them. The worst that can happen, really, is that I vote for neither. I would *never*, for example, vote for a social conservative, no matter what the other guys does.

It seems reasonable to assume that people who share Bush's views also wouldn't care so much over recent scandals or whatever.

Normally, this is the case. People who vote, vote according to the guy's stands on the issues. The candidate whose stands they prefer gets their vote, regardless of trivialites such as where he's from, if he did/did not serve in the military, if he is/is not divorsed, is/is not a womanizer, is/is not a current or past alcoholic, if he does/does not seem to be on the take, has/has not "flip-floped" on any issues, etc.

But we are not in a normal situation. Bush II's transgressions are way more serious than the usual stuff. Consider that impeachment proceedings were brought vs. Clinton -- for telling a face-saving lie about a cheap affair. Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment -- for ordinary political dirty tricks. His people were trying to spy on the opposition.

Bush II and his people lied us into a war. WMDs: untrue. Real threat to us: untrue. Involved in the 9/11 attack: untrue. And not just a little Grenade type war: over 700 of our people dead, thousands of Iraqi civilians killed, Iraq's art and archaeology treasures looted, the country in a mess -- and now the prisoner abuse scandal. Not to mention undoing 30 years worth of environmental progress and reducing our civil liberties.

I not only don't understand why the conseratives are willing to vote for him, I don't understand why he isn't being impeached.

[Hazel]

Originally Posted by pkbites

For a guy who "wasn't America", how did he win one of the biggest landslides in American history?

The very simple answer to the OP is this: sometimes the American voter has to choose between getting a kick in the ass, and a huge kick square in the f*cking nuts!

As others have said, why would I vote for someone who is completely opposite to my positions? As a social/economic conservative (with some libertarian slants) I find W. a bit (just a bit) of a kick in the ass. But John Kerry would definately be a huge kick square in my f*cking nuts. I will vote for Bush in 2004.

Huh? Landslide? He lost the popular vote. He got into the White House on the basis of having supposedly won in Florida. Even if you believe Florida's official results were valid, those official results were a statistical tie.

And if you "slant libertarian" at all, what do you think of the Patriot Act?

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Hazel

Huh? Landslide? He lost the popular vote. He got into the White House on the basis of having supposedly won in Florida. Even if you believe Florida's official results were valid, those official results were a statistical tie.

And if you "slant libertarian" at all, what do you think of the Patriot Act?

He was talking about Richard Nixon.

[pkbites]

Originally Posted by cheddarsnax

But pkbites, isn't it a kick square in the bizzalls to vote for someone so flagrantly dishonest, partisan, and corrupt as Bush? Would it not be better to vote for Kerry, or a third party candidate, and not be complicit in the trainwreck that is the Bush administration?

Please! Please!
PLEASE!
Don't be naive! ALL pols are eventually dishonest & corrupt! Accept it, then use it to your advantage.
I have no problems with partisan politics. People who carp about that have no concept what politics, and political positions & politcal parties are about.

I for one, do not find Bush a trainwreck. A kick in the ass is a far, far cry from a train wreck. Jimmy Carter was a God damn train wreck.

I have issues that I'm intense about. They are issues that are on the very top of my list of impotance to me. Abortion, taxes, and gun Control come to mind.
While Bush wasn't an A+ on all these, John Kerry raises a finger to me over them and says @#$% YOU! Why would I vote for him when he's almost 100% opposite to my views?? And why would I waste my vote on a 3rd party idiot who's wasting his time and uglying up my television screen?

[aurelian]

pkbites says:

Why would I vote for him [Kerry]when he's almost 100% opposite to my views?? And why would I waste my vote on a 3rd party idiot who's wasting his time and uglying up my television screen?

So, not to pick on pkbites in particular, but...
This is what I *really* don't get about that perspective - John Kerry is really barely any different than Bush. It makes no sense to say they are opposites - maybe Kucinich, okay, but Kerry? I wouldn't classify him as a Democrat (what little that means nowadays) and I certainly wouldn't classify him as a leftist.

For example, http://www.politicalcompass.org

aurelian

ps. damn, i have a busy semester, i'm away for a few months, and k'bam! (totally whooshed by the whole registration thing)