NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm simply wondering...with all the people who say that they'd vote for anyone who opposes Bush...would any Republicans here rather see someone else (Like Santorum, Powell, Cheney, Gillespie, Jeb Bush, etc.) run for President? If so, who and why? If not, once again, state your reasoning.

And for the record, I myself am a Republican.

I would. I think Bush has done a pretty good job, but his immigration policy I hate it, he needs to deploy the national gaurd to get the illegal immigrants out. I want Rumsfeld for president. Yes i am republican to.

make sure you post why to keep this on the front page. Libbies can post too if they want.

I want Rumsfeld for president.

Any reason why? (Trying to inspire some sort of debate.)

How about the options of "Yes-3rd Party" "No-3rd Party" "Yes-Ind" "No-Ind" and "Gore Won 2000"

meh..i'm closer to Dem than Rep so I'll just vote "Yes-Dem"

no,

Any reason why? (Trying to inspire some sort of debate.)

Ok, He would he those immigrants out and he would keep America safe from the crazy terrorists. If we do not close the mexican border COMPLETELY we are going to be baby Mexico. My town is infested with all the Mexicans I REALLY want to see that border SHUT. I dont know if Rumsfeld would do it or not but he might and Bush sure isn't.

How about the options of "Yes-3rd Party" "No-3rd Party" "Yes-Ind" "No-Ind" and "Gore Won 2000"

3rd parties don't count 3rd parties don't count 3rd parties don't count 3rd parties don't count and no he didn't because Bush won the electoral college and that's the only way to win. Still...that's not what this thread is about. If you don't have an option, don't vote and just post.

no,

Why?

I didn't vote because I'm not a republican nor a democrat. I think both parties are harmful to our way of government and should be abolished, but that's just me. I'd like to see someone other than Bush run, as then we wouldn't get stuck with him for 4 more years. Haven't these been enough?

And as to the illegal immigrant comment, I do hope that you are only joking. And Rumsfeld? I hope that's a joke as well. The only two people worse are Bush and Ashcroft. Well, and John Kerry. Well, and Tom Daschle, and...well, maybe Rumsfeld wouldn't be so bad. I still wouldn't vote for him, as I don't vote for someone whom I believe is not as intelligent as I am. I'm not trying to be an elitist or come off as a real pretentious snob, but I'm not going to put my trust in someone who is less than me.

No, Bush is the best man to fight for America against the Left.

3rd parties don't count 3rd parties don't count 3rd parties don't count 3rd parties don't count and no he didn't because Bush won the electoral college and that's the only way to win. Still...that's not what this thread is about. If you don't have an option, don't vote and just post.
3rd parties do count.
The electoral college isn't very democratic.

3rd parties do count.
The electoral college isn't very democratic.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=343661

Also, you can see an article about the Electoral College under the "News" tab at http://life.short.be/

3rd parties do count.
The electoral college isn't very democratic.

3rd parties are either spoliers or meant to highlight a certain issue.

And that's why we're a Republic and not a Democracy...

No, Bush is the best man to fight for America against the Left.

Why? Come one people...give me more than a statement!

I think that if John McCain ran on the Republican ticket, the Republicans would win in a land-slide. Bush had divided America too much, so has Chenney. A McCain/Powell ticket would give the Republicans a winning ticket I believe.

Why? Come one people...give me more than a statement!

But clearly everybody who is left wing is out to destroy America. Generalisations are awesome!

But clearly everybody who is left wing is out to destroy America. Generalisations are awesome!

Other than the fact that I was a moron and said "come one people"...how did I generalize there? Did you quote the wrong thing?

I think that if John McCain ran on the Republican ticket, the Republicans would win in a land-slide. Bush had divided America too much, so has Chenney. A McCain/Powell ticket would give the Republicans a winning ticket I believe.


If that happened i'd vote for the Socialists!

Why? Come one people...give me more than a statement!


I just think he would do a better job standing up for people who disagree with the left, But in realilty there would be a better man for the job.

I would prefer someone more true to the Republican ideals of balanced budgets, environmentalism, hard work and providing for US soldiers. With Bush you get increased bigger government with increased spending, taxes on labor increased while lowering tax on investment and a reckless disregard for the lives of our soldiers and their families. I would prefer someone like John McCain, Paul O'Neil or Arlen Spector.

George Bush is a slash and spend Republican. He says one thing and does another. He claimed to be a uniter but he's divided America more than it has ever been on issues that are really just distractions from helping this country like gay marriage. What happened to the Teddy Roosevelt's who was busy busting monopolies instead of passing laws to strenghten them while protecting our environment? Bush names his forestry program Healthy Forests when it should have been named No Tree left Behind. He takes money from failing schools instead of improving them. I can't wait for the day that the rest of the Republican party realizes that people like Bush only hurt America and our party in the long wrong.

I see Santorum running in 2008 or 2012...would you vote for him with his strong stance against gays?

I see Santorum running in 2008 or 2012...would you vote for him with his strong stance against gays?


Who is that?

Arlen Spector.

[begin short rant]What?...wrong party Land...we're talking about republicans here...

As someone from PA, I know first hand what kind of shithead Spector is. The man is a liberal, a democrat who votes for democrats and liberal ideals. He should never have won. I had about five Toomy signs in my yard. [/end short rant]

Who is that?

Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the third-ranking Senator in the Republican Party and Chairman of the SRC.

He's considered the next up and coming star in the party.

Who is that?

US Jr. Senator from PA...really making a name for himself through being on tons of committies and taking a strong stand against homosexual marriage in the name of family values. I'm not sure how he stands on economics though.

I retract my vote, I meant to pick no-rep. I have only really experienced two presidents in my life: Clinton and Bush. I look back and say well maybe it wasnt so bad back then but when I look at today I see one of the fastest growing economies in the world, 1.5 million new jobs, and strength we didnt have in the 8 years of the Clinton Administration. I will be 18 by this election and I will vote for George W. Bush. He had to rise to great expectations after 9/11 and he did. His approval rating was rather high on both sides of the political spectrum because the nation knew we had to combat the terrorist threats in the world. Now the hippy pinko-communists and anti-war people try to make the country forget 9/11 ever happen and focus on unimportant issues! I cant stand people who do not recognize the evil of al-queda and other terrorist organizations for what it really is! We are in world war 3 and we can not allow John Kerry the most liberal senator ever be in control of our military, a military that liberals greatly denegrate and destroy thru budget cuts and send the money to lazy welfare scum. We cant bow to the UN.. we cant become complacent again.. remember 9/11 and the thousands that died that day and allow our nation to remain safe as it has for 3 years under George Bush. Obviously its working cause there hasnt been a new attack since 9/11. Why change the President when he has been quite successful. Vote for Bush along with me this November and keep America a safe nation!

Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the third-ranking Senator in the Republican Party and Chairman of the SRC.

He's considered the next up and coming star in the party.


Never heard of him, But it would help if i was a republican, which I am not.

I am a Republican and I don't like Bush. He's too liberal for me. After giving in to the World Court at the Hague and his immigration policies, I really do not like the guy. Unfortunately, it's him to Mr. Flip-Flop and frankly, I don't want the biggest object in my city (NY) being a hot dog cart with Kerry in office.

Compassionate Conservative is just another way of saying, wuss!

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=343881

US Jr. Senator from PA...really making a name for himself through being on tons of committies and taking a strong stand against homosexual marriage in the name of family values. I'm not sure how he stands on economics though.



He sounds like a complete moron, he will never run.

Never heard of him, But it would help if i was a republican, which I am not.

Well, I'm a Canadian, but I'm also a political scientist..so, I choose to be informed.

Well, I'm a Canadian, but I'm also a political scientist..so, I choose to be informed.


That's nice...........

I am a Republican and I don't like Bush. He's too liberal for me. After giving in to the World Court at the Hague and his immigration policies, I really do not like the guy. Unfortunately, it's him to Mr. Flip-Flop and frankly, I don't want the biggest object in my city (NY) being a hot dog cart with Kerry in office.

Compassionate Conservative is just another way of saying, wuss!

Who would you rather see? I'm just wondering because I doubt any far rightie (or far leftie for that matter) would get into the house without a damn good bit of lying. You have to be sort of centrist to win.

I'm a liberal so I don't technically matter here, but I'd like it if the Republicans would start putting up moderate candidates. Looking at the current federal government and also at California's government I think the government would get along better that way. In Cali we have a strong Dem majority, but most of the Republicans are ultraconservative. So on most issues the Dems just do whatever they want, but since we have 2/3 requirements for the budget, the Republicans just say screw you and things grind to a halt. I think the Democrats would also straighten themselves out a bit and be willing to take real positions if they found the competition a bit less objectionable.

