You can blame the Clinton era for that.
I’m moving this love fest to The BBQ Pit.
The truth that Bushites have to face is that only blindly loyal ideologues and dimbulbs support this guy.
He’s bad for the economy–don’t give me growth rates on stock for the ownership class, we still have record unemployment and crippled state budgets because of his poorly planned tax cuts. Moreover, he has betrayed fundamental conservativism by raising spending and creating a massive deficit. Reagonomic budget planning contradicts trraditional conservative economic policy.
He’s bad for security. 9/11 happened because Bush paid no attention to Mideast foreign policy after his inauguration and even today, three years later, he has not taken obvious steps to safeguard our borders and entry points. He has allowed special state interests to skew the allocation of security funds, so that Wyoming has a higher per capita Homeland Security allowance than does NYC.
Worst of all, he has the blood of more than a thousand American soldiers and untold Iraqi civilians on his hands, people killed in defense of a lie in a war that was not necessary. Bush started this war on the basis of pre-empting threats to our nation, but instead he has created a base for Islamic insurgents to spread terror throughout the Mideast.
Bush’s administration has been a total, unmitigated disaster; there’s just no way to rationally defend the man.
So as I said, only the blindly partisan (Shodan) or the stupidly vicious (Brutus) can vote for Dubya.
Simple answer(s):
-
No, not bothering to answer, because…
-
The majority of people at the SDMB skew left.
Actually, I think there is a fairly even left-right spread, economically speaking. What there is is a strong liberal skew in the proper sense of the word “liberal” (ie. socially, contrasted with authoritarianism) rather than the absurdly counter-intuitive manner in which the US uses the word. In this respect, Bush panders to the backwardness of the electorate.
Well, here’s the thing, Sentient Meat. The way I use it is the way it is used here in the United States. To me there is no other meaning. I don’t care about the applicability of the term in other countries, I don’t care about the “proper” sense of the word, and the truth is that it doesn’t matter because this is about a poll taken for the US elections. If it were a poll about the UK elections you could make that argument all day long. But it’s not, and so from the perspective of someone in the United States born and raised, this place is liberal-majority in every respect.
Economically, the board reflects the go-get make-up of youthful America, i.e. it is far from socialist. In European terms, it’s *well * to the right.
Socially, it reflects the broadly atheistic bent of the majority of the (vocal) members.
Economically, then, it reflects middle America, but socially it does not.
People who have the benefit of SDMB training to spot bullshit are highly likely to oppose Bush, even if they’re not overly crazy about Kerry. The Bush folks have had four years to shovel it, and the pile is giving off a stench that dwarfs anything emanating from the Kerry campaign*.
It is not strictly a liberal/conservative thing.
I’ll second this. If the election hinged on the support of those who display extreme contempt for the intelligence of the American public, Kerry would win in a walk. The influence of this subgroup is however vastly overrated, except in a negative sense.
The problem with these board straw polls is that they will help fuel the inevitable paranoiac rage if Kerry is defeated (“They stole the election again!”), due to the common misperception that the SDMB represents reality.
*Note to John: Will you please stop blatting about the “Saudi royal family” in your campaign ads? Nobody gives a crap about that except for Michael Moore devotees, and I think you’ve got their vote already.
Apologies, I was merely posting on an international Message Board. I guess I will have to leave the argument to be made by Americans.
Like, say, Liberal!
As of today, I believe on election day I’ll be holding my nose and voting for Bush. Yes, I am a Republican but I’m by no means a Bushite or a “blindly loyal” ideologue.
So far, Kerry has provided no reason for me to vote for him. The fact that he isn’t Bush isn’t going to cut it for this voter. I’m aware that Bush has blurred the line between the war on terror and the war in Iraq. I’m aware that this administration has single-handedly besmirched our good name in the international arena. I’m aware that this President has gone on record as saying he supports a Constitutional amendment to limit personal freedoms.
