From my point of view, Junior and his Faith-based BS is about as direct an assault on our Country as has come down the pike in my lifetime. It is an extremely dangerous road to go down. I am completely dumbfounded why many apparently are blind to the problems there. Base problems which I feel put the guy in direct conflict with his solemn oath he took but days before he started in on "his" agenda.

If that was not enough, it is obvious to me the guy is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Oil/Gas fatcats. I realize they all pander, but gesh can he at least attempt to look concerned with, say, the folks in California?

Toss-in my belief the guy "barely" qualified to be one's next door neighbor. He lacks the base skills necessary to be a World Leader, all-in-all we have a guy in office who would not make my long list if it included 10,000 names.

What is it types like myself DON'T GET about GW Bush? What is it that makes him popular? Is it just the Hayseed? The "nice guy" angle?

I am really begining to believe many people simply too stupid to know any better. I don't like believing such, but there it is. I used to think it was just lack of information, balance.

What does a non-Bush believer NOT GET?

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

Answers

“Toss-in my belief the guy "barely" qualified to be one's next door neighbor. He lacks the base skills necessary to be a World Leader, all-in-all we have a guy in office who would not make my long list if it included 10,000 names.”

Of course Mr. Paulie, you would be qualified to pass judgement on the merits of a leader such as George W. Bush. From your little hovel in the Nevada desert, you have that worldly knowledge to grade such a man as GWB. You sir are a joke and a wonderful example of the liberal intelligence in this country…or lack thereof.

Clean up your cage and do something worthwhile with your own pathetic life.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

Ah how sweet SlowCraps. Hit a nerve there dickhead? Hey bud last I checked we have Free Speech still. Are you asking me to be like YOU and just Bend Over? be a good little sap and submit to the worshippers of Money?

No wonder you are anonymous, your stock is plummeting dude.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

Instead of the standard right-wingnut personal attacks, So-crates, why don't you show some valid reason why you feel GWB QUALIFIES as a "leader"?

Detail for us the qualifications YOU feel he possesses; what in his background prepared him for this position? Was it the failed businesses? The military "service"? Being Governor of Texas? Being the son of a former President? Coming from a privileged background?

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

Socr@tes(??): "From your little hovel in the Nevada desert..."

As I recall, the real Socrates was quite poor. He was said to have visited the agora and remarked, "How many things there are that I do not need!" He was legendary for not even owning any sandals.

He rebuked one of his followers for being far sunk in luxury, when the follower insisted on putting some vinegar in his water at breakfast.

His wife, Xantippe, was badmouthed as a shrew because she complained bitterly about the fact that she was expected to raise three sons (and an unknown number of daughters) while Socrates spent the day wandering about in the agora talking to people and he never did any paid work.

Socr@tes, you do not reflect your namesake very well. He would never have taken issue with whether a person lived in a "hovel" or not.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

The way I see it, there have been few presidents who qualify as a "World Leader" in every respect. Bush is no exception, and neither was Clinton, in my opinion. I'm not any more fond of Bush than I was of Clinton and Gore.

What I don't understand is why you get so worked up over it.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

Oh I don't know Buddy, maybe like some people get worked up about the responsibilty of parents and their child's actions. Dumb shit like that.

Seriously, what is it WE don't get? Is it that America is being overrun and corrupted by illegals, blacks, chinks, women, unions(ie. non Angol-Saxons males), bleeding heart social policies? And that while GW no great shakes, he will stem the tide of what is clearly(to diitoheads) the degeneration? I think it is this, I think many have had it "up to here" with the damn Welfare leeches. Perople are sick of the Gumbit can do this and that. More taxes etc etc. With the equal opp crap. With Womens this and that.

Problem there is GW will do little if anything, and in many regards is WORSE. I think many are just grasping at straws frankly. Repubs ran Bonzo and won, it is that clear to me.

Is this wrong?

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

Bush wasn't my first choice but in the end there were only two to pick from. Would you really rather a president Gore? I can just see Al, with brow furrowed, scolding Arafat & Sharon on TV while winking to New York. You said WHIMP. Yep.

