The Watchtower of Destruction: The Ferrett's Journal - Bush Didn't Win, Kerry Lost
[Recent Entries][Archive][Friends][User Info]
|
01:54 pm
[Link] |
Bush Didn't Win, Kerry Lost
The first time, I raised my eyebrows and said, "Well, apparently they just didn't get it."
The second time, I left a comment.
But the fourth time someone I knew made a post on Bush's sinking approval ratings, I knew I had to say something. They were all saying the same thing, yet didn't seem to understand the causes. And so I must mention it.
The post these lovely people have made goes something like this:
"Bush is down to 37% approval, hanh? Well, maybe all the 53% of assholes who voted him in are thinking twice about their vote! That's 16% of people who were too stupid to see how lousy Bush was right off the bat!"
Except that point makes a major error: it assumes that people were thrilled with Bush's performance going into the voting booth. But they weren't voting out of an incredible love for their current Prez; Bush got elected with one of the lowest approval ratings for a reelected President ever. He wasn't above 50%, even when he won.
That's right; people all over America were shrugging and going, "All right, I guess it's Bush."
The assumption that every last man who voted for Bush ran into the voting booth screaming, "Ah wants teh bash me some more faggits and burn the non-Jesus lovers, so ah'm voting Bush all the way!" is just fucking wrong. There were a lot of people who were fence-sitters, and ultimately broke for Bush.
The next wave of frothing spittle immediately surges forth: How could they? OMG THERE WAS NOTHING GOOD ABOUT BUSH HE SO SUCKED EVERYTHING GAH!
Here's your problem: when you have a bad choice, a bad alternative is even worse. If you're having problems with a cockroach infestation and some guy says, "I can fix your problem! By filling your house with chemicals so toxic that even the insects can't survive it, I'll drive the bugs right out!"
"But won't that poison me?"
"What, are you some kind of cockroach lover?"
Truth is, Kerry was a terrible candidate. He had a President with horrid ratings, and he couldn't close the deal. There's any number of reasons for that — he did flip-flop. He was stiff and inhuman-looking, and kept trying to be buddy-buddy when he clearly wasn't an average guy. He was too slow to react to the charges against him — and when he did he did it with the Vulcanlike caution of the pollster, instead of the natural reaction of a man who's just been attacked. Yeah, Bush smeared him, but Kerry was so fundamentally unlikable and clueless as to how to react that it stuck.
Kerry failed because he didn't get across his central message, mainly because he didn't have one. He had a kind of warehouse of ideas that he handed out depending on what was important, but I think it's critical to note that he didn't even come out as the anti-war candidate until September.
People sensed that caution. They were worried about him pulling out of Iraq. That was a big deal, because even as people were becoming less thrilled about being there, they realized that just cutting and running would leave a huge mess that would bite us in the ass. They knew Bush would stay, even if he fucked it up, which was slightly better on the whole than just leaving.
And yes, Kerry said that he wouldn't leave, but people didn't believe him. They weren't wrong to believe that. You know why? Because every day, Bush says that he's pro democracy and for individual rights, and you don't believe him, either.
Kerry's character failed the test. And he lost the election.
Because he failed to provide what looked like a better alternative, people voted for Bush. I bet a lot of them weren't thrilled about it, any more than you lot were happy about Kerry.
Don't fucking lie. I was there. I watched you guys bitch about Bush, but most of you didn't know Thing One about Kerry aside from "He's not Bush." Kerry campaigners actually had to be warned that their main platform was not "He's not Bush," because a lot of them didn't actually know what Kerry stood for. They knew what Bush stood for, and they hated it, but they couldn't actually articulate how Kerry would make it better. (I actually had to start a series of posts for Kerry's positions because of that, because I liked some of his his policies if not the man.)
So let's posit an alternative timeline. Let's say that Kerry got voted in by, say, 3%... and right now, he's doing everything that his opponents accused him of. He's waffling on his priorities, he's looking at the polls and has promised a quick pullout from Iraq, and has no real plan to exit Iraq safely except for "Keep my approval ratings high."
The Bush supporters are sneering at you, saying, "Hey, you don't like Kerry now, huh? Remember, you were suckin' his dick in November! How dumb are you to have supported him?"
