2006-10-06 06:53:13 · 21 answers · asked by edubya 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
In retro, I had Bush figured. He had disaster written all over him. He never accomplished anything in his own life because every time he ran into terrible, he went to his parents with a sob story. This pattern probably started in childhood, face it, he was a spoiled brat. When George cried he got what he wanted.
In College, he never lifted a finger. His grandfather got him through and he was given his degree.
In the Military, he was pampered by just being in the unit he was in, it was controlled by rich and powerful families.
He was given the money to go broke at least twice in the oil business, he was given money to get a piece of the Texas Rangers who finished last.
The only thing he ever did right was get lucky and end up as President.
He also was hook up with Karl Rove, who in a just society would be in jail. He worked under Atwater during his Father's reelection effort, and Atwater taught him the art of creating scandals and destroying opposition candidates.
So he won the weak Governors Office in the State of Texas bu employing Rove and Atwater's lessons. The Weak Governor is basically a ceremonial position because the Legislative Branch of the State of Texas has the power. George Bush as Governor was a back slapping, joke telling master of ceremony. And he was good at it.
But, George Bush except for electability was totally unprepared to be President, and it sure has ended up a rotten mess for our Government and our people.
2006-10-06 07:26:07 · answer #1 · answered by zclifton2 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If people had that insight, this place would be a lot better all the time. Since we do not, we take what is given us and live with it. I do have to say though that it has been fun over the last couple of years listening to "what would have been" instead of trying to correct it yourself.
2006-10-06 07:33:09 · answer #2 · answered by Koolaid 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If Clinton/Gore/Kerry was still running against Bush, then yes...
That election is over, folks...
The democrats should be more interested in how they can improve their party's public image rather than in continually re-hashing an old election...
But, hey, I'm a Republican... Do whatever...
2006-10-06 06:56:19 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
But there's no way of knowing what would have happened if Bush had NOT won.
Wouldn't we need to see both alternatives before choosing?
PS I did not vote for Bush in 2000. If I could do it again, I would vote for him. I'm also glad I did not vote for Kerry:
http://www.lennyandlou.com/wax/john%20in%20faggy%20clothing%202.jpg
2006-10-06 06:54:50 · answer #4 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yes
2006-10-06 06:57:01 · answer #5 · answered by bloomquist324 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No -- but I didn't vote for him then, either.
Neither did the majority of Americans. Remember, he *lost* the popular vote in 2000, he only won the electoral college vote. It's not very often we get a president that the majority of Americans *didn't* vote for, but now we're certainly paying the price :(
2006-10-06 06:56:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Of course. Al Gore would've been in no way capable of handling 9/11.
2006-10-06 06:57:36 · answer #7 · answered by Chris J 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
There's no doubt in my mind that I would have still voted for Bush.
2006-10-06 06:56:20 · answer #8 · answered by Spud55 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
That's sorta like asking if you wish you hadn't experienced a homosexual affair with group of well endowed prison inmates. What's the difference?
2006-10-06 07:04:51 · answer #9 · answered by scottyurb 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
3 more times if I could have. but then I'm not a Democrat, so I can only vote once
2006-10-06 06:57:17 · answer #10 · answered by kapute2 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