It's pretty self-explanatory. I suspect that most people here have made up their minds to vote or not vote for President Bush II.

When I said "Any one of the Democratic candidates," I meant one of the Democratic candidates--not any of these guys--sorry about not being clearer about that.

Bush will lose the coming election here is why:

1. Al Gore received more votes than Bush nationally, in 2000 by a margin of 500,000, add to that the several million Unemployed, add again the thousands of new College grads who cannot find work, add again thousands of young men who have draft notices, and their mothers. Add again the Florida vote intended for Gore that went to Bushcanan, add even more for the thousands who have lost their pensions, When there is a bad economy more people tend to vote , those people are Democrats.

Good bye Bush

Thus far for me its almost a coin toss between Bush and Someone Else, Not a Democrat. No Democrat is running that I would even consider at this point. What kind of Democrat would I consider? I'm not sure, but certainly no one who could survive the Democrat nominating process. The problems I have with Bush are not the kind Dems have solutions for, i.e. too much taxes and too much big government. Find me a Dem who'd make that better, not worse. The Someone Else would most likely be the LP nominee, hopefully not Harry Browne again, whose extreme isolationism is a big turnoff for me.

If Something Really Bad about Bush came out and I felt he really had to go, then I could consider Kerry, Gephardt or Lieberman. I don't agree with them, but they're serious people who could be trusted with the job, politics aside. Something about Dean totally rubs me the wrong way and I cannot respect Weasely Clark the Wafflemeister, so I'd have to be really desperate to vote for them. Edwards I'm not sure about -- he's reasonably moderate but I'm so far not convinced he's anything more substantial than a pretty face and an empty suit.

I'm torn between Dean and Edwards.... leaning towards Edwards.

My signature will probably change between now and November, but as one of the resident "Bush Bashers," I couldn't resist borrowing this quote from yesterday's paper:

I'm not familiar enough with Spain's politics to know if Jose Maria Aznar is considered a liberal or a conservative, but it would appear that George W. Bush had better plan on some hard campaigning in Europe if he wants to rely on the European vote come November.

I know. The European vote doesn't count; but he's been courting Mexicans, illegal aliens, Canada, the man in the moon, and he now appears to have his sights set on the Martian vote.

I am seriously considering Gephardt because he is strong on domestic issues and appears more mainstream. There is merit in listening to the criticism that there has to be more substance in what the candidates are promoting--what they are against is pretty plain. Unfortunately the debate formats were not conducive to promoting plans, and the candidates took a while before they got the message that the people watching them were probably anti-Bush already.

I went with "any Democrat" - not because I have any particular affinity for any of the current candidates, but because a Democrat has more of a chance of effecting a much needed regime change than any other possible candidate. At the moment, I'm leaning toward General Clark. Or maybe I'm just leaning away from all the others...

For those who don't want to vote for a Democrat due to increases in tax and the size of government, consider this: both a Democratic candidate and George W Bush will do little about taxation (apart from Fortune 500 CEOs) or "too much government" - but only one of them will lie about it. Given the choice between two candidates, both of whom express concern about the future of the country, one who's relatively honest about their policies and the other, consistently, a damned liar - this is a tough a decision?

I'm voting for Bush for several reasons, they are:
1. The premise of Howard Dean running the country frightens me.
2. Kerry hasn't had an idea in five months.
3. Clark lied about being fired, doesn't strike me as an intelligent person [he has the same stupid aura around him that reminds me of Bush in '04].
4. Bush isn't afraid to use the military.
5. Dean contradicts himself in support of the Serbian conflict and Iraq.
6. Bush cuts taxes.

The only Dem who would make it semi-tough for me is Liebermen, he's an elephant in donkey's clothing.

CP

--

In the newspaper interview, Aznar suggested anti-American sentiment in Spain and the rest of Europe was the inevitable result of the United States being a superpower.

Spain was a superpower "and some still harbor resentment," he said. "Britain was a superpower. France was a superpower. It's your turn now. It's been your turn for a long time."

--

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...h/bush_europe_2

Aznar was not criticizing the president at the time. Aside from joking, he was trying to explain the various misconecptions that Europeans have (such as Texans being a bunch of gun toting cowboys). This is further on in the same article.

Given a choice between the current crop of Democrats, and Bush for November.... Bush hands down. Lieberman would perhaps be the only Dem candidate could sway my vote to the Democrat side.

