Turning it around: Reasons to vote FOR Bush?

talk
21

What Kerry did, while great, was 30 years ago. What has he done recently? In his 19 years in the Senate, he doesn’t seem to have any impressive legislation (besides imo the COPS program), and his record in MA is not all that great either (again imo) compared to what Kennedy has been able to do. Also, Kerry too shares many of the same ideas with the current Adminstration such as the Patriot Act, Iraq, etc. His speech yesterday, with the exception of bugging the UN for help, seems like an extension of the Bush Platform. Kerry would really make a great Republican :slight_smile:

He also doesn’t seem to take a strong stand on any issue. If the political ads are to be believed (and there is some truth to them), he seems to take a contradictory stand when it politically suits him more.

If I am going to vote for someone whose views are pretty much the same as the current adminstration, I might as well vote for someone whose views are not flip-floppy :stuck_out_tongue:

22

A few of my reasons -

I stand behind his economic policy.
I stand behind his anti-terror policy.
I stand behind his morals.

I’ve done a lot of listening to Kerry, and quite frankly its just a bunch of puppet strings. I saw a woman flat out silence him in a question and answer session - it was the easiest question in the world and cut through at least 75% of the crap he just got done saying and he took the moment to attack Bush instead of answer the question…the lady just kind of smirked and sat down.

"If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything.“
and
"Knowing what you stand for, limits what you will fall for.”

I see nothing in his policies that is exciting or new - I agree they are just extensions of existing ones the Bush Administration has put forth.

I also agree on Education spending - the money is there, it’s just not going to the right place - how many years have we been increasing funding to public schools? I’ve talked to several teachers, they all agree the money is there but it is not getting to them - that isn’t the “President’s” problem.

Bush does what he believes in, and goes forward - Kerry appears to try and please everyone and their brother. I’ve seen many an analyst say the same thing.

Not to mention the Sandy Berger issue, or the fact that his Vice President Running Mate is more popular than he is.

The Bush platform, while I don’t agree with everything, is a strong and stable one that will keep the country going, Kerry’s will just cause decay in the long run.

Also - 10% is 10% - if someone makes more than you …whoop de doo.
As far as the draft?
I’ve said this many time in the Ordered forum…

have we all forgot about “Selective Service?”

oh and all these:
http://www.georgewbush.com/KerryMediaCenter/Read.aspx?ID=3118

23

So, I think we’ve answered the initial question somewhat:

Bush voters are Kerry-haters.
Kerry voters are Bush-haters.
Nobody likes anybody a whole lot.

On a personal note:

I also agree on Education spending - the money is there, it’s just not going to the right place - how many years have we been increasing funding to public schools? I’ve talked to several teachers, they all agree the money is there but it is not getting to them - that isn’t the “President’s” problem.

The Education policy is one of the prime reasons I am voting for Kerry instead of Bush. My wife is a special education teacher in Wisconsin. We have a terrific public school system here, primarily because we value education and gladly pay higher taxes.

We happen to live in a relatively affluent area where 99% (true) of high school students graduate. The student teacher ratio is about 16:1. 79% of students move on to some sort of college. The average ACT score is 24. That’s pretty darn good.

The Bush Administration has labeled her school district a failing district. Why? It was identified at the school board meeting that the sole reason was the special education students. It just seems they weren’t trying hard enough. Now, if you’ve had any personal experience in this field you would understand that learning how to read survival signs and dress yourself are proud acheivements. They are now required to take tests with advanced math and science – tests they can barely read. If they fail, the district fails.

What happens when the district fails? The government cuts their funding. Now, anybody can see the problems with this solution.

What’s worse is, because this is an underfunded mandate, districts are being forced to divert money from important programs just to prepare for these tests. Districts are fudging the numbers just to stay in existence.

Houston fudged it’s numbers in the early nineties to prove the success of this program… Now their superindendent - Rod Paige - is the secretary of education. And yes, this is the same man who called teachers ‘terrorists’.