Your response would be twofold:
1) Hey, I wasn't thrilled about the guy. If I'd had a better alternative, I would have voted, but it's not like I thought he'd save us from all evil.
2) He's still doing a better job than Bush would have.
Remember that. The fault is not with the voter, but with the candidate – and this was Kerry's race to lose. He didn't connect with them, and he lost an election that should have been his. And there's no guarantee that things would be better had Super-Kerry been voted in.
Those 16% of people? I bet they were standing in the voting booth, muttering, "Jesus. Three hundred million people to choose from, and this is the best they could come up with?"
I know I was.
Tags: lj tags = pure evil
|
|
| |
I second that. It's going to piss a lot of people off, too. I expect no less than 50 comments saying "*I* knew what Kerry was about, and *I* voted. People are stupid!"
Yeah, so did I. He was the worst candidate of the field, and people need to learn to deal.
Worst candidate of the field? In a field that included Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich? Surely that is hyperbole (and sorry if your name isn't Shirley ;)
Should've voted for me.
I had twice the campaign principles that Kerry had, because I wasn't Bush and I wasn't Kerry either.
LMAO. Very very true.
But I'd love to ask Kerry... what would be worse in your book... getting beat by a total loser like Bush? or totally having your clock cleaned by someone more worthwhile?
| From: | ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) iain |
|---|
| Date: | June 22nd, 2005 09:05 am (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
If I had a really dirty clock, I'd like anyone to clean it, whether they're Bush, Kerry or whoever. But I'd probably break out the Pledge and clean it myself, it's no difficult. Just give the face a good wipe down and be delicate around the hands.
Good post - and I'm in total agreement.
Kerry was a horrible candidate - no doubt about that. And its funny though ppl are bitching about Bush like there's no tomorrow - you hear very little pining for Kerry..
Excellent point. I don't hear Kerry providing the strong leadership we need now.
Dean's gotten more press for his ideas, for God's sake.
hey, i voted green party. like it matters. i live between here and england anyway.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/63547817/564175) | | From: | yndy |
|---|
| Date: | June 21st, 2005 06:09 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
For the record, folks, it's the obligatory "The ballots were rigged" post.
I've seen it, and the evidence against. When Salon.com came out against it, providing their take on it, I personally stopped. Yes, you can rig ballot boxes, but to rig all of them in every city in a huge conspiracy of the sort I don't usually buy.
Incidentally, you did hear the explanation of why Kerry's exit polls were positive, right? 'Course you have.
Kerry's personality faults wouldn't have been such a big issue had he actually told us his big 'plan' rather than just saying he had one. All the Democrats did was say "he's doing it wrong" without putting forth a better way.
Yeah, definitely, Kerry's biggest mistake was spending all that time with the "I have a plan" mantra without sharing much of it (he expected people to read his book -- imagine that! expecting the hoi polloi to READ!). After the umpteenth iteration, I wanted to slap him. You have a plan, John, that's nice... WHAT IS IT?
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/4284115/458650) | | From: | yendi |
|---|
| Date: | June 21st, 2005 06:11 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
The fault is not with the voter, but with the candidate
I agree with everything else you wrote in this post, but this statement gives people too easy a way out. Yeah, Kerry blew it (moreso than even Gore did four years previously), running one of the worst campaigns I've ever seen. And yeah, we all know that, in the end, a bad campaign will doom a candidate. But that doesn't mean that voters can't take responsibility for voting for him. Doesn't make them de facto bigots, warmongers, or whatnot, but if they chose to not do any research, or (in a sad, but I'd bet all-too-common, scenario) voted simply on the fact that Kerry ran such a poor campaign, they get to share some of that burden. Not all of it -- there's blame to be spread -- but they don't get to absolve themselves, either.
I agree they're not without blame. They should be held accountable, but not wholly accountable.
I think you and I are in sync here.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/8008457/866906) | | From: | mcsnee |
|---|
| Date: | June 21st, 2005 06:12 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
Yes, but--once again--Bush is doing exactly what he said he was going to do, and what he demonstrated that he would do during the first four years of his presidency.
There's a pretty big difference, I think, between hoping for change resulting from putting a new person in office and being disappointed, and hoping for change resulting from putting the same idiot back in office and being disappointed.