At this point I would gladly vote for a bag of lettuce over Bush. There is no candidate that's any worse. We got nowhere to go but up.

i'd have to say either kucinich or dean....opposing qualities, but their both good sets, i think.

Up until a few days ago I was set on voting for Dean in the primaries. I always liked Clark and it definitely helps that we're stationed at SHAPE (where the SACEUR is based) and can relate on a much more personal level based upon stories and descriptions of him as a person and leader, but Dean just seemed like a more realistic choice given the popularity. Plus I liked Dean more than anyone else who had a shot (liked Carol Moseley Braun and Kucinich...but that wouldn't get me anywhere).

I am definitely starting to lean toward Clark as of late. Everyone is too moderate for me ('cept Kucinich who has about a good a shot as that bag of lettuce Looms is voting for ), so I have to base my decision on who can beat Bush and who is best for the country. Bush is certainly not the answer and if he wins...perish the thought...

But, if some strange inbalance in the cosmos (caused by some occurence with the Mars rover, perhaps ) lead to a Lieberman nomination, I would vote "no thanks - I'll try again in 4 years". I would rather have another horrendous four years of Bush than suffer the consequences of at least EIGHT more years with a Republican president. No thanks...I'll vote Green, don't care who it is...hell I might even vote for Bush (I don't think I could live with myself for that though).

As for the Clark being fired thing...I will probably be able to get a MUCH more accurate assessment of that situation being that my husband worked directly for Clark's successor (Gen Ralston) and had many co-workers who worked directly under Clark, as such. Most of those people are gone, but I'm looking into it.

I'll vote Clark, Dean, or Edwards. I think Clark or Dean has the best shot of beating Bush. I'm leaning towards Clark, but as time goes on I get more and more sidetracked by media mud being slung. I'm still wading through the mud pit trying to see with splattered glasses.

I would vote Bush or Green if Leiberman or Gephardt wins the democratic nomination.

I would probably vote Edwards, I don't know why people don't like him. Maybe it is because he is so young, and maybe it is because after 2000 Dems don't trust anyone with a Southern accent . But, I think Dean is pretty nice too, after listening to more of his stances.


And to that person who said "Bush"-canan...harsh.

I will vote to keep Bush in office. Contrary to some comments...this election will be a another close election and I can assure you the Bush campaign team nor Bush think otherwise. However, although close, I think Bush will win because of the War On Terror more so than on the domestic front. When we are in any kind of a war, voters are less likely to change horses in midstream.

As far as the Election 2000 and Florida....get over it! Demographics have changed, events have altered people's opinions...it is time to move to the present and current events. Gore won the popular vote which doesn't cut the mustard to win an election... but he FAILED to win his home state of Tennessee and he FAILED to win Clinton's home state of Arkansas. Had he had not assumed he had those two states in the bag, and given more quality time to campaigning in them....he would not have needed Florida to win the election.

If Bush looses the election, I hope it would be to anyone of the candidates but Dean or Clark...and Kucinich isn't even in the ball park to be nominated. Dean and Clark are both scary. Clark's tendency to be self-serving and waffle on matters that promote his personal agenda of the day and being less than honest in some of his assertions and responses are not good traits. Clark is not a team player...he would have administration turnover like none other either from resignations or terminations. We are in midstream in many critical agendas here at home and abroad. Dean's agenda for domestic issues doesn't scare me as much as his thinking and flip-flopping on the issues abroad.

Clinton without the Sex:

1. A balanced budget 4 years in a row,and left behind a budget surplus

2. Reduced the size of government, Bush increased it

3. Welfare reform, pushed and shoved millions off welfare into working tax paying americans. Bush returned them to Welfare at tax payer expense

4. Military , did not use excess force when it was not called for-Bush did

5. Improved law Enforcement, funded the addition of 100,000 police officers

6. Cut taxes on all but the wealthiest 1.2%, increased theirs only slightly,cut taxes on 90% of small business.

7. Funded and demanded improvements in education- Bush promised but failed

8. Wise and brilliant management of government created a state of enthusiasm, prosperity and unprecedented growth and job creation. Stock rose to all time high.
6 million new jobs in first two years.

9. Child support, and deadbeat parents made to pay up

10. Student loan program, Americorps, students as Tudors , Goals 2000, a pledge to raise standards in our schools, Safe and Drugs Free School Act, School to Work Program, and Charter Schools Program .