Bush hasn't stepped on his dick yet but it's early in the GAME.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

Doc,

More brilliant trolling. Excellent. You show great potential as a serious poster.

Carlos gave you a sraight answer to a crooked question. GWB was the preferable choice for those of us that supported him. To paraphrase Eleanor roosevelt "it is better to vote for a mediocre Conservative than for a good Liberal (and Gore was not even that). Apparently that's what you DON'T GET.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

St. Doc,

Hey, at the old Poole's Roost at InsideTheWebs, I said essentially what Lars said here: that a decision between Gore and Bush wasn't really much of a choice. 'Bout like lunchtime around here: which burger joint do I go to for my daily ration of fat, cholesterol and sodium?

Big deal. It's a toss-up.

When all was said and done I decided to vote for Bush. I never EXPECTED Dubya to be the Best Thing That Ever Happened To Washington, so I have yet to be disappointed.

I know I frustrated you and a lot of other friends at the old Roost when I said that I just didn't see that much difference between Dubya and AlGore. I can't help that.

And you know what? I still don't.

If Bradley and McCain had won their nominations, now, that would have been a real election -- or the closest thing we've had to it in a while.

Ah, might-have-beens. :)

-- Anonymous, March 29, 2001

GWB was the preferable choice for those of us that supported him.

Well thanks for the feedback fellas. Lars was kind enough to confirm what I had suspected about the intelligence level present here. Now I completely understand.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2001

So, once again it is stated. If you are not a diehard Democrat/Clinton/Gore supporter, your intelligence is questionable.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2001

Didn't say that Buddy. Here is an entire thread where it is stated one voted for GWB as some rational choice based on the "lesser of two evils".

We also have an entire board with posts claiming there was not a snowballs chance in hell these same posters would have ever voted for the other guy. In this case it was Al Gore.

Not about lesser, perferable, never an issue.

You voted against a Conservative Democrat. You voted for a rookie, without a shred of experience at the level. You overlooked what would have sunk far lesser a Democrat, a DUI conviction. All because of Partisanship. Perferable? hardly.

This bs may fly with your buddies. I am not buying it. Not all of us are as dim as they are.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2001

Carlos, Shrub Bush hasn't "stepped on his dick yet"? Tell me, what would you consider as his doing so?

Here's a short list: Denying women in other countries dominion over their own bodies and reproductive choice. Denying children born below the poverty line health care inside the US. Increasing the acceptable amount of arsenic in the nation's drinking water. Presiding over an "energy shortage" on the West Coast in order to jack up prices. Refusing FEMA money to Washington state in order to repair earthquake damage to government buildings. Ignoring the Kyoto accord, destroying ten years of diplomacy with other nations re: greenhouse gases and CO2.

Can't wait to read your definition of one's "stepping on his dick".

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2001

Carlos, I would have said Bush hasn't smoked a cigar yet.

Patricia, this question is analogous to "when did you stop beating your wife?" No answer is acceptable. Lars and Stephen echoed my sentiments. Bush got close to 50% of the votes, more than Clinton. So from that standpoint he's more "popular" than Clinton. Doc's "question" struggles with the concept that someone he doesn't like has made it into office. It happens. He questions Bush's intelligence. Hmmm That implies (to me) that Doc thinks he has more intelligence yet I don't see any degrees behind his name (outside his handle).

Bottom line: the post is a bogus question, not realing looking for any answers, just a display of frustration on his part. With that, he must expect some blasting from the other side.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2001

Bush has stepped on his dick plenty IMHO. His environmental decisions have been awful (including his naming of Ms Norton for Interior, a disciple of the one and only James Watt).

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2001

He questions Bush's intelligence. Hmmm That implies (to me) that Doc thinks he has more intelligence yet I don't see any degrees behind his name (outside his handle).