There is a big difference, but you make it sound like it's clear-cut.
"My car breaks down a lot. I'd like a new one."
"We'll give you a new car!"
"What kind?"
"Can't really tell you. It might run, might not! Actually, we have no clue how this car will perform, but anything's better than your glitchy car, right?"
"No... I think I'll probably stick with the one that at least sort of runs. I might get something that never runs at all."
The assumption in your anger is that Kerry would have done better. But he had to prove that, and didn't.
Ah, you know how I feel but I'll say it again.
every time kerry and bush went head to head kerry won decisively, look at the first debate again. When you had Kerry talk, give a speech, touch flesh, get on tv, he did it all better than bush. He beat bush in every time it was just mano-a-mano.
Why didn't he win? Cause you can have the best athelete in the world, but if your coach sucks and theirs is great, they'll beat you.
He can take his'n' and beat you'rn', and he can take you'rn' and beat his'n'
That's Karl Rove vs Bob Shrum.
Doesn't make as good of a story tho.
By the way, my Mom voted for Bush so I know first hand how it worked. She didn't like Bush terribly but she trusted him from what she had seen of the television advertisements and what the local vets said (she lives near Wright Pat Airforce Base). She distrusted Kerry because of the stuff Rush Limbaugh had said about him. My brother voted for Bush because . . . "Why don't you trust the President, Eric?" He's a rockefeller republican and like andrew sullivan is now pretty sour on the republican party.
Bush is an unlikable asshole. In the movies, he's the frat boy that thinks he owns the world. It takes a lot of polish to make that silver-spoon cowboy look good.
Actually, it's Kerry.
Truth: When attacked by the first Swift Boat ads, Kerry wasn't sure what to do. He had all of his advisors telling him he had to react in some form, but he couldn't make up his mind how to do it, so he basically stayed quiet for a week while he weighed his options. One of his flacks had an interview on Fox two days after, and said, "Hey, what are my talking points? Tell me what to say."
"Um... we don't have any."
"You don't have any?"
"John's still making up his mind. Just take your best judgment."
There was a Newsweek article shortly after the election that showed the behind-the-scenes look at the campaign (it purported to show Bush, too, but the Bush campaign remained so tight-lipped it might as well have been just an analysis of Kerry), and the mistakes that Kerry made in listening to people are pretty much what tanked it.
Rove was great, but it doesn't mean much when the other team doesn't show up to play.
Not only are you absolutely right, but that pretty sums up why Gore didn't win in 2000, either. In 2000, we had a choice between the Spock/McCoy or the Butt-Head/Beavis tickets, and I honestly suspect that Charles Manson would have won in a landslide if he'd been able to run. (In fact, I have to admit that I was encouraging the nomination, if only because I didn't want either of our two unbearable crosses, and figured that "A Nation Of Freaks Deserves To Be Led By One" was a perfectly viable campaign slogan.)
I suspect the political environment was such that a Kerry-style incoherent flip-flopping campaign was no worse than any of the alternatives. Yes, less than 50% of the electorate thought Bush was doing a good job, but that doesn't mean any one non-Bush position would be preferred over Bush by a majority. According to the RCP average of job approval polls, in the week leading up to the election Bush's job approval was 49.5% favorable, 46.8% unfavorable. Assume that was inflated by people grading him on a curve against Kerry. Suppose, for the sake of argument, 55% of the electorate had major misgivings about Bush's presidency. Many of them are firmly anti-war or anti-business. If a candidate doesn't sound like he might pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, if he doesn't sound like he might raise taxes and back major 'pro-consumer', 'pro-labor' initiatives, a lot of them will stay home or vote for Nader instad of voting for 'Bush-lite'. Many of those 55% more-or-less approve of much of the goals Bush's defenders attribute to him, but don't think he's implemented them well. They'd love to vote for Bush-lite, but would eagerly vote for Bush to keep a Dean-type candidate out. A lot of those 55% are disaffected conservatives who object to runaways spending under Bush, who feel that his immigration reform proposals went too far, who feel his tax cuts didn't go far enough, or who are upset we stopped with Iraq instead of also invading Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea. These people are not voting for a democrat. They may not like Bush, but they'll vote for him, vote Libertarian or Constitution Party, or stay home. In order to stitch together a winning coalition out of that 55%, Kerry had to appeal to both of the first two groups, and look nonthreatening enough to the third that they wouldn't be induced to vote Bush to keep Kerry out. Tell me how he's supposed to do that without being a flip-flopping weasel. In the end, it seems he ended up with most of the first two groups, but alienated a little too much of the second and also wound up motivating the third to turn out for Bush.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/26199763/5921012) | | From: | sir_kif |
|---|
| Date: | June 21st, 2005 06:19 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
I think that piece and the elections in th US and the UK show the differences between us quite nicely.