A few other things:

Passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, February 5, 1993.
Signed a comprehensive Child Immunization Plan.
Revoked the Reagan/Bush restrictions on abortion counseling ("the gag rule"), abortions in military hospitals, "Mexico City" policy and RU-486 imports.
Increased Ryan White CARE Act funding for outpatient AIDS care over 100% in first 3 budgets.
Put the Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC) on a full-funding path.
Increased funding 65% for breast cancer research.
As part of the balanced budget plan, introduced health care reform initiative which strengthens Medicare and expands coverage.
Proposed a $1.3 billion increase in veterans' benefits -- of which $1 billion will be directed to the VA health system to provide treatment for 43,000 more veterans.

Who can fill these shoes, thats who I want to vote For.

Gephart or Kerry I think offers the best hope, but I will take any Democrat over the current administration.

I'd vote for Bush. Not because he's the best President ever, but because the other choices simply don't represent my interests. I wish there was a candidate who was stronger than Bush on immigration and national security, but alas, he seems to be the best of the bunch.

Piedpiper,

Correct me if I am wrong, but Clinton isn't running again. Let's stay on-topic.

The current crop of Democrats are all too flakey. None of them promotes an actual agenda, only an anti-Bush rhetoric.

Of the Dems, I actually like Edwards and Lieberman the most. Edwards seems like a straight shooter, and is the only candidate (to my knowledge) that said he would not run for re-election while running for President.

I believe Bush will win. Bush leads all of the Democrats in a head-to-head poll. Nationally, he trails the "any Democrat" choice in polls.

Why? Because "any Democrat" has no negatives about them. They are purely a fantasy choice.

When we know the Democratic candidate, this poll will be much more informative (although not much different in my opinion).

Each of the candidate's web sites propose their agendas... usually quite clearly. It's the nature of the game, though, that Republicans think that anything that disagrees with what Bush wants or has done is "anti-Bush rhetoric" as opposed to, say, "sound fiscal policy" or "appropriate foreign policy". Such is life.

As for the re-elections: only Edwards' seat is up this Fall; Kerry and Lieberman don't stand for re-election this year. Gephardt, being in the House, is ALWAYS up for re-election and I can't locate anything on his web sites to indicate that he won't run for re-election if he doesn't get the Democratic Party nod.

Unfortunately, I will be forced to do that which I loathe. And that is not to vote for someone, but rather to vote against someone.
While I'd rather see my vote be cast meaningfully for a candidate from the Libertarian or Constitution Party.....it will most likely go for Bush.

I've looked through the websites of the various 'I'm not Bush' candidates. If there was any "sound fiscal policy" or "appropriate foreign policy", I would have been pleasantly surprised. Sigh.

Many people say that all the Dems are about is "anti-Bush" rhetoric, namely becauuse the programs are different from Bush and because Bush is blamed for the wrongs committed while in his office.

I'm sorry, but that is what the opposing party does. If everyone was like Liebermann and thought Bush was a great guy (I'm exaggerating), there would be no point in running against him.

As a candidate for President you have to show, where the current President was mistaken and how you will correct those mistakes, be it foreign policy or fiscal policy. Social Security or homeland security.

So to say, "I'm voting for Bush" because the other guys seem to be against him, isn't necessarily a good reason. Because if the Dems win this year, then in 4 years the Repubs will be doing the exact same thing.

Im suprised to hear that all but the absolute hard core conservatives are not very happy about electing Bush again. I think this says a lot about how a great majority feel in the country today. If even lifelong Republicans are displeased, imagine the moderates.

I will vote for whomever the Dems put up for election because 4 more years of this admin. knowing they cant serve another term scares the pants off me. I expect their agenda to be much more fervently aggressive towards the rest of the world and I dont know if we can afford what seems to be a blank check in govt spending.

Im really starting to miss my old rivals, the real conservatives of smaller govt and non-intrusionist policy. Heck Id even swallow tax cuts for the wealthy if they would just get spending under control. ( another Repub. admin, not this one)

I'm one of those disgruntled hardcore real conservatives! And that's why I would consider voting for Liebermen, he's more of a fiscal conservative than Bush, he might be more of a conservative than Bush period.

