A Bush Loss = Good for the Republicans

So we should all vote for Bush?

I think it was Draginol who was saying that although Kerry had won the debates, that he finds the Republican arguments more convincing. Fair enough, but what I don’t understand about the Republicans at the moment is, why on Earth would they choose such an idiot for their leadership? There are smarter people in the Republican party. There are more likeable people in their Party. Wouldn’t they be better off choosing someone else? Wouldn’t it be better for their own cause to have someone who actually understands why they’re doing what they’re doing?

Bush makes the Republican case look even stupider than it actually is. He flip flops about because he doesn’t think for himself. He just does whatever he’s told to do by Cheney, Powell and co. But when he’s actually asked to think on the spot, to explain his position, he just doesn’t know why he’s doing it. We’ve all seen the footage of him being left flabbergasted at press conferences, even when he’s not been asked particularly hard-hitting questions. The press are giving him an opportunity to make his case, but he doesn’t know how to do it.

I can just picture Bush in Government meetings, sitting on the edge of his seat, like an eager little stupid child, watching as these really smart men talk about the issues of the world, using big words that he would like to emulate (or is that emulatate?). I bet Bush sits there thinking “Wow! My Dad must have been really smart to mix with these dudes. They know so much stuff. One day, I wanna be just like them and blow up Iraqis too. They sound like a bad people, cos Dad never seemed to like them. I know how I’ll impress Mr Powell, I’ll say that we should invade Iraq. That made Dad really popular.”. Of course, I may be wrong in assuming that Dubya was sober when he made the decision.

Even if you believe in Republicanism, surely you want somebody who knows what they’re doing to be running the country? It’s dangerous for you to have such a moron having such control.

For an example, look at Australia. The racists didn’t vote for Pauline Hanson to be PM. They voted for John Howard to implement her policies for her because he has half a brain. Howard showed during the debates that he doesn’t completely understand the issues he’s facing or know how to solve them either, but he comes across as having slight intelligence at least.

Who knows what Bush will do next, because he doesn’t even know. But given his track record, it’s not likely to be a good or justified action. If the Republicans lose, at least they can pick a new leader who knows what he’s doing, who knows how to deal with a crisis. The job of US President is an important one that shouldn’t just be left in the hands of any stupid joker with an opinion. You wouldn’t employ someone as the head of a company just because they believe that making a profit is a good goal to have.
17,436 views 61 replies
Reply #1 Top
I don't know if Bush is so much of a puppet any more. I think he was when he entered office, but I think he's gotten so full of himself and so proud of his "Hey, I'm the USA President" bumper sticker that he doesn't listen to anyone. I think he runs completely on gut instinct with absolutely no concern for facts, proof, or anything else that the rest of the adult world conciders necissary. However, he taps into the religious revilalism that is unfortunately sweeping across the country. He has no brains, but lots of faith, and that's what gets him elected. People can identify with an idiot who acts like a child alot easier these days. Kind of a sad fact about the state of this country.
Reply #2 Top
A Bush Loss = Good for the Republicans

By: Champas Socialist
Posted: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 on Champagne Socialism
Message Board: Democrat
I can just picture Bush in Government meetings, sitting on the edge of his seat, like an eager little stupid child, watching as these really smart men talk about the issues of the world, using big words that he would like to emulate (or is that emulatate?). I bet Bush sits there thinking “Wow! My Dad must have been really smart to mix with these dudes. They know so much stuff. One day, I wanna be just like them and blow up Iraqis too. They sound like a bad people, cos Dad never seemed to like them. I know how I’ll impress Mr Powell, I’ll say that we should invade Iraq. That made Dad really popular.”. Of course, I may be wrong in assuming that Dubya was sober when he made the decision.


You know I really don't like someone who isn't even from this country making fun of the President of the USA in that fashion.
Reply #3 Top
well, the only good thing about Bush losing, and Kerry winning....that postpones Hilary Clinton for at least 8 years.

But really....why do the democrats go to John Kerry? IN FREAKING WAR TIME??????????????? This guy has no solid record on standing with the military, OTHER than something he did 30+ years ago....and even that is shady.

Oh, and thanks for insulting me too, by the way....just love the liberal mentality of justified superiority of ignorance from the left
Reply #4 Top
You know socialist, you are making the same mistake that so many other 'self righteous liberals' have made and are making. The truth is you beleive the hype, and dont look behind it. And as such, you are doomed to be ignorant and always underestimate Bush. That is why Kerry is losing. The hate filled left first accuses him of supreme manipulation, and then extreme stupidity. Yet the real truth is they are just underestimating him, so he is making them look like fools.

