BS: Justify Bush

Subject: BS: Justify Bush
From: Chris Green
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 07:01 PM

Okay, this is a serious question. What did Bush do that made (just) over half of the American electorate vote for him? 'Cos I (and, I suspect, most people outside the USA) genuinely don't get it.

Is it the lack of a credible opposition?

Is it due to the climate of fear engendered by September 11th?

Is it something domestic that he's done? (I read about his tax breaks, but they only seem to favour lucky sods who are earning million a year).

I'm confused.

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 07:04 PM

I have heard that when they did exit polls asking people what the most important issue that caused them to vote the way they did, the overwhelming majority said that it was moral values. What I extrapolate from that is people are scared of abortion and/or homosexual marraige. That doesn't make me feel happier about how they voted though. If they had said the most important issue was winning the war in Iraq, that would have made me happier about the way they voted.

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 07:09 PM

He palyed on peoples fears and he followed orders from the folks who own him...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: GUEST,Bush has Bushed me, I'm Bushed
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 07:38 PM

You can justify planting a Bush where there is an erosion problem. Obviously there is an erosion in his decisions, his morals (needless killing), our freedoms, etc.

So, let's PLANT this BUSH as deep as we can!

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 07:53 PM

I think it's because of the war. It seems people like to stick with the same commander in chief.

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: kendall
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 07:58 PM

No credible competition. Beter to suffer the trouble we know than to fly to those of which we know not. (Sorry, my Shakespere is a bit rusty)

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 08:14 PM

How about we just suvive him?
Treat the next few years with common sense, and hope it rubs off. And be thankful for term limits. With the US election cycle we've only got two years before we can start with two new canidates. Lucky us!

Bunnahabhain

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: GUEST,Layah
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 08:19 PM

I don't know if just surviving is good enough. Understanding sure would help. Not being able to understand what half my country is thinking makes it difficult to trust them in making other descions.

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: Bert
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 08:24 PM

What did Bush do ... he had his buddies make the voting machines.

He's our first unverifiable president.

He's right justified ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: goodbar
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 08:28 PM

he sucked and fondled some youknowwhats

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 08:29 PM

You got it, Bert. :-) The rule with politicians and political parties is: if there is any way they can cheat in an election result, they will. That goes equally for both parties. And it always has.

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: Gypsy
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 10:14 PM

Think it was basically 'you don't switch horses midstream' There just wasn't a heckuva lot of difference twixt the two candidates, in all reality. Nixon was voted in the second time around, for the same reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 10:37 PM

All of the above, along with a press that, unlike the old days, likes to roll over and have its tummy scratched.

And--   who was it who said, "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: Once Famous
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 10:46 PM

He won, you morons. Deal with it and come up with a candidate who believes your agenda instead of just whining about it.

And you don't have to be scared of homosexual marriage to think it's perverted and that the world has to change for a few.

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 10:50 PM

I would say it's our very tightly contolled propaganda machine (the media) along with our secret and unverifiable election procedures. I would probably say the same if Kerry had won as well. I won't believe in the legitimacy of any of our presidents (or other office holders) until we have a free and open media and open and verifiable voting procedures.

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: Kaleea
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 11:07 PM

The big guys figured out that they could sway the vote by jumping on the "Christian" bandwagon and the big time tv evangelists got on board. They have so effectively indoctrinated people that 1/2 of the country voted on the basis of fear of gays & abortion-the main platform on which they stand-& the country losing its' "morality."   
   Nevermind the fact that Roe vs Wade will not be turned over because if the Supreme court overturned that ruling, they would be subject to overturning any & all rulings made in the past, and that will never happen. Their court would no longer be supreme. The big guys on the bandwagon know this. They don't care. They know it is how they can control a large amount of people.   People have forgotten that the organized church was originally organized as being the rulers of the people, and throughout history religion has been used to control the common people.

