It has been a year since the election and with the way things are going in Washington, have your feelings changed? Do you now regret voting for Bush or do you still feel the same why you felt a year ago? Would you vote for him again if the election were held today?


I am just curious.


And for all of you who voted for Kerry, please refrain from making negitive comments. I really want to know and I don't want anyone to be intimidated from answering.  Thanks.



Cat

It has been a year since the election and with the way things are going in Washington, have your feelings changed? Do you now regret voting for Bush or do you still feel the same why you felt a year ago? Would you vote for him again if the election were held today?


Largely, I feel that the President has very little influence in how the country is run.  He is largely a figurehead, with little real power.

However, he does "steer the rudder", and guide the country in different ways.  But Congress has a much larger influence on how things really run.  And even more so, it is outside influences that determine what happens.

As has happened many times in the past, Congress can prevent the President from doing anything.  They determine what bills he is presented, what monies he can spend, and what he can do with the military.  And the Supreme Court can step in at any time and tell both of them to "get lost".

The largest influence though is probably outside forces.  A great example of this is Jimmy Carter.

President Carter was looking like a sure choice for re-ellection.  Then he got hit with the Embassy takover in Iran.  Then right afterwards he got hit with inflation, unemployment, and an oil embargo.  After that, nothing he did would see him get a second term.  President Bush Sr. Was also a sure choice for a second term, then unemployment and a recession set in, and he was doomed.  There was nothing either of them could have done about any of those situations.

President Bush Jr. was hit with a similar situation, 9/11.  Nothing he could have done would have changed it.  That operation was already in planning long before he came into office.  If Al Gore had won the ellection, then it would have been him having to deal with it.

Myself, I favor his "hard line" stance on terrorism.  I agree with attacking both terrorists, and the nations that support them.  I do not care if the organization is Al Queda, Shining Path, Red Brigade, or any other group.  President Clinton did try to stop it when he was in office, but it proved to be ineffective.  Simply throwing a few cruise missles or an air strike is simply not enough.  And the failure of such an attack simply gives them more propaganda to use in order to recruit more members.

And there have been victories in this "war".  Lybia has forsaken terrorism as a state tool.  Al Queda is nowhere near as powerful as they were 8 years ago.  Afganistan is under a government that does not destroy ancient monuments, simply because they are not Islamic in origin.  And the most important fallout hopefully from the last Gulf Was is that the UN will get itself together, and end the corruption that has been allowed to creep in.

Largely, I feel that the President has very little influence in how the country is run.  He is largely a figurehead, with little real power.

However, he does "steer the rudder", and guide the country in different ways.  But Congress has a much larger influence on how things really run.  And even more so, it is outside influences that determine what happens.

As has happened many times in the past, Congress can prevent the President from doing anything.  They determine what bills he is presented, what monies he can spend, and what he can do with the military.  And the Supreme Court can step in at any time and tell both of them to "get lost".

The largest influence though is probably outside forces.  A great example of this is Jimmy Carter.

President Carter was looking like a sure choice for re-ellection.  Then he got hit with the Embassy takover in Iran.  Then right afterwards he got hit with inflation, unemployment, and an oil embargo.  After that, nothing he did would see him get a second term.  President Bush Sr. Was also a sure choice for a second term, then unemployment and a recession set in, and he was doomed.  There was nothing either of them could have done about any of those situations.

President Bush Jr. was hit with a similar situation, 9/11.  Nothing he could have done would have changed it.  That operation was already in planning long before he came into office.  If Al Gore had won the ellection, then it would have been him having to deal with it.

Myself, I favor his "hard line" stance on terrorism.  I agree with attacking both terrorists, and the nations that support them.  I do not care if the organization is Al Queda, Shining Path, Red Brigade, or any other group.  President Clinton did try to stop it when he was in office, but it proved to be ineffective.  Simply throwing a few cruise missles or an air strike is simply not enough.  And the failure of such an attack simply gives them more propaganda to use in order to recruit more members.