The US has the choice between an evil war mongering, xenophobic, planet destroying yet decisive and weirdly charismatic president or someone who is just a bit lame, faceless and indecisive.
We in the UK had pretty much the same choice between Blair the lame, weak and indecisive (for weak, read regular sessions of anal buggery from George Dubya)one and Michael Howard the evil one.
Whereas you lot chose Bush we decided that weak and indecisive (Blair) was actually a better choice than total xenophobic conservative lunacy. And we made this choice by a substantial margin as well.
To my mind this shows the difference in needs of a moderately powerful country and that which is the undisputed world superpower. For America a president who can make his mind up is more necessary or at least appealing to the electorate than one who is actually a good person. It shows that the need to retain power and dominance is deeply ingrained into the psyche of the American people.
That said, how the fuck was Kerry the best opposition candidate?
The median Democratic primary voter isn't very good at guessing what the median American general election voter wants. Not that the Republican voters are much better, or we'd have had McCain getting reelected in a tense but polite election.
I think you hit the problem of the whole Democratic party at the moment. They have no plan, just complaints. That does not win elections, or inspire people to follow you.
If the part could come up with solutions instead of problems then they would have more success. I really hope the Dem's get it together. Even though I am more of a conservative I dont want one part rule any more than anyone else, and at this rate thats where we're headed. Not because of evil conspiracies or master man Karl Rove, but from a party not being able to get thier shit together.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/33125794/3701961) | | | I realise that this is serious but... | (Link) |
|
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/2866866/711176) | | From: | theferrett |
|---|
| Date: | June 21st, 2005 06:39 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | Re: I realise that this is serious but... | (Link) |
|
You kidding?
Simpsons references are always welcome.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/91913587/291983) | | From: | perich |
|---|
| Date: | June 21st, 2005 06:26 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
As someone who voted neither for Bush nor Kerry, I agree with you straight down the line.
To me, it came down to the fact that Bush had his campaign message down in late '03. And stayed on it for a whole year. No matter what Kerry (or MoveOn, or anyone else) said, he stuck to the same chant. And that seemed to give a sense of security to people. "We know what Dubya is about." It was bullshit, of course, he was spewing a bunch of lies, but they were the SAME lies, over and over, and the vast majority of the voters don't bother to check the facts. They believe the idiot box in the living room. The ironic thing about it, of course, is according to some Sept-Oct 2004 polls, more than half of the Bush supporters were not aware of many of his positions. He was selling AN IDEA.
Kerry, on the other hand, was fine-tuning his positions practically until election day, giving so much credence to the 'inconsistant, waffling, poll-watching' image the Repubs were painting, that the substance of his message was completely immaterial.
Apparently, resolutely wrong is that much more electable than tenative right.
Oh, and lets not even get started on the press which played over and over the footage of Kerry windsurfing ("Funny!") but gave very little time to investigating the truth behind the claims of both the Bush camp and Swift Boat ads. Investigative journalism is both expensive and non-gripping, it seems.
There's plenty of things you can blame Kerry for, especially his handling of the Swift Boat Liars, but he can't take all the blame. The voters deserve plenty, and so does the media, who'd have situations like < Bush > *completely made up number* < Kerry > *Statistic that's off by like 1%* < Media > BOTH CANDIDATES DISTORT NUMBERS! (then down in paragraph 12 or somewhere, they'd mention "Oh, and Kerry's numbers were almost correct, while Bush's numbers aren't supported by any facts.") There's plenty of failure to go around, which helped us end up with a failure in the White House, and heading toward more failures in the years ahead.