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 02:19 AM

I don't usually like to copy-paste things I get from e-mails people send to all their friends. In fact, I don't even usually read them. This one struck me, though:

A quick analysis of the U.S. Election in Two Sentences:

The Democrats' mistake was in thinking that a disastrous war and
national moral and financial bankruptcy would be of concern to the
electorate.

The Republicans saw, quite correctly, that the chief concern of the
electorate was to keep gay couples from having abortions.

That's it, isn't it?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 02:42 AM

Pitiful. But that about wraps it up.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 04:06 AM

Martin is a bit blunt in his use of words, but correct none the less.
The left has to find a candidate who reflects our opinion both in USA and UK....This will envolve going back to basics politically.
Kerry never gave the impression that he was committed to meaningful change, and a large number of people still see no future in left wing policies.

The lefts' blanket acceptance of issues which question traditional values also alienates many,regardless of their political opinions.

Im afraid theres still a long hard road ahead for us lefties..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: GUEST,jim tailor
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 07:28 AM

A quick analysis of the U.S. Election in Two Sentences:

The Democrats' mistake was in thinking that their characterization of events and situations would go as unanswered, as unchallenged as it used to -- and miscalculated (when going to them for campaign help) and misunderstood that those on their extreme left were as equally frightening or distasteful to the mainstream electorate as they (the democrats) found the extreme on the right to be.

The Republicans saw, quite correctly, a Left that was blind to international corruption, even showed sympathy for terrorists, while turning over every possible rock to see if they couldnt find some (corruption) of our own, and the mainstream electorate resented the insistance that the Left's self-loathing accurately defines us.

*******************************************************************

Actually, the question, as asked:

What did Bush do that made (just) over half of the American electorate vote for him?

Shows a lack of understanding for the US electoral process. We don't run two unaffiliated, random candidates for president. We have a party system. Whoever either party runs is going to get darn close to 40% of the vote, given that our two parties, at this point represent a closely divided country.

The question should be (as discussed here ad nauseum), "How did Bush get the 11% that Dole or Clinton did not get?"

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: Peace
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 03:09 PM

Kerry's campaign was stupider than Bush's campaign. In a nutcase, that is it.

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: Peace
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 03:10 PM

Slip of the lip there:

"In a nutcase, that is it."

That should read, "In a nutshell, that is it."

Sorry if I offended both candidates.

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 03:42 PM

I would agree akenaton, but for one thing. Somehow the UK is without a "left". We have only a right and a not quite so right to choose from at the moment. We need to rediscover the concept of left, THEN find a candidate, or, failing this, put the steering wheel in the middle of our cars.

Ho hum.......

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: *Laura*
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 03:55 PM

don't ask silly questions!

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: gnu
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 04:59 PM

I have a question. Was there an attempt to assassinate George Senior ? If so, who backed that attempt ?

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: GUEST,Layah
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 08:50 PM

Kaleea, the supreme court has overturned it's own descisions in the past. I know a lot more about history than I do about modern politics so I have no knowledge of the likelyhood of the supreme court overturning Roe v. Wade, but I do have an example of supreme court overturning it's own descisions. In Plessy v. Ferguson they ruled that segregation was acceptable "seperate but equal." Brown v. the board of education overturned that descision and caused the integration of schools.

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: Once Famous
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 09:25 PM

Me, blunt?

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: Sorcha
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 09:42 PM

Never, Martin. Oh for gods and goddesses sakes, he didn't actually win legally. Just look at Ohio if you have doubts. And grow up.

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 06:15 AM

Sorcha...Yor splitting hairs.

Given Bushes record domestically and the Iraq war, he should have been removed from power in a "landslide"

The real left in America and Britian must examine their ideology ...and their real goals...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 06:41 PM

Look at it from the point of view of the USA's enemies.

They would much prefer to hve a country like Afghanistan in the hands of the Taliban who was sympathetic to their aims.

They would much prefer Iraq to be in the hands of a corrupt fairly useless guy like Saddam Hussein, someone who is unable to police his borders - one who when the time comes they will be able to replace with a fundamentalist government.