And there have been victories in this "war".  Lybia has forsaken terrorism as a state tool.  Al Queda is nowhere near as powerful as they were 8 years ago.  Afganistan is under a government that does not destroy ancient monuments, simply because they are not Islamic in origin.  And the most important fallout hopefully from the last Gulf Was is that the UN will get itself together, and end the corruption that has been allowed to creep in.



That is very interesting, Mushroom but you didn't answer my question. Do you still feel the same way about your vote as you did a year ago? Would you vote the same way today?




Cat

That is very interesting, Mushroom but you didn't answer my question. Do you still feel the same way about your vote as you did a year ago? Would you vote the same way today?


The answer is "yes" to both of your questions.

The answer is "yes" to both of your questions.



Thank you for answering my question(s).





Cat

1.  I regret that the only viable choices I had were Bush and Kerry.  I voted for Bush simply for the fact that I knew what Bush would do and that I did not trust Kerry.  I do not regret this decision because I am not sure that the country would be much better off with a Kerry at the helm.

2.  I would have voted for John McCain.  McCain seems to be a good personality and a uniting individual.  Seeing as that wasn't a choice, I would have voted for Bush for the reason I stated above.

All I know is no matter how unhappy I get with Bush, I would have been 2 times as unhappy with Kerry.

It has been a year since the election and with the way things are going in Washington, have your feelings changed? Do you now regret voting for Bush or do you still feel the same why you felt a year ago? Would you vote for him again if the election were held today?


I am just curious.


And for all of you who voted for Kerry, please refrain from making negitive comments. I really want to know and I don't want anyone to be intimidated from answering.  Thanks.



Cat

I see you've taken up a new sport--fishing for BS!
Nobody who boasts and blusters for the righteousness of his side while damning and denigrating the opponent is just going to say, "Oops, I was wrong.  The other guys were right."  That's called "eating crow."  Nobody likes to eat crow.  I sure don't.
I'm thinking less of the people on this board than I am of the Republican punditry in general.  Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity, for instance, were saying that Bush's 35% approval rating was an asset because--after all--Harry Truman was unpopular.  They're desperate because they were ceaseless cheerleaders for Bush.  It's much less difficult for Pat Buchanan and his ilk who had harsh words for Bush all along.  I mean, it is true that Bush's right-wing media cheerleaders are ripping him because he didn't zero-out the social services budgets and send stormtroopers out to seize and deport every last Mexican.  But remember, if Kerry had one, Osama Bin Laden would be sleeping with your daughter, so you just be grateful!
:D

But remember, if Kerry had one, ...
:D


if Kerry had won, ...

I red it and wondered, "one of WHAT?"  ???
I due that all the thyme.  ::)

I would not have been ahppy with Kerry as President.

I normally thought of him as "George Dukakis Jr.".

you know, i might have voted for mccain if he'd been up against kerry. i really didn't care for kerry much.

i actually wanted to vote for nader, but he wasn't on the ballot in virginia. ???

you know, i might have voted for mccain if he'd been up against kerry. i really didn't care for kerry much.


5 years ago, I did vote vor McCain in the California Primary (even though it had already been decided by then).  Given the choices we had in 2000 and 2004, I thought (and still think) that Bush was the best choice.

Yes, I would still vote for Bush over Kerry.

Kerry didn't seem to have a solid mindset.  First he voted for the war, then he criticized it to no end, then during the campaign when asked "Would you pull the troops out" he said no.  People like that make me very nervous.  I think that is a big reason why Bush did win.  He was solid on his plans, while Kerry always seemed to be teetering, not sure which way to go.

I also support Bush's stance on terrorism.  I've given my reasons many times before on these boards...so I won't ramble on about it again...

But yes, if my choices were Bush and Kerry again, I would vote for Bush again without even having to think twice.

What she ^ said!

Yes, I would still vote for Bush over Kerry.

