Mostly the wealthy and the want to be some-body's. I can't believe they think we are safer. His foreign policy has been a disaster. We have to be scared to be Americans. We lost a lot of respect when no weapons of mass destruction were found. Now we are trying to force democracy on a country that has religion deeply rooted into their government and their everyday lives. Now we are at odds with lets see, France, Russia, N. Korea, China, and Iran. The Olympic team was afraid to fly the American flag on their bus for fear of being targeted. I am proud to be an American but it will take a democrat to fix the white house. How quickly they forget the Dubai ports deal! the open borders, and a government with no checks and balances.
2006-08-16 17:19:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by bsure32 4
·
1⤊
4⤋
I think the problem is that Kerry ran on issues that didn't matter. The main issue was the war. Kerry's stance, in my understanding, was that he would do the war "better". He didn't say he would pull out--which he may have won if he said so.
Honestly, I will always vote for the person who I think is most qualified, regardless of label.
Even now, Hillary Clinton still says that we can't pull out the troops, I think democrats may need to take a step back. Whats the difference here?
Kerry didn't win because his premise was that he would do Iraq better. And historically, it is not often that incumbent presidents lose in time of war.
2006-08-17 10:42:07
·
answer #2
·
answered by JT 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I voted for President Bush twice. First off because while Mr Gore was in office he and the president did nothing to stop the terrorism in the U.S. but rather keep saying that the U.S was sorry and how much money do you want or what do you need, both gave into North Korea's demands and gave them the ability for nukes, Secondly Mr. Kerry said that he was ordered by President Nixion to go into Cambodia in 1968, December of this year, the only problem was Mr. Nixion did not take office untill January of 1969! So if Mr. Nixion gave him that order then it was an unlawfull order and was not to be obeyed, this statement comes from Mr. Kerrys book.
Lastly all three for these fine Democrats did everything in there power to cut the military budgit, the FBI's budget and the CIA's budget while Mr Clintion and Mr. Gore were in office. So President Bush had to CLEAN up the messes that these fine Democrats left. Oh and before I forget it was Presiden Clintion in 1998, Feb. 7 and 14, that he stated that he knew that Sadam had weapons of mass destructions, the junior senator from New York made the same statement in May of 2000 before she became a senator.
2006-08-17 03:02:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by fatboysdaddy 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Sorry that this is so long, but noting is simple but our mistakes.
The vast majority of people in this country, have no exposure to people of middle eastern origin. Most have never traveled beyond a cruise or guided tour. We have no knowledge of how others think or why. We don’t understand other points of view and can’t conceive of ours being wrong. Not only don’t we read foreign papers, but we don’t even have a rudimentary sense of history. Normally we have the wisdom to elect someone who is intelligent, educated and knowledgeable in world affairs. Not this time.
911 was a surprise to most, the level of sheer hatred and the anger, bordering on psychosis, that was turned on us, was literally terrifying. Now our lack of knowledge and understanding leaves us looking for simple answers. We just happened to have a president who specialized in simple answers. We are told it’s our freedom that drove them mad or that they were just evil, and there was always the unmistakable undertones of our religious purity and a crusade against the infidel. The solution was to lash out against the evil, and Iraq just happened to be an easy target. It was easy to accept that they had WMD and were involved with Al Qaeda and 911. It was easy not to ask questions. It was easier to eat freedom fries and have simple answers then to really ask why France and Germany hesitated to join. This was a complete failure of the American people to question anything. It was, from the beginning, conform or be a traitor when historically, we have always been the great individualists, questioning everything.
By the time we get to the second election, we had been lashing out at the entire middle east but we were impudent to get those who were responsible. The more we lashed out, the angrier the middle eat became, like a hornets nest. And the more that stature of Al Qaeda grew.
By the second election, Spain had withdrawn, we knew we were mired with no solution. It was just a matter of time before others left the coalition and since the majority of Democrats had supported this, they had neither validity nor answers. Kerry was not an alternative, there simply was (and is) no solution. The Democrats could only point out what a mess everything was, but we already knew that. But, again, falling back on the simplicity principal, we said “don’t change horses in the middle of the river” and re-elected bush. Not because we thought he was the answer, but because there was no answer and we just didn’t know what else to do.