You may not be sympathetic to the carnage implicit in what Bush has done, but just maybe he is not as dumb as you think.

he has said to his enemies, if you indulge in extravagant gestures like 9/11. there will be consequences. There will be a few less places to hang your hat.

And maybe that's what the public responded to, he wasn't going to sit there and take it - as they say in Goodfellas.

I could be wrong. I am English, I don't know if that's what going through peoples minds in America, but isn't that more likely than that all those people being dumb ignorant god fearing, queer hating rednex.

all the best

Big Al

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 08:03 AM

This thread could be called "Justify Bush: You Can't". And indeed we can't. He is a popped boil, a festering sore or whatever delightful image you would like to conjure up, on the body politic.

He is a disaster for the US and possibly the world. I yield to no man in my loathing for him. Among other things, I still think his hypocritical stance on nuclear proliferation is revolting-- jawboning other states not to acquire nukes while, at the same time, at the behest of US firms, refusing to pursue the securing of Russian nuclear material, lest these firms have to provide workers' comp for their workers. I started a thread about this.

At any rate, have some more Embarrassmints--I have a good supply.

Having said that, he was right to lash back at the Taliban in their Afghanistan refuge. I think very few, outside the loony Left, will dispute this.

As to why he was elected in 2004 (for the first time), 3 obvious possibilities:

1) He is damn lucky that the despised United Nations pulled his chestnuts out of the fire---, as I said in the "Irony:   Bush and the UN" thread in April 2004. The UN did this by making possible an Iraqi leader, rather than Bremer, to put an Iraqi face on the opposition to the insurgency. This also undercut the "Crusader" approach of the insurgency. This has resulted in avoiding the Vietnam syndrome predicted by some posters on Mudcat. If the general US electorate had perceived Iraq as another Vietnam, Bush very likely would have lost.   They did not. So Bush can thank the UN for his victory.

2) Bush, as a classic demogogue, played successfully on fear--especially fear of homosexuals and of terrorists. It seems a host of brilliant voters, perhaps even some Mudcatters, were convinced our cities were full of homosexual terrorists.

3) If you look at US political history, at least since 1945, there is a strong correlation between a defeat for a sitting president and a 3rd party which takes votes from him/ and or strong primary opposition. If there is no 3rd party taking votes from the president and he has to primary opposition, he wins. It's not surprising Bush won in 2004--the 3rd party and the primary problems were on the Democrats' side.

Ike won in 1956, Johnson would likely have lost in 1968, due to antiwar sentiment and thus primary opposition, Nixon won in 1972--no 3rd party taking his votes, Ford lost in 1976 after a desperate struggle against Reagan in the primaries.

I believe that 1980, which I first believed was an exception, is not in fact--I believe Carter had strong primary opposition-- from Ted Kennedy, was it?. Perhaps I'm wrong on this.

1984--no primary opposition for Reagan--he won. 1992--the 3rd party took many votes Bush senior would likely have gotten. 1996--no primary opposition for Clinton, nor a 3rd party.

2004--you may say that Nader got few votes this time. True, but

1) Kerry could not assume this.

2)   Kerry had to zig to the left to get the nomination, then zag to the right to try for the general electorate. Thus he was a sitting duck for Bush's single most effective line--"flip-flopping". Added to this, with no primary opposition, Bush was free to use his huge warchest to define Kerry early-- a la Early Money Is Like Yeast (the feminists'   EMILY's List)--especially as the above-cited "flip-flopper". Even late in the campaign Kerry could not assume he had the Left's vote--they had somwhere else to go--Nader.

2008 will be different--both parties will have primaries--with their expensive and bruising consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 08:12 AM

A couple of typos--most serious is in   3) -- should be "no primary opposition"

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 09:11 AM

I should have said the US lashed back at Osama in his Afghan refuge, and the Taliban who sheltered him, and provided training grounds for his group.