Well, I'm a Canadian, but I'm also a political scientist..so, I choose to be informed.

Interesting Steph...I'm a poly sci major in college. Nice to see a foreigner who knows a thing or two about american politics outside of "I hate bush"

Who would you rather see? I'm just wondering because I doubt any far rightie (or far leftie for that matter) would get into the house without a damn good bit of lying. You have to be sort of centrist to win.

Nah, Just a good liar. Kerry is doing a good job of that right now, Come on Bush, I know you are the better liar!

I am most definitely a Democrat, but if there was another Republican running for President besides George W. Bush in this election, I'd be more inclined to support him/her. This doesn't mean I'd vote Republican if there was a different Republican candidate; I'd merely be more supportive to Republican Candidate X than Dubya. Then again, if a can of tuna was running for Republican candidate for president of the U.S., I'd support it over our current president; it would be far more eloquent in speeches than George the W. Must I quote Bushisms?

I'm a liberal so I don't technically matter here, but I'd like it if the Republicans would start putting up moderate candidates. Looking at the current federal government and also at California's government I think the government would get along better that way. In Cali we have a strong Dem majority, but most of the Republicans are ultraconservative. So on most issues the Dems just do whatever they want, but since we have 2/3 requirements for the budget, the Republicans just say screw you and things grind to a halt. I think the Democrats would also straighten themselves out a bit and be willing to take real positions if they found the competition a bit less objectionable.

But see...when I see Kerry and how liberal he is...and how close crazy dean came to winning...I can't help but think that if Dems don't put up anyone moderate, why should we? If they win then it's ultra-liberal, and if we win it's pretty much centrist? Don't think so.

Interesting Steph...I'm a poly sci major in college. Nice to see a foreigner who knows a thing or two about american politics outside of "I hate bush"

Yeah, it's my last year *hopefully* It seems like I've been working on my Ph.D forever! It did have some thing to do with the fact that I had a baby this year. So I put it off a year.

However, I have been following American politics for as long as Canadian.. quite frankly, American politics are much more exciting..lol

Must I quote Bushisms?

No, and flamebait isn't required either. This is a discussion thread, not a "Bush is a dumbass...blah blah blah...I hate America" thread.

No, and flamebait isn't required either. This is a discussion thread, not a "Bush is a dumbass thread...blah blah blah...I hate America" thread.
Except that you just flamed right there by implying that Bush-critics = America-haters.

I do not intend to start a flame. I just don't think Bush is the most eloquent speaker. There are plenty of great Republican speakers and people in the media's eye, and I'd rather see many of them in the Oval Office than Bush. Take McCain, for example, and Colin Powell. Both have been mentioned earlier in this thread for good reasons: they'd make great Republican candidates.

I do not think Bush is an idiot, nor do I hate America. I do not appreciate blanket generalizations.

Except that you just flamed right there by implying that Bush-critics = America-haters.

Lol...I'm really missing these damn eye rolling smilies...it was a joke...I thought it was more obvious than that.

Why?
Cause Bush share's my values.

I see one of the fastest growing economies in the world, 1.5 million new jobs, and strength we didnt have in the 8 years of the Clinton Administration. I will be 18 by this election and I will vote for George W. Bush. We are in world war 3 and we can not allow John Kerry the most liberal senator ever be in control of our military, a military that liberals greatly denegrate and destroy thru budget cuts and send the money to lazy welfare scum. We cant bow to the UN.. we cant become complacent again.. remember 9/11 and the thousands that died that day and allow our nation to remain safe as it has for 3 years under George Bush. Obviously its working cause there hasnt been a new attack since 9/11. Why change the President when he has been quite successful. Vote for Bush along with me this November and keep America a safe nation!

Actually there are ZERO new jobs during the Bush Presidency. He's still got another 1.2 Million to go to get back to where we were when he entered office. Keep in mind that the US workforce grows by about 120K people/month. Just to keep pace we would need to create 5.7 Million jobs during his 4 years in office. He's still got another 6.9 Million to go. Reagan, now there's a man who created some jobs! Nearly 40 Million over 8 years. What expectations did he rise to? Invade Afghanistan? That was a no-brainer. It's too bad he didn't put 100,000 troops there so we could have really gotten rid of the Taliban, Al-Queda and captured and executed bin Laden like he deserves. Clinton increased the military budget and modernized it. He spoke of the terrorist threat in 18 different speeches during his 8 years in office and prevented a number of attacks. The idea that John Kerry is the most liberal senator is bunk spread by Fox news and the ilk. And there have been plenty of new attacks. Do you think those 900+ US soldiers killed in Iraq have all been killed by Iraqi's. That is Al-Queda terrorists my young friend. Take it from a battle hardened old-GOP'er, turn off the TV and pick up a history and economics book.

But see...when I see Kerry and how liberal he is...and how close crazy dean came to winning...I can't help but think that if Dems don't put up anyone moderate, why should we? If they win then it's ultra-liberal, and if we win it's pretty much centrist? Don't think so.
We put up Clinton didn't we? Balanced budget, focused on the economy, pretty moderate on other stuff too. And Gore was just like him. Gore ran with Lieberman for Christ's sake (I think I would take McCain or Powell over Lieberman).

Dean actually had a very moderate record as governor. I believe he cut taxes. He just had some excitement and probably less political experience (just governor of a small state), which the media used to rape him. I don't know if it was just sensationalist media or a desire by the "liberal" media to push him out in favor of a more viable seeming candidate; I'd believe either with some evidence.

Kerry just got the nomination because people thought he could beat Bush. He just talks about Vietnam and dodges everything else. If you look at him, he's not even saying anything particularly liberal. Keep tax cuts. His healthcare proposals are modest compared to Dean, Kucinich, Canada, or Europe. His economic proposals are minor and probably political. He opposes gay marriage and he "personally opposes" abortion. The Democrats picked Kerry over candidates who had taken liberal stands.

And look at the Democratic platform (which I hate). It supports the right to own guns. Not too liberal by any means.

[begin short rant]What?...wrong party Land...we're talking about republicans here...

As someone from PA, I know first hand what kind of shithead Spector is. The man is a liberal, a democrat who votes for democrats and liberal ideals. He should never have won. I had about five Toomy signs in my yard. [/end short rant]


You probably like that hate monger Santorum too.
I know who I'm talking about. I'm tired of these right-wing jerk offs who have hijacked the party of Lincoln and Roosevelt. I don't give a rats ass about gay marriage, abortion or any of those conservative values they are always spouting. Especially when more Republicans leaders are constantly get caught cheating on their wives or drunk driving. I care about the Environment, national defense, US soldiers, a fair tax code, American jobs, a balanced budgets and freedom. I'm an old school Republican, those are the things I was taught to believe in.

CHB? Its a well known fact that communism is a part of evolution. Is it just me or every rep who has come into office has been hated and cause either political wars or rebelion? (I.E. Civil war, Iraq war) Bush is dumb! He choked on a damn pretzel! He stole the presidency from Al Gore President-in-excile! Hes is freaking terrible with politics and not to mention business. The patriot act was created with his blessings!!!!!!!!! Why are people not flipping out over this???? It pretty much says, that the united states of America is changing its name to the united states of fascism! Do you know that even the republicans hate him? Our president is a dumb, arrogant, ignorant, facsist, imperialist, drunking idiot, moron! Republicans are leading our once great nation to 1940 nazi, germany! As a christian I think being gay is wrong, BUT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS ITS OK! Therefore we all must abide.

Bush has drasticly increased taxes and is not fit to be our acting president (oh wait hes not, i forgot about cheny!)nor is he fit to take my order at burger king, he might think terrorists live on it and send in a Bio-team to dispose of any(fake)antrax! He uses scare tactics to keep the people under control. Why can people not see that hes a dictator? Uh-oh looks like the warning level is at hazel-blue! Damn man, personaly i have nothing against republicans(besides the fact that they rob from the poor to make the rich, richer)so if you believe in being a republican then be one, But dont vote for fascism(oh wait, fascism is capitalism too. Nevermind vote bush)or any other tyrant government.

As far as don is concerned. Don is a money hungry pimp! Looking to kill poor people for money. I don't understand why anyone would want to defeat the left, All we want is power to the people and true Democracy. It boils down to this, the left want freedoms and the right wants money! But, bush will get re-elected because of fools like you! Well you know what When the draft comes around Me and my little brother are out of the shithole nation! Congradulations, the right has finally ruined this country. Do you realise that All of Europe and Asia are laughing at us? You know why? Because Americans are ignorat and dumb towards politics. Much like yourself. I bet $20 your white huh? Only a white moron would make such radical statements as "Duh, I hope don rumsfeld gets the presidency. Duh". Let me guess, your also from the south? Stupid morons, we should of wiped out the south when we had the chance! Bush is a liar and so is his admin.

