posted on December 5, 2000 10:03:53 AM
the man, I would like to know why.
What did/do you see that I have not been able to see throughout the campaign?
While I have respect for the Office of the President, I would like to have respect for the man who holds the title. As of yet, G.W. Bush has not earned my respect.
I am open to this, for I believe you can dislike someone personally and what they stand for, but still have respect for them.
I'm sure I've missed them, but I can't recall a one-on-one, in-depth interview between him and a tough interviewer.
While I had hoped he would accept 60 Minutes' invitation last Sunday, he declined. His acceptance would have gone a long way with me.
posted on December 5, 2000 10:27:10 AM
George Dubya is one of those rare characters in this world that has realized that he is best heard at a distance while reading a teleprompter than placed in a situation where his lack of intellect could be abused by the media.
I am personally trying to figure out how he intends to dodge them for the next four years. Given his current reluctance to openly face the media. I foresee some famous firsts of the Bush Presidency.
1. First Inaugaration Speech that will be given in less than Five Minutes.
2. First time in history that the American people actually wish the Elected guy was getting in the helicopter leaving the White House on Inauguration Day.
3. First State of The Union Address given by the Vice President.
I guess the sexist part of our population will be glad to see the First Lady return to hosting teas and charity events. Which takes me to another intertesting aspect of the Bush Presidency, First time the First lady never speaks a word ever in public while with her husband. In fact does Mrs. Bush ever speak.
posted on December 5, 2000 01:07:09 PM
To view a presidential vote as a vote for a man is foolish. You cast your vote for the party, his relationship to the party, the administration he'll bring in, the relationship between the party holding the office of the president and the make up of the Congress.
If you want Republican backed policies to be put into place, you vote for the Republican candidate for president, regardless of who the man is. Don't ask anyone to defend "the man."
As a Republican candidate, George W is a dream. He's willing to be a weak executive officer, like he was in Texas. It's no wonder that the Republican party supports him strongly, he won't impose any vision of his own, he's happy to be a conduit for Republican policy makers. He'll sign whatever the Republicans in Congress want into law, he's merely a hand to hold a pen.
This is the way of all Republican presidents since Nixon. Ford, Reagan, George Bush Sr. were no different.
This isn't a "bad" thing, it's just the way the Republican party works.
I agree with Donny. I belive more of the republican stance on politics and that's what I voted for not really the man himself. It was my only choice as far as someone representing my political views.
Oddish~ The Odd One
posted on December 5, 2000 03:31:55 PM
Donny,
Well said.
I did not vote for a man but for an ideal and the changes I hope the Republicans can bring to our country. I did not want a Demoncrate to appoint any Judges to the court. If I thought the man was a total sleaze, I would still vote for him over a Demoncrate (even if he did create the internet so we could all be here having thid chat). I see the current administration as a blight (even as Demoncrates go) on our country and want nothing to do with them being in office.
posted on December 5, 2000 03:42:44 PM
scrabblegod, I've been wondering about your constant use of the term "Demoncrate"
I think I understand the "Demon" part, but I'm confused about the "crate" part. Is the "crate" part (rather than "crat" ), merely stupidity on your part, or is it somehow connected to the "Demon" part, i.e. born of intentional nastiness rather than unintentional ignorance?
posted on December 5, 2000 03:46:46 PM
I wondered the same thing. When I see the word "Demoncrate" I picture a large wooden box with snarling coming from inside.
posted on December 5, 2000 03:52:48 PM
I agree with the other Republicans. Bush was not my ideal candidate, but felt he would be the best choice in order to have conservatives back in the White House for awhile. In this election, I would have to say my vote was more against Gore than for Bush.
I do feel Bush & Cabinet will serve us well. He did manage to carry 48% of the popular vote, which is 6% more than Clinton ever did.
posted on December 5, 2000 04:13:51 PM
Yes, donny, I agree that one should vote, and I believe most do, for more than just the individual.
And, because I don't discuss politics outside of my family in real life, I naively assumed that everyone voted based on Party loyalties, issues, etc.
However, it has been my perception from reading all of political threads since the election, that many cast their votes for Bush, the individual, and against Gore, the individual.
I don't think I am imagining this, but I may be all wet.