Kerry didn't seem to have a solid mindset.  First he voted for the war, then he criticized it to no end, then during the campaign when asked "Would you pull the troops out" he said no.  People like that make me very nervous.  I think that is a big reason why Bush did win.  He was solid on his plans, while Kerry always seemed to be teetering, not sure which way to go.

I also support Bush's stance on terrorism.  I've given my reasons many times before on these boards...so I won't ramble on about it again...

But yes, if my choices were Bush and Kerry again, I would vote for Bush again without even having to think twice.


You took the words right out of my mouth.

Yes, I would still have voted for him knowing what I know now.  To me Kerry came across as a smarmy used care salesman.  I didn't trust him then and don't trust him now.  I did vote for Edwards in the Dem primary and would have had to think long and hard if it came down to a Bush v. Edwards election.

So it seems that most of you voted AGAINST Kerry rather than voting FOR Bush. I can understand that because I did just the opposite-I was voting AGAINST Bush rather than voting FOR Kerry.


I do appriecate all of you for answering my question. Thank you.




Cat

So it seems that most of you voted AGAINST Kerry rather than voting FOR Bush. I can understand that because I did just the opposite-I was voting AGAINST Bush rather than voting FOR Kerry.


I do appriecate all of you for answering my question. Thank you.




Cat


i thought it was interesting that the real candidates -- to my mind mccain on the republican side, dean on the demo side -- were both ostracized and drummed out during the primaries by their own parties. it seems like both parties are invested in maintaining the status quo and both of these candidates were actually charming, charismatic, had real ideas for change, whether one liked those ideas or not. but the investors -- party contributors, the big corporations that contribute to both the repub and dem parties -- wanted much more of a known quantity. hence we ended up with bush and kerry -- these two milquetoast candidates who both campaigned on the platform of not being the other guy. i'm sorta at a loss to explain it, but it bodes pretty ill for democracy if we keep ending up having to choose between two versions of the least common denominator. ya know?

I voted against both Kerry and Bush....I couldnt stand either of them....I voted Libertarian. 

i thought it was interesting that the real candidates -- to my mind mccain on the republican side, dean on the demo side -- were both ostracized and drummed out during the primaries by their own parties. it seems like both parties are invested in maintaining the status quo and both of these candidates were actually charming, charismatic, had real ideas for change, whether one liked those ideas or not. but the investors -- party contributors, the big corporations that contribute to both the repub and dem parties -- wanted much more of a known quantity. hence we ended up with bush and kerry -- these two milquetoast candidates who both campaigned on the platform of not being the other guy. i'm sorta at a loss to explain it, but it bodes pretty ill for democracy if we keep ending up having to choose between two versions of the least common denominator. ya know?



This place would be totally different if either one of those guys got in. Dean was my candidate of choice but I wouldn't have minded McCain.


Cat

As far as attacks on candidates by members of their own parties during primaries, that is just American Politics.

And in the past, it made for interesting running mates.  In 1980, Reagan and Bush Sr. had a very bitter race against each other.  Bush had said publically that he would never run on a ticket with Reagan.  But a few months later, they worked together for the good of the party, and we able to win.  They had a slightly strained, but professional working relationship for the next 8 years.

On the other hand, 1980 also had John Anderson.  When he lost, he just left the party and started his own.  He ended up with 7% of the votes in 1980.  And as far as I know, he was never heard from again.  8)

This place would be totally different if either one of those guys got in. Dean was my candidate of choice but I wouldn't have minded McCain.


Cat


We have Howard Dean's cousin as mayor of our County. (It is rather amazing...a Democrat is the head of the main county in Utah).  He is doing a pretty good job.  Dean came to town campaigning for him.  He came across as a great guy.  It's too bad people held that one speech against him. 