Good Day sir and I pray you have a horrible death :sniper:

Your favorite Board Leftist,

Acelord

If you'll notice, everyone else is acting civilized, so please, leave now before you're reported to the mods. No one likes an asshole, so grow up.

bump...lets get back on topic

If Bush did a good job with regards to 9/11, I shudder to think what a bad job would entail. Promoting national hysteria, disseminating untruths to convince the country to go to war, and when politicians find out they along with the rest of the nation were mislead, (and sensibly adjust their opinion to bring it into accordance with the true facts) it is the people that were mislead who are accused of being 'wishy washy'.....

I wonder if those who support Bush are aware that the Teleban offered to surrender Osama Bin Laden to the US on the (very reasonable condition) that he receive a fair trial.......this is despite the fact that there is no extradition agreement between the two nations. He is currently still free, free from justice, and free to commit more crimes.

With regards to Iraq, that nation had not so much as a nuclear pea shooter, and if they did how was this (in light of their deployment capabilities) any threat to the US? Was Saddum going to have a loyal soldier swim to the US to launch his non-existent nuclear powered pea shooters?

As for security, are those who think Bush is anything other than worse than useless unaware that military forces have been re-deployed off the North/South Korean border as a result of the strain the Iraq war has imposed on American military forces? Great security, 3 nations accused of being equally evil, 2 have or are in the process of acquiring nuclear capability (via the USA 'ally' Pakistan), and one of those two has publically asserted they will use them, so clearly the biggest threat is the third nation who has zero nuclear capabilities......? If Iraq were really such a threat (ie on a par with North Korea for instance) I suggest the Bush administration would have thought twice before attacking. Iraq 'got it' not because the nation was dangerous to US interests, but because it was not even capable of self-defense.

Attacking the first convinient soft target in no way increases national security and in the situation referred to has turned Iraq (previously a zero terrorist activity zone) into a recruiting ground and propaganda dream for Osama's network. Good work on security, move troops away from the real danger zone, refuse to accept the delivery of a criminal terrorist mastermind (the result being years of continued freedom and terrorist activity for the criminal), and turn a nation that was a fly in Osama's ointment into a propaganda and recruitment dream come true.

Bush's administration not only did the wrong thing internationally, they didnt even do their duty to the American people domestically. A good government would have calmed and reassured the populace so that the nation could pull together and settle things in a reasonable manner. The Bush admin did worse than fail in this regard; at best they made matters worse inadvertently, more likely they purposefully and intentionally took advantage of the trauma 9/11 caused, and intentionally worsened it for their own purposes.

The fact is Bush led the country to war on grounds that were entirely false. If you re-elect him, you send a clear message to all future presidents "lying and incompetence is ok, mislead the American people by all means, truth is the foundation of democratic process, so dont be shy to lie, lie, lie,". I have trouble believing that if Bush is ousted Kerry (or any other president for the next several electoral cycles) will mislead the USA into a war on false pretexts, equally I am convinced that if Bush is re-elected, such performances will become common place. I suggest that those who think people who want a government that does not materially mislead them on issues such as the reasons for going to war, are not the people trying to undermine the democratic premises on which the USA was founded.

Santorum defintely not. I think I might almost prefer Pat Puke-on-him (say it), and that's a scary thought, and please don't ever mention it to me again. Aside from the sitting president factor, yeah I'd like to see someone else, but not just anybody. I'd like to see someone who is either more effective (with regards to congress) or a better symbol.

Cheney's fine, but I don't think his election chances are any good. Powell would be nice. McCain I just cannot get behind, I don't trust him, although he's probably electable, I don't want him as president. Jeb's OK, but I think it would hard to get him elected. I'd have few problems with Liberman, but apparently he's unelectable, at least as a Democrat. Lott nope, don't like or trust him. Chaffee's kinda iffy, it's be nice to have him as president but I don't think he's electable and I don't really agree with his politics, but he'd be a great symbolic president and there are serious limits on what a president can do, I'd support him if he got the nomination. Frist, no. Rumsfeld, no. Hatch . . . nah. Coleman, maybe, I kinda like him, but doubt he'd be electable. Gregg is someone I'd really like for the number one slot, unfortunetly he's shown no interest the job. Taft's not bad, but I think he's got a few years before he's ready to head the ticket and I fear he'll self-destruct before then. Hastert and DeLay just don't do anything for me. Bono and Gregg would probably be my dream ticket, if only they had any interest in the oval office.

You know something--I'm a Democrat and I don't want the Republicans to replace George W. Bush on the ticket. And you know why?

Y'all nominated his sorry ass 4 years ago when plenty of people were warning you about him. You nominated him when you knew he was a dim bulb and you got the press to fellate him on the air daily for the entire race, never questioning his record or his statements, while you tried to turn Gore into the biggest liar since Nixon. If you'd only paid attention in 2000, you'd be watching President McCain cruising to re-election right now.

You had a choice between a real man and Dubya--and you made the choice.

So no--you don't get to drop him. You're stuck with his sorry ass. You deserve him, and I hope you're very happy together.

If I were a Republican, and thankfully Im neither a Democrat, nor Republican, I would pray for McCain in 08.
Even most Republicans do not think that Gay Marriage should be a Federal Issue. This is why that bill will never pass the floor.
MCain, although Republican, voted against it.

The Reppies need sanity to return to their leadership.

^warned the republicans.....why did they even need warning? Honestly people half a world away were able to accurately predict that the USA would find itself embroiled in war within 4 years should Bush get elected, we do not have spirit guides, nor do we have intellects that would make Einstien look backward.......it was simply that obvious!

I dont even know why the republicans picked him.....isnt it traditional for republicans to run a candidate that at least pretends to pass themselves off as being conservative? Money aye......not only can it buy you out of active military service, it can also buy you into the USA Presidency, who said democracy wasnt for sale......I think he picked this one up in the bargain bin.

By the way, I'm curious to know why a guy who spent his military career hiding out as a cheerleader is automatically assumed to know more about military matters than someone who has actually been to a war. Kerry has been to war, Bush has not, so would someone please explain why Bush is assumed to be the 'tougher nut'......I suggest the only part of such a discription that could be accurately applied to Bush is the latter. :(

I retract my vote, I meant to pick no-rep. I have only really experienced two presidents in my life: Clinton and Bush. I look back and say well maybe it wasnt so bad back then but when I look at today I see one of the fastest growing economies in the world, 1.5 million new jobs, and strength we didnt have in the 8 years of the Clinton Administration. I will be 18 by this election and I will vote for George W. Bush. He had to rise to great expectations after 9/11 and he did. His approval rating was rather high on both sides of the political spectrum because the nation knew we had to combat the terrorist threats in the world. Now the hippy pinko-communists and anti-war people try to make the country forget 9/11 ever happen and focus on unimportant issues! I cant stand people who do not recognize the evil of al-queda and other terrorist organizations for what it really is! We are in world war 3 and we can not allow John Kerry the most liberal senator ever be in control of our military, a military that liberals greatly denegrate and destroy thru budget cuts and send the money to lazy welfare scum. We cant bow to the UN.. we cant become complacent again.. remember 9/11 and the thousands that died that day and allow our nation to remain safe as it has for 3 years under George Bush. Obviously its working cause there hasnt been a new attack since 9/11. Why change the President when he has been quite successful. Vote for Bush along with me this November and keep America a safe nation!

It is your kind of people that makes me worry about the future of America!!!
Even though Saddam Hussein was a dirty skumbag dictator, America had no right in the world to invade and take over that country! All the 'proof' of bombs and other stuff in Iraque, was FAKE! Bush only did that whole war in an attempt to gain popularity and in my eyes he failed. We should not allow such morons to be president of such a huge and promising nation! :mad:

P.S: and Roguesvilles: your last post (#53) really rocks and I totally agree!!! :D Thumbs up!

Let's see, of all of the U.S. Presidents, 18 have been Republican, 13 have been Democrat, and 11 have been "third party". So slightly over 26% of all U.S. Presidents have been from a "third" party. I'd hardly consider that insignificant. While it is true that we haven't had a "third party" President in a while, I don't believe that the Democrats and the Republicans are going to hold onto their "monopoly" forever - as disgusted as most folks are getting with those two parties, I can forsee a third-party president within the next 16-20 years - maybe sooner.

Wont happen.