If the latter, then I apologize for starting this thread.
posted on December 5, 2000 04:15:48 PM
I guess the dislike and contempt I feel for Bush is akin to what many republicans feel for Bill Clinton, so in a way,I can relate to that. I will never respect Bush,I won't support him, and I have nothing but contempt for the Republican Party. This coming from an ex-republican. Yes, I was one in my former life. Ever since the rise of Newt and the likes of Delay, Barr, etc. I've felt that the Republican party has ulterior motives despite the "moderate" conservatism they're trying to promote under the guise of Bush. I worry about someone who doesn't have 1/10th the intellect of Clinton or even his own father. Most people know I'm strongly pro law enforcement, but to see him talk about a human being's pending execution with barely concealed glee and a smirk on his face, well, it plain makes me sick to my stomach. I respect the office of the Presidency, but I will never respect him. About the only good I can think that will come out of all this is that he and his family are politically ruined. There will be no more Bush's after this.
posted on December 5, 2000 04:16:26 PM
scabblegod and donny - ordinarily I wouldn't ask this question. But in this case I am seeking clarification of statements by each of you.
One of you pointed to the High Court as your reason for voting Republican. And the other cited nothing particular except the Republican stance on politics.
Both are okay to say in a general discussion but require clarification when you look a the fact. That currently things are doing good and getting better. So ask yourself what could a Republican possibly do to make it better. And what is it about the Supreme Court that scares White America. They only interpret the law.
Now being of a persuasion that is the victim of over 180 years of terrible interpretation of the Constitution and the Law. I can support my view of the High Court. But I can't see the viable threat that so many people view Al Gore would have done to the court. In fact if you want to point to guns. The current court has upheld every law that restricts hand gun ownership within municipalities that has come across it.
The same court mostly republican appointed has also given police broader powers and all but wiped Miranda off the books. So before you buy into the Gore will appoint a liberal court nonsense. Take a good look at what the current court has done to you.
Now before either of you run to the Abortion issue. Your party supports the death penalty but hates abortion. Sorry death is death.
Before you run to the Affirmative Action issue. AA ws never fully embraced outside of the awarding of Government contracts and jobs. And more White Women have benefitted from it than minorities.
So there we have addressed the three main issues coming before the court over the next two decades. With the rise of women in business, government, and their taking of an active role in all issues. Neither party can appoint judges that would attack their rights on the abortion issue. Don't beleive me think back to the proposed appointment of that Bork Character.
On the gun issue the Constitution is very clear in its language on that. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No room for any interpretation of that
On Affirmative Action, never receiving any of the benefits of AA myself personally. And given the inherent changes that Civil Rights made to our society and the FACT that educational differences take time to manifest themselves. Why do so many otherwise sensible Americans take slight at rules They aren't laws by the way that help to remove educational and economic gaps created by 180 years of terrible interpretation of the constitution combined with slavery.
Heck I suspect African Americans would cheerfuly trade Affirmative Action for cash in pocket today reparations. You don't want to compute that debt so IMHO Affirmative Action is a neat short term fix. And do you think in less than 30 years time 180 years have been alleviated. If you do well I can't wait to read the justification to support that statement.
To conclude, why vote Republican for change. Change to what, we have it allright now and with the exception of national healthcare, and eliminating taxes it doesn't get any better than this for the average joe american. I welcome all replies except banter from a certain individual whose user name begins with a C.
posted on December 5, 2000 04:30:34 PM
I voted for Gore. However, I (and many of the rest of us) stand to benefit financially from a Republican-led government. I wouldn't have willingly compromised my social ideals for that tradeoff, but I'm trying to look at that as a bright spot.
If Bush and his fellow conservatives are prevented from doing anything outrageous while in office, his presidency may be more helpful than harmful, and it will open up the opportunity to elect a good Democratic candidate in four years.
posted on December 5, 2000 05:00:00 PM
networker67, you said:
"scabblegod and donny - ordinarily I wouldn't ask this question. But in this case I am seeking clarification of statements by each of you.
One of you pointed to the High Court as your reason for voting Republican. And the other cited nothing particular except the Republican stance on politics."
I'm assuming I'm the other. I think you attempted to read more into my post than was there. Properly finding it not there, you've asked for clarification.
My post is only an an attempt at an observation of politics, not an attempt to illustrate my own personal justifications for casting my vote for the Republican candidate.
posted on December 5, 2000 05:10:36 PM
donny - thanks for the clarification. I only asked because since this mess has started I have been speaking with a lot of ordinary average joe americans. And it is refreshing to have a discussion on the issues where both sides can speak freely and without fear of hurting the others feelings.
Of the people I have spoke with over the past month. Many seemed to vote republican over a perception that Gore would stack the court against guns.
Others voted for the tax cut.
Some ride the banter of Integrity and Morals returning to the White House.
Some openly admit they vote Republican because of a perception that Democrat is the party of liberals and minorities. Wonder what will they do if Colin Powell is the party Chairman in 2004.
posted on December 5, 2000 07:33:01 PM
When George Bush became President, 12 years ago, the Bessemer Company had to make an exception to their minimum assets requirements, to accept George Bush as a customer. He did not have the required minimum 5 million dollars.
This is an important piece of information because today George W. Bush is worth 20 or 21 million dollars.
