Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bush v Kerry cause it was annoying to have the only option besides Bush, who was our worst president in history, and Kerry was just a "not Bush" guy that couldn't muster up enough votes to beat a president that should of been easy to beat.
Bush v Kerry cause it was annoying to have the only option besides Bush, who was our worst president in history, and Kerry was just a "not Bush" guy that couldn't muster up enough votes to beat a president that should of been easy to beat.
Bush's approval was 53% on Election Day...yet he still got only 51% of the popular vote despite Kerry being a weak candidate. In 2004, people didn't consider him the worst president in history (and, while they might have by 2008, I'm not sure they do now).
I am not sure what you are expecting. All politicians pander. And despite their promises, there are plenty of things out of their control that define their presidencies.
That said, Bush II and Nixon showed pretty grotesque stupidity and abuse of power (Nixon). The rest were pretty similar. Some, like Clinton and Reagan, could inspire and had a strong agenda. Others, like Bush I and Carter, were quite intelligent and competent, but pretty politically unconvincing. I don't blame Carter for the garbage he had to deal with, and which doomed his presidency, but he certainly did not have political skills on par with Reagan, so he lost. That said, he was not a disgrace either, like Bush II and Nixon.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.