Let's see, of all of the U.S. Presidents, 18 have been Republican, 13 have been Democrat, and 11 have been "third party". So slightly over 26% of all U.S. Presidents have been from a "third" party. I'd hardly consider that insignificant. While it is true that we haven't had a "third party" President in a while, I don't believe that the Democrats and the Republicans are going to hold onto their "monopoly" forever - as disgusted as most folks are getting with those two parties, I can forsee a third-party president within the next 16-20 years - maybe sooner.It's not really correct to call those 11 presidents from a 3rd party. Most if not all of them were Whigs, and they were the opposition to the Democrats before the Republican party existed. Most third parties in the US have been cults of personality--the Bull Moose party under Teddy Roosevelt, the Dixiecrats under Wallace, the Reform Party under Perot. Once the leader is gone, the party tends to fail. Don't get me wrong--I'd love to see it happen--I'm just saying that history isn't on your side here.

I'm simply wondering...with all the people who say that they'd vote for anyone who opposes Bush...would any Republicans here rather see someone else (Like Santorum, Powell, Cheney, Gillespie, Jeb Bush, etc.) run for President? If so, who and why? If not, once again, state your reasoning.

And for the record, I myself am a Republican.


JEB!? HELL NO! Powell though....hmm...still think bush should finish this up with 4 more years but powell would make a good president...

No bush is doing better than i would have expected,and other than powell who won't run,i seriously dont think anyone else who is shooting for the top spot can handle it at the moment.and yes i am a Republican i grew up in a Democratic household so i do know there is a difference .

Lol...I'm really missing these damn eye rolling smilies...it was a joke...I thought it was more obvious than that.

It's not a joke to the haters. They take their hatred very seriously.

Back during the 2000 primaries I was rooting for Keyes over Bush. I would have liked to see him in office instead.
During the removal of Gray Davis in California, McGovern impressed me in the debates. He was the other Rep. aside from Arnold. I'd like to hear more from him, learn a little more about him.

I still say that the Republican party had a chance to nominate an honorable man in 2000, but they chose Bush instead. They're stuck with his sorry ass now, instead of cruising to re-election like they probably would have been if they'd nominated McCain instead.

Nope wouldn't want anyone else but Bush as a nominee for the Republican Party. Here we have a president who took intelligence gathered by a Democrats administration and acted on it. This proved to us all the a Democrat administration's intelligence gathering capabilities are not in the best interest of the nation.
We are now in the midst of the quickest growing economy in the history of the nation. The Democrats have to play the with the numbers to make it show negative growth when all indicators, that are used in modern economics show this to be true.
Sure we have a man that spent his military time stateside. This does not mean he can not be a strong military leader. He did not go into battle then show his cowardise and run home by claiming minor scratches as deserving purple hearts so he could hide.
Here we have a man who has always shown his support to his country. He has not suddenly waffled and decided he should be out with his hippy friends protesting against the very nation he claims to now be able to run.
In President George W. Bush you find a man who stands true to the decisions he makes. He doesn't change his mind due to the whims of the times.
In President George W. Bush you find a man who is not afraid to admit that he may have made mistakes along the way, a man who has already started to put into action the findings to fix things so those mistakes will not happen to another president.
If there is one flaw in the Bush presidency it is that he took the so called intelligence from the former administration as capable of being intelligent.
There was one comment made in the past few days, during the Democratic National Convention that I feel sums up well everything the Democrats had to say through the whole thing. Former President Bill Clinton spoke those words. When it come to anything the Democratic Party tells the people of the US, "Don't you believe it."

Quickest growing economy in the history of the nation, huh? Which is why the Dow was recently below 10,000, job growth has stagnated again, and most economic indicators are down as well.

Not afraid to admit when he's made mistakes, huh? Funny--I remember a recent press conference where a reporter asked him about any mistakes he'd made as president and he couldn't name a single one. Find a place where he's admitted a mistake and I might reconsider this one.

Doesn't change his mind due to the whims of the times, huh? Changed his mind on a department of homeland security. Changed his mind on the 9/11 commission. Changed his mind on going to the UN and asking for help. Want me to go on? Entire websites have been devoted to this particular line of crap.

Whatever, dude--you're so deluded that I could throw fact after fact at you for days and you wouldn't believe it. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

I would. I think Bush has done a pretty good job, but his immigration policy I hate it, he needs to deploy the national gaurd to get the illegal immigrants out. I want Rumsfeld for president. Yes i am republican to.
Rumsfeld? That would be pure torture!!

Quickest growing economy in the history of the nation, huh? Which is why the Dow was recently below 10,000, job growth has stagnated again, and most economic indicators are down as well.

I guess the Wall Street Journal doesn't count? Recent articles appearing in that publication have refered to the current economy in exacly those terms.

Not afraid to admit when he's made mistakes, huh? Funny--I remember a recent press conference where a reporter asked him about any mistakes he'd made as president and he couldn't name a single one. Find a place where he's admitted a mistake and I might reconsider this one.

Let's see I seem to remember him making the comment that he acted on intelligence that has now shown to have been inaccurate. To me that is admitting to making a mistake. Maybe it is not as clearly stated as when Clinton told the nation, "I did not have sex with that woman". If you are asking me to show you a statement where I can directly quote the honorable Mr. Bush saying, "I made a mistake when...." I can not promise to be able to grant such a specific wish. I can only tell you where he has admitted to doing a thing that was not the best choice, which is making a mistake.

Doesn't change his mind due to the whims of the times, huh? Changed his mind on a department of homeland security. Changed his mind on the 9/11 commission. Changed his mind on going to the UN and asking for help. Want me to go on? Entire websites have been devoted to this particular line of crap.

Can you show one website that is not ran by the anti-bush or leftwing groups that show such things? From the reports I have read dealing with all three of those issues he has remained the same on his stance towards them.

Whatever, dude--you're so deluded that I could throw fact after fact at you for days and you wouldn't believe it. There are none so blind as those who will not see.Delusion and blindness are such common qualities found in those of the liberal belief. If it wasn't there I would swear they would be conservatives.

I retract my vote, I meant to pick no-rep. I have only really experienced two presidents in my life: Clinton and Bush. I look back and say well maybe it wasnt so bad back then but when I look at today I see one of the fastest growing economies in the world, 1.5 million new jobs, and strength we didnt have in the 8 years of the Clinton Administration. I will be 18 by this election and I will vote for George W. Bush. He had to rise to great expectations after 9/11 and he did. His approval rating was rather high on both sides of the political spectrum because the nation knew we had to combat the terrorist threats in the world. Now the hippy pinko-communists and anti-war people try to make the country forget 9/11 ever happen and focus on unimportant issues! I cant stand people who do not recognize the evil of al-queda and other terrorist organizations for what it really is! We are in world war 3 and we can not allow John Kerry the most liberal senator ever be in control of our military, a military that liberals greatly denegrate and destroy thru budget cuts and send the money to lazy welfare scum. We cant bow to the UN.. we cant become complacent again.. remember 9/11 and the thousands that died that day and allow our nation to remain safe as it has for 3 years under George Bush. Obviously its working cause there hasnt been a new attack since 9/11. Why change the President when he has been quite successful. Vote for Bush along with me this November and keep America a safe nation!


yes indeed!... lets compare the what... 10,000 dead over the last 20 years from terrorist.. with the millions of a world war...

but hey... it sounds better right...

ps. wars produce jobs...

I think bush is doing fine. :)

When I saw Santorum up there on that 1st post (as well as Mr. F-you! Cheney), I almost laughed!!


While I'm not a Republican (or a Dem for that matter), I'd rather see somebody like John McCain run for Pres. I'd gladly vote him over Kerry. I'd also vote for the [now] former editor-in-chief of my school paper - he plans to run for president upon a Republican platform but as a politician somebody could *actually* respect!

When I saw Santorum up there on that 1st post (as well as Mr. F-you! Cheney), I almost laughed!!


While I'm not a Republican (or a Dem for that matter), I'd rather see somebody like John McCain run for Pres. I'd gladly vote him over Kerry. I'd also vote for the [now] former editor-in-chief of my school paper - he plans to run for president upon a Republican platform but as a politician somebody could *actually* respect!

I doubt he has the money or the contacts. Also, instead of saying that Santorum (who's a pretty good prediction for years to come) and Cheney make you laugh, say what's wrong with them.

I'm interested in seeing why Incertonia, Rialst Endai, and Wehling voted that they'd like to see bush run even though they're democrats. Is it because that's the only way that kerry can win or what?

eh, yeah I'm more of a centrist, I go for whever I think will get the job done.

A republican president I would vote for... that's an easy one, John McCain.

