Part of the reason is his dirty tactics in Florida, where shrubby's bro cooked up a scheme to throw out the black vote, and it worked! Part of it is that the vast majority of repugs have no higher education, the illiteracy rates in 'red' states is markedly higher than in 'Blue' states. repugs are a very, very tiny minority on college campuses, unless they are 'church' schools. brigham young university, promptly fires any professer who makes any statements that may be regarded as 'liberal'. Also, the religious far-right (out of their minds) actually believe that Noah put the dinosaurs on the ark, too, and the Earth is only 6,500 years old! The ignorance represented there is quite obvious.
Sadly, one must conclude that the idiots outnumber the thinking.
2006-08-08 11:33:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by keepitsafe2think 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Sure sounds like you're Bush bashing. What makes any of them qualified? Being a governor is a lot different than being President. I don't accept the idea that he's not that smart. If you want to talk unqualified, look at the Kennedys.
2006-08-08 18:32:37
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sadly dear asker...it seems that of the voting Americans, only 49.9% are smart enough to think for themselves. The 50.1% are some sort of inbred super yokels sharing a single brain. At least that was the case in 2004. In 2000 GWB was handed the office on a silver platter as it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did not receive the majority of American votes, Al Gore did but poor old Al didn't have the entire legion of hell behind his campaign. Oh and I AM bush bashing - it's one of my favourite rights and privileges as a Canadian.
2006-08-08 18:39:41
·
answer #3
·
answered by Lee 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am not going to get into details of how Bush got elected and relected in US. But here is something to think about- generally, particularly in any democracy, the person who becomes a national leader has a maturity (not just in terms of I.Q) which is just higher than the average maturity or outlook of the people in his nation. So what you get in your leaders is the average maturity and outlook of your own society. Ofcourse there are exceptions. But generally, thats what happens. Bush got elected and relected, because he was able to convince suffient number of people that his views and fairytales are real. After 9/11 the ignorance of the average US citizen about Asia and other parts of the world was on full show. It took time for people even to realise how much they were wrong. Still many are too pround or too ignorant to admitt they were so wrong about so many things.
2006-08-08 18:46:20
·
answer #4
·
answered by Maverick 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
He was apparently the lesser of two evils.
And just remember, Maine (I think, could be wrong) is the only state to REQUIRE the electoral college to vote according to the popular vote. Nebraska used to have the electoral vote tied to the popular vote but they changed that.
So...no matter the outcome of any particular state's popular vote the electoral college can vote however they want. The electoral college votes for the pres., not the people.
That said by a Democrat. Al Gore was just not the least worst candidate.
There have been many presidents elected with fewer than 50% of the popular vote.
2006-08-08 18:33:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by toejam 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
When Gore ran against President bush, he just wasnt as strong. When Kerry ran he had strong grassroots support, but it didnt matter because he couldnt get his people to the polls. Interestingly enough I'd like to see what would happen if one could somehow engineer a candidate that was strong in the party and had that strong grassroots support.
2006-08-08 18:33:37
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because he outsmarted everyone all his rivals.
His I.Q. is much higher that Kerry's or Gore's. They were both elite rich upper class snobs, but dumber than cobs. They were an easy match for Bush.
Bush is not a smooth speaker, but he always stands up for his friends and country. He would never ever betray people and friends like Kerry and Clinton both did.
2006-08-08 18:32:23
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I beleive the process is called an "Election". Perhaps you heard about it. People go and vote for the candidate they like best. What a concept, eh?
Now I have a question for you: Did you vote? If not, why are you complaining if you didn't care enough to go vote?
In case you're wondering, I did vote.
2006-08-08 21:27:52
·
answer #8
·
answered by F. Frederick Skitty 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Have you read the questions and answers on here?? Its sad to say most Americans are not smart enough to elect someone decent to the office. People fall for the hype and aren't educated enough to know its hype. Why do think they keep cutting education funds.
2006-08-08 18:26:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by nonameforme 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
It isn't the smartest one that always wins. Money talks and bulls*** walks. He had some good advisers to tell him what to do and say. And believe it or not some Senators and Representatives have more power than the President.
2006-08-08 18:28:00
·
answer #10
·
answered by freedomchild99 3
·
0⤊
0⤋