2007-07-19 10:06:28 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It says the kool aid was still in effect as of November 2004. It seems to be wearing off though, given Bush's approval rating.
2007-07-19 10:08:26 · answer #1 · answered by Mitchell . 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Screwww all this dem. rep.. lib. con.. Crappe Folks, I Happen to belong To Group that some/many have Forgotten it Existed. Its called "CONSTITUTIONAL AMERICAN PATRIOT"!! This Group is FREE and EASY to JOIN.. All you have to do is TURN OFF the FOX Propaganda Network.!! with all The Distractions like the CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS on Sept. 11th. And ALL the LIES that DirtyDick Manufactured to Falsify the Niger/Sadaan/Nuke Components BS, that was 70% !! of bushes 2003 SOT Union Speech... Plus I hate to be The Bearer of Bad News.. The Amer. Votes are Completely IGNORED, the Puppets are Decided WAY before the so-called election.. Want Proof ?? I Knew you were going to Say That !!(Judge Dredd) ok, now consintrate !! if you have a YAHOO Browser, Simply Type in the words. Unhidden Agendas .. other types of browsers you might SHOULD try You Tube-Unhidden Agendas... When it was kerry vs. Bushe, Duuuhhhh !! They are BOTH Members of The SKULL and BONES SOCIETY !! and for the info.of you DumbAzzzzes. when the 15 Yale Freaks, EACH Year, become "Bonesmen" they DeNOUNCE Christianity, and take an OATH to follow the Ways of SATAN http://skullandcrossbones.org/articles/skullandbones-yale.htm
2007-07-19 17:58:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What it really says is that the DNC wasn't willing to mount a serious challenge to Bush in '04. Though, in the past, unsuccessful presidential candidates have been able to run again and win, the conventional wisdom is that it can't happen anymore - and that incumbents are very hard to beat, especially in the middle of a 'war.' Thus, the best candidates - like Hilary - chose to bide thier time until they could run against a non-incumbent in '08.
Considering the relatively small margin Bush won in '04, the Dems could probably have captured the presidency if they'd put a better effort - and a better candidate - into it.
2007-07-19 17:12:37 · answer #3 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Dems are a lot smarter than the people who elected Bush in 2004. :0)
2007-07-19 17:14:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Doesn't say anything about Dems but it does suggest that the true amount of voter fraud wasn't exposed and it will probably be years or never when we find out how many states had bogus machines that tabulated a vote for Bush no matter who you voted for.
2007-07-19 17:15:14 · answer #5 · answered by damron 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Kerry beat out Howard Dean. Now that says something about liberals.
2007-07-19 17:08:53 · answer #6 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush and Kerry are "6 of one, Half a dozen of the other". We would have gotten the same crap from Kerry as we did BushCo., it just would have came in different wrapping paper.
2007-07-19 17:11:34 · answer #7 · answered by diezzal99 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He didn't though. Do some research about the Ohio elections. The election was swung in favor of Bush by the corrupt voting system.
2007-07-19 17:12:56 · answer #8 · answered by Kevin M 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They ran a candidate less popular than George Bush.
2007-07-19 17:09:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Swift boat veterans".
What does that say about Republicans?
Bush & Company put together an incredibly effective campaign machine. They manage to package ineptitude and corruption and make it look good.
Honest discourse tends to initially look pretty bad against that kind of packaging ... but eventually people wise up.
Eventually.
2007-07-19 17:10:25 · answer #10 · answered by Elana 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