I will ask the REAL QUESTION, since apparently other similar questions, are merely rhetorical and you actually get put down for answering the actual question...
I don't think he was a great candidate... so, how did he get so close in the ELECTION (that's how you get to the white house) against Bush (who is relevant because he won said election in discussion)?
2007-05-03 17:57:55 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
side question: why do Republicans ask questions, clearly meant to be rhetorical, and then cry about not getting any actual answers?
2007-05-03 18:02:30 · update #1
ah... well, I was intrigued by the main question... that's the one that most people actually want an answer for... sorry I was a little confused...
2007-05-03 18:10:41 · update #2
Obviously, a lot of people didn't share your opinion of him.
2007-05-03 18:01:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
You missed the point completely of the Q. It wasnt about the election, it was about Kerrys actions since 9/11. The first one WAS rhetorical. The real Q's for either were clearly marked in the details.
Libs: X, etc etc.
Cons: X.
For future reference that means the one that says "libs" are for liberals and "cons" is for conservatives.
You can still amend it and take the prize!
2007-05-03 18:06:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
of course the libs can't answer... even once you quote the very words their candidate stated. What makes me chortle is how all of them think of Kerry and Clinton and all the different clowns have been "duped" into questioning that way via GW. How is that achieveable while they declare GW to be so stupid? What does that say regarding the clowns they help. the bigger question right here however is... Why is John Kerry no longer in penitentiary for admitted conflict crimes in the time of Vietnam?
2017-01-09 11:04:04 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the democratic party screwed up. Big time. I think that very few people voted for Kerry. He got the "against Bush" votes, instead. If the democratic party had nominated anyone other than Kerry in 2004, I've no doubt that person would be seeking reelection in 2008.
2007-05-03 18:03:00 · answer #4 · answered by DOOM 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because so many illegal immigrants and dead democrats were allowed to vote.
So many unregistered Democrats in my precinct in Ohio tried to vote provisionally, that they only succeeded in slowing down the voting process, increasing the length of the line of legitimate registered voters and tying up the phone lines from my precinct to the County Board of Elections, for literally hours!
2007-05-03 18:17:09 · answer #5 · answered by trebor namyl hcaeb 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Seeing Kerry's platform and stance Bush should have run away with this, but Bush was mired in so many of his own messes that he should have been ousted. Bush is the only president to win with a below 50percent approval rating. My one friend put it best Bush and Kerry was like choosing between dumb and dumber.
2007-05-03 18:02:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
1) The Dems evidently had noone less bad.
2) Bush was weakened by the war.
2007-05-03 18:07:30 · answer #7 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He wasn't a great candidate, but he sure seemed bright in comparison to the dimwit that eventually was elected.
2007-05-03 18:04:51 · answer #8 · answered by Peter D 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
He only got so close because of his wife's family fortune.
2007-05-03 18:04:06 · answer #9 · answered by vegaswoman 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
shouldn't your question be: how did Bush become our president not once but twice?????
if you saw those bozos from the republican party tonight....... you'll see that since reagan.... the republican party hasn't had a good candidate!!!!!!
2007-05-03 18:03:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