Contrary to what many may believe, George W. Bush was not given his 20 million dollars by anyone. His father did not even have 5 when he became President.
So, for starters, George W. Bush is a man who made his money himself and quite a bit of it. He made more than his Dad.
While he is here frequently depicted as some idiot, he has naturally achieved far more than probably any one posting on this board.
Likewise, when he decided to run for Governor of Texas, his very family did not believe he could possibly pull it off. Just recently he pointed out again that his mother thought he did not have a chance.
Seemingly, he did it the old fashioned way. Driving all around Texas, meeting countless people, day after day. Introducing himself. Doing this for months and months.
He became Governor of Texas. He was re-elected.
Nobody gave that to him. Nor his 20 millions.
Yes, he used to drink, maybe to do drugs, to party. He was able to find the strength and determination within himself to put all this behind.
Lately, George W. Bush was able to convince the Republican Party to endorse him. You would think their were many who would have liked to be endorsed. He pulled it off.
So, there is this contrast, between how his detractors portray him, and the reality of what he has achieved. Mostly on his own.
posted on December 5, 2000 08:22:33 PM...and the reality of what he has achieved. Mostly on his own.
and his shamelessness in trading on his family name.
Starting with the investors in his 2 oil companies (who happily took a bath to win some points with the elder shrub), to his Texas Rangers partners who, for some funny reason or other, gave him a gift of a 10% extra stake, no investment required.
Is the "crate" part (ratherthan "crat" ), merely stupidity on your part, or is it somehow connected to the "Demon" part, i.e. born of intentional nastiness rather than unintentional ignorance?
Is very close to the line. Please do not continue to post in that vein.
networker67:
Your comment:
I welcome all replies except banter from a certain individual whose user name begins with a C.
is not appropriate to this form. All persons, even those with usernames beginning with C are allowed to post in any and all threads. If you wish to ignore the posts of certain users, you are welcome to utilize the ignore feature.
posted on December 5, 2000 08:40:02 PM
"Now before either of you run to the Abortion issue. Your party supports the death penalty but hates abortion. Sorry death is death."
Most Democrats I know are pro-choice, anti death penalty. Death is death, I guess, unless it doesn't fit the argument.
(For the record, I don't personally approve of either)
posted on December 5, 2000 08:54:32 PM
I wasn't going to, but what the heck.
Now before either of you run to the Abortion issue. Your party supports the death penalty but hates abortion. Sorry death is death.
The difference is that one is innocent. As TTH, said above, usually liberals are pro-choice and against the death penalty. This has always baffled me as it's apparently ok to kill the innocent but not the guilty.
Is the "crate" part (ratherthan "crat" ), merely stupidity on your part, or is it somehow connected to the "Demon" part, i.e. born of intentional nastiness rather than unintentional ignorance?
Is very close to the line. Please do not continue to post in that vein."
Thank you, Joice, for showing me where the line is, relieving me of the need to figure out how of a hop is needed to jump right over it. And here I go.
Sometimes, what isn't said is as important, or more important, than what is. By your silence regarding Scrabblegod's repeated use of the perjorative term "Demoncrate,", should we allow that insulting a class of people with a nasty term is fine? I don't assume it's fine, and I've said so, and I'll say it again now. On the other hand, you seem, by your silence, to condone it.
And what next? Posts about Spics, Krauts, and Faggots? Would that be worthy of silent acceptance also?
The AW users have been taking pot shots at each others political affilition for several weeks now. I wouldn't quite put that in the same basket as hate speech and racial slurs. It seems all political discussions would come to a screaching halt if that were the case... BUT if you feel that pot shots at a political affiliation should be moderated please feel free to bring it up in the Moderator's Corner for consideration.
posted on December 5, 2000 10:21:53 PM
No, Joice, I don't feel that that pot shots at a political affiliation should be moderated, not at all. That's the heart of political disagreement and discussion, and I've taken shots at both Democratic Party stances and Republican Party stances myself.
What I do feel is that to castigate a class of people with an inherently nasty word is unacceptable, whether that class be defined by its race, its sexual orientation, or its political affiliation. Tell me why Democrats are misguided? Yes. Tell me why homosexuals are misguided? Yes. Refer to them as "Demoncrates" or "Faggots?" No.
Moderation corner? I don't think so. This is not a moderation problem, it's a social problem, and the response should be a social response.
posted on December 5, 2000 10:36:53 PM
krs, my statement read, "Most Democrats I know" which meant, "Most Democrats I know"
I didn't say anything about anyone I do not personally know, the statement means exactly what I said and is the truth. Most Democrats I know are pro-choice, anti-death penalty. The many millions of Democrats I do not know may or may not differ in opinion from the ones I know.