CP

If I could vote I would vote Clark. I actually prefer Lieberman and Edwards and occasionally Gephardt but Clark is the only nominee that has a chance. Dean will get destroyed. No im not falling victim to republican propaganda but he will not win that all important in between moderate group. He looks good against democrats but he is really George Mcgovern all over again. Clark although he is a democrat of convenience has the tools. The military career the international credibility and he is by far probably the most intelligent man in the field. He was a Rhodes Scholar. Clark has a chance. I generally am a big advocate of vote your conscience but Bush needs to go and Clark can do it.

The only problem is that Clark is a Republican. And so is Lieberman for that matter. I may be a dangerous commie lefty, but I really think that for the good political health of this country we really need at least two parties. Having these severe moderates like Clark and Lieberman win the nomination is really only re-affirming what a lot of people have been saying for the last two decades, there's only one party, the overlap between the two is getting to be so great it's indistinguishable.

Also, this attitude that many dems have been putting forth that only Lieb or Kerry or Clark or whoever can win the election is so damn self-defeatist and frustrating to me. This is why the democratic party has lost it's former strength in this country, what in the heck is going on? Stand up for your party's strength!Micheal Moore is the lastest public person to reaffirm this idea by supporting Clark. He isn't picking the candidate which best represents his views because he's so afraid of losing.

But this is getting off topic so I end it here.

I'm not sure what the heck Clark is. He's taken so many sides on the issues I'm not sure he knows himself. I do know the Clintons are running him, which tells me a lot.

Lieberman is still a liberal. Don't believe me? Check his Senate voting record, as rated by all the many liberal and conservative rating organizations. He scores 90%+ with nearly all the liberal groups and 10%- with nearly all the conservative groups.

I'd post the links, but I did it before and nobody paid any attention, so it doesn't seem worth the effort now.

At this point in time I can't see myself voting for any of the Democratic candidates so for this poll I voted for Bush. One thing is for certain, if it is Dean vs Bush, I will certainly vote for Bush. I haven't been following John Edwards but I like the fact that he isn't into Bush bashing so if he were to be nominated I would give him some consideration.

I really don't get this "Clark is a Republican" line. Since when does the Democratic Party have litmus tests of who is and isn't a good Democrat? Does anyone remember the phrase "Reagan Democrats?" Clark says he's a Democrat and I take him at his word. The fact that he may have said a nice thing or two about Bush or Cheney doesn't mean he's going to pull a Zell Miller and actually campaign for those two.

I wrote a story when Michael Moore spoke at Ohio State University and he explained why he liked General Clark even though his personal politics were more in line with those of Dennis Kucinich.

Moore declined to endorse any presidential candidate though in Dude, Where’s My Country? he writes very kindly about Wesley Clark. In response to a question why he had not mentioned Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Moore said while he liked Kucinich’s politics he doubted whether Kucinich could win the Democratic nomination. He added, “Saying the war was wrong didn’t start with Howard Dean. It started with the Dixie Chicks.”

He also cautioned that “the Left has got to stop being so elitist” and it had to welcome disaffected Republicans, independents and Democrats that are less than “pure” on the issues. “We can’t say because Dennis was pro-life on abortion or Clark voted for Ronald Reagan, we won’t vote for you.”

“We have to welcome these people back,” Moore added. “2004 isn’t the year to make statements. This is a year to win.”

Absolutely right. I'm not about being "pure" in 2004. I'm far more concerned about getting Bush out of the White House before he gets us into another lousy war.

I am one of those few on this forum who is not going to vote at all. I know that makes me socially irresponsible; I know that everybody who knows this is going to say to me "You don't have any right to complain." Maybe they're right. All I know is that there is no political party in the United States that I feel comfortable with. Oh, I've taken all those tests that are supposed to tell you where you stand on the issues, compared to the candidates. I get somewhat more than 50% agreement with Dean.

Most of you have seen this website before. Click on "US Primaries 2004" and look at the chart halfway down that page:

The Political Compass

I don't claim this is carved in stone, but it's food for thought. On this two-dimensional political compass, Sharpton and Kucinich are the only candidates who fall into the same "libertarian left" quadrant that I do. (It depresses me no end that all the other candidates, both "liberal" and "conservative," fall into the same "authoritarian right" quadrant, which is the antithesis of my own political philosophy.) Neither is a realistic candidate.

Now, given the fact that the state of Tennessee is absolutely certain to give its electoral votes to GWB (as certain as anything is in politics, anyway) I face this dilemma. Do I cast my vote for the Democratic candidate, no matter who it might be? Do I cast my vote for the most "libertarian left" candidate I can find? Do I write in "Mickey Mouse"? Each possibility seems as futile. I'll stay home.