Much like you made yourself look like in this blog. When you start thinking on your own, and can look beyond the hate filled rhetoric, you will see why he was elected in 2000, and will be re-elected in a week. That is if you can open your mind to new information. Otherwise, you will continue to not understand anything.
Reply #5 Top
You know I really don't like someone who isn't even from this country making fun of the President of the USA in that fashion.


I think that sort of attitude plays a big part in how the rest of world sees your country, your leader and your political system.

Why is it such a problem to comment about your leader in that way? Is it a swipe at you, because he is the embodiment of everything you stand for? I suggest that next time you choose a better representative if that's going to be your attitude. He is merely a man. You elected him as President - you didn't elevate him to the right hand side of God. If you can't have a good laugh at yourself, then step back, take a breather and relax a little bit.

The hate filled left first accuses him of supreme manipulation, and then extreme stupidity. Yet the real truth is they are just underestimating him, so he is making them look like fools.


Agreed - he's more likely to be very good at manipulation, and quite ignorant. But not stupid. He certainly does a good impersonation of it though.
Reply #6 Top
Well I could always chime in and add negative comments about John Howard, Jacques Chirac, Paul Martin, Koizumi Junichiro, etc.

Would that be acceptable by your standards if I started saying negative comments about a head of your government or do you feel that they are good representatives?

With the exception for Koizumi the rest I just listed are poor representatives if you want me to break them down.

PLINKO!!

Reply #7 Top

I think it was Draginol who was saying that although Kerry had won the debates, that he finds the Republican arguments more convincing. Fair enough, but what I don’t understand about the Republicans at the moment is, why on Earth would they choose such an idiot for their leadership? There are smarter people in the Republican party. There are more likeable people in their Party. Wouldn’t they be better off choosing someone else? Wouldn’t it be better for their own cause to have someone who actually understands why they’re doing what they’re doing?


As if Kerry's the best the Democrats have. I also like how you fail to mention Kerry, almost as if Americans are voting between Bush and an empty space. I guess the less said about him, the better, eh? He's just the rebound guy after a bad breakup for the Democrats.


Agreed - he's more likely to be very good at manipulation, and quite ignorant. But not stupid. He certainly does a good impersonation of it though.


This is one example of somebody on the left thinking they're making good points, but in fact, are just making the left look kooky.

Reply #8 Top
Whether I feel they are good representatives doesn't enter into it - I think you are free to express your opinion, even if (heaven forbid) negative comments about my head of state.

Your freedom to express your opinion shouldn't be limited by where you live and who you're governed by.

This is one example of somebody on the left thinking they're making good points, but in fact, are just making the left look kooky.
You assume much about my political stance. George Bush is not the Republican party. I can be critical of him without having to be "on the left".
Reply #9 Top

You assume much about my political stance. George Bush is not the Republican party. I can be critical of him without having to be "on the left".


True. Everybody is calling themselves "moderate independent" these days, but you know what they say. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Reply #10 Top

Reply #5 By: Joey Joe Joe (Anonymous) - 10/27/2004 10:21:56 PM
You know I really don't like someone who isn't even from this country making fun of the President of the USA in that fashion.


I think that sort of attitude plays a big part in how the rest of world sees your country, your leader and your political system.

Why is it such a problem to comment about your leader in that way? Is it a swipe at you, because he is the embodiment of everything you stand for? I suggest that next time you choose a better representative if that's going to be your attitude. He is merely a man. You elected him as President - you didn't elevate him to the right hand side of God. If you can't have a good laugh at yourself, then step back, take a breather and relax a little bit.


Yes it's a swipe at me. And yes I take it personnal!

You need to get a grip. The man is the President of "my" country and obviously not your country. And as such is a representative of "my" nation. So when he's made fun of in the fashion that was used, in actuallity taking a poke at " my" country. And your attitude sir is why most americans don't give a rat's butt what the rest of the world thinks.
And as somone who's not even from the USA, I personally don't feel he has the right to talk about my president in that fashion.
Reply #11 Top
Why doesn't someone have the right to speak their mind just because they're not from the USA? Are the fundamental human rights that Americans assign to themselves exclusive to Americans? Or maybe just North Americans? Or maybe just Americans from the United States?

I'm not from this country, but I've lived here for 13 years. Can I say something bad about the president? I've been here for a majority of my life so I think he's my president. But I'm not from here, so is he still only your president?