I firmly believe, however, that the current administration needs to clean up its mess. I also believe Kerry’s plan for peace in Iraq is built on a very rickety foundation and that he’ll be in over his head. I’m not convinced he’ll be able to persuade other nations to share the burden. Why should they? In their eyes, this is our mistake and we should be the ones to rectify it.
I understand why people will vote for Kerry. I’ve toyed with that very notion several times in the past few months. I will not vote for a third-party candidate because for me it would just be a tacit vote for Bush. I do plan to watch the remaining debates. My decision is not etched in stone.
Knowing all that. how can you vote for more of the same?
I firmly believe, however, that the current administration needs to clean up its mess.
[/quote]
But given that Bush and Cheney have thus far shown that they believe that they are right and that they intend to follow the same failed policies, how can you think that they will clean up their mess. They don’t think there is a mess!
In over his head? The man has been in the Senate for 19 years and is far more educated, intelligent, and experienced than the Chimp-in-Chief. You want “in over his head,” play back Bush er-ing and um-ing his way through the debate.
A change in administration will convince the UN that it would be in their interest to help out in Iraq. Getting rid of the arrogant, incompetent Bushites will go a long way to show the world we’ve seen our error.
I’m glad to hear it.
I respect the overall thrust of your opinion, and indeed am glad to see one more thought out than my father’s, “Getting rid of Saddam was right!!11! OMG!”
We’re stuck in Iraq for the next 10 years whether we have Kerry or Bush. However, I do believe the European nations will go to Iraq if invited. They’ve already expressed pissiness about being denied rebuilding contracts, and they certainly want their slice of oil revenues and territorial control. They’re a lot closer to the Middle East than we are. Beyond that, 9-11 taught me that the rest of the world is not as petty as the US can be. They’re our allies, and that means something to them. They won’t laugh and turn their backs.
Politically, the rest of the world (leadership-wise) can’t openly support Kerry. That would be suicide for them if Bush won, and suicide for Kerry if he won (remember Clinton’s China-Gate?). But to accuse Europe of being heartless, in my mind, is unfair.
Really? I was under the impression that Bush had an MBA, and Kerry had a three year law degree. So your claim that Kerry has “far more” education than Bush is a large and steaming load.
And as far as experience goes, Kerry seems to have achieved little besides keeping the seat warm during his nineteen years - he doesn’t seem to have sponsored much major legislation. And, since he has never been President, your assertion that he is more experienced than Bush is, of course, factually errant.
Of course, I am a blind partisan and/or vicious bigot, so I can be disregarded. Just like John McCain. 
Regards,
Shodan
gobear and Rysler, you make excellent points. My husband and I did decide the only way Kerry would be able to convince our (former?) allies to share the burden would be to offer lucrative reconstruction contracts and cut them (back) in on revenue generated from oil sales. Are those nations willing to risk the lives of innocent contractors as the violence escalates as well as a potentially antagonizing voters, though? We won’t know until after the elections because, as Rysler pointed out, few nations are willing to openly support Kerry for fear of retribution from the current administration should it be reelected.
I do like that Kerry says he’ll close the borders. I think the primary reason Bush hasn’t closed them is because it makes it that much easier to include Iraq in the war on terror.
Also, it wasn’t my intent to accuse Europe of being heartless unless accusing them of being pragmatic, for lack of a better word, is one and the same.
A. Law school is considerably more rigorous than B-school.
B. A JD takes 3 years, but an MBA takes 2. Kerry may not be “far” more educated, but he is more educated. And I note you didn’t try to defend Dubya’s intelligence. Good boy.
Chairing Senate committees and sponsoring hearings for bills isn’t "keepoing the seat warm. Go to johnkerry.com if you want to learn more about his record, but I know you won’t.
Nineteen years in the Senate trumps 1 term as governor and 1 term as an executive sheltered from the world by a phalanx of advisors.
Sorry, Shodan, but you are factually wrong on every count.
