It probably wouldn’t have made any difference. I can see that sort of thing happening if the candidates were picked by party leaders like in the old days. But Clinton and Obama are in the lead because a large number of people voted for them in the primaries. Some of those voters might have been swayed by electability arguments, but probably not enough to close the big gap between the two leaders and John Edwards.
It could be argued either way, but from what you’ve provided I would tend to agree with your friend. Part of our system of government is that us 49% agree to be governed by the executive office put in by the 51% (of the electoral college of course, not of the popular vote.) It’s not perfect but it’s the closest thing to it. That’s why we have a checking branch of government made up of 435 elected officials and another checking branch of government that’s not elected at all.
Remeber that we never go more than 2 years without a national election and that 51/49 is always flowing back and forth.
I think that is one of the most awesomely subtle posts I have ever read. 
COOL! Story time with Sampiro! Woot!
I didn’t like that story very much…
That’s not a very fun one either…
Two tragedies and a cliff-hanger. I gotta tell you, Sampiro, my friend, I still believe in you, but this is not one of your more memorable sessions. 
Same here. That is why I want to see Hillary’s deceitful, dishonest and dictatorial ass out of there now even though theoretically McCain may have a better chance against her than against Obama.
As to the OP, I don’t believe Bush is all that “despised,” even in the United States. A low approval rating on its own doesn’t come anywhere near being an accurate indicator of how much someone may be despised. I disapprove of a lot of things but I don’t hate, loathe or despise them.
With regard to polls, it’s hard to get more than 50% of the population behind anyone on a consistent basis. I remember a survey once that showed 50% of the population didn’t like Johnny Carson, one of the most likable talk show hosts in history.
So, given today’s political climate, I think any president is fortunate to maintain a consistent approval rating of even 50% - meaning that an approval rating of 30% only means that around 20 more people out of a hundred have shifted to feel that he could be doing his job better…and again, thinking that he could be doing his job better is a long way from despising him.
The OP also seems to be assuming that 70% disapproval of Bush = 70% detestation, and I’d be surprised if even 25% of that 70% truly hates or despises him. I know lots of Democrats, young and old, and though most feel he’s done a lousy job and some just flat don’t like him, I can’t think of a single one who’s ever expressed anything like outright hatred of him.
The only really rabid Bush hate I ever encounter is on this message board.
nvm
Rabid?
You make it sound as though hating GWB with every fiber of one’s being (that isn’t occupied with hating Dick Cheney) is anything other than perfectly rational.
Look: 
Nary a fleck of foaming saliva. I’ll even let you look inside. :o
Uh…that’s okay…I’ll take your word for it.
But thanks anyway.
I think it depends on where you go. For example, in California, even in strongly conservative (for California) San Diego, it’s been my experience that you can’t say his name without arousing the hordes from their slumber. I can’t think I’ve met anyone here who would admit to being a Bushie. I’m pretty sure most people I know would gladly volunteer to assassinate him if they had the chance. I mean, we’re talking about a Republican who can even manage to get the Libertarians into a frothing, spittle-flecked rage. I wouldn’t mind torturing and killing the man myself. I think I would rip off a few toenails first, in the name of Thomas Jefferson, who has surely progressed from rolling in his grave to pounding his skeletal limbs to powder with his headstone while bawling uncontrollably as the abuses committed against the Bill of Rights and the American way of life pile up.
If someone raped and tortured President Bush and Vice President Cheney for months and then killed them by surgically removing their inner organs at a rate of one per week until they shuffled off this mortal coil, put it all on DVD and sold it from the back of his van with his name, Social Security number, address and date of birth on the cover, and I were on the jury to hear his case, I wouldn’t convict him. I’m far from the only one.
That’s not at all true. I never chose to be a part of that system.
Immigrants? Maybe. Me? Not a snowball’s chance in hell.
The closest thing to perfect? Have you been living under a rock this whole decade? How can you say with a straight face that our system is more representative of Americans’ wishes than a parliamentary system would be?
I’m not getting this logic. If the US and Canada fought a war on their border, would I be in “a battlefield” because I live in one of the participating countries?
Maybe there is some basis for their thinking. Although Presidents draw a lot of criticism while they are in office, I cannot remember another who disgusts us with the senselessness of his decisions and is as personally repulsive in his speech and mannerisms as GWB.