But yeah, I have no idea what Kerry was doing with the Swift Boat Liars. One thing that you learn in high school is that ignoring the people calling you names Doesn't Work.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/94720449/772151) | | From: | luna_k |
|---|
| Date: | June 21st, 2005 06:44 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
I think what happened was the Democrats wanted to go with the "safer" candidate, the war hero & established insider, instead of someone newer (Clark) or more unpredictable (Dean).
But regardles... I could go on & on for days on what went wrong with the 2004 presidential election but I just can't deal with it anymore. I'm going to leave that up to the think tanks and professional analysts. For now, I've got several local elections in my state including a heated governor's race, the 2006 mid-term elections, and the prospect of the 2008 presidential race to worry about. I'd rather look ahead because I'll kill myself with the hangwringing on the past.
Dean is/was clearly unelectable. Unpredictable = unelectable. We want to vote for someone whose actions we can have some success in predicting.
Clark would have been *great*, and if the Dems didn't do such a thorough job of savaging him in the Primaries, to stand him up, I probably would have voted for him.
Actually, and I am not joking about this, I said: "Did I EVER hear Kerry defend himself half as well as theferrett did? No" And then I "threw my vote away" on a third party candidate. I'm glad I did. I don't have a bad taste in my mouth.
Aw, that's a nice thing to say.
The democrats should hire me to write speeches. I could do it.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/3987023/551497) | | From: | nishar |
|---|
| Date: | June 21st, 2005 07:07 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
My thoughts exactely. Kerry was a crappy candidate for president. It's like John Stewert said, "Bush is in bad trouble. Iraq, the economy and bad poll numbers have him in deep deep trouble. Any candidate with the slightest bit of political savy or skill would easily defeat Bush. Unfortunately... the democrates went with this guy. *cut to a picture of Kerry*
I hate to pour salt, but if Bush's college transcripts mean anything about his intelligence, Kerry's dumber than Bush. Kerry actually finished Yale with a lower GPA than W. How's *that* for a head-spinner? As I noted in the aftermath of November, I voted a straight protest ticket for the State & Local slates, and struggled between Bush and Badnarik (who???). Kerry was a non-option, because I didn't trust him to stick with anything that he said. Ultimately, I voted for Bush. Was I elated about it? No. But in hindsight, I still think we're better off than if Kerry were in office. When things get tough, I can trust that Bush won't bend over. Kerry, I'd be afraid of what might happen. I appreciate that Bush continues to look forward and *lead*, unafraid to push the unpopular position where he thinks it's right (e.g. Social Security), whereas Kerry's undescended nuts mean that he wouldn't even breathe on it, content to meekly follow the herd based on what the latest polls show. At least Bush is an actual leader. I just wish that Bush would refocus on fiscal discipline instead of stupid stuff. I also wish that the Dems would transform themselves into an active opposition party, rather than an obstructionist party. There *is* a difference. Also, I think that your coin-flipper rate is much too low. I doubt that actual party faithful is more than 20-25% on either side. I think if you were to look at the Kerry voters, you'd find that Kerry got a lot of undecideds flipping coins his way. And that doesn't even count the masses who were so disgusted with their options that they stayed out entirely. Please, let us have *good* candidates for 2008!
I agree with most of what you've said. People thought Kerry was more intelligent because he spoke in sentences with multiple dependent clauses, without realizing that he spoke that way to disguise that there were no thoughts behind the speech. Kerry is the perfect stuffed-shirt son of privilege, while Bush is a active, straightforward son of privilege who gets things done.
And I happen to agree with the general ideas of what Bush wants to get done. It's possible I might agree with what Kerry wanted to do, if I could figure out what he would do. But I doubt it, as the two things I could figure out were that Kerry would raise taxes and sell nuclear material to Iran. What would Kerry do in Iraq? FIIK - he had a secret plan. It might have turned out better than Nixon's Secret Plan for Vietnam, but who wants to buy a pig in a poke on something like that?
Lastly, Kerry had lots of help losing from the Democratic Party. The Democrats have turned into an obstructionist party rather than an opposition party. Everything the Democrats say and do seems to be calculated to embarrass or obstruct Bush, not to benefit the country. When the Democrats get their collective heads out of their collective ass, and start telling the country how they would govern, rather than just criticizing how the Republicans govern, people will start to take them seriously. Of course, the problem is that if they did that, it might sound too much like "we'll bring back the Carter years", since the emocrats don't seem to have had a new idea since then.
