would you vote for him? why or why not?
if you had voted for him in the past, do you regret your choice, or do u not regret it? why??
2007-08-19 20:44:48 · 18 answers · asked by Sonora! :] 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
why wouldnt you vote for him if u never did in the first place?
2007-08-19 20:49:28 · update #1
i just would not vote for him period
2007-08-19 20:47:24 · answer #1 · answered by Coach Kat 3 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Good question but it will not happen.
Our Constitution does not allow Bush to run again.
If you are asking if a person likes Bush then there have been enough polls to show that the vast majority which is about 2/3 do not like him. That is a much better and more reliable summary than whatever is posted here.
The answer to the question as to would you vote for him again is also quite obvious since if you do not like bush (see above) you would not vote for him again.
Bush received a majority of the voted when he ran the second time. That mean that most people who voted for him wold not vote for him again.
2007-08-19 20:53:44 · answer #2 · answered by DrIG 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I voted for him the second time around and I can't say whether or not I regret it because I was disappointed with both presidential candidates that year to begin with. I can say I'm deeply disappointed. I voted for Bush believing he had a better strategy for the war having gone into Iraq in the first place. But in the end, has ended up trying to fight a PC war which is killing our soldiers. I believe he is an appeaser, which would make no sense on his end considering how much he's hated by the liberals. I believe he's trying to make everyone happy and in the end, we're all paying for it.
I can only hope that there's someone better who can run the country in '08. So far, the future looks bleak.
2007-08-19 20:56:46 · answer #3 · answered by Maverick Zero 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Assuming for a moment that the 22nd Amendment could and would get repealed before Nov. 2008, no I would not vote for him but only because I will not vote at all.
I did vote for him in 2000, but about 2 or 3 weeks later, after I voted, when I heard that Bush was going to go to federal court for an injunction to stop the Florida recounts I knew that I would not be voting for him again. Then the Sup. Ct. granted Bush's request, and I totally lost all respect for them (i.e., Rehquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kenned, and Thomas). Indeed, I eventually realized that since all of the Sup. Ct. Justices are "activists," and since there is nothing that my votes can do to change that fact, I decided that I don't want to vote any more. Not ever again. Not unless and until something major is done to take care of the vast problems of judicial activism.
2007-08-19 21:00:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It depends who he would be up against in the primaries. He was never my top pick for the ticket, but I voted for him because the other side had nobody to offer. Oh, by the way, Johncampbellsoup, you also just described Kennedy, Kerry, Hillary and most of the left also.
2007-08-19 20:59:30 · answer #5 · answered by Jeff E 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i don't think of Hillary will run, yet while she did she could have a impressive purchase greater effective hazard than Sarah Palin. I recommend think of roughly it, diverse the rustic hates Sarah Palin, and in hassle-free terms a pair of million/2 of the rustic hates Hillary Clinton. And besides, the different worldwide places love Hillary Clinton. i think of Hillary has of undertaking. maximum human beings merely are not waiting for a girl president yet, yet while they could provide her the time of day they could comprehend she is merely as stable as Bush or Obama.
2016-10-16 05:04:48 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
Because Bush is trying to scare everyone with his bullshit Terror words and he's taking control of our freedoms and civil liberties in the process.
George W. Bush's grandfather is Preston S. Bush who helped finance Hitlers Nazi camps.
We need to get angry and fight for our freedoms back. We can do it, but we have to work together!
2007-08-19 21:24:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's sad that there are enough ignorant people in this country that this question even needs to be asked...but, it is valid. George Jr. has been nothing but a humiliation to patriotic Americans, and I can't wait until we're rid of him. He'll be a "what not to do" footnote in American history...
2007-08-19 20:54:20 · answer #8 · answered by s p 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It all depends on who the dems put up as their candidate. If it was Bush vs. Hillary, Bush in a second. That's the only reason Bush is in office, to tell the truth. The Dems couldn't put up a candidate that appealed to the "Flyover Zone" as they put it. I would honestly have voted for a sack of spuds over Gore and Kerry.
And, I don't regret my choice for voting for Bush, both times. Gore and Kerry would not make good presidents. Sorry, they just wouldn't have. Not saying Bush is the best, and I still support him. But, he was the better choice in my opinion.
edit: Girl above me, Bush won the popular vote in '04. It was 2000 that Gore won the popular vote, but not the electorial college vote. Maybe you should know your stuff before you accuse others of being an idiot.
2007-08-19 20:48:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 7⤋
I respect Bush, he has done good things but the media likes to digg up the trash. He has made mistakes but its hard at the top when something goes wrong the point finger to the man in charge, But personaly heck no! I cant wait till 2008
2007-08-19 20:50:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Bush vs. Gore? - Bush
Bush vs. Kerry? - Bush
Bush vs. Clinton? - Bush
Bush vs. Obama? - Bush
Bush could do a lot better, but he sucks less than any of the above.
2007-08-19 21:07:24 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