Will you relect W. Bush in 2004?

[Questioninggeller]

That is to say, as of right now, are you faithful in Bush and would relect him?

[Ian Osborne]

I didn't vote as I'm not American, but I (a staunch Labour supporter) will never vote for Tony Blair again.

[fishbob]

It is more complicated than that.

For President - the Repubs have more qualified (smarter, better leaders, more honest, better grasp on national and international issues) candidates than Bush, but Bush will be the nominee unless he really screws up. The Repubs had better candidates in the last election too, but they nominated Bush. The Dems had better candidates than Gore last time, but the better candidates weren't nominated either.

Both the major parties seem to choose nominees for "electability" above capability. "Electable" seems to mean the guy that looks best on TV and says God bless America the most. I usually vote against the candidate I feel is worst choice. There is so seldom a candidate I feel is qualified.

I did not vote for Bush or Gore last time, even though I was certain that one of them would win. I will not vote for Bush in 2004.

[Solitaire]

It's not complicated really. Bush will get re-elected because he
has a sh*tty-grin much like Alfred E. Neuman of Mad Magazine.
http://www.texaschapbookpress.com/magellanslog4/bushneuman.jpg

[Malachi151]

I've already pledged that if Bush wins in 2004 then I'm leaving the country. :D

[Ed]

If it turns out tht he got us into a war on a bogus pretext I would not vote for him (unless, of course, the Dems run Hillary:D )

[St_Hereticus]

I don't think it matters whether we vote for him or not, though I certainly wouldn't (and didn't the first time). The electoral process has been so corrupted that the Republicans will be able to finagle the election again, just as they did in 2000. Now that they know they can get away with it, they'll pull out all the stops, and the shennagigans they'll resort to will assure them the White House again, perhaps even in perpetuity. Besides, with an uninformed, and misinformed, electorate, the corporate oligarchy will retain power for the foreseeable future, no matter which puppet is in their strings. So all the speculation about the upcoming presidential election is just so much felgercarb.

[Agammamon]

Hell no! The man has done little but lie his whole term. The budget surplus that was built up under the previous administration? He spent it. Now let's add in pouring money into the money pit that is the ballistic missile shield for what? Let me see, who has nuclear missile that can reach the US? Russia, China, Britain, France, and North Korea. What is the one country in the whole world that might be insane enough to launch at us and is small enough for us to feel comfortable provoking? North Korea. So we are spending billions and trillions on a missile shield that even the best, most optimistic projections say would only be relatively effective against a mass launch, to protect us from potentially one or two warheads which the interceptors will most likely miss. Then let's go on to the War On Terror. We went into Afghanistan and smashed the Taliban and Al Queda, except that nothing has really changed there. The same warlords are still fighting each other and the central government has less control than before. And Al-Queda? They seem to be doing just fine under new management. And Iraq? Well let's see, yes its good that Sadaam is gone, but if the Iraqi's wouldn't get rid of him (and let's not forget it was them he was killing, not us) then why was it our problem? Oh yes, Sadaam supported terroism. We know this because a couple of years ago one of Iraq's mid-level diplomats invited one representative of Al-Queda into Iraq to talk. Like we've never done the same. WMD? This is a two-parter. One, we haven't found any despite having near total control of the place and every semi-reputable source is telling us the same thing they told us before we went in. Iraq has no WMD. They had a significant capability before the First Gulf War but hadn't been able to build it up again. Part two is the admissions by senior administration officials that the emphasis on WMD was essentially a red-herring to get the public to go along with the war, which despite being told at the beginning it was about WMD now we are told it was about removing an evil dictator all along.
And finally his most egregarious error - failing to adequately plan for Iraq's post-war rebuilding before the war started and open that plan up to public debate to allow companies to bid on the contracts (like the government is obliged to do in every other situation). I sincerely doubt that the skills and resources needed to rebuild Iraq come only from sole-source companies.

[JoxterTheMighty]

Heck no!

I want him and his croney ashcroft outta here!! Anyone who is pushing the stupid drug war into high gear needs his head examined!! I will not support any candidate who wants to continue the drug war!

Fix our problems here at home, then worry about the rest of the world!

-Joxter-

[Kodiak]

On the Republican side, it would depend on who ran against Bush for the nomination.

I could even vote democratic, if a conservative democrat was to win the nomination (which the greens and libs would never let happen).