What does having a degree have to do with intelligence? Do intelligent people automatically get a degree attached to their names? No one has ever denied that Bush graduated from college despite himself. His grades were handed to him, and at that they were as low as was allowed and still passing. It is a shame that his position allowed him to get into college where he wasted his oppertunity to learn anything, when there are so many who would have used the same oppertunity to actually learn and better themselves. He has had everything handed to him, he doesn't know what it means to put an effort towards doing anything. He never speaks with out prompters spelling out exactly what he is to say. It's amazing how illiterate he is, yet he is supposed to run this country? Give me a break, the guy is not in the least qualified, his background is full of failures in every thing that was handed to him. So Bush having gotten a degree in anyhting means nothing, in all honesty. Someone not having a degree does not mean they are not intelligent. When the day comes that intelligence determines wheather a person is allowed to go to college and earn a degree over their ability to buy that degree, then maybe your arguement will hold up. But until then, your arguement is meaningless.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2001

Cherri,

I agree that a degree doesn't mean a whole lot. I've done pretty well most of my life without one. :)

Doc,

You know the old saying: friends shouldn't discuss politics or religion. So why do we keep doing it?

Because we can't help ourselves, I guess. :)

I'm not speaking for anyone else, but I have to answer a few of the things you've said above. For one, you claim that there wasn't much "lesser of two evils" discussion going on before the election, but I distinctly remember saying this myself at the old Roost. I also remember Flint and a few others saying this (in essense), as well.

I have also said that I'm a registered Democrat -- on purpose; that there are things about Republicans that I DON'T like, which is why I won't join that party.

(Actually, if I thought it was more than a phyrric gesture, I'd become a Libertarian, but that's for another discussion.)

Yes, even now, the Republicans are doing some things that I don't like a bit (such as the bankruptcy reform act, working AGAINST patient's rights, etc., etc.). So it really does boil down to a "lesser of two evils" choice for me, more often than not.

But until the Democrats lose their ties with left wing and liberal pressure groups, I am personally forced to vote for Republicans, who are tied to right-wing groups and Big Money.

Yay. Some choice, huh?

On experience: Ronald Reagan, F. D. Roosevelt, J. F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln and a host of other presidents were elected with little or no federal experience. In fact, they ran against guys who DID have such experience. So, I'm not sure where you're going with that; by that standard, no one should have voted for Clinton against Bush Sr, right? Didn't Bush have the "big league" experience in the 1992 election?

In Dubya's case, I *did* have a bed of experience to look at and consider, and you're wrong that he has "failed" at everything he's tried up to this point. In particular, he was the well-regarded governor of Texas, overwhelmingly reelected by Texans.

(Contrast this to the fact that, at the same time in Tennessee, Gore's numbers were crashing -- I'll get back to that in a moment.)

I was especially impressed at his ability to build a working coalitian between Democrats and Republicans in that state.

I'm not trying to get you to agree with me (we both know that's unlikely[g]). I'm simply trying to show you that some thought went into my decision; it was NOT just partisan blindness. I was perfectly prepared to vote for Gore if I had honestly thought, at the end of the vetting process, that he was the better man.

Finally, I have made the point before that Florida didn't cost Gore the election. Losing his home state -- almost UNHEARD of in presidential politics, mind you! -- is what cost him the election. At that point in the game, Bush HAD to have the electoral votes from Florida, period. He could NOT have won, no way and no how, without it.

But Gore actually didn't need Florida, *IF* he had just won the smaller states (in EV counts) of Tennessee -- OR Arkansas, the people of which, we could also argue, should have "known" and preferred him.

Had he won Tennesee or Arkansas, he would be in the White House today and Florida would be a moot point. There would have been no supreme court decision for Gore's supporters to rally around, no cries of unfairness, no moaning over hanging chads and roadblocks, or any of that stuff. Gore would be President.

It might behoove you to wonder WHY he lost his own state of Tennessee, while Bush won Texas by one of the highest percentages in the country. This has gotten virtually NO discussion here OR at Unks, which ITSELF indicates to me that most of this argument is just partisan politics.