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: DougR
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 12:07 PM

Duell: it's that the almost half who didn't vote for him just don't get it, not the majority that did.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: DougR
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 12:08 PM

Ok Sorcha, I'm looking at Ohio. Bush won Ohio. Even Kerry admits that. So what's to look at?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 04:29 PM

well I think it suits a woman and it feels nice

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: *Laura*
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 06:23 PM

But Justify him? Why? What would be the point?
You probably can't do it anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 06:35 PM

"traditional values". What are they. Wasn't slavery once a traditional value? Wasn't the freedom to beat your wife once a traditional value? Wasn't hanging a kid for stealing a loaf once a cherished value? I just don't understand why homosexuals are such a threat to heterosexuals. They live together, they wear a ring..so what? Why is a whole society so obsessed with what they do in private. It's not a communicable disease is it? Why are so many people so unsure of their own selves that they have to persecute the different? The Jews, the mentally challenged, the intellectual, the gays. Always the same fears, and eventually the same solutions. Haven't we seen it enough times to say no more?
Apparantly not. We see, we don't learn, we repeat, we suffer.So we shall go on until we exterminate our very species it seems.

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 07:13 PM

I think the Emperor has wide approval because of that speech he gave, that starts "Omnes Iraqia in tres partes divisa est"...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 07:36 PM

The Center for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new,
especially virulent, strain of sexually transmitted disease. This
disease is contracted through dangerous and high-risk behavior. The disease is called Gonorrhea Lectim (pronounced "gonna re-elect 'im").

Many victims have contracted it after having been screwed for the past
four years, in spite of having taken measures to protect themselves from
this especially troublesome disease. Cognitive symptoms of individuals
infected with Gonorrhea Lectim include, but are not limited to:
Anti-social personality disorder traits; delusions of grandeur with a
distinct messianic flavor; chronic mangling of the English language;
extreme cognitive dissonance; inability to accept responsibility for
actions; exceptional cowardice masked by acts of misplaced bravado;
uncontrolled facial smirking; ignorance of geography and history;
tendencies toward creating evangelical theocracies; and a strong
propensity for categorical, all-or-nothing behavior.

The disease is currently sweeping Washington. Naturalists and
epidemiologists are amazed and baffled that this malignant disease has
spread so far, so fast, having originated only a few years ago in a
Texas bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: LadyJean
Date: 05 Feb 05 - 12:48 AM

Bush won 51 percent of the vote, after he and Karl Rove ran a nasty campaign.
George W was 1 percent short of a tie, and 2 percent short of a loss. He is a 2 percent president.
Rove's nasty campaign meant that a lot of people didn't vote. That's why he had Bush run that way. Studies have shown that when politicians focus on personal failings, and name calling voters stay home. So, a lot of people who might have opposed Bush didn't vote. Kerry lost a few more votes to Ralph Nader, the Green Party and the Libertarians, who don't like Bush either.
That explains the election.

    I can't justify Bush left
   But I can justify him right

It's a printer's term.

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: GUEST,Jaze
Date: 05 Feb 05 - 09:37 AM

If he wants to "protect" marriage, why doesn't he do something about the divorce rate? That's the biggest "threat" to marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 05 Feb 05 - 09:58 AM

That's all we need -- the President trying persnally to lower the divorce rate. Talk about Taliban!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Feb 05 - 07:51 PM

I think ol' Gee Dubya serves a useful purpose in at least two areas.

1. He gives the world a reference point for assessing political ineptitude. You cain't get no wuss 'n him.

2. He is a telling argument against them anti-abortion folks. Just think of the trouble that would have been avoided if his mom....

But anyway, everybody needs a good laugh now and then, and when was the last time the pres took care of that personally?

DT

Subject: RE: BS: Justify Bush
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 04:07 PM

You're not going to beat Bush until you start taking him seriously and stop thinking that everybody who voted for him is an idiot.

the way you're going, you're making all the classic mistakes that the labour party did with Thatcher, and you know how long she went on being successful.

people vote for politicians because they respond to something - and by and large the world isn't populated by idiots. that's why the democratic system of government is the best.