I am posing this question to all of those who voted for President Bush in the 2000 election -

Will you vote for him again in 2004?

Please feel free to qualify your answer.

Well unless Jesus shows up on the ballot (and thats Gee-sus not HAy-zeus.. ) I will be votin for Bush simply because one known is better than an unknown and I am afraid the dem's just might be dumb enough to nominate Lieberman...


GBYA

Aahz

Even though i couldn't vote in 2000 but i will be able to in 2004, I'd vote for him

He rised on 9/11, untested for the kind of event that accured on that tragic day

He is also dead set on cleaning up some past messes that need to be dealt with

Even though he has had his Father's curse when it comes to economic policy, he has tried hard. But most of the economic troubles have come from 9/11 & the corporation scandels

I will throw my vote for prez in 2004 away on a third party member, they probably rig the polls anyway. (just speculating, based on the fact we rigged others polls in the past) though if joe liberman is the dem I hope shrubya wins (liberman said he would put the interests of the american people before the interst of israelis, and before he had ever officially decided to run for the dem seat, WTF?(has he yet?)

I could not vote in 2000 either BTW.

We have had a number of new members join since this thread was buried.

I am still curious if those of you who voted for Bush in 2000 will do it again.

Is it too early for you to say? What factors will influence your decision?

Edited to add:

Wertz suggested this thread may be expanded to ask for opinions from those who had not voted for Bush in 2000 but who might now be voting for him in 2004. I agree.

OFFICIAL DEBATE QUESTIONS:

I'm going to take a wait-and-see approach. A lot is going to depend on two things:

1) How Bush handles post-Iraqi war, and where he takes the WOT next (if anywhere)

2) Who the dems nominate.

--cheers

well, lets just say, if i could only vote for republicans, and all of them were 120 years old, i still would not vote for another 4 years with g.w.

I did not vote for Bush in 2000. I can remember like it were yesterday telling my friends and peers my reason why: "Bush is going to get us into some ###### up war. Just watch." Well, since then he's got us into two. The actual wars were pretty easy, however, our image in the international community has been severely cracked. Now, would I vote for him in 2004? No. Why? Because of his inability to clean up the corporate world. His Justice Dept. made a couple of high profile arrests and then they just stopped. No more arrests. No more investigations. No more mention of it anywhere in anything he had to say. He didn't want to arrest too many Bush family friends and knew that there's nothing better than a war to redirect media attention. I'm not too keen about the current group of ambitious Democrats set to run in '04 either. None of them make me want to vote for them. So, my hope is that Nader will run again, although I don't know if he'd be so inclined.

Edited for language violations - J

I voted for Bush in 2000 and I most certainly will vote for him again. After 8 years of Clinton, it's refreshing to have a grown-up back in the Oval Office and restore honor and dignity to the Presidency again.

I voted for GW Bush and will vote to re-elect him.

Not only do the Dems not have any credible candidates, they have a skewed world vision.

The Dems real problems lie in National Security and tax policy. If they could move a little toward a realistic viewpoint on those two issues, they would garner a lot more votes.

I am really suprised that there is no pseudo-conservative third Party candidate gearing up, ala Ross Perot. I would think it would be in the Dems best interest to help such a candidate siphon off votes.

Living in Texas there is no need for pragmatism. I will vote for a yellow dog as long as he is Libertarian.

I couldn't vote in 2000 either, but I will be getting out the Roundup this time around. While I don't think it will do any good, I'll at least try to do my part.

Well unless a good libertarian candidate comes along i will be voting for Bush lesser of the 2 evils imo and thats sad.

Good for you Abs. I hope you encourage others your age, to do the same.

--cheers

I voted for Bush in 2000. I haven't decided yet on 2004. A lot could happen before the election, but I'm not impressed by any of the potential opponents so far.

I might vote for Bush but i'm looking towards Gephart from the democratic party (no...i am not defecting like Senator James Jeffords(V-I) ) if Gephart has some good ideas.

If Bush can cure the ill economy & get a good healthcare plan going, then i will vote for him but if he can't, then i might vote Democrat, specifically Gephart (That's why i have labeled myself "Independent"...i can live with both major parties...depending on their ideas!)