I would have loved to be casting my vote for Sen. John McCain. I'm a republican and I would have voted Kerry/McCain if the cross party ticket actually happened. Its not that I think Bush is evil or that he is ruining the country. In fact, I think he was the right man at the right time for America. I cannot imagine having gone through 9/11 with Al Gore as president. I think the truth is that though Bush was the right guy for America, he no longer is that guy. We've shown the world that we won't be bullied or pushed around, now we need to show the world that we care about relations with other countries. Just my two cents here.

I'm interested in seeing why Incertonia, Rialst Endai, and Wehling voted that they'd like to see bush run even though they're democrats. Is it because that's the only way that kerry can win or what? I think it's because many Demorats would rather see someone else (besides Kerry) run for president. Sure Kerry's an acceptable compromise in terms of winning the election, but if many democrats had their preference they'd pick someone besides Kerry.

I'd rather have McCain. But really anybody who can get beat by a Democrat so we have one in office.

I think it's because many Demorats would rather see someone else (besides Kerry) run for president. Sure Kerry's an acceptable compromise in terms of winning the election, but if many democrats had their preference they'd pick someone besides Kerry.

Yeah, uh, personally I wouldn't mind another 4 years of Clinton myself. He did a damn fine job, but unfortunately the constitution has other ideas about that. He has been the best president that we have had in a while pretty much across the board; it is really too bad his presidency was tarnished with the whole sex scandal thing that got blown way out of proportion.

Who would you rather see? I'm just wondering because I doubt any far rightie (or far leftie for that matter) would get into the house without a damn good bit of lying. You have to be sort of centrist to win.

John Kerry is a far leftie but some people are too ignorant to realize it.

CHB? Its a well known fact that communism is a part of evolution. Is it just me or every rep who has come into office has been hated and cause either political wars or rebelion? (I.E. Civil war, Iraq war) Bush is dumb! He choked on a damn pretzel! He stole the presidency from Al Gore President-in-excile! Hes is freaking terrible with politics and not to mention business. The patriot act was created with his blessings!!!!!!!!! Why are people not flipping out over this???? It pretty much says, that the united states of America is changing its name to the united states of fascism! Do you know that even the republicans hate him? Our president is a dumb, arrogant, ignorant, facsist, imperialist, drunking idiot, moron! Republicans are leading our once great nation to 1940 nazi, germany! As a christian I think being gay is wrong, BUT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS ITS OK! Therefore we all must abide.

Bush has drasticly increased taxes and is not fit to be our acting president (oh wait hes not, i forgot about cheny!)nor is he fit to take my order at burger king, he might think terrorists live on it and send in a Bio-team to dispose of any(fake)antrax! He uses scare tactics to keep the people under control. Why can people not see that hes a dictator? Uh-oh looks like the warning level is at hazel-blue! Damn man, personaly i have nothing against republicans(besides the fact that they rob from the poor to make the rich, richer)so if you believe in being a republican then be one, But dont vote for fascism(oh wait, fascism is capitalism too. Nevermind vote bush)or any other tyrant government.

As far as don is concerned. Don is a money hungry pimp! Looking to kill poor people for money. I don't understand why anyone would want to defeat the left, All we want is power to the people and true Democracy. It boils down to this, the left want freedoms and the right wants money! But, bush will get re-elected because of fools like you! Well you know what When the draft comes around Me and my little brother are out of the shithole nation! Congradulations, the right has finally ruined this country. Do you realise that All of Europe and Asia are laughing at us? You know why? Because Americans are ignorat and dumb towards politics. Much like yourself. I bet $20 your white huh? Only a white moron would make such radical statements as "Duh, I hope don rumsfeld gets the presidency. Duh". Let me guess, your also from the south? Stupid morons, we should of wiped out the south when we had the chance! Bush is a liar and so is his admin.

Good Day sir and I pray you have a horrible death :sniper:

Your favorite Board Leftist,

Acelord

Calm down you left wing wing commie slob.
Atleast the right wing can spell. Go watch another fat pig Michael Moore film

John Kerry is a far leftie but some people are too ignorant to realize it.

Classifying Kerry isn't really that simple. He is a liberal, period. But to say he is far left is ignorant, I mean if you listened to his speech last night it evinced qualities of both sides of the fence and overall gave a very moderate message.

Why? Come one people...give me more than a statement!Sad thing is, most bush supporters don't even seem to know why they're bush supporters.

Personally I think they should run ANYONE other than Bush because frankly it would show that the republican party isn't merely Bush's lapdog, though, don't run Cheney, because he is bush +

I think that if John McCain ran on the Republican ticket, the Republicans would win in a land-slide. Bush had divided America too much, so has Chenney. A McCain/Powell ticket would give the Republicans a winning ticket I believe.
I agree, cept for one thing, Powell is too smart to run for public office. If that weren't the case he would already have become our first black president (Yes, I truely think he could win it, he's the only black man in america that would stand a chance)

Classifying Kerry isn't really that simple. He is a liberal, period. But to say he is far left is ignorant, I mean if you listened to his speech last night it evinced qualities of both sides of the fence and overall gave a very moderate message.

He can say anything he wants in his speeches, his voting history is a whole other matter.

He can say anything he wants in his speeches, his voting history is a whole other matter.

Funny, same can be said about bush.

But see...when I see Kerry and how liberal he is...and how close crazy dean came to winning...I can't help but think that if Dems don't put up anyone moderate, why should we? If they win then it's ultra-liberal, and if we win it's pretty much centrist? Don't think so.
Um... by WHOSE count did Dean come close to winning? Every primary I've seen the results of he was right down there with Sharpton, actually, I think Sharpton beat him once. Its bad when you can't win against the token minority on the democratic ticket (thats what they are, no-one in their right mind takes either Jackson or Sharpton seriously)

Um... by WHOSE count did Dean come close to winning? Every primary I've seen the results of he was right down there with Sharpton, actually, I think Sharpton beat him once. Its bad when you can't win against the token minority on the democratic ticket (thats what they are, no-one in their right mind takes either Jackson or Sharpton seriously)

Yeah dean was the 3rd person to quit, he was never even close. He only took one single meaningless state, Vernmont.

I do not intend to start a flame. I just don't think Bush is the most eloquent speaker. There are plenty of great Republican speakers and people in the media's eye, and I'd rather see many of them in the Oval Office than Bush. Take McCain, for example, and Colin Powell. Both have been mentioned earlier in this thread for good reasons: they'd make great Republican candidates.

I do not think Bush is an idiot, nor do I hate America. I do not appreciate blanket generalizations.
McCain SHOULD have run in 2000. Seriously Republicans, when you actually get Democrats to show up for the Republican primary and actually voting for someone they LIKE. You should put him as president. Thats what annoys me about our political system. McCain gets elected for positions that don't require nominations because the people LOVE HIM, but if its time for the party to appoint someone, he gets passed over because he's essentially a moderate democrat possing as a republican. And as I said before, Powell is to smart to run (not saying presidential canidates are stupid, just lack common sense in certain areas). However, if by some MIRACLE either of those men show up on a republican ticket, I will vote for them unregistered Democrat status be damned.

McCain SHOULD have run in 2000. Seriously Republicans, when you actually get Democrats to show up for the Republican primary and actually voting for someone they LIKE. You should put him as president. Thats what annoys me about our political system. McCain gets elected for positions that don't require nominations because the people LOVE HIM, but if its time for the party to appoint someone, he gets passed over because he's essentially a moderate democrat possing as a republican. And as I said before, Powell is to smart to run (not saying presidential canidates are stupid, just lack common sense in certain areas). However, if by some MIRACLE either of those men show up on a republican ticket, I will vote for them unregistered Democrat status be damned.

He did run in 2000. He just never made it to the main event. He lost in the primaries.

I'm simply wondering...with all the people who say that they'd vote for anyone who opposes Bush...would any Republicans here rather see someone else (Like Santorum, Powell, Cheney, Gillespie, Jeb Bush, etc.) run for President? If so, who and why? If not, once again, state your reasoning.

And for the record, I myself am a Republican.

I'd love to see a Ron Paul presidency. He's the only genuine constitutionalist in Congress.

He did run in 2000. He just never made it to the main event. He lost in the primaries.
You know what I mean >.<

You probably like that hate monger Santorum too.
I know who I'm talking about. I'm tired of these right-wing jerk offs who have hijacked the party of Lincoln and Roosevelt. I don't give a rats ass about gay marriage, abortion or any of those conservative values they are always spouting. Especially when more Republicans leaders are constantly get caught cheating on their wives or drunk driving. I care about the Environment, national defense, US soldiers, a fair tax code, American jobs, a balanced budgets and freedom. I'm an old school Republican, those are the things I was taught to believe in.Okay, little thing I learned in US history, before the forties. The democrats were fighting for what is now considered the republican agenda and vice-versa. Now I agree with you, Lincoln and Roosvelt (I assume FDR) are among my favorite presidents ever, but if either of them were running for office today, they would be on the democratic ticket.