I lived under twelve Presidents. Franklin Roosevelt was greatly loved while he was in office. There was criticism, but nothing like what we have seen for Bush II. Nixon was loathed, but at least he wasn’t stupid. Carter had some success in the MIddle East and was respected as a person though not as a President.
Everyone seemed to like Ike, but there was the threat of Communism and the A-bomb that made everyone generally miserable.
My own favorite was Kennedy. I believe that his popularity was around 60-63 when he was assassinated. It certainly wasn’t always that high, but he was a popular President while he was in office.
Although Reagan received a lot of criticism from opponents such as myself, he was enormously popular with his party. He was known as “the Great Communicator.” Ford had problems with inflation, but he wasn’t personally criticized all that much. GHWB had some communication problems, but his son has made him look like a great orator.
Clinton was a scoundrel, but intelligent. Criticisms of him were largely personal. But people seemed to like the way he ran the country.
No one within my memory comes close to our current President in earning our scorn. (I don’t remember Truman’s popularity problems.)
Johnson was popular at first and then it all crashed because of Vietnam and because of his sometimes tacky personality.
Well, I’m not one to normally say this, but, fuckin’ leave then.
Who said anything about Americans’ wishes? I said the closest thing to perfect. Americans’ wishes can be scary things. The constitution was largely designed to protect us from them.
:rolleyes:
Oh yeah, I’m just gonna pick up and go right now. Excuse me while I pull a visa out of my ass, leave my educational plan behind and start over, convert my AA to some even-more-useless foreign degree, abandon everyone and everything I know and love, learn a new language and way of life, and find a job and a place ot stay in a place I’ve never been before.
Mr. Cheney, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but I’m not sure you got exactly what they were trying to say there.
And yet that’s precisely what made Bush qualified to be president. Americans voted for him because they viewed him as “the kind of guy you’d like to have a beer with”.
Then why did Bush make it clear that all he had to do was disarm?
Sounds like you’ve got it pretty good. Most Americans have these same great things that you don’t want to give up, practically by birthright. Immigrants work their ass of to get here so they or their kids can have them. You didn’t choose to be here, sure, but you should be grateful that you won the birthplace lottery and didn’t even have to buy a ticket. Does America have problems? Of course. Is it perfect? Hell no. Is it the closest thing out there to it? I find that most people who think not haven’t spent much time studying the constitution, and especially vs. other world governments.
Oh I’m quite sure I did. Care to explain, though? For fun.
[shrug] The Framers were not right about everything.
True, but they had their fundamentals down pat, and this one is intrinsic to the whole system.
Which is completely irrelevant to the discussion. You said that Americans chose to be governed the way we are; I say we don’t. People born in Canada, England, Germany, France, Sweden, even Spain and Italy these days, have pretty good lives too, but they’re represented by parliamentary (ie actually representative) governments. Jews (like me) born in Israel have pretty decent lives overall, and are actually represented by their government. The argument is not how much better off I am than the average African, the argument is whether or not I chose to be ruled by the American system of government. I didn’t. And there are plenty of other places I could’ve been born in where I would probably have a similar, or only slightly worse, quality of life, and be actually represented by my government.
See above.
Seems to me the Constitution was designed to protect Americans from their government, not the other way around.
There aren’t enough rolleyes for this ignorant whiney crap. Do you vote? Then you’re represented. If you don’t then it’s your own fault. I’m fine with constructive criticism of the US government but when people just cry about how much better it is everywhere else it needs to be pointed out that it’s not THAT hard to expatriate.
Skip my logic. Actually, skip my whole historical characterization: I know not of what I speak. That said, Serbia was invaded by the Austria-Hungarian Empire during WWI. It was a battlefield during that war. Props to Hypnagogic Jerk for catching my error immediately.
Er: the 2003 invasion did nothing to prevent gas attacks against the Kurds, since those attacks occurred during the 1980s. Furthermore, the Kurds were doing pretty well by 2003, since they were protected by a strong no-fly zone. The invasion did nothing to stop the clearing of the southern marshes (against some Shiites) – since that happened after the first gulf war.
So no, the 2003 invasion had nothing to do with preventing genocide. Indeed, the subsequent civil war prompted an orgy of ethnic cleansing.
Magiver’s argument is not serious. There is no comparison with B.Clinton’s military actions, done with the full cooperation of our European allies, with GWBush’s adventures in Mesopotamia. None.