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2001

Stephen:

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but, personally, I'm tired of you stating that you're a registered Democrat. There's nary a person from the South who wasn't a Democrat before the desegregation thing happened. It wasn't until John posted the year that I realized that desegregation had hit the North some 20 years before it hit the South. The bottom-line on that one is that you're not making any points by stating that you're a registered Democrat. You were either too lazy to change your registration or your district is mainly Democratic and you keep the status to vote for more conservative Democrats in the primaries. I'm actually considering registering as a Republican in the hopes that someone more moderate is on the primary ticket and I can help get rid of these right-wing-nuts here in Texas.

*I*'ve seen you identify with the Christian Right-wing on occasion. You back off on this when you feel that you'll be associated with a fringe group. OTOH, you work for a Christian Right-wing radio station, and they sure as hell didn't hire you because of your "liberal" views. You ALSO listen to that radio station and are [basically] ensconced in their views on a daily basis.

I'm not saying that this is WHY you are a Christian right-winger. I'm only pointing out what I've seen you write. If my dad were still alive, he'd tell you that I jumped from the womb a liberal, but I distance myself from the fringe liberals, just as I distanced myself from the Weatherman faction of the SDS. [Actually, it's not by design. THEY kick ME out as soon as I disagree with them.]

You said that the Democrats represented "left-wing and liberal pressure groups", while the Republicans represented "Right-wing and Big Money." I'm pretty damn left-wing and liberal, but *I* never saw the Democrats representing MY views. In Illinois, I voted for some Dems and some Repubs [based on their platforms/and(or) voting records.] The last election bothered me for not giving me a CHOICE on the ballot [choose the Republican who doesn't represent you, or leave the space blank because there's no one running against him/her.] Looking at the coffers of Republicans v. Democrats v. anyone else who tries to run here in Texas, you'd see why nobody got on the ballot except the Republicans. Kay Hutchison had $2 million in her coffer while her Democratic opponent had $6 thousand. Is it any wonder to you why Dubya won the governorship? He had the big money behind him.

On to the bipartisanship that Bush presumably displayed in Texas, a certain percentage of the State Congressional Democrats supported his every move from DAY 1. He didn't have to compromise. These Democrats were REALLY Republicans. The joke that was the inauguration ceremony here ONLY invited the Democrats who openly campaigned for him. The Democrats who DIDN'T campaign for him weren't invited. He's in a whole new league in Washington. Northern Democrats aren't REALLY Republicans. Maybe you had to live in the north and the south to appreciate the difference.

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2001

Anita,

First of all, an aside: you need to differentiate between the national and local levels in politics. You seem to focus on the latter. At the local level, you do INDEED basically have Boss Hoggs running the machine, regardless of which party label they choose to wear. That's true wherever you go, from the Deep South to New England.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but, personally, I'm tired of you stating that you're a registered Democrat.

I don't take it the wrong way; you are entitled to your opinion even when you're wrong (as you are in this case). Likewise, I hope YOU don't take THIS the wrong way, but that's not going to stop me from saying it, either.

Get used to it. :)

Just as I have remained a Democrat -- on purpose -- I will continue to say that I am a Democrat -- on purpose. I long for the day when my party returns to the greatness of a JFK or a Harry Truman.

Until then, I will continue to make noise in the hopes that maybe SOME day the national machine will listen to people like me, who are forced to vote for Republicans and Libertarians because we don't wish to compromise our national sovereignty, and don't think the government has any business taking HALF what we earn at our jobs and don't believe that the government should prevent honest, law-abiding citizens from owning handguns.

You were either too lazy to change your registration or your district is mainly Democratic and you keep the status to vote for more conservative Democrats.

Are you a Virtual Remote Control Psychic now? Do you know more about me than I do myself? :)

In fact, Republicans do QUITE well in Alabama. The suburb that I live in is VERY conservative; I might actually do better to register REPUBLICAN, but I refuse to do so.

I have considered changing my registration several times over the years, but in the end, I've always decided to stick with my party in the hopes that they'll change.

Shoot, I like Jim Hunt, the current governor of NC, a lot. I wish he'd run for President; I'd campaign for him quite noisily. Senator John Edwards seems like a heck of a guy, too.

