Why do Americans like Bush and vote for him.

Remove all ads!

Fundamentalist answer:

"becuz jezuss luvs him. wee luv jezuss 2. do U luv jezuss????"

Liberal answer:

"It hurts! Oh God! It hurts!! YES!!!! Oh God!"

Cynic answer:

"You have to admire a man who can tell so many lies and get away with them."

Neo-Con answer:

"F**k you!" **

On the other hand, 49% of us did vote against him, not enough of course, but not terribly bad considering that Kerry was a drip who let Bush set the agenda and that the media in general failed disgracefully to ask meaningful questions: suborned, wimped out or trivial. Reality does catch up with ideologues, but things will get worse before they get better.

** I don't use profanity on this board so I'd like to try to justify this. Of course neo-cons don't actually say the asterisked words, not to the public anyway, any more than most fundamentalists mumble incoherently. What they do is state some lie which is then hammerered incessantly by their media allies--Fox and most talk radio--until much of the public believes it to be a "fact". The uncontrolled media frequently exposes the lie, then goes back to sleep, having done their job as "watchdogs", while the lie continues to be relentlessly repeated, contradicted only in such minor outlets as Link TV, Free Speech TV, and The Nation. Who watches/reads those? The neo-cons give the same answer both to those they fool (and plan to fleece) and to those who are so much less ruthless than themselves in the pursuit of their objectives. [If you're old enough, you might amuse yourself by comparing the qualities of Dan Rather with those of Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, or Edward R. Murrow. And ask why they've been replaced with such pathetic substitutes. That's a subject for a separate post.]

[ February 14, 2005, 08:03: Message edited by: Cernak ]

 

Ideologues of every stripe, one hopes.

It's worth remembering that for every Anne Coulter there's an Al Franken.

 

ROTFLMFAO

Seriously, though, I think a lot of the Bush thing has to do with the fact he is very definite; he seems a genuine evangelist (I personally think that he is as religious as he seems) whereas Kerry claims to be Catholic whilst being simultaneously pro-choice, etc. Baronius made a good point when he said that people make snap decisions at the polls: it's easier to make a decision about what Bush stands for because you know. People identify with his faith more easily. Kerry was trying to pull the ol' trick of fooling all of the people all of the time, and ended up nowhere. And, as someone else pointed out, as dodgy as Bush's buddies may seem, he manages to come across as reasonably honest, for a politician. . .

Although that may be becase he never looks as though he's got the smarts to get away with telling porkies for all that long, just to peel another banana & scratch his head whilst making 'ook' noises.

 

I personally don't care what religion the President is just as long as doesn't push it at me. I don't care what (or who) he does in bed, tho somethings should be kept far from the Oval Office.

What I am is someone who of course agrees with me.

At any rate he (someday she) should care about the country and the 'little' people. The feeling I get is the Republicans care about the rich and powerful and the Democrates care about the poor and minorities. Now caring about these people is fine but someone should care about the middle class.

The president should be good at foreign policy or at least have good advisors and listen to them. I thought Nixon was a good president.

 

My answer is simple:

Americans don't like and didn't vote for Bush. It was fraud.

 

@Nakia:
It wasn't necessarily a religious thing per se, more that when Bush says he's a commited Christian against abortion etc., you know he means it; Kerry tried to get the religious vote by professing to being a practicing Catholic, but came out for abortion, against the official church stance. It's highly unlikely, therefore, that Catholics who follow the Church would have seen Kerry as representing them.

The point was more that if you know what a candidate's about, you're more likely to vote for them over another, even if you don't agree with all their points. It's the ol' cliche "Better the Devil you know..." With Bush being incumbent, too, only people seriously annoyed would be all that motivated to vote against him. That he only just won shows how many of them there are . . .

As for being good at foreign policy, I couldn't agree more. But, you can't really escape the fact that they were both poor candidates, the closeness of the vote only illustrates that. To quote Leslie Nielsen from Naked Gun: "we want the Democrats to put someone up there worth voting for!" You get the feeling that the only coherent policy they had that got votes was "Vote for us! We're not Dubya!" They were never likely to win on that alone, even against Bush.

 

I'm sorry...

I would have replied sooner, but I was too busy laughing at Kelvon's claims that the election was a fraud.

Please.

Document?

Anyway...I like and support President Bush for almost everything that was stated in his plank for re-election (unlike Kerry, who never would say what he stood for)...with the exception of his softness on illegal workers and his failure to empower home-educators...but all in all, those are pretty minor in the big picture.

If you want more details...go here.

 

Yes, but Franken is a comedian, while Coulter is supposed to be a "serious scholar of Constitutional law."

I agree, a good president of Cell Block C.

 

Surely you have it backwards, Chandos. As I've said before, when they re-make "Ilsa, She-Wolf of the S.S.", Coulter will be a lock for the lead. Franken deals magisterially with her in the first two chapters of his book "Lies...".

 

Cernak - Lol! My point was that Coulter is no more a scholar of the Constitution than Franken is. But really, to find out how scary clan Coulter is, just type into any engine: "Federalist Society."

[ February 14, 2005, 05:42: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]