I voted for Browne in 2000, but I'm unhappy with him since 9/11 because of his extreme dovishness which I don't consider at all realistic in today's world. I'll be hoping for a different Libertarian nominee in 2004.

But I might go for Bush in 2004 depending ... I certainly consider him preferable to any likely Democratic nominee, so I guess it'll come down to how tight the race looks in my state (Washington). If it's close enough that my vote could make the difference, I'll probably go for Bush. If it isn't that close, probably Libertarian.

I voted for Bush, but would not vote for a Republican - including Bush - if they handed out cash payments for a vote.

No doubt that Clinton was a lying philanderer. But I think taking us to war over a pack of lies and fraud is much, much worse.

I wanted less government in our lives. What I got instead, was federalized airport security, steel tarrifs, and the Department Of Liberation while half the world is trying to kill us.

As painful as it would be to cast a vote for *gulp* a democrat, I'd take that over a Republican to put the breaks on our current path of world domination.

Not to be a stickler for details, but seeing how the other guy got more votes in 2000, shouldn't the question be not whether Bush should be re-elected but elected outright instead of appointed by The Supreme Court?

You can beat dead horses here, nighttimer: The Election that Wouldn't Die. Don't derail my thread.

Please continue to debate:

Bush right now is the only candidate worth voting for. I haven't seen who the Liberatarian party is going to run yet.
Anybody know....Izdaari?

No clue on that I'm afraid. All I know is the Browne organization rolls on and on, but many of us in the LP have had enough and aren't inclined to support him again for one or both of these two reasons:

1) We differ with his foreign policy stance, which is increasingly difficult to differentiate from that of the hard Left.

2) He consistently fails to increase the LP vote totals, which is one of the main things a LP candidate should do. He is a good spokesperson on issues in general, but not a very good campaigner so far as results. LP nominess have generally been good at explaining our stances on issues, and Browne is better at that then most. While that's important, what we really need is votes, enough to break through and be taken seriously as a party.

I'm not yet seeing a good alternative emerge, but two names I'm mentioned before would suit me: Prof. Walter E. Williams, and T.J. Rodgers, CEO of Cypress Semiconducter. The problem is both of them have been asked before and have declined to run. Larry Elder maybe?

Just read something about Gephart missing 87% of votes. If he isn't willing to do the job he currently has, why give him a shot at a more important job?
I usually vote Republican at the federal level and lean left at the state level, but first and foremost, they have to at least appear to have credibility with the majority. I can't think of any Dem at the moment that has a chance to stand up against the shrub.
I would like to see GB do more about corporate scandals though. Once he has 90% of those guys behind bars and fined to within an inch of poverty, then I will believe that he is on the side of the common man versus the stooge for big business that many claim him to be.

Well said, Bill, and welcome to the forum.

It has always struck me as odd when Republicans work to protect the rampant corporate malfeasance that our corporate structure has become. It seems to work directly against so many of the tenets of conservatism. It is also against the tenets of liberalism, and yet the biggest political race between Democrats and Republicans in this age is the race to shower massive corporations with all kinds of protections, cost-externalizations, and goodies. The struggle against corruption should be nonpartisan!

I feel like Bush will win, but of course I thought the same thing in 1992. I'm hoping to be wrong again!

If I could vote I wouldn't vote for Bush ever unless he suddenly becomes a smart, non-repulsive human (or if Gephardt won the nomination ).

Nicely said! Welcome to AD!

I would vote to re-elect Bush in 2004 but unless he doesn't something about the healthcare situation in this country, i will vote Gephart.

Going to what Bill said, i think as long as he has been putting away at least some of these corporate fat cats who hav ebeen bad, he still has my vote because at least he is trying to put them away.

Wlecome to ADD Bill! Have fun

How can anyone credibly say that Gephardt is the best candidate?

The guy doesn't even do his job (i.e. vote in Congress).
Gephardt, Kerry Miss the Most Hill Votes

John Kerry is almost as bad in the closely divided Senate.

If you want state run health care as a requisite for voting for Bush, I suggest you start researching Democratic candidates.