3rd parties do count.
The electoral college isn't very democratic.
Not really. To my understanding, 3rd parties tend to take away votes from the candidate supported by their original party. Like Teddy Rosevelt and the Bull-Moose party. He took votes from the Republican candidate and the Democrat won.

CHB? Its a well known fact that communism is a part of evolution. Is it just me or every rep who has come into office has been hated and cause either political wars or rebelion? (I.E. Civil war, Iraq war) Bush is dumb! He choked on a damn pretzel! He stole the presidency from Al Gore President-in-excile! Hes is freaking terrible with politics and not to mention business. The patriot act was created with his blessings!!!!!!!!! Why are people not flipping out over this???? It pretty much says, that the united states of America is changing its name to the united states of fascism! Do you know that even the republicans hate him? Our president is a dumb, arrogant, ignorant, facsist, imperialist, drunking idiot, moron! Republicans are leading our once great nation to 1940 nazi, germany! As a christian I think being gay is wrong, BUT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS ITS OK! Therefore we all must abide.

Bush has drasticly increased taxes and is not fit to be our acting president (oh wait hes not, i forgot about cheny!)nor is he fit to take my order at burger king, he might think terrorists live on it and send in a Bio-team to dispose of any(fake)antrax! He uses scare tactics to keep the people under control. Why can people not see that hes a dictator? Uh-oh looks like the warning level is at hazel-blue! Damn man, personaly i have nothing against republicans(besides the fact that they rob from the poor to make the rich, richer)so if you believe in being a republican then be one, But dont vote for fascism(oh wait, fascism is capitalism too. Nevermind vote bush)or any other tyrant government.

As far as don is concerned. Don is a money hungry pimp! Looking to kill poor people for money. I don't understand why anyone would want to defeat the left, All we want is power to the people and true Democracy. It boils down to this, the left want freedoms and the right wants money! But, bush will get re-elected because of fools like you! Well you know what When the draft comes around Me and my little brother are out of the shithole nation! Congradulations, the right has finally ruined this country. Do you realise that All of Europe and Asia are laughing at us? You know why? Because Americans are ignorat and dumb towards politics. Much like yourself. I bet $20 your white huh? Only a white moron would make such radical statements as "Duh, I hope don rumsfeld gets the presidency. Duh". Let me guess, your also from the south? Stupid morons, we should of wiped out the south when we had the chance! Bush is a liar and so is his admin.

Good Day sir and I pray you have a horrible death :sniper:

Your favorite Board Leftist,

AcelordOkay, keep in mind I agree with most of what your saying, but don't make generalizations okay? I'm Southern and I hate Bush almost as much as you do. The thing I've found really wierd for a few years now is that the republican base is two types of people (I have seen statistics to support this, just not online, so there is no link, sorry) Ignorant, poor, undereducated white people (the quoties opinion of the south, seriously, aren't we above regionalization?), and insanely rich people. Considering how little of the US population falls into these categories, how the HECK do republicans win elections?

Okay, I'm biased as a Hoosier, but why not Dick Lugar? His foreign policy record beats the hell out of just about anybody since Nixon, and he's actually a real conservative (as opposed to all these neo-con fascists running around anymore).

I think that if John McCain ran on the Republican ticket, the Republicans would win in a land-slide. Bush had divided America too much, so has Chenney. A McCain/Powell ticket would give the Republicans a winning ticket I believe.

:::Blows kisses to Steph:::

This was my dream ticket last time around! :D

Kerry/McCain was it this time out. (Just imagine - McCain and Kerry vs the deserter!)

Okay, keep in mind I agree with most of what your saying, but don't make generalizations okay? I'm Southern and I hate Bush almost as much as you do. The thing I've found really wierd for a few years now is that the republican base is two types of people (I have seen statistics to support this, just not online, so there is no link, sorry) Ignorant, poor, undereducated white people (the quoties opinion of the south, seriously, aren't we above regionalization?), and insanely rich people. Considering how little of the US population falls into these categories, how the HECK do republicans win elections?

Simple answer, they're thieves and liars who wrap themselves in the flag and clutch their crosses. (note: this is not on the whole, but as an independent that is what I seem to be getting from the vast majority of the republican party right now.)

I'd love to see a Ron Paul presidency. He's the only genuine constitutionalist in Congress.

YES!!!!!

It'll never happen. But I'd love it if it could. I've met Dr. Paul. He's awsomely smart. (Anecdote - a good friend was a a party hosted by his parents. Dr. Paul was in attendance. Trivial Pursuits was brought out, and Dr. Paul was asked to play. He was lucky and got to go first. No one else got to plaay, as Dr. Paul was able to answer every single question, and cleared the board.)

If my home district was the Texas 14th congressional district, I'd be a very happy man. Unfortunately it's the 22nd home of a man I loath deeply - Tom DeLay. (One of the reasons I have let my registration lapse.....:()

I'm interested in seeing why Incertonia, Rialst Endai, and Wehling voted that they'd like to see bush run even though they're democrats. Is it because that's the only way that kerry can win or what?
I've said it before--the Republicans had a chance to nominate a decent, honorable human being in 2000, and they chose Bush instead, and with the help of a willing press and 5 members of the Supreme Court, they got him elected. They're stuck with him now--they had a choice between a man and a monkey, and they went with the monkey. They deserve every ounce of damage that Bush does to their party.

Actually there are ZERO new jobs during the Bush Presidency. He's still got another 1.2 Million to go to get back to where we were when he entered office. Keep in mind that the US workforce grows by about 120K people/month. Just to keep pace we would need to create 5.7 Million jobs during his 4 years in office. He's still got another 6.9 Million to go. Reagan, now there's a man who created some jobs! Nearly 40 Million over 8 years. What expectations did he rise to? Invade Afghanistan? That was a no-brainer. It's too bad he didn't put 100,000 troops there so we could have really gotten rid of the Taliban, Al-Queda and captured and executed bin Laden like he deserves. Clinton increased the military budget and modernized it. He spoke of the terrorist threat in 18 different speeches during his 8 years in office and prevented a number of attacks. The idea that John Kerry is the most liberal senator is bunk spread by Fox news and the ilk. And there have been plenty of new attacks. Do you think those 900+ US soldiers killed in Iraq have all been killed by Iraqi's. That is Al-Queda terrorists my young friend. Take it from a battle hardened old-GOP'er, turn off the TV and pick up a history and economics book.

I wanna know where you been? Clinton cut about 400,000 oldier, high ranking officers out of the military. It made it appear it had a higher budget, in reality, he was just giving the 'forced-retired' salaries to the military. And ya, those are Al-Queda in Iraq, Iraq also has the same security as the US. Not.

YES!!!!!

It'll never happen. But I'd love it if it could. I've met Dr. Paul. He's awsomely smart. (Anecdote - a good friend was a a party hosted by his parents. Dr. Paul was in attendance. Trivial Pursuits was brought out, and Dr. Paul was asked to play. He was lucky and got to go first. No one else got to plaay, as Dr. Paul was able to answer every single question, and cleared the board.)

If my home district was the Texas 14th congressional district, I'd be a very happy man. Unfortunately it's the 22nd home of a man I loath deeply - Tom DeLay. (One of the reasons I have let my registration lapse.....:()Well re-register. DeLay has an opponent who's polling within 10 percentage points and has been raising money at a decent clip--Richard Morrison. You just might be able to make DeLay sweat this time around, and may even pull an upset and get him out of there. Your country will thank you.

Hrmn well, you're full of shit about reagan creating 40 million jobs. especially since clinton created 23.8 million jobs in 8 years and that was more than the previous 12 years combined (that includes the regan years and the bush years). And as for al-quieda in iraq, eh yeah, might be. But bottom line is they werent there until after we came in, none of the terrorist groups blowing shit up in Iraq were there until we came in.

Im an unhappy libertarian who is registered Republican and votes (mostly) Democrat.

If McCain were nominated, I'd vote for him over Kerry.

Bush has done a terrible job. Maybe he meant well, but now we know what happens when you let a moron run your country.

Okay, little thing I learned in US history, before the forties. The democrats were fighting for what is now considered the republican agenda and vice-versa. Now I agree with you, Lincoln and Roosvelt (I assume FDR) are among my favorite presidents ever, but if either of them were running for office today, they would be on the democratic ticket.
FDR was a Democrat. He's talking about Teddy.