We have Howard Dean's cousin as mayor of our County. (It is rather amazing...a Democrat is the head of the main county in Utah).  He is doing a pretty good job.  Dean came to town campaigning for him.  He came across as a great guy.  It's too bad people held that one speech against him. 


i guess that's the thing, his hyeeeaaaugggg moment. i think the demos had turned on him as a potential liability and once that had happened they were looking for any hook to hang him on. his yelling during that speech just happened to be the first thing he did that they could use. in a different context i don't think anyone would have commented on it.

We have Howard Dean's cousin as mayor of our County. (It is rather amazing...a Democrat is the head of the main county in Utah).  He is doing a pretty good job.  Dean came to town campaigning for him.  He came across as a great guy.  It's too bad people held that one speech against him. 


The "scream" speech was taken way out of context.  The mic that recorded it did not pick up the background noise against which it was competing, and made it sound bad.  The media played that up, apparantly to sabotage Howard, who, by the way is fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.  It was a  political assassination.

This place would be totally different if either one of those guys got in. Dean was my candidate of choice but I wouldn't have minded McCain.


Cat


Well, if it helps any, the fact that I live in California basically turned my vote for Bush into a vote for Kerry.    I really don't like this electoral nonsense.  It makes me feel like it is pointless for me to even bother voting.

Well, if it helps any, the fact that I live in California basically turned my vote for Bush into a vote for Kerry.    I really don't like this electoral nonsense.  It makes me feel like it is pointless for me to even bother voting.


The electoral college may seem outdated but it is an important factor in protecting the rights and voices of the smaller states.  But that's another debate altogether :)

Well, if it helps any, the fact that I live in California basically turned my vote for Bush into a vote for Kerry.    I really don't like this electoral nonsense.  It makes me feel like it is pointless for me to even bother voting.


you could vote third party! particularly if california's gonna go democratic no matter what your vote is, at least if the third parties started rising in the polls it might change the political landscape somewhat. i think some more viable third-party action would do this country a WORLD of good... right, left, middle, it almost doesn't matter, anything to break up this repub/demo logjam.

here in virginia we're almost guaranteed to go republican for the presidential race, even though our governor right now is demo.

We have Howard Dean's cousin as mayor of our County. (It is rather amazing...a Democrat is the head of the main county in Utah).  He is doing a pretty good job.  Dean came to town campaigning for him.  He came across as a great guy.  It's too bad people held that one speech against him. 



Dean was the governor here for a long time and he did a lot of good for the state. While there were some things that I didn't like what he did, over-all he was a good governor.



i guess that's the thing, his hyeeeaaaugggg moment. i think the demos had turned on him as a potential liability and once that had happened they were looking for any hook to hang him on. his yelling during that speech just happened to be the first thing he did that they could use. in a different context i don't think anyone would have commented on it.



I heard that the Dems were planning an attack on Dean-if the "I have to Scream" speech didn't happen first.



Cat

Dean was the governor here for a long time and he did a lot of good for the state. While there were some things that I didn't like what he did, over-all he was a good governor.



I heard that the Dems were planning an attack on Dean-if the "I have to Scream" speech didn't happen first.



Cat

I'm sure the DNC would have stabbed Dean in the back.  He's not a Republicrat like Kerry and Hillary!
::)

I'm sure the DNC would have stabbed Dean in the back.  He's not a Republicrat like Kerry and Hillary!
::)


i was never able to figure out why the right's so down on hillary. she's as gung-ho for the war as any of 'em!

and kerry, they were right, i was never able to figure out WHAT his deal was. (voted for him, though. had to hold my nose.)

I never felt that I misunderstood Kerry's platform. I would have been happier with Dean, I suppose. The main thing I concentrated on about Kerry's platform was his plan for a nationalised health insurance. It wasn't exactly what I wanted, but I thought it was a step in the right direction. I also believed that Kerry was far more intelligent and presidential than Bush. Bush, for so long, was content to play the role of the fish out of water, the Washington outsider; a simple man who just happened to be elected the president of the United States. I knew that was a load of crap, and now that the polls show that the people want a president who looks like he knows what he's talking about, his PR firm has him trying to shake that image by using polysyllabic words. However imperfect Kerry and the Democrats seemed, they looked like a party I could work with, while Bush and the Republicans literally frighten me.