For instance, in Milwaukee alone, they are missing about 50 million in government dollars promised by the NCLB Act. What does that mean? They have just eliminated 600 teachers, cut out art and physical education, and scaled back after school programs. Does that make those children’s lives better?

What do the republicans provide as a cure-all? Privatize education and send children to religious charter schools - which don’t need to accept children with special needs.

What I’m saying is, we would have been better off in Wisconsin had we rejected all the money and mandates from the NCLB act from the beginning. That’s a failure.

24

Comments about the tax thing: I know it may not be a perfect system. But if someone is making minimum wage (Which is MORE than $5 an hour) they should not be living on their own. Go move in with mom and dad or something.

Yes…35 cents more than 5 dollars. 9_9 Also, therein lies the problem – you oversimplify others problems into the most general of ideas that makes them seem stupid/inept. Not everyone has parents to live with, or parents who would take them in, and most people have pride. Would you, if you were 40 years old (because you were too poor to go to college, because your family didn’t hold high-paying jobs, because they were too poor to go to college…etc), go ask mumsy and daddykins to live with them? I think not.

Bush has been president through something pertinent to our day and age, and don’t give a **** (sorry) about what Kerry has done in the past.

If you are ignoring a candidate’s (or any) history, you’re just being ignorant.

…and the point is that he had more integrity than to dodge the work that had been put upon his shoulders to be carried out.

Simple fact is, our Commander in Chief has the power to send our troops to a foreign cause. I would rather have a man who understands that consequence than one who used political arm-twisting to get into a sweetheart gig in the national guard. Even after that, he failed to report to duty. Now, this dropout is very excited about sending other people’s children. That matters.

Well put. :wink:

I personally will not vote for Bush. I didn’t vote for Bush in the last election and that got us nowhere so I’m actually just not voting. I would vote for Kerry for the simple reason that he’s not Bush.

So do it. Inactivity is concession to whoever is elected.

If I were to vote I would vote for Nader because I think we should be allowed to have a 3-party system in this country.

I agree, about that, and the immediate urgency of getting bush out, being a priority over the three-party ideal. That can wait, in this case.

I stand behind his morals.

What morals? XD

…seriously. Let’s cut the crap with all of this vaguery, what “morals” specifically, does Bush have? What ideas does he profess that you are an advocate of? Not in general. Specifically.

On education (and, my mother is a single mother of 3, and also a special ed teacher. Luckily our district isn’t failing…yet.)

What happens when the district fails? The government cuts their funding. Now, anybody can see the problems with this solution.

…and apparently special ed students don’t count as children who are left behind. 9_9

What’s worse is, because this is an underfunded mandate, districts are being forced to divert money from important programs just to prepare for these tests. Districts are fudging the numbers just to stay in existence.

That’s beaurocracy for ya.

What do the republicans provide as a cure-all? Privatize education and send children to religious charter schools - which don’t need to accept children with special needs.

Not to mention they put parents in the hole, and don’t necissarily have to give children the rights they deserve and (sometimes) get in publich school. I went to private school for middleschool, and public for highschool, and I can tell you, in private schools, they run things like a dictatorship, and are not supportive nor do they even acknowledge views that conflict with their own (specifically, about religion. I’m an atheist who had to attend an episcopal Cathedral school.)

…tired. Bye.

25

Hey I don’t have to answer about anything I said, this was an exposition for individual opinions, not discussion.

I can see what you are saying, but here in Florida our education system is a lot different.

As far as a blanket statement as “Bush supporters are Kerry haters,” that kind of defeats the purpose of the thread? I don’t hate Kerry, I just don’t agree with what he stands on.

26

Alright, fine by me. But if you don’t provide support for your opinions, they mean nothing to the rest of us.

27

You are right. I started this thread as an exposition for Bush voters.