[Ed]

Originally posted by Kodiak
On the Republican side, it would depend on who ran against Bush for the nomination.



The fix is in, here is GWB's opponent
http://uglypeople.com/uglymen/section.images.2003060208/up-men-00288.jpg

You don't seriously think that GWB is not going to get nominated, do you?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Ed
You don't seriously think that GWB is not going to get nominated, do you?

No, Bush will get the nod, I'm sure, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't give my primary vote to a candidate like Rice, Kemp, Williams, or Powell.

[Marvel Frozen]

That is to say, as of right now, are you faithful in Bush and would relect him?

Hell NO!!! He's already done enough damage, he doesn't need 4 more years to do more.

[Upchurch]

When Bush won by a hair in 2000, I thought to myself, "there is no way he can get re-elected." The liberal vote was at least partially divided between the Democrats and the Green party, etc. If everything had stayed the same, I predicted, the those liberal factions would be more united in order to get rid of Bush, eliminating that hair's bredth difference.

Of course, everything has not stayed the same, so I don't know that my original prediction has any validity at all any more.

Personally, I will be voting for the Democrat candidate primarily for a single reason: balance. Right now, all three branches of governement are held (or mostly held) by a single party. I find that much one-sidedness to be uncomfortable and potentially dangerous.

[Jet Grind]

Vote: It's more complicated than that.

I consider myself fiscally conservative (although I'm liberal on most social issues). Because of that I could never vote Democratic. Bush has however done a lot of damage during his term in office. The upcomming election is probably going to be another choice between not-so-different evils for me.

[corplinx]

If it looks like Bush will carry Tennessee, I will most likely vote for whoever the Libertarian candidate is.

Personally, I would like a grass-roots group of "faithless" GOP voters to try to influence the GOP. The gays have the "log cabin" republicans. The faithless have no voice in the only major party that doesn't fervently support socialism. I would really like to see a balance against the pat robertson influence in the party.

What name would you give to faithless gop voters? The "foxhole republicans" perhaps would be good irony. Supposedly, you don't find atheists in foxholes or in the GOP. ;)

[Jet Grind]

Originally posted by corplinx
Personally, I would like a grass-roots group of "faithless" GOP voters to try to influence the GOP.

I agree wholeheartedly. The Libertarian Party is really it's own worst enemy, there is no real alternative to the Republican Party. While my philosophy is clearly libertarian (with a small "l" mind you) I usually find myself supporting the republicans. It would be good if they had a group for atheists among all the other sub-groups.

(BTW, I like your "Foxhole Republicans" idea for the name of the group. It would certainly be a very "in your face" name for all the atheophobic bigots that already plague the party.)

[DavidJames]

"a grass-roots group of "faithless" GOP voters"

Anyone have any idea of how many these type os people exist. A wild guess, without any scientific merit, based only on what I've seen in the past 30-40 years would be maybe 10%. Anyone have any better numbers. Actually, that might be high, considering how IIRC some 80-90% of all people believe in God and we all know what the 'G' in GOP really means :)

[Tony]

Does anyone have any evidence for this alleged "damage" Bush has done?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tony
Does anyone have any evidence for this alleged "damage" Bush has done?

I think most were expecting a republican congress and president to try to make government more efficient, cancel pork barrel local projects (the big dig), and to promote the successful gingrich legacy of fiscal responsibility.

However, the Senate vote margin just isn't wide enough to block a filibuster. So what do we wind up with? Tax cuts and new gov't spending. I'll give Bush credit though for _steering_ the spending. Smart move politically. Instead of debating some 100 billion dollar new democrat program, they are debating programs that cost less and don't give the government more power.

With the vote margin in the senate, you know there will have to new social oriented spending to get a budget through.

[Khalid01]

Well thank Chaos I'll be of voting age next year. It's torturous to sit around gestating political opinions, gaining awareness, only to sit down for 2-3 years thinking of all the great voting you're going to do. I shall not partake in the effort to re-elect W. Bush. When it comes to social issues, the GOP falls far short of my demands, I can't have my candidate making some reference from the Bible in every speech. Economically I'm liberal, but I'm edging closer to the center, up to this point I have dropped Social Security for all but disabled peoples in my book. Other economic issues it's hard to make a decision, but I'd default to the liberals. However I don't know if I'd follow the Dem's as they're very dilute. I would vote Libertarian, but they're so small, I figure it would be similar to merely waiting another 4 years.