Yeah, if McCain was running for President instead of Bush (and had won in 2000), I'd be torn between THREE candidates. McCain seems like a good man. A much better man than Bush. He would prolly be a way better President too. Kerry is alright. The best thing about him is having Edwards on the ticket. Otherwise he just doesn't seem all that great of a choice. Then there's Nader. The man rocks. Well except for affirmative action. But there's always one or few views that don't match up between a person and a candidate.

YES!!!!!

It'll never happen. But I'd love it if it could. I've met Dr. Paul. He's awsomely smart. (Anecdote - a good friend was a a party hosted by his parents. Dr. Paul was in attendance. Trivial Pursuits was brought out, and Dr. Paul was asked to play. He was lucky and got to go first. No one else got to plaay, as Dr. Paul was able to answer every single question, and cleared the board.)

If my home district was the Texas 14th congressional district, I'd be a very happy man. Unfortunately it's the 22nd home of a man I loath deeply - Tom DeLay. (One of the reasons I have let my registration lapse.....:()

I'd love to meet him!

No, Bush is the best man to fight for America against the Left.
I thought that America was fighting terrorists. And what about the leftists who are American?

The left really freaks you out, doesn't it? I can almost feel your authoritarian blood boiling! ;)

I retract my vote, I meant to pick no-rep. I have only really experienced two presidents in my life: Clinton and Bush. I look back and say well maybe it wasn't so bad back then but when I look at today I see one of the fastest growing economies in the world, 1.5 million new jobs, and strength we didnt have in the 8 years of the Clinton Administration.

I will be 18 by this election and I will vote for George W. Bush. He had to rise to great expectations after 9/11 and he did. His approval rating was rather high on both sides of the political spectrum because the nation knew we had to combat the terrorist threats in the world.

Now the hippy pinko-communists and anti-war people try to make the country forget 9/11 ever happen and focus on unimportant issues! I can't stand people who do not recognize the evil of al-queda and other terrorist organizations for what it really is!

We are in world war 3 and we can not allow John Kerry the most liberal senator ever be in control of our military, a military that liberals greatly denegrate and destroy thru budget cuts and send the money to lazy welfare scum. We cant bow to the UN.. we cant become complacent again.. remember 9/11 and the thousands that died that day and allow our nation to remain safe as it has for 3 years under George Bush. Obviously its working cause there hasnt been a new attack since 9/11. Why change the President when he has been quite successful. Vote for Bush along with me this November and keep America a safe nation!
I don't think I've ever seen so many Republican cliches! Where to begin?

There are now 1.5 million new jobs in the US... after a loss of 3 million jobs!!!

I would like you to point out anyone, hippy pinko-communists or otherwise, who is trying to make the country forget 9/11 ever happened. As for unimportant issues, wasn't it Bush who tried to put a ban on gay marriage into the Constitution? I think national security is more important for you, right?

And I'm sorry to inform you, but if the USA intends to win the "War on Terror", it needs international co-operation - something Bush is very weak on.

I think everyone recognises the evil of al-Qaeda. Just because they would prefer to deal with it a different way, it doesn't mean they don't recognise it. Just out of curiosity, do you think that anti-war activists are unpatriotic?

It's indecent to compare this farcical "War on Terror" to a World War. You really know nothing about history do you?

Liberals destroy the military? Isn't Bush the one cutting soldier's pay and veteran's welfare?

And then we have the usual "lazy welfare scum blah blah blah."

I suggest you get your news from places besides FOX. Try:

www.indymedia.org

www.aclu.org

www.guardian.co.uk

Okay, keep in mind I agree with most of what your saying, but don't make generalizations okay? I'm Southern and I hate Bush almost as much as you do. The thing I've found really wierd for a few years now is that the republican base is two types of people (I have seen statistics to support this, just not online, so there is no link, sorry) Ignorant, poor, undereducated white people (the quoties opinion of the south, seriously, aren't we above regionalization?), and insanely rich people. Considering how little of the US population falls into these categories, how the HECK do republicans win elections?

Because those statistics are obviously false. As you said, Republicans win elections. Also, most of the military personally vote republican, most of the south votes republican, and almost everyone who runs a business votes republican. It's not only the insanely rich, it's the smaller millionaires. Having a million dollars isn't that exclusive anymore. If those people want to keep the money they earned, they vote Republican.

Just out of curiosity, do you think that anti-war activists are unpatriotic?

And then we have the usual "lazy welfare scum blah blah blah."

I suggest you get your news from places besides FOX. Try:

www.indymedia.org

www.aclu.org

www.guardian.co.uk

Anti-war activists are unpatriotic. Tell me how not supporting your county is patriotic?

I'm betting 90% of people on wellfare are just that...lazy. Maybe not when they first get on it, but eventually the realization that they don't need to find a job when they're already getting pain sinks in and they get lazy. Sure there might be the single mom who never had a job in her life who's husband left here in a bit of a spot, but then again, the Reps aren't the ones supporting broken family values.

Also, those media sources are bullshit. They're as bad as fox, just the other way around. Watch CNN or BBC.

But I'll vote for bush over Kerry any day. As far as someone else I'd have to do some serious research before I answer yes. The reason I'm supporting Bush is that the Democratic Party has turned into a "Hate Bush" machine. They only want to defeat Bush. Nothing else.

By the way, I'm curious to know why a guy who spent his military career hiding out as a cheerleader is automatically assumed to know more about military matters than someone who has actually been to a war. Kerry has been to war, Bush has not, so would someone please explain why Bush is assumed to be the 'tougher nut'
Yes, I'm really wondering this myself. Could someone, maybe an intelligent Bush supporter, explain why?

George W. Bush is a miserable failure of a president. And this is not just a liberal rant. I will describe in concise terms why I believe this to be the case:

Bush has not captured Osama Bin Laden, nor has he destroyed the Al-Qaida network. Indeed, his invasion of Iraq seems to have completely overshadowed the original focus of this war on terrorism, which was to defeat terrorists.

Bush's invasion of Iraq has diverted precious resources from U.S. operations in Afghanistan, with the net result that -neither- counntry is stable or secure. The Taliban and their Al-Qaida allies remain at large, their leader Mullah Omar remains outside of U.S. custody.

Bush has not found the weapons of mass destruction he claimed were hiding in Iraq. The WMD threat was the principle justification for our war in Iraq.

Last year observed a tremendous spike in terrorist attacks around the globe. If the War on Terror was designed to shut down terrorist activities, it has clearly failed.

Bush's unilateral action in Iraq has completely squandered the goodwill earned for the United States after September 11. Even our closest European allies are unwilling to cooperate with us at this moment in time. Anti-American sentiment is running at an all-time high, both in Europe and around the globe.

Bush's economic policies have been a dismal failure. While CEO/Executive pay rose by an astonishing 23% last year alone, the average American is feeling the squeeze. Bush has lost over a million jobs since taking office, and the jobs he claims to be creating as replacements are "McJobs" that pay an average of $9000 less per year than previous jobs.

Bush has refused to make any attempt to reign in the export of U.S. jobs overseas. Indeed, his government actually came out publicly and said the export of U.S. jobs was a GOOD thing for U.S. workers at one point.

In order to satisfy his corporate donors, Bush has made the import of prescription drugs from Canada illegal, driving the prices up and forcing seniors to choose between food and life-saving medicine. At the same time, Bush has utterly failed to provide a solution for the health care crisis gripping this country. Millions of Americans have LOST their health insurance under Bush's term, and he has done nothing to stop it.

Bush has savaged civil rights, claiming the right to hold American citizens suspected of terrorist sympathies indefinitely, without charge, and without access to legal counsel. He has claimed the right to inspect the most intimate details of our lives, such as what books we read at the library. Wearing his religion on his sleeve, Bush has tried time and time again to batter down the wall between church and state, conveniently ignoring the U.S. Constitution.

Bush has been an environmental disaster for America. He has withdrawn us from the Kyoto Treaty, weakened the Clean Air Act, and cut the EPA's budget. He has slashed funding for alternative energy resources, instead proposing to drill in national parks for relatively small amounts of oil. If we cannot drink the water or breathe the air, what good is all the other stuff??

Sorry, I just about ranted out there. I could say more, but I'm tired.

Yes, I'm really wondering this myself. Could someone, maybe an intelligent Bush supporter, explain why?

There are no intelligent Bush supporters!

Anti-war activists are unpatriotic. Tell me how not supporting your county is patriotic?

I'm betting 90% of people on wellfare are just that...lazy. Maybe not when they first get on it, but eventually the realization that they don't need to find a job when they're already getting pain sinks in and they get lazy. Sure there might be the single mom who never had a job in her life who's husband left here in a bit of a spot, but then again, the Reps aren't the ones supporting broken family values.