Now bush stands with his 30%. Those suffering from a psychological disorder called cognitive dissonance. Someone whose entire being - mind body and soul - has been so invested in the fortunes of george bush, that to admit he failed would be to admit they themselves were a complete and total failure – mind body and soul - and now must refuse to see the truth, regardless of how obvious the evidence is just to avoid that admission. While most of us can admit our mistakes and move on, they have become the new Stepford Wives and husbands, forever staying the course.
***********************************************************************************
I also voted for Kerry, and Gore before him. We should have know bush was a complete failure right from the start, with the spy plane crash near China. bush tried to get tough and the Chinese basically told him to shut up and apologize. We had to apologize 3 times before they felt we got it right. He was a failure with the tough guy act, and a failure at diplomacy. It was humiliating, especially since it could have been handle diplomatically with such little fanfare.
2006-08-17 03:51:38
·
answer #4
·
answered by yeeooow 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
I voted for Bush because I consider terrorism to be our biggest concern, and I got the distinct impression that Kerry really didn't get the severity of this issue. I still often wonder how many people voted AGAINST Kerry rather than FOR Bush.
2006-08-17 00:15:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by LeAnne 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
I didn't prefer Kerry either...too wishy washy, but I might accept that over such a violent person that we have in office now. Too violent.
No reason to be in Iraq...Afghanistan, yes, but Iraq...he just a murderer. Legal killing, like he's the head of the mob.
Don't know why rightees accept Halliburton getting all of the service contracts in Iraq, and they don't mind the high gas prices either. I bet if Carter were in office, they'd have a problem with it!
2006-08-17 00:14:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by Ted Jordan 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
Kerry is not a backstabber, the Democrats didn't put us in this situation, Iraq is in a Civil War because of bush, and Republicans cannot accept responsibility. I did not, would not, and would never vote for bush. He scammed the first election, and won the second because of the electoral college, which should not put a person in office, but the popular vote which he lost.
He (bush) is out for his own personal gain. He has caused civil war in Iraq, has caused people who didn't side with terrorist to side with them, has caused the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq for his own benefit, and has destroyed the economy at home. Regardless of what the people above me stated, he is useless, he has constantly kept America in harm's way, and continues to take money away from those who need it like the poor, the children, and those needing health care but cannot afford it. Then Republicans try to brush their mistakes off as it was all Clinton's fault. He was president 6 yrs ago, and he did a better job than both daddy and "dumbaya". bush will go down as one of the worst and nearly most unpopular President in history, and deservedly so.
2006-08-17 00:31:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by linus_van_pelt68 4
·
1⤊
4⤋
I voted for Bush, twice. And am proud to have done so.
I think Bush should be up for a Nobel Peace Prize, but won't be given the politics behind the award. The free Western World should be on their knees daily thanking Donald Rumsfeld for his service to our country.
He (and the president) are true American leaders that will go down in history as two couragous leaders that knew right from wrong and did the right thing.
This all while previous presidents are still trying to figure out the meaning of the word 'is' and giving the Islamo-facist eight years to prepare. Shameful.
2006-08-17 00:05:23
·
answer #8
·
answered by scubadiver50704 4
·
5⤊
4⤋
kerry cant make up his mind, kerry is not the right choice for this country, he woulda ****** up everything going on and made it worse, bush wasnt voted in because hes such a good president, but because kerry is such a bad candidate for president
its not about whos better its about whos worse!
2006-08-17 01:38:48
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I didn't. But I believe a large majority all the religious right and before you denounce me, I'm Christian myself, I just know what God's really want not what I personally want. They believe he's a good President just because he thinks like them in some ways, abortion and spreading Christianity to the Muslim. But the ends do NOT justify the means in this man's case.
2006-08-17 00:34:21
·
answer #10
·
answered by choyryu 2
·
0⤊
3⤋