Don't deny it, you know you would.
2007-05-15 10:52:51 · 27 answers · asked by flushles 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Hell No!!
2007-05-15 10:54:57 · answer #1 · answered by Felicia 4 · 6⤊ 2⤋
i would not call George W. Bush between the best presidents ever, yet he's an particularly solid president. I voted for him in '04 and that i might vote for him back if he ought to run. There at the instant are not too many applicants in the present team that i've got faith tender with.
2016-11-23 15:28:55 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What do you mean by "again"? I never voted for him before, and I'm not about to start.
He has led an assault against the constitutional rights of all of us. He denies justice to the imprisoned. He takes from the poor and gives to the rich. He invaded a sovereign nation by mistake, and doesn't have the brains or the balls to admit the error. He has weakened our armed forces and made us more vulnerable to attack. He has weakened our National Guard and made us more vulnerable to disaster.
George W. Bush is bad for the U.S. and bad for the world.
2007-05-15 11:08:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
No,he is an intelligent person with a strong set of principles,however he was too weak in his relationship with the democrats.He should have kicked their a*s from the beginning.Partisan politics is a liberal myth to weaken the winning party.Pres. Bush let it work and blew the opportunity of a lifetime to better America. His war on terror is real and unfortunately the dumb as*ses on the other side do not get it.I hope we are not forced to retreat/loose.Should a democrat win 08,you might as well learn farsi and shop for burkas.
2007-05-15 11:05:46 · answer #4 · answered by dumbuster 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Again??? I never voted for him in the first place. Thank goodness our representatives and senators at least had the good sense to put term limits on the presidency. We don't need any more years of a moron like George Bush in the White House. In fact, six years of him have been six years too many.
2007-05-15 10:58:02 · answer #5 · answered by MathBioMajor 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
It would very much depend on who was running against him. If someone like Hillary Clinton was running against, I might. If Condeleeza Rice was running against, I'd probably vote for her.
2007-05-15 15:11:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm sure the 33% and even a 10 or 20 percent on top of tat would still vote for him.
It doesn't matter who Dems choose as their nominee. Republicans always do a very good job of demonizing them with their you thought things were bad right now, just wait till Gore/Kerry/Obama/Hillary/Edwards, etc, etc get into power.
Their powers of prediction are terrible and yet people still fall for it.
2007-05-15 10:58:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
depends on his opponent. Many people voted against Gore and kerry and not necc. for Bush.
2007-05-15 11:01:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Right after I slid down a 40 foot razor blade and gargled ground glass.
2007-05-15 10:55:34 · answer #9 · answered by bradsgranny 5 · 7⤊ 2⤋
Not a chance: I didn't like him the first two times, why would I vote for him now he's a confirmed failure?
2007-05-15 10:58:16 · answer #10 · answered by Blackacre 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
you know that most would because a major part of america is continously hood winked and bamboozled by whatever means neccessary in order for the policies to be set in motion. america voted for bush the last time and lost, but look what happened down in florida. so does the vote really count when it matters..........................................HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-05-15 11:02:00 · answer #11 · answered by triple o.g. 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