2006-06-24 03:45:44 · 26 answers · asked by pathmasiri 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Just look at the education levels for states that voted for George Bush and those that voted for Kerry. The states with the best education (Mass. California, New York, New Jersey, etc. all picked Kerry. Bush's victory was due to a nation of the uneducated, and also, an appeal to bigotism. (the fight against gay marriage helped him to win) Decades from now, the same way we look at slavery and the rascism associated with blacks now, we'll look at gay rights and Bush will be hated for building walls up instead of tearing them down. He is the anti-Martin Luther King Jr.
2006-06-24 04:02:47 · answer #1 · answered by Rob M 2 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Notice, that the whiners that have answered you so far were the losers. Given the choice between John Kerry and GW, It was fairly clear cut, both were Ivy league idiots, incapable of speaking for more than 10 minutes without chewing shoe leather. The difference was the look. Kerry looked and sounded like a spoiled, snobby little punk. George on the other hand looked like a fun guy to have around. He smiled, Kerry couldn't. George admitted he partied, Kerry wouldn't. Kerry was the guy whose butt you would kick in school just because he was such a punk. George was the guy that would hold your jacket and cheer you on. It all comes down to image. The losers will complain about rigged voting cards, hanging chad and the like, but the votes were counted, Bush won. The votes were re-counted, Bush won. The ballots were examined, Bush won. Even after the election, an independent group examined the ballots and Bush won. Get over it whiners, until the Democratic Party comes up with an honest (genuine) candidate, you haven't got a chance. Until your party can unite and put forth a platform and stick to it, you haven't got a chance. And someone using Michael Moore as a reference? That in itself is proof why Democrats have no viable chance.
2006-06-24 11:04:25 · answer #2 · answered by sparkletina 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush isn't very articulate and has only been weak as a communicator. Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, even Bill Clinton were much better at using the world stage to speak to their audiences. Other than that, I cannot imagine Clinton doing anything any different in response to 9-11. John Kerry even campaigned by saying he would pretty much do everything Bush had been doing. The difference, he said, is that he would be better at selling the rest of the world on what needs to be done.
I agreed that Bush needs to do a better job selling the world, but I didn't believe Kerry had the personal fortitude and integrity to really pursue the war on terror.
As an added bonus, there have been exactly zero casualties (none, nada, zilch) in the US since 9-11. I think our president is doing his job well. The leaks we've seen recently show just how hard this administration has pursued the terrorist organizations and cut off their financing. Would Kerry have done all of that? Honestly, I think Clinton might have ... he was saying for a long time that Saddam had to go.
2006-06-24 10:55:35 · answer #3 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's so typical to blame everything that's wrong with the world on Bush. He was elected because the left could only criticize. They couldn't come up with any answers or solutions. There's simply no credibility on the left. Most people that voted for him said that the reason they voted for him was simply because the alternative, John kerry, was far worse. You can slag off the American IQ all you want. It's just more of the same hateful rhetoric. It makes you feel good but it doesn't provide answers.
2006-06-25 10:00:33 · answer #4 · answered by Munster 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
everyone here is a bunch of liberals, america is controlled by the mid west and great plains. those states outnumbered the liberal states such as cali and new york, that is why the president was elected, not because of some scandle
2006-06-24 10:50:13 · answer #5 · answered by Alex 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When they elected the idiot with a IQ of 70 (moron) a second time, the Daily Mirror (in England) did a front page headline with a picture of him with the headline 'How can [?]Million [The amount who voted for him] Americans be so DUMB?'. It did get a lot of letters and emails even including death threats from yanks who I assume are the sort of rednecks who voted for him in the first place and who I also assume look up to him as their intellectual superior.
2006-06-24 10:59:16 · answer #6 · answered by Uncle Sid 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
why would anyone pick such an idiot to run a country? oh wait, the majority of the population did.
im not saying john kerry should have won--we shoulda had somebody from the independent party...
2006-06-24 10:49:59 · answer #7 · answered by blueeyedsweetie0124 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only other choice was Kerry and before, Gore. Even 'Rock the Vote' and a fat walrus (Michael Moore) couldn't change the fact that Kerry would have been an obvious bad choice.
2006-06-24 10:50:55 · answer #8 · answered by madbaldscotsman 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like the wording in the question - the question behind the question is *which* Americans selected him? It sure doesn't look like he was voted in! I think he's a puppet to those who want to see certain things happen in the world, probably mostly to do with oil and religion.
2006-06-24 10:51:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Look, IT IS NOT THEIR FAULT.
Common sense can tell you that. If we had a media commenting Bush on just about everything he does and justifying the Iraq war, I think we would support it.
I hate racists. Hating an American is just as stupid and retarted as hating an English person.
2006-06-24 10:51:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