I understand, Victoria. Given that placement on the Political Compass, I face a similar dilemma -- I want a "libertarian right" candidate, and there is none. However, I can always count on the LP to supply one, so I at least have that option.

So who is the Libertarian Party candidate for this election?, please forgive my ignorance.

As a lifelong Dem, Im tired of them, either boring or too radical to win. I want new blood. Who would it be in the LP? Did I miss someone out there I dont know about?

I wish I knew, Artemise. The LP has no primaries, and the candidate is selected at the convention which will be at the end of May. Harry Browne was the nominee the last few times, but he's not running again -- for which I'm grateful. I like him, but I don't like his radical anti-war position in the post-9/11 world.

Here's a news story from the LP site that lists all the candidates: Aaron Russo is seeking LP's presidential nomination. Sounds like it'll be between Russo, Nolan and Badnarik, none of whom I know much about.

But I found websites for all three of them:

Michael Badnarik

Gary Nolan

Aaron Russo

Bush vs Dean would be good. I do not really think Clark can win. Edwards needs more time. He really should aim for 2008. Hopefully who ever wins the Democratic nomination chooses Edwards as their running mate. The thought of Hillary makes my Flesh crawl.

I don't agree with everything michael moore says but believe he is right about changes that are needed in the Democrat Party. They have gotten far too elitist.
I just don't know about Clark.

Of course Dean could always choose McCain. Never happen but it would be SO much FUN!

I tried that Political compass Victoria linked to. I'm a social libertarian and no candidate what so ever is in my zone. Sounds about right.

I would vote for anyone but Bush. Right now I am supporting Dean.

I took that test Victoria and WOW I am in a good class I am in the Left Libertarian which has Nelson Mandela & the Dalai Lama.

As for a good VP to run with Dean I would say Edwards. I like what he says, but I like more of what Dean's policies are. Though the 2 of them would make a great team.

On a side note Edwards is not all that young he just looks it he actually is 50 yrs old.

People are always saying anyone bush in 2004.

BUt in all honesty, Kucinich sort of scares me. Liebermann definitely scares me, and Gephardt would actually have me in a tough situation.

I think Dean with Gephart as a running mate could win the election and make a good combination, one thing for certain it is going to be difficult for whoever wins it dealing with the Republican Congress and Senate. It will take a man with a good working knowledge of Politics to do that, and thats where Gephardt can help Dean. Not to mention Gephardt will pull Mo. his home state back to the Democrats which is all that is needed to win the election, assuming everyone who voted Democrat last time does so again, and I don't see any reason under the moon, they would not.

Besides his little experience (like Dean and Clark), why aren't people harping on Senator Edwards?

I think he has not only run the most positive campaign, something I wish many other politicians would do, but also that he has many clear cut, important items on his agenda.

Don't get me wrong. I have not seen to many people against Edwards, but not too many people are for him either.

Edwards definitely has the most integrity of any of them. He comes up with ideas and didn't get caught up in the Dean-bashing. He seems genuine enough, and I wouldn't be afraid to have him as the Pres. as I would with Dean...with that said, I'm voting for Bush

CP

I'm an Edwards supporter now. I've really been listening to him and his attitude is really positive and he's a cut above the rest of the Democratic runners. He stands out in a good way.

I agree with that sentiment "That's what the opposing party does"

However, no candidate has ever won the Presidency running on a negative (ala : Bush sucks).

Give us a vision for a better America. Give us some direction. Give us hope.

Of course, if you go to the candidate's websites, they have a position on every issue under the sun. That is NOT, however, what they are campaigning on.

There are all campaigning on "I hate Bush more than you do".

Maybe it's just because it's the primaries.

I hope in the general election, these guys actually PROPOSE something. Give us an idea of how they will be different. Not "I wouldn't have gone into Iraq" or garbage lines like "I guarantee that if I am President, a repeat of a 9/11 type attack will not happen" (paraphrase of Gen. Wesley Clarke)

Edwards just came in a little late, and I think his lack of experience in Washington (or a gubernatorial spot for that matter), certainly has made him feel like a political outsider in the same way Braun and Sharpton were marginalized. We'll see if he can turn it around in the coming months.