*I*'ve seen you identify with the Christian Right-wing on occasion. You back off on this when you feel that you'll be associated with a fringe group.

I have identified with them when their positions agree with mine. I have also criticized them SHARPLY when our positions differ (which you have either missed or deliberately choose to ignore).

If Pat Robertson ever runs for president, I will oppose him with any and every means at my disposal, I assure you.

OTOH, you work for a Christian Right-wing radio station, and they sure as hell didn't hire you because of your "liberal" views.

Just for the record, it's station[S]. Plural. One plays Christian music, one is all-talk, and the other does a "legends" format (Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, that sort of thing).

I'D like to think they hired me because of my engineering skills. I do know they have also hired a Jewish couple to do the morning show on the all-talk AM, just as they have hired other non-Christians on the basis of qualification and NOT religious or political beliefs.

Hey, they've even hired the odd liberal here and there. :)

But please; don't let me stop you when you're on a roll. Tell me what I'm wearing and what I had for supper.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

Poole,

I will continue to make noise in the hopes that maybe SOME day the national machine will listen to people like me, who are forced to vote for Republicans and Libertarians because we don't wish to compromise our national sovereignty, and don't think the government has any business taking HALF what we earn at our jobs and don't believe that the government should prevent honest, law-abiding citizens from owning handguns.

I have only one thing to say to that:

YES!

Anita,

Shutup.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

Stephen:

Well, you DID take it the wrong way, but that's neither here nor there at this point.

Let me know if I misunderstood what you wrote. You seem to associate the Democratic Party with the administrations of a few men elected some 40-50 years ago. You formed an allegiance with that memory.

It's been interesting for me to listen to the thoughts of folks who felt these political allegiances throughout the years. The way *I*'ve seen it, the Democratic Party AND the Republican Party have gone through several "shifts" just in my lifetime. The "bases" also shift. Some years, the folks at the bottom rung of the ladder have looked to the Democratic Party for hope. Most recently, the Democratic Party base has shifted again to include the more educated, wealthier portion of the population. While you feel that the Democratic politicians are catering to the left-wing and liberal pressure groups, I've heard many left-wingers say, "Why did the Democratic Party desert us?" There was also a time when the Republican Party represented the working class. It all shifts back and forth.

Some folks like to cling to the memory of what once was. Women stay with husbands who've abused them for 20 years, thinking their man will go back to the loveable being that first caught their eye. Life's too short for such blind loyalty, IMO.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

Let me know if I misunderstood what you wrote. You seem to associate the Democratic Party with the administrations of a few men elected some 40-50 years ago.

Yep, you misunderstood. I also pointed to Jim Hunt and John Edwards, both of whom are CURRENT Democrats. To that list, I could add (from personal knowledge) Bill Hefner and Mike MacIntyre, both of whom represented my area in NC. Very good people. There are plenty of Democrats whom I like, and for whom I'd vote.

Plastic soldiers like Dick Gephardt, on the other hand, make me ill. So does Trent Lott, for that matter. His "Evil Republican-ness" has nothing to do with it; he's just a cardboard cartoon, IMNHO. :)

The way *I*'ve seen it, the Democratic Party AND the Republican Party have gone through several "shifts" just in my lifetime. The "bases" also shift.

Of COURSE they do! Times changes, parties change, people change. Right after the Civil War, those few blacks who COULD vote wouldn't choose anything but a Republican, the "party of Lincoln who freed the slaves." Nowdays, they're more likely to vote for Satan.

While you feel that the Democratic politicians are catering to the left-wing and liberal pressure groups, I've heard many left-wingers say, "Why did the Democratic Party desert us?"

That's because we have different definitions of "left wing" and "right wing." We've discussed this before, remember?

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2001

Right after the Civil War, those few blacks who COULD vote wouldn't choose anything but a Republican, the "party of Lincoln who freed the slaves." Nowdays, they're more likely to vote for Satan.

THAT was an interesting statement.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001