In addition, I started this thread to point out the poor-standard of always putting democratic-leaning voters on the defensive.

I don’t need to justify why I’m voting for Kerry, but I choose to voice that opinion. But please (directed at the conservative elite), don’t degrade my choice by calling me a ‘bush-basher’. Our vote is much too important to just vote against something.

So, using that blanket statement was the purpose of this thread.

28

I stand behind his economic policy.
I stand behind his anti-terror policy.
I stand behind his morals.

Actualy his morals are the only reason why I think gives I reason for people to vote for him, **while I dont agree with his morals,**Lots of people do, and he does represent the anti-homosexual, relgious side, and if you beleive thats right, well, I guess thats a reason…

Other reason, like anti-terrorism even republican military are getting nervous around bush.

29

What has Bush done… EVER!? Compare their lives. Bush has had business opportunity after business opportunity handed to him (and he failed on almost if not all of them), and then he decided to run for Govenor with little political experience. He was elected. We can blame that on Texas or we can blame it on the fact that people recognized his daddy. What did Bush do for Texas while Govenor? For one, he made Texas the state with the highest number of executions per year. This man has never had a clever idea, nor has he ever worked for anything. Kerry, while he did have a wealthy background, went to war. And for me the war part isn’t even the biggest. It’s the fact that he came back and was inspired, and motivated to stand up for something, and to get involved in making a difference. RIGHT there alone is enough to vote for Kerry. Kerry is clearly the more intelligent, more inspired and creative person. CLEARLY. NO ARGUMENT. DO NOT REBUT THAT STATEMENT FOR THE SAKE OF HUMANITY!

So basically his morals are based on unacceptance and mistrust. Sounds great. His morals are outdated excuses for bigotry. I realize I just offended many people. Sorry. But I see his “morals” as fit for 1910.

“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” “Blessed are the peace makers, for their’s is the kingdom of heaven.”

Bush is not meek, and he never made peace, he made war. Where the **** are his values. And “Where the **** are the balloons!” hahahaha

30

well, i skimmed through this one, lots of interesting discussions going on…

just pointing this out, didn’t Kerry get his purple hearts for some really dumb stuff, like a dislocated pinky or something along those lines?

31

What Bush did in his prior, private life is entirely up to him, and whatever he did, he was able to become financially successful and take care of himself and his family…and a cool baseball team. His intention was not to be in the public eye, and he didn’t marry into wealth like Kerry (cheap shot I know) :stuck_out_tongue: Kerry was in the public eye for 19 years as a Senator. He had the power to influence change, and he rarely did anything notable.

Bush’s record on Texas was one of the things that helped him get into national prominence, and a lot of it was positive. Sure…they had a lot of executions of criminals - while I don’t support the death penalty, I don’t see how it hurts Texas or Bush for that matter.

Bush went to Yale and Harvard. Kerry went to Yale and, I think, Boston College Law school. So what Bush fumbles words? They both were able to graduate, and the person who graduates with a C average from Yale is still a Yale graduate :thumb:

Bush’s moral values are one of the primary reasons I like him over Kerry’s almost similar plans. You take moral values out, Bush and Kerry are the exact same people! [size=1](Just like this animation: [/size][size=1]http://www.jibjab.com/thisland.html[/size][size=1])[/size]

32

What Bush did in his prior, private life is entirely up to him, and whatever he did, he was able to become financially successful and take care of himself and his family…and a cool baseball team. His intention was not to be in the public eye, and he didn’t marry into wealth like Kerry (cheap shot I know) Kerry was in the public eye for 19 years as a Senator. He had the power to influence change, and he rarely did anything notable.

Err… he failed at almost every job he did, they gave him money to find oil in texas, he couldnt find a male sex organ. Bush did not need to marry in to wealth, he was rich already.