Also, those media sources are bullshit. They're as bad as fox, just the other way around. Watch CNN or BBC.
If you allow yourself to be open to new concepts, you might understand that if you think your country ought not be going to war, then it's a sign of love to tell the leaders how you feel. In my case, I think it's the height of patriotism to warn my country's leaders when I think they're about to fuck up in a big way.

As far as your asinine welfare comment is concerned, I can only assume that you've either never 1) been in a situation where you couldn't find a job that paid enough to handle the bills, or 2) had to provide for yourself without help from mom and dad. Sure--there are people who abuse the welfare system, just like there are corporations who abuse corporate welfare. That doesn't mean that the majority are abusers--it just means that a few people have found a way around the system. Maybe you ought to actually inform yourself about the true welfare situation before you go around insulting a bunch of people.

But I'll vote for bush over Kerry any day. As far as someone else I'd have to do some serious research before I answer yes. The reason I'm supporting Bush is that the Democratic Party has turned into a "Hate Bush" machine. They only want to defeat Bush. Nothing else.
You should have watched Clinton's speech. Real Democrats, or maybe just good Democrats, care about a lot of things. Bush is just someone standing in the way.

I don't want Canadian drugs being distributed in the US. Yes they are cheaper, do you know why? Because the safety standards in Canada aren't nearly as stringent as in the US.
My uncle works for a pharmaceutical company up in Boston. They're currently under contract to develope smallpox vaccines. They have a great program, but really put them over their competitors is the $100million insurance policy they got.
American drugs are so expensive because the pharmaceutical companies have to go through a decade of testing to prove the product is safe, and then spend millions of dollars in insurance "just in case". Canadian products don't have that safety net, and so are much cheaper.

I don't want Canadian drugs being distributed in the US. Yes they are cheaper, do you know why? Because the safety standards in Canada aren't nearly as stringent as in the US.
My uncle works for a pharmaceutical company up in Boston. They're currently under contract to develope smallpox vaccines. They have a great program, but really put them over their competitors is the $100million insurance policy they got.
American drugs are so expensive because the pharmaceutical companies have to go through a decade of testing to prove the product is safe, and then spend millions of dollars in insurance "just in case". Canadian products don't have that safety net, and so are much cheaper.Are your eyes brown? Because you're obviously full of shit. Canadian drugs are just as good as US drugs are--there's never been any question about that.

I don't want Canadian drugs being distributed in the US. Yes they are cheaper, do you know why? Because the safety standards in Canada aren't nearly as stringent as in the US.
My uncle works for a pharmaceutical company up in Boston. They're currently under contract to develope smallpox vaccines. They have a great program, but really put them over their competitors is the $100million insurance policy they got.
American drugs are so expensive because the pharmaceutical companies have to go through a decade of testing to prove the product is safe, and then spend millions of dollars in insurance "just in case". Canadian products don't have that safety net, and so are much cheaper.

Hrmn yeah and canadians also aren't getting ripped off for the R&D costs and the advertizing costs that americans are.

Microevil's got it right. To be sold in America, the drugs have to meet our standards. What they want to do is reimport American-made drugs from Canada because Canadian regulations keep the prices down. America doesn't have those regulations or the bargaining power of the Canadian government, so we get screwed. Then the bastards blow money on marketing (think a moment here, should a commercial be influencing your medicine purchases?) and raise the prices even more. The idea's kind of stupid though. It would make a lot more sense to just employ the same policies Canada uses to lower prices in the first place. Of course, drugs will never be as cheap in America as they currently are in Canada, because they're using us to support their R&D (Canada doesn't pay enough for it).

They certainly won't be as cheap in the US as they are in Canada as long as the federal government doesn't allow Medicare to negotiate with drug companies using its leverage as the largest single drug buyer to force a better deal. Thanks to that abomination of a Medicare drug bill passed last year, it's literally against the law for Medicare to negotiate with drug companies--they get to set their own prices and Medicare gets fucked as a result.

Anti-war activists are unpatriotic. Tell me how not supporting your county is patriotic?

I'm betting 90% of people on wellfare are just that...lazy. Maybe not when they first get on it, but eventually the realization that they don't need to find a job when they're already getting pain sinks in and they get lazy. Sure there might be the single mom who never had a job in her life who's husband left here in a bit of a spot, but then again, the Reps aren't the ones supporting broken family values.

Also, those media sources are bullshit. They're as bad as fox, just the other way around. Watch CNN or BBC.
Anti-war activists refuse to support their country's government when it chooses to send the troops to fight a war that they don't believe in. Is this the same as not loving their country? I don't think so.

OK, there's a wild bet based on a groundlessly invented statistic. Most people on welfare do work.

OK, I put Indy Media there just to annoy the guy when he found out what it was. I don't read it myself.

As for the ACLU, they're not a media source, but their articles are interesting. They're not a left-wing lobby group, they just support the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I admit that The Guardian is left-leaning, but they're nowhere near FOX. Guardian journalists do not lie to support their political agenda. Their articles are well-written and intelligent. They shy away from the mendacious sensationalism of FOX and Rupert Murdoch's other propaganda machines.

R&D!??!?!

Do you know where Canada GETS its' prescription drugs? From the United States! The reason Canadians do not pay as much as Americans is because they have a federal government that's not in bed with the drug companies. The U.S. Government subsidizes these drugs' development with OUR tax money. And then the companies turn around and sell a two week course of drugs for $900 (Personal experience). It's not that Canadian drugs are safer. It's that Bush and his people are uninterested in protecting the American public from price gouging.

I wouldn't mind it. I'd personally prefer either John McCain, Colin Powell, or Condi Rice, though there are probably better Republicans out there. Bush isn't perfect, but he's the best we got. Besides, his cabinet is filled with some very bright people.

bright? BRIGHT? Didn't you read my long post above?

They certainly won't be as cheap in the US as they are in Canada as long as the federal government doesn't allow Medicare to negotiate with drug companies using its leverage as the largest single drug buyer to force a better deal. Thanks to that abomination of a Medicare drug bill passed last year, it's literally against the law for Medicare to negotiate with drug companies--they get to set their own prices and Medicare gets fucked as a result.
Down, tiger. You're really starting to think that the Republicans are demons straight from helll, and Bush is Satan. It's starting to sound obnoxious of you.

bright? BRIGHT? Didn't you read my long post above?
No. But in addition to all being very rich, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, and Rice all have experience in the government, and know what they're talking about. In fact, Rumsfeld was a Secretary of Defense once before.

of the two parties I am republican. I would prefer someone who would be more fiscally conservative and more socially libera of course I sort of have that with libertarian candidate badnarik

You probably like that hate monger Santorum too.
I know who I'm talking about. I'm tired of these right-wing jerk offs who have hijacked the party of Lincoln and Roosevelt. I don't give a rats ass about gay marriage, abortion or any of those conservative values they are always spouting. Especially when more Republicans leaders are constantly get caught cheating on their wives or drunk driving. I care about the Environment, national defense, US soldiers, a fair tax code, American jobs, a balanced budgets and freedom. I'm an old school Republican, those are the things I was taught to believe in.Okay, little thing I learned in US history, before the forties. The democrats were fighting for what is now considered the republican agenda and vice-versa. Now I agree with you, Lincoln and Roosvelt (I assume FDR) are among my favorite presidents ever, but if either of them were running for office today, they would be on the democratic ticket.

Looks to me like the Republicans are split right down the middle. The party hath divided.

Funny, same can be said about bush.

Yea funny because he doesn't vote on issues because he's not in congress fool.

Yea funny because he doesn't vote on issues because he's not in congress fool.
Since voting is the only form of flip-floppery.

I'm simply wondering...with all the people who say that they'd vote for anyone who opposes Bush...would any Republicans here rather see someone else (Like Santorum, Powell, Cheney, Gillespie, Jeb Bush, etc.) run for President? If so, who and why? If not, once again, state your reasoning.

And for the record, I myself am a Republican.


If you pay attention, Bush is not running this country. And no, I'm not refering to any Skull and Bones Society or Illuminati, I'm refering to Dick Cheney. If you watch closely, Bush never says any thing smart while Dick is drinking water. So, if anything, you can't really blame or credit George with anything that's happened durring this administration, because Cheney did it.

Down, tiger. You're really starting to think that the Republicans are demons straight from helll, and Bush is Satan. It's starting to sound obnoxious of you.
Not all of them--there are some decent Republicans, some I could even consider voting for. Bush is not one of them, and neither are any of the Republicans in the leadership in Congress, but there are some.