If You Voted for Bush, Do You Have a Right to Complain? (accuse, healthcare)

[lilypad]

Just wondering where a society is going which is forced to choose between the "lesser of two evils" in their leaders?? Sounds like some of our neighbors down south...

I voted for Bush 2000 with high expectations, after all he was a successful and beloved governor of Texas. By 2004, I was very disillusioned and did not exercise the "power of the vote", because I could NOT in good conscience vote for him again, nor could I even imagine the irresponsibility of voting for a Kerry platform (Heinz, just not my type).

I do not actively bash or complain, but when in a discussion between reasonable people I will give my opinions. They are not favorable to say the least. I feel confusion, mixed with disgust. Not a good feeling, and feel we have all been betrayed, kinda feels like a kick in the stomach and a bash in the head. I think there is a hidden agenda that We the People pawns have yet to discover, and when it is outed, won't be pretty....

[bily4]

Originally Posted by lionking

all that is mentioned though is Iraq Iraq Iraq.

there are other reasons the Dems will not gain my vote,domestic and social issues.

See that is where I think we get into trouble as a country. Too many people are busy checking off the abortion, gay rights, other boxes and then vote just based on that. That is the only way a ninny like Bush ever made it to a second term. Other than his influence to appoint Supreme Court Justices, I don't see the President actually making much difference at all on social issues. He talks a good talk, but has he actually done anything relating to social issues in the past 8 years? I read an article from a supposed insider about how he and his advisors actually laugh at the Evangelical crowd behind their backs.

I think people need to take a closer look at if they think the guy could actually lead a nation or not. By the way, I was not impressed at all with Kerry either. The whole way the system is set up is designed to weed out intelligent challengers.

[Yeledaf]

I prefer to turn the question around: if you voted against Bush, don't you have a responsibility to do something other than complain?

As far as I can tell, the Democrats and their allies in the media have done nothing else for eight years. That may explain why the American people rate the Democrat-controlled Congress even lower than Bush. Our political environment is more poisonous now than at any time that I can remember, and I've been around for a few years. This is not all Bush's fault -- it takes two to tango, my friends.

Having made that point, I agree that the Bush administration has been one of the least competent in recent memory. With the exception of the Roberts and Alioto apointments to the Supreme Court -- which in my opinion have helped to keep that body balanced politically -- Bush has accomplished very little. And that is to the detriment of all of us, regardless of affiliation.

Bush's falures as a President should be seen as a tragedy, not as an occasion for yet more exrpessions of hatred. I say this because the President is OUR President, the only one we have, and when he fails we all fail. Do his critics actually believe that their efforts to demean the office of the Presidency will not come back to haunt them -- and all of us -- if and when a Democrat is elected? If so, they have as little knowledge of governance as those who blindly support the Bush administration.

[Willys]

Originally Posted by macmeal

It's not like we had a huge number of choices from which to choose our president. And I still maintain we had a reasonable suspicion in the "WMD's" debacle.

Turns out those WMD's were in NYC all the time. No wonder the UN worked so hard against removing Hussein. He was a lucrative business.

[macmeal]

Originally Posted by Padgett2

I voted for him the first time, but by the second time, I realized that he wasn't the guy for the job.

I knew he was not the brightest bulb, but since he seemed to have smart advisors with him, I thought it would work. Boy! was I fooled. The whole bunch lacked something.....like common sense. They gave advice, I just can't believe what it was. Plus that cowboy attitude of "I don't take nuttin' from nobody," really has us over a barrel.
.

Exactly--you're putting my very thoughts into words. I never was impressed with the Connecticut Blue-Blood with the Fort Worth Stockyards "Texas Twang". Never did like the simplistic, "Smoke 'em---Get 'em---let's Roll !"--but I honestly figured that was just his condescending way to "reach" us little people. I thought SURELY he must have a few higher-minded advisors behind the scenes who'd cut through the "cowboy" stuff and "get to the diplomattin' part of it". Like you, I found out that no, what we saw was what we got. Bitter lesson......I remember many times, sitting and watching him flounder through a speech, TRYING to "groom" him...saying, "Out with it, George. You can say it---you can pronounce it---you can verbalize it if you just TRY". Alas, I finally realized it wasn't just an inability to speak convincingly---the problem was much deeper.

[macmeal]

Originally Posted by bily4

I think people need to take a closer look at if they think the guy could actually lead a nation or not. By the way, I was not impressed at all with Kerry either. The whole way the system is set up is designed to weed out intelligent challengers.

I've often said "A man of principle wouldn't last 2 days in politics". Does this count?.....

[bily4]

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

I prefer to turn the question around: if you voted against Bush, don't you have a responsibility to do something other than complain?

As far as I can tell, the Democrats and their allies in the media have done nothing else for eight years. That may explain why the American people rate the Democrat-controlled Congress even lower than Bush. Our political environment is more poisonous now than at any time that I can remember, and I've been around for a few years. This is not all Bush's fault -- it takes two to tango, my friends.

Having made that point, I agree that the Bush administration has been one of the least competent in recent memory. With the exception of the Roberts and Alioto apointments to the Supreme Court -- which in my opinion have helped to keep that body balanced politically -- Bush has accomplished very little. And that is to the detriment of all of us, regardless of affiliation.