Bush’s record on Texas was one of the things that helped him get into national prominence, and a lot of it was positive

But notice how he never talked on education…There is reason for that…

Bush went to Yale and Harvard. Kerry went to Yale and, I think, Boston College Law school. So what Bush fumbles words? They both were able to graduate, and the person who graduates with a C average from Yale is still a Yale graduate

Hmm… no, Im sorry but Bush was a legacy student and C’s are some **** crapy grades. Honestly, imagine you had a C average a MIT? (Personaly I dont care on the UNI GPA)

Bush’s moral values are one of the primary reasons I like him over Kerry’s almost similar plans. You take moral values out, Bush and Kerry are the exact same people!

Is strongly disagree, Kerry’s domestic policy are very much diffrent from Bush, but I am not certain that I like them, but they are diffrent.
Second, define morals? And esspecialy in a country where the church and state are seperate who is Bush to enact Morals? Who elected him to enact morals, last time I checked that wasnt under the president’s job discription.

See, Bush is not a complete idiot, he is the average joe. But most presidents are great intelectual, I mean Nixon was extremly smart, even Carter was an intelectual, Raegan was elegant, Bush I was brilliant and a CIA director, ,Clinton was a road scholar, and then we get Good ol’ Bush. I can see him being my neigbor!

I dont care how ackward he is in his speeches, or his GPA but lets not kid ourselfs, he is an idiot, I have Conservative freinds who say “someone has to shoot him, he is just emberassing”

Lets not kid ourselves.

But he is still a dummy! Does no one else remeber when he went to Brazil and asked the president “Do you have black people here?”

33

Maybe - but he isn’t running on his business record. That was his personal life. Even Kerry’s career as a lawyer was supposedly mediocre before he entered the Senate. The difference is that Kerry is running on something that he did 30-40 years ago while not bringing attention to what he did his past 19 years. That I do have problems with, for unlike Bush, Kerry was a public servant since his days as Lt. Governor in MA. What they both decide to do in their personal lives is up to them…unless the capitalize on it for political gain! When Bush claims to be a successful business owner during his campaign stops, then it’s a free for all - anybody can start poking at his dealings.

I don’t know much about the education thing and Texas, but according to Chio it wasn’t great. Maybe there were other issues that the public liked him for, for he was after all re-elected as governator I believe :stuck_out_tongue:

C’s aren’t great grades, but you have to factor in the strict academics of a place such as Yale. He was later accepted into the Harvard Business School for an MBA. You have to do something right in order to get into the Harvard Business School, for that is one of the world’s toughest schools to get into.

He isn’t the smartest Pres. we ever had, and I think he made up for that by surrounding himself with smart(er?) people (imo :))

Me liking his values has nothing to do with religion for me. I believe he has a core set of values that he will not change. He clearly has defined what things are right, and he has also defined what things are wrong. Others hate that, but I actually like people who actually strongly believe that some things in this world are wrong and will not change on them later.

I see him as a people person, and I look at his success with the public in the past four years. Anybody who can weather attack after attack on his public image (and continue to keep Dick Cheney as VP!) and still manage to be either tied with Kerry or only a few points back has to be doing something right.

I’m not sure that intelligence benefitted a few of the people you mentioned, for I also look at how they were able to apply their intelligence. Nixon was about to be impeached, Clinton did not but later stated that he did have improper relations with Monica ™, and I’m not sure how many people would consider Reagan elegant back in the 80’s when he was President :stuck_out_tongue:

Seriously, does Brazil have black people…haha j/k? That clearly wasn’t his best line :slight_smile:

34

I don’t understand. I’m not critisizing his personal life, I’m comparing the two men. In a position where you want a creative thinker how can Bush be the right choice! Look at him. As RB said, he’s just an average joe. Well I’m sorry, that doesn’t cut it. I don’t want the average joe as a world leader… the most important world leader at that. Bush has never done anything that anyone else in his situation couldn’t do. He’s not cgoign to wow anyone with an inspired idea or plan for the future… because he’s never been inspired.

