A serious question about Bush.?

Question

I would like to know, honestly, if you voted for Bush on 2004 and would you do it again today? Me? I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. I'm not trying to start any fights. I would just like to know if events of the past 2 years have made you change your mind or if you still think you made the right choice. Thanks.

Answer 1

well, personally i wanted to vote for bush the first time but didnt make it to the polls. and the 2nd time i listed all the topics and circled each answer i liked best then added the topics up for each candidate and bush won over kerry. but i think i liked edwards, so it made it hard. but i dont regret it. i dont like kerry's wife...and we all know the wife has say in everything.
as for regret..oh my the 9/11..i think it was our government. and the lebanon situation...crazy regrets now.

Answer 2

I voted for Big Al in 2000 because I thought he was the most experienced candidate and had both the representative and executive office experience that the presidency required. I think that his personal inability to heed advice from advisors and fellow politicians to come to consensus and impactful legislation would have made itself abundantly clear, and the terrorism of the last five years would have been slightly more abundant and disruptive had Al been president. The global environment is important, but so is keeping the people on the globe safe, secure, productive and positive. I think Big Al is a bit of a pessimist/defeatist, where the nation post-2000 needed a leader with some positivity and gumption to move the nation psychologically forward. That may have worked for Bush for about nine months, and then the planes hit and we've been working the worry beads ever since.

I couldn't vote for Kerry in 2004. It was, to me, one bozo telling me the other bozo was a bigger bozo. This was a humiliating chapter in U.S. history, where the caliber of candidates for the presidency was at an all time low. I penciled in McCain because I thought he had enough political capital to actually get things done on both sides of the aisle. He didn't polarize, where Kerry and Bush did nothing but polarize. For those who believe polarization is what's needed in the U.S., and nothing else (read: The DNC and the RNC), McCain is a reincarnation of all that is evil. I personally think he, or someone like him, is needed to get both sides to shut their respective partisan pieholes and move the politicians to where the country already is, the CENTER. The RNC will never support a McCain nomination, even if he can garner the most votes. They'll roll their dice with a Romney, Frist, Guiliani or someone else that toes the party line.

So the last two years, what really happened? Not much materially. We knew we had a long and drawn out fight against the Ba'athist Sunnis in Iraq, the Afghan Taliban, the always inflammatory Hamas and Hezbollah, the radical elements in Pakistan and India, and the delusional paranoia in Tehran and Pyongyang. All this stuff was there before the 2004 election and not much has really changed. And, in fact, what we may have clamored for from Bush (shake up of his administration, new blood, new policies or directions, new tactics) did not materialize, and maybe that's a good thing. People, all people, tire of war. This was the downfall of Alexander, of George III, of Napoleon, of many leaders and movements that were predicated on conflict and conquest. I think what we'll see in Israel and Iraq and hopefully around the world is a global exhaustion from conflict and a steady but resounding call for a cessation of hostilities and some semblance of peace. This call may be in the form of support for one leader or another, or protests or some other major event that communicates to the leaders in these hot spots that though war and resistance sounded good when first initiated, it now does not appear to be in the best interests of the greater population. Only a select few among our great species thrive in conflict, most prefer security and peace. Unfortunately, now is a bloodletting time, where man is fighting man for control and ideological advantage. This stuff happens all the time in history, even in a technologically advanced civilization we find ourselves in. There will always be a perceived 'have and have nots' conflict that sorts itself out, and I don't think that Bush or Kerry or anyone else could do a better or worse job given the radical nature of those who intend to do Americans harm. Some people only respond to force and clear defeat, negotiation is a weakness for them and not a viable option, to suggest otherwise is denying reality and a very dangerous proposition.

As for Iraq, we made our bed and now we must lie in it. I think as time goes on, that bed will be more and more comfortable, both for Iraqis and for Americans. Here in the U.S., we get maybe 5% of the picture, and I'm sure in Iraq people are looking forward to a more peaceful and productive time in the very near future. We just can't ever forget that to attain peace, sometimes there needs to be conflict, specifically to neutralize those who have no interest in peace and define themselves by their ability and appetite for conflict.