Bush's falures as a President should be seen as a tragedy, not as an occasion for yet more exrpessions of hatred. I say this because the President is OUR President, the only one we have, and when he fails we all fail. Do his critics actually believe that their efforts to demean the office of the Presidency will not come back to haunt them -- and all of us -- if and when a Democrat is elected? If so, they have as little knowledge of governance as those who blindly support the Bush administration.

Yeledaf you bring up some good points. For me though - the hatred and demeaning of the Presidential Office really started with the Clinton Presidency. So there may be a bit of "Ok, now let's see who is really a disgrace", going on. There were parts of the Clinton presidency that I did not like, and obviously Monica Lewinsky is a name none of us should know...and he obviously benefited from the dot com boom. His ability to turn on tears or put on his outraged face at will was annoying.

But compared to where we are today in terms of U.S. global leadership, the deficit, spending hundreds of billions we don't have on an occupation we can't extract ourselves from, our precarious trade imbalances, morale of the country, scandal after scandal concerning issues much more serious than taking a little on the side to put in your pocket...I mean , "Whitewater"...give me a break. Clinton looks pretty darn good right about now.

That is why it is important more than ever that this time we elect a leader, not just based on issues you can check off, most of which are much more complex than just a yes or no answer anyway.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

I prefer to turn the question around: if you voted against Bush, don't you have a responsibility to do something other than complain? As far as I can tell, the Democrats and their allies in the media have done nothing else for eight years.

Responsibility is one thing. Means is another. Little tough to affect policy when your people are simply cut out of the loop.

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

That may explain why the American people rate the Democrat-controlled Congress even lower than Bush.

Or it could be that the people aren't happy about 'obtructionist Republicans' and Presidential vetoes being allowed to stand in the way of the changes that they voted for on 11-07-06.

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

Our political environment is more poisonous now than at any time that I can remember, and I've been around for a few years. This is not all Bush's fault -- it takes two to tango, my friends.

It takes two to commit a murder, too. You've got your perp, and you've got your victim. All even-steven, I guess.

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

Having made that point, I agree that the Bush administration has been one of the least competent in recent memory.

Agreed. But the problem goes well beyond incompetency. Let's look at the list of things that they tried (albeit incompetently) to do to begin with. How many of those are not a disgrace as well?

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

With the exception of the Roberts and Alioto apointments to the Supreme Court -- which in my opinion have helped to keep that body balanced politically --...

As long as you equate more ideologues to greater balance.

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

Bush's falures as a President should be seen as a tragedy, not as an occasion for yet more exrpessions of hatred.

Better that they be seen as final and rather conclusive evidence that the entire philosophical movement from which the administration's ideas and actions were drawn is a corrupt and empty construct.

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

I say this because the President is OUR President, the only one we have, and when he fails we all fail. Do his critics actually believe that their efforts to demean the office of the Presidency will not come back to haunt them...

I'm sure you were saying the same thing when the House Managers were parading around tilting at their partisan windmills as well.

[dreamofmonterey]

Originally Posted by pslOldTimer

I wonder where these folks draw the line.

What if it was Kerry and Mussolini?
How about Kerry or Hitler?
What if it was Kerry or Satan?
Kerry or Genghis Khan?

I'm trying to get just as ridiculous as I can to see how strong those anti-Kerry feelings really are. You see, in my mind, Bush and company are just as bad as the worst I can think of, and anything would have been better.

Couldnt have said it better.

It is upsetting that our country (and both partisan sides) are so corrupt. If we vote Independent, do we know if our votes will even count?.

[pslOldTimer]

Originally Posted by macmeal

If you're trying to get ridiculous, you're succeeding. Common sense, please....common sense. Obviuosly, the four choices you gave us would have seen a Kerry victory... Such silly comparisons cheapen the real life situation.....Isn't he bad enough as it is?

Originally Posted by happyappy

I think pslOldTimer was using a little sarcasm to point out how "reeedickaless" some people can be.

Originally Posted by macmeal

OK, if you say so...but I have little patience with those who think it's funny to derail a smooth-running discourse with the cheap trump card of "sarcasm"---for heaven's sake, we've got a SITUATION here !! Get serious, people.....!!
mmmphh.....grrrr.......

For the record: I was NOT trying to be "funny", and sorry, happyappy, I wasn't realy being sarcastic. It was a serious question. The question was, where DO you draw the line? If Bush, who has turned out to be tragically bad and horribly wrong for the nation is the "lesser of two evils", just who is it that is more evil? I came up with some really evil folks to try it out. Macmeal, you said those 4 would have resulted in a Kerry victory -- my point is that listening to some folks like citigirl, lionking or fleet, I'm not so sure! I think they would have preffered Genghis Khan or Satan to Kerry, so deeply ingrained are they to the right-wing agenda.

What I was looking for was some acceptable candidate that the Democrats could have put up against Bush in 2004, and for who some of the right-sided folks might have voted. Considering that lionking wants the Democrats to put up someone less progressive (which is like asking te Republicans to put up someone less conservative ), and considering the lies about and "Swift Boating" of Kerry, which would have happened to ANY Democratic candidate, my question is entirely realistic.

Consider your own "mea culpa" post a little earlier -- in which you virtually admitted you were misled, if not duped. I admired you for that post, because at least YOU have removed the blinders, even if most of the other die-hard right-wingers are still wearing them. Those same tactics, that misled you about Iraq, were used to elect Bush in 2004. The phrase "lesser of two evils" started in Rove's playbook.