Setting aside the possibility that GW stole votes (I'm not gonna even go there) A large number of Americans Voted for him. Why?
Despite the fact that Bush has a degree from one of the best schools in the country, somehow managed to bankrupt 2 companies under his watch. (read more - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbusto_Energy) If you voted for him did you know about this before you voted? Did you ever think that if he can't even run a business without going bankrupt, how's he going to run the country? And what about the insider trading charges? What do you think about that? Martha Stewart went to jail for it, Bush had connections and got off.
I'm still trying to understand why so many people voted for him. I mean, this is all public knowledge and proven fact. Bush promised to restore dignity to the White House, but he was a shady character even before he went to Washington.
Okay, Gore was a bore and Kerry was weak, but was GW really the lesser of two evils?
2006-10-20 14:17:35 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think the majority (slim majority, that is)...really thought George Bush is a good man.
He's actually a good man...just an incompetent one with a group of really greedy, corrupt, "old way" cronies that are in a position to serve themselves and a select group of very rich and powerful people in this country.
George does well playing politics too. He may have ruined a company...but his skill in twisting words and selling his counterpoint is expertly done (with help from Karl Rove...and probably got this from learning from shady business deals back in the 70's and 80's). His tenure as governor gave him some political ammunition too.
George doesn't bring dignity to the White House...he never did. He took WAY too many vacations before 9-11...then after a very brief show of genuine leadership following the tragic days of 9-11...lied about WMD in Iraq and helped his cronies get reelected during the elections of 2002, 2004....(of course Clinton was no angel either).
No, George Bush is a failure...failed on a lot of domestic items....particulary with Social Security, Homeland Security, Hurricane Katrina...and he failed with his foreign policy objectives..like Iraq, Iran, North Korea and even with Mexico (with the illegal immigrant issue).
Gore and Kerry weren't weak...both gave Bush a run for his money...but ironically it was Bush that came out ahead in both elections...primarily BECAUSE of his money. It's beginning to look as if he received this money through shady fund raising tactics (thanks to Tom Delay, a few folks in Ohio and Randy Cunningham)..but then again..our nation is chocked full of twisted political games and misadventures...just take a long look at Nixon!
Lastly...don't worry about Bush. Even if the Republicans remain in control of Congress (it's looking very unlikely these days)...most GOP people don't like to be seen with him...so naturally he will be a lame duck.
Or...he will be impeached when the Democrats take control.....holy crap, will Rush Limbaugh have a field day then!
No worries, I will cover my ears...you should too..it will get LOUD and NASTY.
Just my opinion
2006-10-20 14:28:32 · answer #1 · answered by Charlie Bravo 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No. Most people were unaware of his history, and voted for him because they were afraid. Everyone got a major jolt with 9/11, and those fears were very skilfully played upon to bolster support both for the Iraq war, and for a second term.
There's been enough time pass, now, that the majority of Americans have learned he is either delusional or utterly corrupt, have seen through the fear-mongering tactics, and are unwilling to vote in more of the same. Or, so I hope. Too little, too late, for 650,000 dead Iraqis and 3000 dead American troops, or for any hope of even a continuing uneasy truce in the Middle East. But, maybe the people living through this period of time will learn from our collective mistakes?
2006-10-20 14:30:45 · answer #2 · answered by functionary01 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
GW got elected for many of the same reasons Clinton did. Clinton was a man from simple working class roots, so he could still speak to the average American, he understood their plight, and he was smart enough to speak to problems they knew and understood!
GW on the other hand was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He was able to speak in a language that people understood. Even with GW's Ivy league education, he was a simple man. Here is where the real problem comes in, the average American is simple too- in both cases simple means not very bright, this is also where the vast difference between GW and Clinton exists!
Clinton knew that it was important to keep nuclear weapon's out of the hands of terrorists, and was smart enough to explain this in a way people understood. Bush could not even pronounce the word.
