How come Bush managed to become re-elected?

Question

did he get a majority or was there some cheating going on?

thanks alot to all the americans who answered, watching him on British telly he come acros as a man who has not got a clue of what he is doing, Blair is a bit better, not much, but i think im glad im British! The reason being when Blair goes I can see alot better canditates coming up.

Answer 1

Its the weirdos in his country that voted him in.

Answer 2

There is always cheating going on with Bush.

He was not elected the first time, and only got into the White House by the back door (after his daddy, who appointed most of them, bullied or bribed judges of the Supreme Court).

The second time Republican spin doctor Carl Rowe hiped up the subject of same-sex marriages, as if they were more important than the war, and millions of brainwashed Bible-bashers came out of their holes and voted massively for Bush. He still managed only a small majority, but at least the second time he was elected.

However, there is a constitutional point that has (surprisingly) so far not been mentioned: Since he was not elected the first time, he did not really have a right to stand for re-election. So in a strictly judicial way of looking at the matter, the USA is ruled by an illegal government since 20 January 2001.

Answer 3

That's silly of course there was no cheating. There's always evidence of irregularitie, there always are some minor irregularities that you couldn't prove changed one vote. The truth is our democratic party is a little bit out of touch with middle America & has chosen to put up very liberal candidates the last two elections that the moderate swing voters that decide all elections would not accept. Bush on the other hand, domestically speaking, is moderate even liberal compared to 80% of republicans. if you don't like him then you won't like the next guy either.

Answer 4

He got a majority because people could tell that he is a man who has a sound moral compass through his relationship with God. No one is perfect but this country needs a leader who isn't swayed by every wind of public opinion and President Bush has demonstrated that he stands for what is right in this world where many say that "right and wrong" are personal concepts that vary according to individual perceptions.

Kerry on the other hand, while claiming to be a Catholic, didn't even have the support of the Catholic church because he said that he wouldn't try and "impose" the morality that comes from the Bible on people who had determined to kill their innocent unborn children. That's not leadership, that's the mark of a man who will compromise anything in order to gain political power.

Answer 5

There is some evidence in at least 3 states that the voting machines were tampered with, why this is not being investigated I do not know, maybe because we have a unresponsive repuglican congress that is not interested in fair and honest elections. When it becomes more important to get your guy in office then to have fair and honest elections, America loses. I give you George Bush as an example of a loser in office.

Answer 6

Bush is not a good president and has our country really screwed up. Kerry would not have done any better tho. When you have 2 bad choices I guess you go with the less of 2 evils. Hopefully 2008 will finally bring out good canidates and people worthy of being voted for.

Answer 7

Mainly because the democratic party could not come up with an opponent that had the personality and testicular fortitude to beat him. Americans want someone they can look up to as a leader. George Bush is the personality and face. Dick Cheney runs the country and makes the decisions.

Answer 8

I think that it can be largely attributed to Bush's ability to brand Kerry as "wishy-washy" during their last debate, but Kerry didn't brand Bush as anything specific. I think that Kerry should have done more to show Bush as a "clueless war-monger," then I think that things might have been different. Clinton had the same basic Democratic beliefs as Kerry, but he was also much more assertive, and articulate. Clinton and Gore stood up to the competition, went "toe to toe" and won!

Answer 9

I think it was simply a case of "the devil we know is better than the devil we don't know". I'm not crazy about Bush, but at least we knew what we were getting. The same could not be said of John Kerry.

Answer 10

The Democrats put up a candidate so weak and wishy-washy, George's re-election was in the bag.

Answer 11

Because the majority of voting Americans agreed with enough of his beliefs and policies to think that he deserved another term. No conspiracy theories necessary.