Just a follow-up to my own posting: read an article yesterday that said that this would be Gephardt's last campaign as well. So he's not running for re-election to his seat either.

Are you actually saying that Bush didn't use a negative campaign in his presidency bid in 2000.

Unless my memory serves me badly I remember quite a bit of mud slinging against McCain in the South Carolina primaries in 2000.

And he definitely used lots of negatives against Al Gore in the 2000 elections.

It is funny how some people have SELECTIVE memory. oh well

Was GWB's campaign completely negative?

Did he advance policy changes? Did he differentiate himself from McCain (or Gore) more than : I hate Clinton more than you do!!

Let's jog the memory, shall we?

Bush, McCain stick to issues in South Carolina

McCain revels in decisive win

Issues...campaigns are about issues.

Do they get personal? Sure they do. Should they focus on the personal? No they should not.

I will restate: No one has ever been elected President based upon a campaign of negatives. A Presidential candidate must offer the voters his vision of America, and then emphasize how his policies will acheive it. Saying the other guy (or guys, or ladies) are evil, pompous, warmongers, or whatever will not win you the White House.

It's not one of the other. It's both that a candidate MUST do to win an election.

You can't just lay out a vision for the future without pointing out where your opponent is failing. Why? Because you have to give people a REASON TO CHANGE, which is more than just having a vision. People resist change, so you have to point out how faulty staying the course is OR will be.

Negative ads "soften" the support for a candidate. Sometimes it even turns off the electorate, which then favors the candidate with the strongest following (which is usually the incumbent). Positive ads generate support for the candidate.

Bush/Cheney 2000 used negative ads, but they usually had outside organizations do it for them instead of doing it directly. McCain was sunk when one of these organizations started calling everyone in South Carolina to tell everyone how evil McCain was; then McCain complained publically, and Bush gave the "what? me?? I have nothing to do with that? My opponent is begin 'negative' about my campaign" act, which made McCain's complaints look ridiculous. Watch for the same tactic again in this election.

Clinton beat Bush I using negative campaigning (on "the economy, stupid"). He also laid out a campaign of promises, but he had to use negatives to take Bush's numbers down after Gulf War I.

At this piont i'd vote for a pile steaming dog poop then vote for Bush! I mean poop couldent do any worse ! I've never seen this Country this low! I've never been an seen people in my area in such hard times. I hear old timers compare these bush days to the GREAT DEPRESION! even lows of the late 70s dont compare with how down an out people are now!

Though I think comparing the great depression to todays economic uneasiness is silly, I would in fact, vote for the poop prior to Bush. I think he is possibly the worst president in US history, even including Reagan.

I voted for "any one of the Democratic Candidates".

Right now I am partial to Dean's stance on the issues but could live with a few of the other candidates as well I think. Some of the candidates scare me but I know that they will never get enough support to win the nomination anyway. Like a lot of other people have said my attitude is pretty much "anyone but Bush".

I have posted up my arguments against Bush before, but probably the one thing I cannot understand about some of the conservatives out there is why they support Bush given the following:

1. Bush is the very most opposite of a fiscal conservative, his spending and irresponsible tax cuts have taken the largest surplus in history and turned it into the largest deficit in history. Like I have posted in earlier threads this is even drawing concern from the IMF that we'll destabilize the world economy.


2. Maybe if you are the top 1% of the company or the CEO of a company, which I would highly doubt that any of us are on AD. I can understand why millionaires are republican but I'm not convinced that having a measly $600 back in your pocket each year is good for the country, especially when you consider what could be done with that money on an aggregate level.


3. The entirety of the Bush presidency has been a lie, all the way back to the campaign days. Taking Conservpat's argument of consistency from another thread (the 'is Hillary racist' thread), why should Clark be faulted for this when it is perfectly ok for Bush? Also, how could any of the candidates be any worse than Bush in the stupidity factor? It may have been 4 years, but the man is neither more eloquent nor smarter.

4. Karl Rove is just sleazy and gives me the creeps, and this is the man whispering in our president's ear. I would be very afraid to be the candidate running against Bush. His tactics just sicken me, and if more people knew what he was doing it would probably sicken them too...

And a slight tangent....


So does every other major Republican/Conservative news source: Pretty much anyone on Fox News (O'Rielly and Hannity and Colmes), Rush, Washington Times, etc. Those groups were all against Bosnia when Clinton was in office, yet they praise Bush for his courage in Iraq. Sounds like it depends on what side of the political camp you are on, or does it?