2006-10-20 14:35:19 · answer #3 · answered by Anarchy99 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush was not the lesser of two evils; he was the better candidate. First, did you know that for the Bush listing in wikipedia, Bashers have put such nonsense and lies and have changed it so often, that those who run it have had to "lock" that particular entry? So, the Bush entry on wikipedia is hardly reliable. Second, he got better grades at Yale than Kerry did when he was there. Third, who knows why those companies went bankrupt, if that is the truth? A company does not go bankrupt solely because of one person. As for insider trading, I haven't heard that accusation before. I don't necessarily believe it. If it is true, however, why would we put him in jail for the same thing you insisted Martha shouldn't have gone to jail for? And how do you know that Bush got off "because of his connections?" Martha doesn't have connections? Please!
I voted for him twice because he tells the truth and says it like it is. I believe he has restored dignity to the White House and is doing a great job cleaning up the messes that the Clinton Administration left behind. I'd vote for him again if I could.
2006-10-20 14:26:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
The US was also attacked within Clinton's first couple of months in office. On the day Bush entered office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion, on the day that he was sworn in for his second term it was $7.613 trillion an increase of $1.885 trillion 1.885/5.727 = 32.9% Lets be fair here because Obama has not yet hit the 4 year mark so Bush's starting point does not change but on 5/11/2004 the national debt stood at $7.141 trillion, an addition of $1.413 trillion which is an increase of 24.7% How does that compare to Obama ? On the day Obama took office the national debt stood at $10.627 trillion, today it stands at $15.675 trillion an increase of $5.048 trillion (which exceeds the 8 year total of Bush) and this represents an increase of 47.5% Gas costs averaged $1.43 per gallon when Bush entered office, and at the end of his first term the cost had risen to $1.85 an increase of 29.4% When Obama entered office gas was $1.86 today it is $3.79 (not even close to the $4.17 in my area) this is an increase of 103.8% If the debt at the time Bush entered office was $5.727 trillion and it was $10.627 trillion the total increase would have been $4.9 trillion or an increase of 85.56% Obama has increased the national debt 47.5% but that percentage is 103% of what Bush added and Bush had 8 years in which he could add, Obama has had 3 1/3 years I was no fan of the Patriot Act but if you wish to complain about it during Bush, you should be complaining that Obama extended this POS law. (You don't need to tell me that you did oppose Obama doing this, I know that you opposed it, just stating for others that may want to complain) You want to complain about Bush spending, then maybe it would interest you to know that 39.8% of the total amount added by the Bush administration came after democrats assumed control of both houses of congress.
2016-03-28 02:54:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can't put it as eloquent as you but I say it this way. Why would a perfectly normal person with religion vote for a coke snorting, alcoholic, with no morals. They had to be duped and many have figured that out. The ones that still support him are the ones that are dangerous. Supporting the Military act is an example of complete and utter mental illness, they cannot realize what they have given up in the name of terror.
2006-10-20 14:26:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Martha went to jail for lying, not insider trading.nobody stole any votes, GW was a Governor, no proof of any thing, why you gotta just smear people like this?You like it when people gossip a bout you?
2006-10-20 14:30:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I cringed the first time he was elected. The second time I was thoroughly, completely stymied. Two more years of this dolt, who has gotten way to big for his britches, makes me want to puke!! He has absolutely no interest in what other people think and is completely driven by his own agenda.
2006-10-20 14:29:11 · answer #8 · answered by spackler 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It is beyond my comprehension how he got the job. A true moron. The American public must like em that way. That and a tidy piece of vote rigging.
2006-10-20 14:28:07 · answer #9 · answered by dingdong 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The Demoncrats didn't have anybody then, and they don't have anybody now with the brains to run anything. Do you trust any "Millionaire" to run this country? because the President is just a puppet for small minded people. There is another force running this country, no matter who is in the White House.
2006-10-20 14:28:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