Forget that. Sounds like a favour pass to me. Of course these places will accepte him and make sure he doesn’t fail… his dad is a powerful man with lots of money. You do have to do something… have a rich daddy. I garauntee that any 3 of us currently talking (Kirupa, RB and I) could’ve gone to harvard or yale if we had the money. Frankly I can’t pay the 900000000000 dollars it would cost a Canadian to go to Harvard, but I’m srue that a lot of the people who go there are no more intelligent than good students at other unis.

35

I see Bush as trying to appeal to the normal, average voter. It is working well for him right now. I don’t think he is trying to be a creative thinker. He is running on a few key issues, and he isn’t interested in deviating from them.

I disagree with you on the college admissions thing. The three of us will not get into any of the top universities unless we have competitive grades, extracurriculars, etc.

Sure - some private colleges may focus only on money, but when you talk about places like Yale and Harvard, you still have to meet a minimum academic threshold that is still higher than most other places. GW was fairly “old” when he went to get his MBA at Harvard. His parents’ influence won’t help then.

EDIT: Also, Kerry had 19 years in the Senate of one of the more politically influential states to prove that he had the ability to be creative in leading or influencing change. He, as far as I can see, does not have anything major to his credit. Bush had 8 years in Texas, and he became President afterwards.

I don’t dislike Kerry, but the results from their political careers are not in Kerry’s favor considering Kerry is a career politician and GW isn’t.

:cap:

36

I’m not arguing about who Bush is trying to appeal too. He is simple minded. The fact that people seem to like that doesn’t make it a desirable trait amongst leaders.

I don’t even know if he went to Harvard. I have only heard about Yale, and conveniently the Bush’s have a long history with Yale. Prescott Bush was a Yale Trustee back in the day (Late 40s I think). He also went to Yale and “there, he played varsity golf, football, and baseball, and was president of the Yale Glee Club, and the best close-harmony man in the class of 1917. His devotion to singing at Yale would remain strong his entire life, evidenced in part by his founding of the Yale Glee Club Associates, an alumni group, in 1937. On May 18, 1916 he was “tapped” to join the Skull and Bones society at Yale. A Yale University legend tells of Bush digging up the skull of Geronimo (1918) and giving it to the Skull and Bones society.” - Prescott Bush - Wikipedia

George HW Bush went to Yale ad was in the Skull and Bones… Obviously the Bush family has some weight to throw around at Yale, and it was probably not too difficult to pull some strings to get George W admitted.

As for Bush’s record as Gov of Texas:
-changed Texas pollution laws to favour power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union.
-durring his tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America.
-cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.
-set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.

37

You can only speculate on whether he was let in based on his family’s background, and the stuff such as SnB has no relevance to his or Kerry’s life there (at least in my view). Colleges like Yale, from personal experience, stress academics more than anything else. Only after students meet the academic requirements do factors such as legacy come into play, and that is, at least at MIT and other ivy’s, only about 10% of the total deciding factor. In other words, if you don’t meet the academic grade, you don’t get considered for anything else.

Of course GW went to Harvard. He graduated in 1975 with an MBA.

Having attended Harvard Business School at the same time as the President, graduating from the two-year program a year after he did, and then serving on its faculty after a year’s interval spent writing a PhD thesis, I am intimately familiar with the rigors of the program at the time, and the miniscule degree of slack cut for even the most well-connected students, when their performance did not make the grade.

