Bush fault, Gore fault or Kerry fault?

Question

Whos fault is it that Bush got two terms? My contard neighbor claims that it's the progressive/liberals because "we couldn't put forth a serious candidate and therefore people had no other choice but to vote for Bush." What do you think and what can I tell this patriotic POS?

Answer 1

I am not sure how to answer that. Bush is pretty clearly as inept as you get, so something strange had to be going on for him to get half the country to vote for him both times.

I would say it was an uphill battle in the second for the libs simply because of 9/11 and the fear factor. I didn't have any problem voting against him and I am a Repub. Note: I didn't vote for Kerry, I voted against Bush. Kerry just happened to be the name on the other side.

First one, no way Bush, a one term Governor with no international experience should have beaten Gore except Gore stunk at campaigning. Part of the Dems problem in the second one is they did not have an identifiable solution to any major problem, and still don't, and if they don't come up with something better than "WE HATE BUSH!!!" in 2008 they are going to get kicked again. He can't run.

So, while the situation is certainly more complex than the three candidates involved, I am afraid your neighbor may have a point.

-Dio

Answer 2

In essence, he's right.

How else would you explain it? Bush's approval rating has been hovering around historic lows (comparable to Nixon's Watergate numbers). Other presidents, such as Carter and Bush 41, probably had better approval ratings, but were one termers. Bush has a mess in Iraq, turned surpluses into deficits, etc..

Carter lost to Reagan, who offered a much different direction and personal charisma than Carter. Clinton did the same thing to Bush 41.

If Bush won, then logic dictates one of two things: (a) People wanted to vote for Bush, or (b) People did not want to vote for Gore/Kerry.

In Gore's case, I don't think it was all of his fault. I think people were "Clintoned" out by then, and he was just looked upon as more of the same.

In Kerry's case, I'm not sure how he couldn't win an election, but he obviously couldn't convince enough people that he was the better choice.

I think the only thing you can say to your neighbor is, "Hope you like the war and those record deficits, because you can have 'em for two more years. If this keeps up, I'd hate to be a Republican in 2008."

Answer 3

Gore ran a stupid campaign -- tried to distance himself from Bill Clinton too much, had bad advice on how to conduct himself in the debate -- still he won popular vote (your neighbor is wrong about no choice but to vote for Bush) -- and would have won Florida if Ralph Nader wasn't on the ballot, and the republicans didn't use voter nullifcation tricks, and get the sumpreme court to name Bush President on a ridculous ruling. Gore was a seriuos candidate, ran a bad campaign, got screwed by Nader and the Supreme Court.

Kerry was a lousy candidate and ran a terrible campaign. He still got 47% of the vote. But we could have put up a better candidate.
The no other choice but to vote for comment Bush is a little -- simplistic.

Answer 4

When I watched Bush in the '04 debates, at one point, I noticed him tell no one at all to hold on a second. I said - he's getting a feed from somewhere, someone's giving him answers! It was just so obvious.

A while later, imagery showing that Bush was wearing a wire and was receiving answers during the debate was put out in the news. The NYTimes decided not to run it until after the election.

Because of the press totally serving bush, through ignorant cheerleading or willful deception, it is hard to lay all the blame at the feet of the American people. On the other hand, I knew this stuff. Why didn't half of America?

Answer 5

No, they were bad candidates. But when they are as bad as Kerry was, it is just easy. Superpolitics, if we were a strict democracy, then yes, Gore would have won, but we are a republic and Bush won. How can people still be spouting your little leftist nonsense. The Supreme court did not steal the election, they prevented the Florida supreme court from breaking election law, again, by allowing another recount. Florida law says that you get one recount if the results are close enough, they were so they recounted them, Gore still lost, so his camp sued and it ended up in front of the Fla. Supreme Court, who in violation of the law, allowed for another recount, which Gore still lost. They were going to get another one until the Bush camp took it to the Supreme court, who stopped the Fla Supreme court from granting another one, and since Bush won the last recount, he won Floridas 25 electoral votes and won the election. While he had fewer popular votes, he had more of the ones that counted, the electoral college, so, sorry, you lost, get over it. And for whoever said that Kerry received x amount of votes in 04, just add 3 million and you will get how many Bush got.

Answer 6

Gore and Kerry were good candidates, but as what they are doing to Hillary the repuglicans whole goal in life is to assassinate the character of every candidate that the democrats put up. While it wrong it obviously works. Until Americans wise up and see through this sham it will go on and the repuglicans will win elections. We might have seen something that works for the democrats in the last election and that is to run moderate democrats. A move to the middle is needed by both party's, in order for America to continue to move forward.

Answer 7

i have brother who says the exact same thing.

whenever i ask him what exactly was wrong with kerry, he finds it very hard to give me an actual specific reason other than he just didn't like the guy.

the real fault goes to the media, who were vastly pro bush in the last election.

there was not ONE SINGLE cable news talk show host who was pro kerry in the 2004 election - i can think of eight or nine who were pro bush.

for all of the talk of a liberal media - the media is in fact deeply conservative - this will present all dem candidates with problems going forward.

obama though, seems to be of a different ilk. when fox news lied viciously about him, he dealt with them in the most expedient of ways and simply stated that he would never go on that network for any reason and this rattled fox news. roger ales called obama and fox is making veiled threats about how obama had better get back on fox or he will not win the south.

Answer 8

Well, Al Gore actually won the popular vote by over 500,000 and the only reason Bush won was because of the idiotic Supreme Court members that let him have it. So its definately not the "liberals" who did it, because the people obviously wanted Gore in 2000. As for Kerry... I dont know. Bush played the religion card by being anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage, etc, so all the Evangelicals are the ones to blame in that case.

Answer 9

Well, the thing I heard the most when Bush was up re-election is "You don't change Presidents in the middle of a war", which, to me, is the STUPIDEST thing I'd ever heard.

If a Republican President desires a second term, no matter how incompetent he was during his FIRST term, he just needs to start a war, to be re-elected.

Answer 10

I think it is the fault of everyone that voted for Bush. They put him there, and I think many of them are regreting that vote, since his approval rating is far less than a winning president could sit at. (Around 30 % will not win a presidency)