I am disappointed that a Republican president, with Republican majorities in the House and Senate, has not been able to steer the nation toward a smaller, less burdensome government and fiscal responsibility.  It has been argued that the nation is better off with the executive branch and legislative branches in different parties to balance each other out.  I think there is some validity to this argument because, in some ways, gridlock is better than having a president who refuses to veto irresponsible spending bills.  Having said that, I do not regret having voted for Bush over Kerry.

I am disappointed that a Republican president, with Republican majorities in the House and Senate, has not been able to steer the nation toward a smaller, less burdensome government and fiscal responsibility. 
You really believe that's what the Republican party is all about?  I mean did you really believe the Republicans were the party of "small government"?  Like when Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Dubya, et al., said that, you believed it in your heart?

Oh, dude, I'm sorry. 

If it'll make you feel any better, I didn't find out about Santa Claus until I was 23, boy that was a blow?

You do understand that thing about Santa....
;D

It was brought up that 1 reason people didn't vote for Kerry was his changing views on the war.  My question to all of you is:  how do you feel about the rest of the senators who initially voted FOR the war but are now acknowledging that they were flat out lied to?  Would you vote for one of them now?


I wouldn't say that they were lied to, but the information "supporting" the cause for war is sketchy at best, and probably in retrospect, was way outdated.  Doesn't mean it's not possible that Iraq had the WMDs blah-de-blah-de-blah but looking back, it was not the best idea in the world to go to war.  Sigh.

I think a lot of the senators are long-time incumbents whose time has passed and should be replaced anyway, but that's just me.

yeah, when people talk about republicans and fiscal responsibility, i have no idea what they're referring to. that issue died for the repubs a long time ago, and it just hasn't stopped breathing yet. hell, i think teddy roosevely might have been the last fiscally conservative republican!

Not like the Democrats are much better at fiscal responsibility ;)  The two-party system has transformed into a one-party amalgam.

Not like the Democrats are much better at fiscal responsibility ;)  The two-party system has transformed into a one-party amalgam.


Well, I seem to remember the deficit being at $0 at one time in my life...  :-X

I am disappointed that a Republican president, with Republican majorities in the House and Senate, has not been able to steer the nation toward a smaller, less burdensome government and fiscal responsibility.  It has been argued that the nation is better off with the executive branch and legislative branches in different parties to balance each other out.  I think there is some validity to this argument because, in some ways, gridlock is better than having a president who refuses to veto irresponsible spending bills.  Having said that, I do not regret having voted for Bush over Kerry.


First, "fiscal responsibility" in my life, and I guess yours, means not living beyond your means and prioritizing your spending.  Before I opted for a very generous (half pay 'till 65 + bennies) early retirement incentive, I made not darn but damn sure I could maintain my life style and still put something away for savings, unlike the Bush tax cuts that have plunged us into the worst deficits in history, and from a position of surpluses.  Nor has the government goitten smaller.  The enhanced powers of investigation under the Patriot Act have greatly expanded the gov's ability to intrude into all our lives, and without the due process of court orders, warrents, probable cause, and the like.  With all respect, its sounds to me like you are a Barry Goldwater Repub and not a neocon one (In high scool I found Barry's message appealing, until I started reading between the lines, but I still believe he was sincere).

I guess I'm a bit confued by what you mean by "less burdensome government".  Until recently, under both dem and GOP admins, I never felt the "burden" gov't was supposedly putting on my back (except for the traffic cops - I cleverly beat several speeding tickets).  So just who was burdened by the gov't?  I'll give you a few examples: the polluters who dumped so much crap into I think it was the Ohio river that it caught on fire (so much for Clyde's fishing hole); or the folks who entertained those down river on the Connecticut with constantly changing water colors (red one day, purple the next, orange after that) depending on the textile dyes they were using; or the folks who figured it was cheaper to settle disability claims from injured workers then to improve the health and safty enmvironment in their establishments (so it costs us a few grand to settle with a guy who lost a body part, that's cheaper than fixing the cause of the accident - I can give you a real-life account from a place where I worked, the injured person lost a hand to a michine with insufficient safe guards, I drove him to the hospital.  The company did pay to have the blood cleaned up in my car, bless their genorosity). 