Of course, I am a blind partisan and/or vicious bigot, so I can be disregarded. Just like John McCain.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
There’s so much I wanted to say but I’m not really in a position to do that any more on here, even in the Pit.
Bush IMO is not capable of running the country effectively and honestly, nor is Kerry. I felt that Bush would have done a better job than Gore in 2000 - I believe I was wrong, but would not vote for Gore either. So if I could go back in time I would have voted “neither” then as well, rather than for Bush.
I think it comes down to three things, really. First, I know for a fact that there was some serious sleaze involved with Iraq rebuilding contracts. I will not talk about it further, nor back up that assertion, as I’m not using it to convince anyone else nor applying it as a defense in a debate. I know because I know and because I’m in a position to know, and I’ve posted in my personal journal clues as to why and how and from whom that I know this.
Second, Bush turned out to be far more Right on social issues than I ever dreamed. I won’t go into that because there’s nothing to be gained from debate on this message board under the current culture.
Third, Bush has reached the point where he scares me. Like “Clinton first 2 years” scares me. Anyone right of center at all knows exactly what I’m talking about, even if they do not agree with me.
I feel that the best possible situation would be a Kerry election with a strongly pro-Republican Congress. A case where any new legislation or policy that comes through, other than those which can be enacted by Executive Order or under current existing legislation, would have to run the gauntlet of both parties - and thus, hopefully, would have to be decent legislation.
You think Boston College is a tougher school than Harvard? Interesting. And by “interesting”, I mean “stupid”.
No, actually sponsoring legislation about matters that you claim are of vital importance would constitute doing something beyond keeping a seat warm. Notice that Kerry has never done this on health care, which he claims is important. In other words, he is promising to do something now that he has not attempted to do in the last 19 years.
Of course, when he does bother to show up and vote, he is often wrong, as when he voted against the first Gulf war. So apparently doing anything more than marching in lockstep with his fellow liberals is beyond him.
No, in terms of leadership, nineteen years of nothing much fails to compare with Bush’s experience in actually performing the job. Governor = head of the executive branch at the state level. Senator (in Kerry terms) = holding down a safe Democratic seat and doing what the bosses in the Senate tell you to.
So, essentially, Kerry has no experience to compare with Bush, no history of legislative initiative, no symptoms of anything much. An empty suit, as I mentioned elsewhere.
Which is sort of good news for my side, as, even if he wins, he will be able to achieve nothing.
Come on - we are talking about a person who says, in essence, “I am against the war in Iraq, and I would have voted in its favor even knowing what I know now. And they didn’t send enough troops, so I will bring some of them home.” I saw an editorial cartoon that made that point, but I cannot locate it.
Because the SDMB is made up mostly of those who are fanatically, rabidly, feverishly anti-Bush.
This was news to you?
Regards,
Shodan
Wow.
Just, wow.
I thought we were on the same side, ultimately. You know, America? But apparently your partisan hate is so strong you hope that our next president will achieve nothing–no peaceful resolution in Iraq, no improvement of the economy, no increase in security for our citizens against terror.
You are a Republican, but you are no patriot.
Well, obviously it is a meaningless statement, as in a calmer moment you might possibly agree. It’s unfalsifiable.
You have no objective way to show the respective “intelligence” levels of either candidate. There is no objective way.
Thus your statement was nothing more than a paraphrase of the usual 'IhateBushhatehimhatehimbadnastyevilBushgollumgollumgollum…"
If you really want, I will request a cite to an objective proof that Kerry is “far more” intelligent" than Bush. Note that I said “objective”. You will also be required to show that the measure is valid.
You wanna play that game? You made the claim; back it up. Validly.
Regards,
Shodan
I’d say it’s the opposite, that the US is living in a Conservative Fantasyland. For one of the main factors that tilt this board towards the progressive side is the overwhelming dislike of BushCo’s policies the world over and represented here by most non-american posters.
Just try holding a similar poll restricted to non-US posters and you’ll see what I speak of.
USA = Currently, Neocon Fantasyland.