Is your memory/attention span THAT short? Or do you just not put any thought into your votes?
(And I'm not a liberal either so don't pull that card).
2006-09-23 20:53:19 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
garfieldswingssquishy I was talking about for the SECOND term.
2006-09-23 20:57:39 · update #1
But he's repeating the same types of mistakes he made in the FIRST term!
2006-09-23 21:02:35 · update #2
Kerry and Bush are first cousins and they belong to the same secret society Skulls & Bones.
That's like saying would you vote for Lucifer or Satan.
2006-09-24 03:12:27 · answer #1 · answered by ? 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As a free thinking American I will go on the record stating that I didn't vote for GW in either election. And the outcome of the first election indicated that he didn't get the popular vote, but that's not what puts one in the White House. Now the only logical reason that he has a 30% approval rate is that his promises to rid the world of terrorist hasn't been successful. And he's not the leader that the people who did elect him thought he would turn out to be. Hindsight is 20/20.
2006-09-24 08:29:12 · answer #2 · answered by InDyBuD2002 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The alternatives were worse. Gore had almost all of Bill Clinton's negatives and virtually none of his positives, and Kerry was an economic ignoramus. I am facing a similar situation here in California. I'm not a big fan of Gov. Schwarzenegger but Phil Angelides is an utterly stupid alternative. I might have considered a vote for Steve Westly, but the narrow-minded purgers who currently control the Democratic primaries in most states just don't get it and probably never will.
2006-09-24 04:08:12 · answer #3 · answered by DocWilsonPP22 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Only the polls that are devised by a liberal media says he is not popular. I voted for him and so did many other Americans. Americans are note happy about the murders of people in Iraq. They can not do anything personally so they are not pleased with the most visible person in the world. But their fighting over there has stopped the bombings here in the U.S.
2006-09-24 04:03:36 · answer #4 · answered by darscoind 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I honestly don't think he was ever elected.......perhaps selected is the better word. Only in America can the people vote and their votes be overruled by an obsolete electoral vote. The voice of the people spoke very differently than the results of either election.
2006-09-24 05:26:52 · answer #5 · answered by kolacat17 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't know. Why did we elect a congress with an approval rating of 20%. Hindsight is 20-20.
2006-09-24 04:04:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Obvioulsy, his approval rating was higher at the time of the election.
2006-09-24 03:58:37 · answer #7 · answered by Skippy 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I am in those that support him. And back when we voted his ratings were higher. Besides that I take no stock in polls and vote with my own conscience not with the herd.
2006-09-24 04:00:25 · answer #8 · answered by inzaratha 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because he's not a coward and knows that one cannot "negotiate with terrorist." Is your range of knowledge gathering THAT restricted? He was clearly the better candidate. Can you even vote yet?
2006-09-24 04:27:04 · answer #9 · answered by kitty fresh & hissin' crew 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He was the lesser of 2 evils. We would rather have a 1/2 decent republican than liberal.
2006-09-24 03:56:28 · answer #10 · answered by sshazzam 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