If W is so pitifully stupid, how was he able to defeat Democrats in 2000 and 2004?

Question

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/28405.html
The obvious question: If W is so pitifully stupid, how
was he able to defeat Democrats in 2000 and 2004? What
does that say about the Democrat candiadates?
________________________________________
KrazyKyngeKorny(Krazy, not stupid)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

>>hanging chad<<
Another socialist, liberal parrot.

Answer 1

If GWB is stupid, then perhaps we should define what it takes to be considered smart in this country. Perhaps what is necessary is that whoever is smart is the one who most agrees with the 1/3rd of high school students who drop out every year, these are the ones who benefit from government programs the most and have the most to lose if a conservative wins. Or perhaps it is the pseudo intellectuals, those who have opinions, but never actually have to work for a living. These people are very good at finding fault instead of solutions.
It seems not to matter what is said so much as how it is said. If all it took to be a smart, great leader, who could govern well was the ability to speak publicly, then Hitler was the best we have seen in recent history. I don't think that he was particularly smart, but he had a great gift for convincing people that they were abused, and he found someone to blame it on. He was also a great orator, and he used this skill to manipulate even the smart people in Germany. He repeated his diatribe so often and so loudly that even the well educated started to wonder if he didn't have a point. Hence a most dramatic example of "THE BIG LIE". We are seeing the same thing in this country with regard to the relative intelligence of GWB.
Is this what we as a nation want?

Answer 2

1. He was handed the Oval Office on a silver platter by his dad's friends on the Supreme Court back in 2000, and in the process, thousands of Floridians were denied the right to vote.

2. By the way, Bill Clinton won the 1992 and 1996 elections, so does that mean he's smarter than the elder Bush or Bob Dole?:)

Answer 3

i do no longer comprehend approximately every physique else yet he scared the heck out of me in 2000 so I voted Libertarian as customary. the final element i choose out of the government is "compassion" and "compassionate conservative" replace into an entire no way for me. A conservative is only high-quality, a "compassionate" one isn't. In 2004 I voted for him in spite of being against all of his spending because of the fact I supported the conflict attempt and that i did no longer sense mushy with somebody who acted like Kerry did whilst he back from Vietnam accountable of our defense force. Zell Miller's remarkable speech helped me seem previous Bush's intense social welfare spending.

Answer 4

In 2000, the Supreme court elected Bush. More Americans voted against him than for him.

In 2004, the Democrats put up a weak candidate. That being said, he was still a better candidate than Bush. In 2004, party loyalty over country loyalty is what won Bush that election.

Answer 5

Read

"Don't think of an Elephant"

by George Lakoff

It talks about how conservatives have a superior ability to use words that are appropriate and make people believe what they want them to.

It really is interesting for example.

The Patriot Act sounds as American as Apple pie so people support it because it sounds as if it has to be good.

but

USA PATRIOT act stands for

Uniting
And
Strengthening America by

Providing
Appropriate
Tools
Required to
Intercept and
Obstruct
Terrorism Act

which basically is the inhumane, and immoral torture of human beings. If the Democrats are going to win in 2008 they have to form a new language and one that can't be related to the frames the conservatives have made since the 1970's!

Answer 6

With allot of help. His cousin at FOX, Kathryn Harris, brother Jeb and mostly the Supreme Court, among others in 2000. In 2004 you can give credit to Diebold machines that defaulted to Bush or turned Kerry votes to Bush votes, and polling practices in Ohio that kept blacks from voting. All Bush's "victories" tell us about the Democratic candidates is that they're not as sleazy as the Bush crowd and not as influential with the "liberal" media. That said, I don't think Bush is stupid at all. I think he's very good at pretending he is, which is a good strategy. People are more likely to feel pity for him and be confused as to his motives and thought process. I hope he's put on trial for his multiple acts of treason when he's out of office, and I hope the Judge and jury give him full credit for his intelligence.

Answer 7

well, as for the 2000 "election" when you have your brother as sitting governor of the swing state, a GOP campaign manager overseeing the vote count and your father's cronies on the Supreme Court it's pretty much a done deal. isn't it?

as for 2004 ... well ... aside from the fact that there is plenty of evidence of vote tampering and interference with Dem phone banks during election day in Ohio and New Hampshire ya got a lot of very easily neoCONNED people in America... the dumbing down of the American wage slaves has been a boon for the plutocratic elite.

Answer 8

To add to the person who mentioned the voting irregularities in Ohio, the person in charge of recount votes, secretary of state Ken Blackwell, is a stockholder in the Diebold Corporation, maker of the voting machines used in Ohio.

Answer 9

President Bush is not smart, he's corrupt.

A) He didn't, Karl Rove did by using a divisive wedge strategy centered on demagoguery.

B) The Supreme Court handed him victory in 2000 depsite Al Gore winning the popular vote.

C) There were voting irregularities in Ohio in 2004 that point to vote fraud. In New Hampshire, Republican operatives have already been convicted of voting fraud in association with the 2004 election.

Answer 10

Probably due to the even lower intellegence level of those who voted for him - twice!