There is simply no way on earth that the son of the then-Ambassador to China (technically, head of the Beijing Liaison Office), or anyone else, could have coasted through Harvard Business School with a “gentleman’s C.” I never, ever heard of a case of an incompetent student being allowed to graduate, simply because a certain family was prominent. On the contrary, I did hear stories of well-born students having to leave prior to graduation. The academic standards were a point of considerable pride.

size=1 This link also makes some other interesting findings that anybody who questions the Prez’s intellectual ability should consider reading.[/size]

It is not the easiest of things to maintain a C average at one of the world’s top two schools. And he was, as you posted, involved with other extracurricular activities. He decided to focus his intelligence on something else - social skills. That just shows he wasn’t a nerd, and he was able to graduate from both Yale and Harvard :nerd:

What are the sources for your facts? I read on MSNBC that CA towns and counties are still among the most polluted compared to American standards. Also, Texas had one of the fastest economic growths over the past decade under GW’s watch. It also recorded a 23% increase in population since 1990 to 2000. Therefore it only makes sense that the two most populous states are also the two most polluted states compared to other US states.

PS: Relaxing pollution controls and executing hardcore criminals is not a bad thing, and neither is being a “simple minded” Harvard and Yale graduate :stuck_out_tongue:

EDIT2: RB - students at MIT would kill for a C average lol :smiley:

:elderly:

38

Me liking his values has nothing to do with religion for me. I believe he has a core set of values that he will not change. He clearly has defined what things are right, and he has also defined what things are wrong. Others hate that, but I actually like people who actually strongly believe that some things in this world are wrong and will not change on them later.

What does this mean? Your being extremly vague, you still didn’t define the morals.

I see him as a people person, and I look at his success with the public in the past four years. Anybody who can weather attack after attack on his public image (and continue to keep Dick Cheney as VP!) and still manage to be either tied with Kerry or only a few points back has to be doing something right.

I’m not sure that intelligence benefitted a few of the people you mentioned, for I also look at how they were able to apply their intelligence. Nixon was about to be impeached, Clinton did not but later stated that he did have improper relations with Monica ™, and I’m not sure how many people would consider Reagan elegant back in the 80’s when he was President

Nixon was brilliant, he opened relations with china, and unlike most ideas. It was his personal idea. He has a very good domestic policy history, and he was impeached, he was just not convicted (You can be impeached but remain president). Clinton’s BJ means nothing to his intelignece. And Reagan was elegant, he is considered the last elegant president, because even if Clinton was charismatic, he was sleazy.

He isn’t the smartest Pres. we ever had, and I think he made up for that by surrounding himself with smart(er?) people (imo )

Well, at least you admit it!
But cmon, remeber when Rice said “He’s learning on the job” … WHAT? We dont have the leader of the free world, with the greatest arsenal on earth, the beacon of democracy, strongest GDP to be learning on the job!! What is this!!?

But we’ve got a big border in Texas, with Mexico, obviously – and we’ve got a big border with Canada – Arizona is affected.

G.W.

Heck, we’re 5 percent of the world’s population, which means there’s 95 percent of the people ready for products that say, “Made in the USA.”
– I guess the American 5 percent will have to continue buying products made in China, Washington, D.C., Mar. 16, 2004

It reads like a mystery, a novel. It’s well written.
– Dubya’s assessment of the 9/11 Commission’s report, and a statement I’m sure will make the country feel a whole lot better, Crawford, Texas, Jul. 26, 2004

…in all honesty…

39

I agree that he isn’t the smartest Pres. ever, but I just don’t see where sheer brilliance would have helped in his job or the things that he has done or not done. Even from Paul O’Neal’s book that attacks the Pres., he says that the Pres. is not the one who is nitpicky about details.

He is simply very good at managing and connecting with people. He delegates all the complex tasks to others, and he is surrounded by some brilliant people. His style of leadership is more hands-off than someone such as a Nixon or a Clinton.

EDIT: Another reason this hands-off approach works well is that blame for a lot of the adminstration’s mishaps stop short of the President’s doorstep. No matter what goes wrong or right, the President is able to simply shrug it off.

Now I’m confused as to what you mean by “define morals” hehe. I thought it meant his values. And while I may not agree with all of his values (abortion, minority rights, death penalty, etc.), at least I know he has them and doesn’t hesitate to communicate them.

Some of the stuff the Prez. says is a little odd though :stuck_out_tongue: