I continue to be amazed that President Bush is leading in the polls. My feeling is that taking the country into a foreign war under false pretenses–and with no end in sight–should be grounds enough to lose your job, and trumps any routine disagreement about tax policy, senior prescription coverage, universal health care etc.
But I’m willing to be convinced. Bush supporters, why does the President deserve a second term?
Lots of reasons in this thread:
And this one:
And this one:
And this… well you get the idea.
testride, you might want to check a variety of polls. I haven’t seen one since the debate that still has Bush ahead, although I’m sure there are some. Most have them in a virtual tie.
Well, really you should look at the candidate positions, and vote for Bush if his platform agrees with your personal beliefs more than any other candidate’s, and you feel you can trust him to run the country.
As for this particular election, vote for Bush if you prefer strong decisive leadership to someone who’s going to try to do what’s right.
Anyone who can make the left squeal like a bunch of baby pigs can’t be all bad.
He’s reasonably competent, has many top-notch people in his administration, and he’s a Republican. He’s served in the military and has experience as a government executive. Unlike several past Presidents, he can keep his dick in his pants.
Politely muted, bursting laughter can sound a bit like ‘squealing.’
Please stop it is becoming impossible to continue though and I’m not even ‘the left.’
I’m not sure I understand. You say Bush is the strong and decisive one, and this should be preferred to Kerry, who will try to do what’s right. I do not agree with your characterisation of each person, but leaving this aside, I would want the person I voted for to have both of these qualities.
For example, if they are strong and decisive but not trying to do what’s right, then they’re efficiently leading the country in the exact wrong direction. If they’re trying to do what’s right, but not strong and decisive, they would be unable to do much at all. I can’t see how either of these scenarios could be a reason to vote for someone.
Because, y’know, that’s what being president is really all about. Understanding the budget, the military, congress…pfft. I want a guy in there who’s dick hasn’t played tonsil hockey in 20 years or so.
I think you might raise the bar a bit and allow hockey with his wife.
Roger, can you see Laura on her knees? No, me either. Sorry for the visual. I’m just sayin. Of all the things to worry about when choosing a president, whether or not the man is a philanderer is pretty low on my list (This election, even less important, IMO).
As for what past presidents have done; well, Georgie, if Jerry Ford jump…er…fell off the Brooklyn Bridge, would YOU?
It isn’t the act so much, although I have problems with people who engage in extramarital sex, as it’s an indication that the person has poor control over their impulses and lacks self-discipline.
Which impulse is it more important to keep in check?
a) I could sure use a blowjob while I skim these appropriations;
or
b) Let’s invade somebody!
Because soldiers like him?
Because competent leadership is soooooooooooooo overrated.
Because the voices in your head tell you to.
Because a presidency is too boring without a few wars to liven up the evening news.
Because you enjoy the notion that you’re smarter than the President of the United States.
Because that damn Clinton kept his sex all hushed up between himself and Monica, but Bush gives you wall-to-wall naked Iraqi prisoner bondage.
Because after the nation’s been driven head-first into a brick wall, the sensible response is More Of The Same.
Because you’re hoping Bush will push for a Constitutional amendment to make it legal to hunt homosexuals.
Because you find Dick Cheney’s bald spot strangely mesmerizing.
Because nothing’s more important than continued news coverage of those hot Bush twins.
…and the number one reason to vote for Bush…
I also saw a poll of active duty soldiers in Iraq. It was for Bush but not nearly as lop-sided as previous poster suggest. Let me see if I can find it.
The typical Army Times subscriber is not a typical soldier.
I’m not saying that the results would change if the survey was given to average enlistees, but the survey you quote doesn’t answer that question one way or the other. FTR, I was in the Army, didn’t read (hell, never even heard of) the Army Times, but did read the “Stars and Stripes”, although I, like every single fellow enlisted man I knew, didn’t even have a subscription to that. Therefore, I’d never have gotten such a survey, no matter which publication put it out.
And when people in an organization that enforces conformity all agree on something, you better take note!
Wow. So . . . you’d vote for, say, Josef Stalin, on the same grounds? or Lyndon LaRouche?
How can you vote for someone whose followers are all delusional? “Served in the military”?
And you’d also vote for Stalin or LaRouche if they were a few years past their dicks’ heydays? Wow. Just, wow.
Although they tend to be more conservative than the general population, people in the military have diverse opinions on politics and other matters.
I don’t believe that mks57 is telling anyone to vote for Kerry.
But that is a good point: Kerryites are delusional about what a hypothetical Kerry admistration would accomplish. France and Germany nixed the idea of them sending troops to Iraq. Iran chuckled at the whole ‘let’s give them uranium’ idea. And while Kim Jong Il is probably ecstatic at the prospect of sitting down at a table minus China (you know, with all that economic power we hold over them!), one on one negotiations with NK have been proven to not work.
And so forth. Kerryites seem to take a religious tone when talking about what Kerry will accomplish: No, they don’t generally know the details of what he will do, and yes, the few ideas he has thrown out have been shot down, but they are gonna keep the faith!
But why vote for Bush? You know what he has done. Here is what he will do. If that jibes with you, vote for him.