Answer 3

Frankly if Bush was running against Gore OR Kerry I'd still vote for him. I'm glad someone in the White House has had the balls to at least try and do something about terrorist and rogue countries that aid their kind.

I was mifed Bush 1 didn't remove Saddam when he had the chance in the first gulf war. I was really PO'd when I found out Clinton didn't get Osama when he had several chances.

Bush 2 wasn't who I would have like to see in the White House. But given the Democrat alternatives sucked I voted for the lesser of two evils. IF the Democrats do better next time and I like their choice for President I'll vote for them. If they don't do better I'll end up voting for a Republican again.

The problem with the Democrats today is they have had their party hijacked by liberals and have driven out their base of days gone by.


OBTW You are welcome.

Answer 4

I didn't vote for Gore,I voted against Bush ! The last 6 years has proved me to be correct in my personal appraisal of his ethics,his integrity,and honor.He has none! Hes almost illiterate in his verbal skills,and his social skills leave much to be desired also.His obsession with war and all it entails is frightening to those of us that think of the global ramifications and not just his personal vendetta .The "Bring It On " remark will go down in US history as the most ignorant thing said by a US president ,to date,hes got a couple more years left yet to top that one.I would not ever vote for Bush,nor the republican party as it stands at this time.You wont get any republicans to admit they were wrong about Bush.in their narrow view of this world they weren't,but History will record a dark time in American politics and even darker for our world.

Answer 5

I voted for him and am glad I did. It's hard to see the big picture through the daily grind of the news (especially when it is so slanted against W, but I haven't lost faith.) I know war is often bloodiest before it is over and this one is no different. Yet I believe the end is in sight. Bush has some 900 days left in power. Plenty of time to wrap things up.

Answer 6

I voted for Bush, regretably. But that doesn't mean I wish I would've voted for Kerry. Honestly, I think both major political parties are corrupt.

Answer 7

I voted for Bush both times, and I would not change that. It's not because Bush is that great, it is more because IMO the alternatives were significantly worse.

The events of the past 2 years have actually reinforced my belief that I made the right choice.

Not that my votes counted for much - my state went Democrat both elections.

Answer 8

I voted for Bush Sr. in 88 and 92. Voted for GWB in 2000 and 2004 and I would do it again. We were attacked, attacked, attacked and attacked during the Clinton era. And nothing was done about it. He was to busy having fun in the White House. Come 2001, Bush was barely in office a few months and the terrorist had perfected their agenda because they had 8 years of practice with no interruptions. Liberals, you better open your eyes and come to realize that these terrorist want to kill us. So I will vote for a party that is willing to stand up to them than to cut and run and wave a white flag.

Answer 9

No, I didn't vote for Bush. I know I made the right choice. Isn't it obvious? Bush is crazy. Eager to see who'll run for the Dems in 2008. After two terms of Bush, I'd vote for Daffy Duck.

Answer 10

I voted for him in both elections and would vote for him agian if he could run ! I thank God neither Gore or Kerry was elected. The democrats have a rotten record with war. You might say that if they were elected we wouldn't be at war....Well, we need to be at war !! The bad guys tried to bring it here...if we sat back and didn't go there to wipe them out, they would have continued to bring it here ! Don't you see, we HAVE to be The Power House ! They hate us and will wipe us out if we don't stand up for ourselves ALWAYS !! Democrats are too concerned about the UN and making sure everyone likes us ! We need to worry about #1 first and drop the UN fast !!! Go George Bush !! And Thank God we have a Cowboy in the White House !!

Answer 11

I voted for him both times, as I considered him the lesser of two evils. I wasn't crazy about it, but I was even less crazy about the Democratic candidates. I can't see myself voting for him again, unless someone like Hillary was running against him. It would be a vote against his opponent, rather than a vote for him.