On the other hand, it is only recently that gov't has been allowed to pry into my reading habits, check into my credit card purchases (I now minimize them), review my bank account, etc.  The morning paper reported that Dem Joe Biden and a Repub(don't remember the name, was it Arlen Specter?) have jointly called for an investigation of why more than 30,000 US citizens have been targeted for these sorts of investigations mearly on the strength of a letter from the Justice Dept. asserting that it is related to "terrorism".  To me, all of this increases the burden of gov't on my back and everyone elses. 

I would also maintain that "less burdensome" government would be more open, less secretive government.  Yet this administration has chosen to be as secretive as possible.  It has made every effort to limit the Freedom of Information Act, to obfuscate at every opportunity, to hinder or dely legitimate investigations (9/11 Commission comes to mind, not to mention "Scooter" Libby's misstatements (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt), and the slow pace of the Senate investigating "intelligance failures".  The cumulative effect of all this, and more, is to burden all of us with ignorance re the activities of our leaders.  I would respectfully suggest that such prevents us from carrying out our role as citizens of a democratic republic, the  responsibility to make informed decisions regarding the policies for which we, as citizens, bear ultimate responsibility.  I would propose that the extreme example of this would be Nazi Germany - "but I vus not a Nazi" was a copout. 

Please don't take this in a personal way.  That is not my intent.  My frustration is that sound bites like "get the government off our backs" and "fiscal responsibility" seem to be taken as analysis when, in fact, they are propoganda tools.

Not like the Democrats are much better at fiscal responsibility ;)  The two-party system has transformed into a one-party amalgam.


i think someone else made the point -- the budget was actually balanced for a little while during the 90s. so if the democrats want to make the case that they can exercise fiscal responsibility, at least there's a recent record they can refer to. the republicans don't have that.

(i know, i know, a lot of folks will say that the budget was balanced during the 90s because of the republican takeover of congress, but that hardly jibes with the fact that the republicans are running everything now and spending like a buncha drunks with stolen credit cards...)

The economy of that era was also vastly different from the present situation.  The natural business cycle coupled with the crash after 9/11 did not help matters.

You may notice that the stock market levels are at about the same level as they were in the mid-90s though.

have your feelings changed? Do you now regret voting for Bush or do you still feel the same why you felt a year ago? Would you vote for him again if the election were held today?

No.
No regrets, feel the same way I felt a year ago.
Yes.

The economy of that era was also vastly different from the present situation.  The natural business cycle coupled with the crash after 9/11 did not help matters.

You may notice that the stock market levels are at about the same level as they were in the mid-90s though.


yeah, the stock market levels have stagnated. very encouraging. lol.

well, i guess you could always say that if you wanted to account for poor fiscal performance -- well, things were different then. there are natural business cycles, although we're not sure what causes them. there was a disaster, which is not to say that there aren't always disasters. take the credit for the good stuff, attribute the bad stuff to obscure causes and quasisupernatural entities like "business cycles."

the figures for the economic impact of 9/11, i've seen, are about on a par with the economic damage following hurricane andrew. nothing near the budget for the iraq war, for instance. so the unforeseeable disasters are nothing like the foreseeable ones that the republicans visited on the economy.

so i say again, if the republicans want to argue they're fiscally responsible, they have no viable record to refer to. sunspots and cycles of the moon notwithstanding.

HMmmm....so maybe the real question we should be asking is..those of you that voted for Republican senators/representatives...would you vote for them AGAIN??