POLL: I Voted For Candidate X Because...

Remove all ads!

This is completely true. And it is also the reason why Bush was able to expand the War on Terror to include attacking Iraq. If 9/11 hadn't occurred, Bush would have had a far more difficult time convincing anyone that war with Iraq was necessary. If you look at public opinion polls, Bush had the highest approval rating in U.S. history following the 9/11 attacks and his response to them.

Sorry to go a bit, but I agree that neither Hillary or McCain will be the nominees in 2008. McCain has already taken a shot in 2000 and lost. By 2008 he will be 72 and his political career will be all but over.

As for Hillary, given the very conservative mindset in the U.S., I think nominating a woman would be an invitation to disaster for the Democratic party. Of course, due to the closed-mindedness of many U.S. voters, I don't think we'll have to worry about that because I don't think she can even win the nomination.

 

@T2Bruno: Mate, I can see where you're coming from...but seriously, IMHO (and I do not want to argue about this all over again), firstly Bush used the excuse of 9/11 to invade Iraq, which he has been itching to do since Operation Desert Storm .(again, IMHO!!)

Also, his allegations against Syria and Iran are baseless, and these are again countries he has been itching to invade (IMHO!!)

So...the way I see it, he's a potential World War III waiting to happen.

 

@Faraaz: I've never been a fan of the term "Axis of Evil" (except in an RPG...), I didn't like it when Reagan used the phrase and I don't like it now. I do not recall Bush ever using 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq -- the US press insinuated it several times and Bush let it happen and let it build (which I think was wrong of him, but he never asked me).

I agree that Desert Storm was a factor (just as the attempted genocide of the Kurds was a factor). I did not agree with the decision to go into Iraq at the time it happened (once again, I wasn't asked my opinion), but I am happy that Hussein is out of power.

Syria and Iran are powderkegs. I was very glad that Bush did not directly pursue nuclear arms negotiations with Iran (it would have been counterproductive) and left to France and Germany (I think). That was good decision on his part, it appears the talks (without the US) are working. I don't think anyone wants to invade either country.

The operation in Afganistan is really a blueprint of what the US wanted in Iraq. Get in, take out the current government, get out. I don't think we were prepared for the extent of control Hussein had.

Every President is a potential WW3 -- I feel more comfortable with Bush than I did with Reagan.

By the way, your arguements are very good and very interesting -- I really like seeing other points of view. You can be very pursuasive when you hold back the emotion and present your views (although emotion does add an appropriate kick every now and then).

 

I told I didn't want to argue about this all over again.

Heh, didn't you see all the "IMHO"s mate?

Ah well, thank you, I appreciate the sentiment. Its just that Bush seems to be a very bad thing for all the non-US people to me, personally, is all.

 

@ T2Bruno:

He said as much, on many occasions - that Hussein and Iraq had connections with Al-Qaeda. I agree, though, that the media has more than played its part in communicating this. When a significant minority of Americans believe that Iraqis, not Saudis, were flying the planes that hit the WTC, and the administration does nothing to correct it, it suggests to me that this administration wanted that perception to exist but didn't/couldn't say it directly, because this would strengthen their arguments for going to war.

Just my $0.02. IMHO, if they had been serious about toppling Hussein, they should have finished the job in Desert Storm (possibly with the direct aid of the Kurds). But that's another argument entirely and I'm ...

 

This quote from Dogbert (credit to Scott Adams) sums up my view on this whole discussion nicely:

 

Well, then you've got an inside scoop that a lot of us have not seen yet. Shrub is nowhere near the class act that Reagan was. There was a lot that Reagan did that I did not agree with. Nevertheless, Reagan was a very cool character. Remember the Russians shooting down the Korean Airliner? How about the 200 marines that were killed in Lebanon? If Shrub had been prez we all may not be sitting here now.

Reagan may have "acted" the part of a cowboy but in the end he played it smart and safe. He must have been one hell of a poker player too.

Also, I think you are onto something, HB. I voted for Kerry and it was an honor to vote against Shrub. But, consider that Kerry cleaned-up the floor with Bush during the debates, and he still lost the election by a sizable margin of the popular vote. The whole election really cuts against the grain of what had been the "conventional wisdom" of American politics.

[ November 17, 2004, 07:03: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Well, it's clear which demographic the Republicans need to work on next time -- they need to capture votes from rpgamers and non-U.S. citizens!

Frankly, I think the poll should have been broader. The "anybody but" votes indicate that the candidates were both fairly extreme. Bush won not because most people agree with most or all of his views, but because he's more moderate than Kerry. Moderates almost always win because they are the only ones who can gain support from a wide spectrum of people. Bush is not a moderate -- he's very conservative. But Kerry was more liberal than Bush was conservative, so Kerry lost.

 

Ah, perceptions are such a nice thing. However, Bush is generally seen as a rather extreme republican leaning far far to the right which is evident with if you look at some of the infighting within the party and the various factions and with people such as Powell and McCain. Kerry on the other hand was seen as most people as a bit too much to the right in the democratic party, too much of a moderate.

Bush won because he is more extreme, that is a fact. Right wing extremism always appeals to the masses as it speaks to peoples lowest instincts and desires.

 

joacqin, your byline says it all.

Nice to know that everything you think is a fact, while everything you disagree with is a mere perception.

 

Bombur - I see no reason to attack Joacqin personally over his views. Depending upon where one is standing on the political spectrum others may appear more to the right than moderate. I don't see Bush II as especially that extreme to the right, but as an incompetent hack. He has successfully played to the fears of Americans, particularly those in the "Bible Belt" who believe they are under attack on all fronts: culturally, politically, as well as the phony "war on terror." Nevertheless, Kerry could have easily defeated Shrub if he were not viewed as a New England liberal and a Catholic. As a result, the South was solidly against any notion of such an individual as prez. The original strategy was that Edwards would help appeal to Southerners, but he was a non-factor, given his lack-luster performance. So, "it is what it is." Dems need a genuine "good ole boy" to have a chance to win in the South.

 

Chandos: We're pretty far off topic, so I sent you a PM.

 

I like Bush's stance on moral issues, and from what I heard, Kerry supported things he didn't personally balieve in because he felt he had to. If I was voting for a President, I'd want one that makes his own decisions, not a puppet for various lobby groups.

I Canada, I voted for a candidate from one of the "other parties" on the ballot (read, not Liberal, NDP or Conservative) because I don't like any of them.

As for the States, I think that the Democrats would be in the White House if they'd put forth someone other than Kerry...

 

Without a doubt, and I could not agree more. That is one of the main reasons I voted against Bush. My vote was, in part, against the big drug companies, oil companies, HMOs and defense contractors, such as Halliburton. I agree with Nader's charge that "Bush is corporate America dressed in a suit."