Assuming, of course, that if the vote were indeed today, we would then be in some sort of bizarro universe. It would seem plausible then that I’d be the President of my very own Rationalist Party. Or something. Yeah.
I didn’t vote for Bush in 2000, I wouldn’t do it now.[sup]*[/sup] I also consider Gore to be a complete washout (c’mon, he couldn’t even beat Mondale and Dukakis, fer og’s sake), so unless the Democrat’s put up someone impressive, the hypothetical 2002 election may be the year I go libertarian.
Nader? Bother me not with such nonsense.
[sup]* I might actually consider Bush, if he were to promise (and I were to believe him) to dump Ashcroft.[/sup]
If we’re assuming a Bush vs. Gore teamup, I’d go Bush. If we’re assuming a Bush vs. Hillary (there was some hubbub expecting her to try to run), I’d definitely vote Bush.
I’d prefer to see the Republicans field a better candidate, but the incumbant President always (to my knowledge) gets an automatic go at Round Two.
If the Democrats don’t come up with anyone better than Gore or Mrs. Clinton, it’s Bush for me. Though his views don’t always co-incide with my own, I rather like the guy, and I think he’s been doing a pretty good job.
I voted for Bush in 2000, but probably won’t do so again in '04. I don’t think I’d vote for Gore, either. If it comes down to Shrub vs Tree again, I’ll probably stay home on election day.
I’d vote for Senator John Edwards, who’s been making noise for some time. I’ve checked the guy out and I like him. A lot. I might actually find myself voting for a candidate, if Edwards gets the nod.
If it were Gore versus Bush, I’d vote Gore. Again. And I still wouldn’t be happy about it.
If it were Hillary Clinton versus Bush, then apparently I’ve tuned in to a sketch on the Rush Limbaugh program or something. Hillary Clinton will never run for president, and anyone who thinks she will should lay off the crackpipe. That’s just right-wing scaremongering, intended to weaken her Senate influence. Of course, it also has the positive benefit of drawing fire away from the actual candidates, so I don’t really mind.
Personally, I don’t like Bush or Gore for a variety of reasons. I say, tormented war veteran or not, McCain! He soooooo got robbed in the primaries. Maybe he’ll run independent? Maybe 2004 will be the year that someone outside the two-party system will be able to reach out to the American public and… naw, theres no way that’ll happen. Anyway, I don’t want to hijack the thread or anything, but I have always wondered what the “anyone but Bush!” people hate about Bush so much-- other than the dead dimpled/pregnant/stabbed chad issue. Did these people want Gore to win so badly or did they want Bush to lose even more? Would Gore have done a better job? Is it all just empty rhetoric?
I did not vote for G.W. Bush but I probably will in the next election. I do not think he is the most intellectual person to hold the office but I believe that he is a good person. I think he is smart enough to surround himself with good advisors and I think he makes good decisions. I approve of the job he has done so far with the war. I am not crazy about his thought regarding stem cell research, I do not like the idea of any of his appointments to the bench having to pass a “religious litmus test”. But, I think most presidents that make these appointments have strong ideas about what kind of person they want. They just don’t blurt it out the way G.W. did. I think he is honest. That counts for alot with me.