Why did people vote for Bush in 2000 and 2004?

Question

I couldn't vote in 2000 or 2004 but why did people vote for him. I know John Kerry was a mediocre canidate and I supported his campaign but why...why is Bush a two term president? Will he be remember as a bad prez or a good one?

I'm a Democrat and I didn't like John Kerry that much either but hey...what u going to do! At least this year there are alot of President-wannabes to choose from in the Democratic primaries. Yay!!!even though it looks like Hillary might win..anyway

Answer 1

He was the best choice

Would you seriously want Al Gore or Hanoi John Kerry as President? Me neither!

Answer 2

Because he was running against Gore and Kerry. Really, the Democrats could've done better than that - especially in 2004. Bush is a two-term president because the Dems didn't have the guts to run a serious candidate in 2004. The theory was that unseating an incumbent is hard, and even harder in 'war'time, so why 'use up' a strong candidate, who'd have a better chance in 2008.

Answer 3

Cause we were in the middle of a war in Iraq for one, back when everyone was happy with our progress. Now that has changed.

Also, Bush is the lesser of two evils both elections. My friend's mom is a reporter and has met President Bush several times--ne is a very nice guy but not a good leader.

Answer 4

I asked a similar question re history recording George W yesterday, so forgive me if my answer is long :)
George W was voted in by the people in 2000 because he was considered the better candidate, plainly and simply.
That was pre 09/11 of course. The world changed that day and people forget, George W had not long been in office, it was not his politics nor his actions that caused the attack. The responsibility and blaim lies very firmly with the terrorist, they and no one else are guilty.
We can question some of the actions and decisions made by George W since that day, we can disagree, we can verbally attack him because we are lucky enough to live in a free country.
George W has moved and situated our troops so that we can continue to be free to do so in our democracy. Irrespective of where we stand politically, we should all agree that he has put his beliefs well ahead of his popularity and has not waivered in his determination to fight the terrorist through being on the offensive.
Bush was voted in a second time because he was considered the better leader. It was in my humble opinion, the better decision because it is wrong to change a leader when the country is at war, particularly when the other candidate is weak on defence and foreign policy.
I hope George W and Tony Blair are remembered as men of courage, who stood firm to their beliefs and that history remembers that it was the terrorists that started the war.
Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction, he had killed his own countrymen with genocide and butchered thousands of children, he had invaded his neighbour,. If he had been left to his own devices can you imagine the threat the world would now be under Iran and Iraq both with Nuclear Power.
The UN reached an agreement with Saddam after they removed him from Kuwait. We will leave you in power but you will not develop weapons of mass destruction and you will allow our inspectors access to monitor this and if you don't comply, we will remove you from power. Saddam played and mocked the UN. He bribed some countries with illegal deals for cheap oil so that they would never vote for affirmitive action. The UN would not stand firm. The USA and the UK believed Iraq was supplying the terrorists and had weapons of mass destruction and was not prepared to wait another year. Hitler could have been stopped years before World War 2 but no one believed that he would carry out his threats. Saddam was a modern day Hitler residing in a tradionally unstable part of the world. We are safer without him.
I hope history records all of the events correctly including the lack of action and the crooked dealings of the UN.
May God keep our troops and all peaceloving people safe.

Answer 5

Bush cut our taxes without decreasing revenue to the government. Just as Lyndon Johnson had some good qualities but escalated the Vietnam war, GW will be looked upon as a mediocre president and within 3 or 4 generation will be a forgotten president.

Answer 6

I didn't. I didn't feel Kerry was much of a candidate, but...what was I gonna do?

Like they said on South Park, you're always making a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

I'm not sure which one I was voting for, the douche or the turd. But it wasn't Bush.

I wish we had some candidates people could actually get excited about. So it was more of a choice than, uh, well, let's pick the lesser of the two evils.

Answer 7

Same reason I will vote for a Republican President in 2008 the democrats have not had anyone worth putting in office.

Answer 8

Although very unpopular now he may be remembered better in the future a la Truman, who was also extremely unpopular at the time but is now viewed very positively. It all depends on what happens in the next couple decades and most of the arguing anti-Bush or pro-Bush people are doing right now is irrelevant.

Answer 9

I don't have a better way to put it other than because they're stupid. I voted for Kerry, he would've been way better than this yahoo. Hopefully in this next election we will get someone who actually knows what they're doing.

Answer 10

Good question, maybe because they are rich and like to vote for the person who enjoys making the rich richer? Just a guess!