Note to CP: Not singling you out, others have said basically the same thing you just happened to supply some convenient quotes

I would vote for anyone but Bush and here a some reasons why,

Honesty
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about his sex life. George Bush is applauded for overthrowing two governments (and counting) based on lies. He lied about the threat, he lied about the cost, and he lied about the expected outcome. He lied about the purpose of his tax cuts, he lied about education, the environment, energy, and his own past. Everything he says is written and choreographed achieve political gain. In Bush's administration, truth takes a back seat to power.
War
History will not be kind to George Bush. In two years he overthrew two governments, and has his eyes on several others. He has ignored the UN, the US public, and 90% of the rest of the world, including millions who protested in the streets. He has violated the US Constitution and international law. In his empire-building march across the Middle East, he has wasted the lives of thousands. History will wonder why no one stopped him.
Economy
As soon as people saw that Bush might get elected in 2000, the economy started to fall, helped by Bush's talk of recession. He, of course, tried to blame Clinton. Since then, the economy has dipped in and out of recession, jobs are evaporating in huge numbers, deficits are soaring, and Bush's only response is to cut taxes for the wealthy. We must get someone in the Whitehouse who is not bent on destroying the very institution he heads.
Liberties
Yes, we need to catch terrorists, but we don't need a police state to do it. Ashcroft has no concern for personal liberties, only catching the bad guys. Is it really necessary for the government to know what books you read? Is it necessary to read your e-mail? Must librarians be gagged? This slide toward Fascism is as scary as anything else Bush does.
Taxes
No one likes taxes, but we all pay them in hopes that the government will provide the services we need and want: schools, highways, bridges, and security. Bush, like Reagan before him, intends to choke the government down to size. By cutting taxes, primarily for the wealthy, deficits soar and nothing is left for education, the environment, social programs (including Social Security) or necessary regulation of corporations. After spending $400 billion a year on an obscenely bloated military, there is no money for books, no money for highways, not even money for the soldiers who must fight his wars. There is no money. But schools must remain open, roads must be repaired, and the sick must find treatment; all this is left to the state and local governments, which are now raising taxes.
Environment
One of his first acts as president was to raise the allowable level of arsenic in drinking water. Since then, we have seen a continuous assault on the forests, the air, the water, and the land. This fits perfectly with the far-right groups that Bush answers to. They have no use for tree huggers. Why can't we just put up with foul air and water? Aren't we tough enough?
International Relations
When you're the strongest nation by a factor of ten, you don't need to play nice. You can be a bully, and if other countries don't like it, too bad. Under Bush, we've seen this arrogant attitude regularly. He walked away from Kyoto, from the land mine treaty, from the international women's rights treaty, and the international criminal court. He ignored the pleas of long-time allies, insulting them childishly. It will be decades before we can regain the respect of the world.
Secrecy
This is the most secret administration in memory. Decisions are clearly being made by corporations and far-right interest groups, but Bush refuses to admit it or to say who is behind such important policies as energy. Government can only be trusted in the sunlight, and this government hides at undisclosed locations.
Attitude
There's nothing wrong with cowboys. They need to be tough and independent to be successful on the ranch. All those cows and snakes and such. Unfortunately, this attitude doesn't work as well for the leader of a country. Mix in hubris, arrogance, and the control of a huge military, and watch out. You get George Bush.
Military
We spend far more than any other single country on our military, more even that the next ten countries. While most of us appreciate the sense of security a strong military brings, we also question the wisdom of such spending when we have no clear enemy. Iraq was overthrown for about $100 billion. We spend four times that every year. And now Bush wants to build a magical missile shield that no one believes will actually work. Oh, it will cost many billions, and a few select corporations will get rich, but meanwhile we have other needs, desperate needs, that are not being met. We don't even have health care for all our children. We can't even provide breakfast for all our children, or books, or decent schools. But we can kill bad guys better than anyone. And if Bush has his way, we will soon be dropping tactical nuclear bombs on them.
Corruption
The line between corporations and the government has disappeared during the Bush administration. Corporations give money to elect Bush, then Bush forms policies and rules that favor those same corporations. This is nowhere more evident than in the energy industry, which has sent millions to Bush in the form of campaign contributions, then received billions in return. Think Bush, Cheney, Bechtel, Halliburton, Schultz.