Election 2004 - Live Coverage

Remove all ads!

Here's a question for you: How many people who voted for Bush were HAPPY to do so, and how many people held their noses while they pulled the lever then promptly went home for a shower? How did it break down on Kerry's side?

I don't resent the result, I resent the process that left us with two such completely lame candidates out of the entire population of this country. Something has to be done to change this horribly broken system. There has to be SOMEONE over the age of 35 and born in the US who's fit to lead the country.

dmc, I'll be PMing you about 2008.

 

Considering how people who you would want to be president realise that they can make far more money by NOT being president it's going to be a hard road finding anyone qualified.

Considering how Kerry didn't win, I'm damn surprised. Considering how much Bush has screwed up I figured he would ride through by simply NOT being George W. Bush. Still, the people have spoken and you can't call all of those people who voted for Bush stupid because obviously SOME of them are smarter than the average since more than 50% voted for him. Unlike last time

 

Good question, Rallymama. I don't think it's a peculiarly US issue, either - I know I didn't vote for Labor happily, I just knew they were the only other viable option in the Lower House. I'd also be interested in knowing which particular issues drove people to their particular choices for the election, on either side... but I think that's a bit too pointy for this thread.

 

Hmm, now I can have the moral high ground when discussing American politics with Americans, they can't use the excuse that Bush stole the election. For all the talk and polls of it being 'the closest race in history' it actually proved to be somewhat of an arse-kicking.

Well hey, congratulations to the republicans, the serbian nationalist lobby was with you all the way


What about the 2008 race? Clinton V Schwarzenegger anyone?

 

Rallymamma, from what I have seen so does Bush have a lot of true supporters who worships the man because he was once a drunk but got saved by the power of Jaizus. Those are the people who really kept him in the white house, that and the fact that many people still think that the republican leadership is fiscally conservative, something they havent been in decades.

 

I guess at this point since there is no more real news regarding the election that it is pretty much impossible to stay on topic. LOL

Regarding Rednik's statement, I guess that you would put Reagan down as a fiscal liberal as well?

Again, I will say that I am not going to try to teach Econ 101 in here, but the fact is that Kerry would have spent far more than Bush will, and he would have killed the economic growth that we are experiencing from Bush's tax policies. To borrow a couple of quotes:

If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free. --P.J. O'Rourke

We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
--Winston Churchill

The tax cuts (and subsequent deficit spending) that Reagan initiated in the 80's are what lead up to, and are directly responsible for, the greatest period of economic boom that this country has ever experienced, for which Clinton will get the historical benefit of. Why do you think that Bush 41's mantra was "stay the course".

Bush has mentioned reforming the tax system and I believe that this may be code-speak for endorsement of the Fair Tax act. This is the ultimate dream for fiscal conservatives.

That said, I am not happy with Bush's spending policies. I believe that the Medicaide Drug Benefit was nothing more than a political ploy to gather more votes for his re-election bid. I do not fault him for the spending in the "war on terror". It is not Bush's fault that France, Germany and Russia decided that they prefered the financial gain of the deals they had cut with Saddam to living up to the promises that were made by the UN to act against Saddam if he chose to ignore the terms of the cease fire agreement signed at the end of Desert Storm.


Additionally, instead of pouring more money down the rat-hole known as Public Indoctrination, sorry, Public Education (No Child Left Behind), I believe that this money should have been given back to parents in the forms of tax rebates for education, i.e., you send your kids to private schools, you get a tax credit. Unfortunately, Bush is only less slightly beholden to the Teachers Unions that the Democrates.

Gotta love what our little Republic has evolved into...not.

 

@Non Sequitor

I don't recall saying that I did not consider those issues. I merely said that Kerrys stance on abortion sealed it for me.

Economy: Maybe it's because I have a good job, with a successful company, but I have little problem with the economy. In fact, I think Bush has done a good job pulling us out of the recession that started during Clintons presidency (the Nasdaq crashed in 3/2000). I did not believe Kerry could do any better, but probably worse.

International relations: I don't agree with Kerrys plan of deferring to the UN. I don't believe that the UN has any interest in Americas national security. Therefore, I believe it is a mistake to defer to them. People can make the argument that this is not what Kerry meant, but that is how I took it. I know this is not a popular opinion here, but that is how I see it.

While I am anti-abortion, Kerrys stance of "I am against abortion" but "will not legislate morality" indicated a willingness to say whatever necessary to get elected. After that, I could not take him seriously as a candidate. Morality is legislated all the time. This has been debated at length here, and I do not wish to get into it any further.

As I said above, voting for Bush was not an easy thing to do. By nominating Kerry, the Democrats left me little choice.

Let's hope that next time, both parties nominate better candidates. Get involved now, there is still time.

 

Its Bush's fault that a nation close to our homecontinent has been destabilized and turned into a deadly trap ridden with terrorists. France and Germany knew what was to come. We prefered not to participate in a fool's adventure - whatever good it will do us when Iraq blows up, having the gods know what kind of effect on the whole region. The promises we made to the UN were obviously misinterpreted by Bush as sanctioning a war of agression, justified with lies and deceptions, started to ensure his re-election.

 

Darkwolf to say Kerry would have outspent Bush is just speculation on you're part and baseless argument because he did not win the election so we will never no.
What we do know for a fact is under Bush and a republican controlled house and senate we have spent more ,the goverment has grown more and the deficit is larger than any other time in US history.
Now my fellow Americans have spoken and I can accept that we have four more years for the Republicans to show us what they are realy made of.I just wonder where the small goverment, less spending party went?

 

@ Jack Funk: Damn, that was beautiful - you've put it all down quite eloquently. While I don't share your views, your position is a considered and very defensible one, and I'm glad to see that you haven't taken the hard right religious stance as the sole determinant of your vote. I guess my position as an Anyone-But-Bush advocate is somewhat transparent, huh?

I just wish I could do something - I'm an Aussie, which makes it kind of difficult... and I have to focus on regime change here first by finding an alternative to the (ultra neo-) Liberals.