I have to say that I agree with almost every word of this (hint: it's not because we think that Bush is a great president). For instance:

I didn't vote for Kerry because in every domestic policy with which I disagreed with Bush, Kerry seemed to be worse. I deplore Bush's immigration policy, his lack of commitment to free trade, his wishy-washy position on gun control, his big government spending, his unrealistic environmental policies, his generally anti-science positions, and so on and so forth. But in every way, whenever Kerry could actually be pegged down as having a position it was even worse than that of Bush.

Those weren't my reasons, but they add to my reasons for voting for Bush.

For me, it was his constant harping of his record on Vietnam. Not his exaggerating his record, not his short service there, not even the Swift Boat veterans and their campaign against him. We're in the middle of a war, and he wanted us to know -- endlessly -- that he was in the last one. You could have gotten snockered if you took a drink every time he mentioned it in his DNC acceptance speech.

I have the same problem with people who still want to fight the 2000 election over again. What does it say about Al Gore that, buoyed by Clinton's popularity, up against an inept speaker like Bush, he couldn't even carry his own state? If he had, he would have won.

Yes, a good part of the problem is that the Democrats keep nominating bad people. Though, it doesn't help that no one really knows in a primary whether the candidate has flaws until the Republicans dig them up. And for some odd reason, the Republicans aren't keen on helping the Democrats select a strong candidate.

"no one really knows in a primary whether the candidate has flaws until the Republicans dig them up"

Perhaps the Dems should do their own pre-digging, Karl?

Just a thought....

"no one really knows in a primary whether the candidate has flaws until the Republicans dig them up"

Perhaps the Dems should do their own pre-digging, Karl?

Just a thought....

Posted by Barbara Skolaut at May 23, 2006 12:49 PM

"Primary Colors" was BRILLIANT! for just that reason.

Clinton didn't actually do that, though he would have, and the truth is that Clinton was not that popular, if he was, he would have had a clear majority, rather than a relative one.

Clinton only got popular when people realized "this inarticulate monkey who actually means what he says? or this confunding arrogant moron who loves the environment more than America, lies about his participation in the previous administration, seperates himself from the only thing other than his wife (PMRC) that gives him national acclaim, and has his own national guard issues?"

granted I was harder on gore than bush, because bush IS president, and It's hard to disagree with his actions within the powers of the president (foreign policy) whereas gore thinks the president should be the chief legislator, which the constitution clearly states, HE IS NOT! anyways, clinton is popular cuz bush and gore and kerry are so lacking in charisma that the electorate had to chose substance, without a third party to divert them.

Personally, I think that the real tragedy is that a nation of 300 million can't come up with a better pair of alternatives than Bush and Kerry.

I remember that during the Thatcher administration in the UK, there were bumper stickers around in the USA saying "Maggie Thatcher For President".

I never vote for anyone who has a lawyer as a runing mate

idfv gouhclmpx yjrevhs hiawucd yhfn koyhwzv icqpmxyo