Kerry was a placeholder. He was never intended to win.
Why do you think he did such a fast concession and fade?
My husband voted Bush because he realized Kerry had no clue. I voted Kerry because too many Bush voters I talked to were of the "We're gonna win, then we're gonna kick your queer butts into concentration camps" persuasion.
They haven't changed. They're still "We won. We'll do as we please. Suck it up, bitches."
Everywhere the Democrats run things, "We won. We'll do as we please. Suck it up, bitches." is their official slogan. Look at California, where they're trying to pull that crap even though their governor was recalled, and 70% of the people voted for Republican candidates to replace the crook. "We lost, but we'll still do as we please. Suck it up, bitches" is a really unattractive slogan.
So is painting all Republicans as rabidly homophobic, racist, fundamentialist Christians who don't work for a living. Every time Dean opens his mouth, I think that may be I should have voted for Prop 22, or Proposition 64 back in 1986. If Dean keeps shooting off at the mouth, I will vote for hateful candidates and initiatives that I think are a bad idea, just to strike back at the PC oppressiveness of the Democrats.
I agree with most all you say here - especially how bad Kerry was as a candidate. However, I'm not prepared to let the voters off - we knew Bush, and that was no picnic. He has been consistent - high-handed, mean-spirited, arbitrary, and vindictive. Seems to me that impeachment should not be out of the question considering the new facts that have come to light concerning who knew what, when, and when the decision to go to war was arrived at.
The last time i checked the guy who got the most votes on and the who got the lesser numbers of votes lost so Bush won and Kerry lost. That is the way it is. In a football game one wins and one team loses not one lost and the team didn't win one team lost and one team won. I know I am in a minority here but I think that the country would br worse with Kerry. I see a country quickly handing over it's soverignity to the UN and we all know what power the UN exerts to defending countries from dicators that kill thousands of there own people for no reason at all while excepting money from those leaders not do anyhting. I like our soverignity I don't want to be lumped into the European Union. Plus as a person like most of us here I work fora living and I want the money I earn inno my pocket. Would someone tell how 536 poeple congress and the president many of whom have never met or if they have they don't remember me now how to spend my money better than myself. Alot of you are describing Bush alot like proboably you described Reagan the last time I checked the country didn't end up that bad under Reagan and after Reagan. Plus how someone be trusted when they have to change the stroies in the own biography if the people attack him are telling lies. It seems that there more of hatred for Bush and that is clouding judgement that he actually might be doing a good job as President. PLus what is this so vehment anti-war mind set it seems that ever since Vietnam every war even it if was warranted is bad and immoral. They both have faults and no one is perfect but i didn't see Kerry coming out against CBS when they used questionable documents to against Bush if Kerry wanted the truth to come out then he would have demandedthe truth there also plus he still hasn't realesed his mediacl records from Vietnam to see if he is actually telling the whole story. HOw many of you would have attacked Afaganistan after 9-11 or would you have let the UN handle it. PLus Bush said that if a country harbor terrorist and condones and sponors terrorist activity is just as guilty as the terrorist itself. Iraq fits well into that catergory so that ends that dicussion. I hope there are better canidates in 2008 but all I see is hilliary and that doesn't bode well for 2008 so far. I am a republican but I am not totally happy with everyting Bush is doing but protecting the US from terrorist and from further attacks I agree it and like it or not there has not been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9-11 so something must be working. PLus I disagree with the Bush inmmgration policy and the Bush reclutance to stand up for his ideals and to tell to Congress to put aside the partsain dfiiernece and do what the were elected to which is to pass laws that benfit the majority of American citzens and to protect Americans citzens from enemies foriegn and dosmestic enemies and to uphold the contitsution nont rewrite to your own pwersonal beliefs.
Bush won the election. I acknowledge him as my President, unlike so many Republicans who kept saying "Clinton is not my President." I disagree with virtually every one of your characterizations but it's clearly not worth going through because, as you imply, it's largely moot.
I do find your inference that a vote against Bush was for a surrender of US sovereignty, and against fighting an effective fight against terrorists, both ridiculous and insulting. |
|