What exactly is your definition of freedom of speech and/or expression?
Reply #12 Top
Reply #11 By: Philomedy - 10/28/2004 1:33:25 AM
Why doesn't someone have the right to speak their mind just because they're not from the USA? Are the fundamental human rights that Americans assign to themselves exclusive to Americans? Or maybe just North Americans? Or maybe just Americans from the United States?

I'm not from this country, but I've lived here for 13 years. Can I say something bad about the president? I've been here for a majority of my life so I think he's my president. But I'm not from here, so is he still only your president?


Yes, *you* can! You have lived here long enough and you do reside *in* the USA. That is your right. I'll tell you what. You go to the UK and stand outside or PM Blaiir's residence and say the exact same things about him and see what it gets you. At the least I'd be willing to bet money you'd be on the next plane back to the US. And yes they're exclusive to us when it comes to this. You don't vote, you don't get to complain. He doesn't vote, ergo he doesn't get to complain.
I'm sorry but I'm a little sick and tired of people who don't live here saying that we're a bad country because of what's going on in Iraq. Or making fun of my president or the way I live or the way I talk!
Reply #13 Top
So you're saying that freedom of speech with respect to your president is only given to those in your country?

That's not freedom of speech and that's incredibly shameful attitude for someone from the "land of the free" to be exhibiting.

Your president seems to disagree with you. He has made many comments about the character of Saddam Hussein - by your logic that would only be acceptable if he was an Iraqi citizen.

Your logic is absurd. We will comment, and you'll just have to shut up and deal with it. Free speech is a wonderful thing.

And your attitude sir is why most americans don't give a rat's butt what the rest of the world thinks
I'm a little sick and tired of people who don't live here saying that we're a bad country[/qoute]It seems you do care what the rest of the world thinks.
Reply #14 Top
(let me fix up that last bit)
I'm a little sick and tired of people who don't live here saying that we're a bad country


It seems you do care what the rest of the world thinks.
Reply #15 Top
I'll gladly go to Britain and rail against Tony Blair, and I'll gladly go anywhere else that I'm not from and say whatever I want about their world leaders. I'll gladly do these things not because I'm an American citizen (which I'm not), not because I'm a Salvadoran citizen (which I am), but because I'm a human being.

Bush has made some bad moves. I am not sure about many of his motivations. And it doesn't help that I'm pretty sure my cat could beat him on Jeopardy. He's opened himself up to criticism, and everyone in the world has the right to criticize, since his decisions have affected the whole world.

Reply #16 Top
I'll gladly go to Britain and rail against Tony Blair, and I'll gladly go anywhere else that I'm not from and say whatever I want about their world leaders. I'll gladly do these things not because I'm an American citizen (which I'm not), not because I'm a Salvadoran citizen (which I am), but because I'm a human being.

Bush has made some bad moves. I am not sure about many of his motivations. And it doesn't help that I'm pretty sure my cat could beat him on Jeopardy. He's opened himself up to criticism, and everyone in the world has the right to criticize, since his decisions have affected the whole world.

Reply #17 Top
I must say, as a citizen of the USA I am really, really disgusted by fellow citizen's attempts at censoring and insisting that other's shouldn't have the same right to freedom of speech we enjoy.

Making hasty judgments about who can and can't say certain things, especially when we are all hiding behind our masks of anonymity, is ridiculous. If you are offended by it, fine. If you don't like it, don't read it. But have the balls to admit that the other person has just as much right to say what they want as you do. I voted for the man being bashed, but recognize I have no reason nor authority to tell the author to stop.

And even though I voted for him, I am disturbed by what he has done with that power over the past few years. Oops, do I not have permission to say that?
Reply #18 Top
Yes it's a swipe at me. And yes I take it personnal!

You need to get a grip. The man is the President of "my" country and obviously not your country. And as such is a representative of "my" nation. So when he's made fun of in the fashion that was used, in actuallity taking a poke at " my" country. And your attitude sir is why most americans don't give a rat's butt what the rest of the world thinks. And as somone who's not even from the USA, I personally don't feel he has the right to talk about my president in that fashion.


Your president's choices affect the whole world so we do have a right to speak up. If you really didn't believe a person from one courtry interferring with another courtry's leader is okay then you would think that the war on Iraq was wrong too. Obviously you you were all for that (being the mindless Bush fanboy that you are) so stop being a hypocrite.

Oh and you should take it personally, because your leader is an idiot and you are for supporting him.

The "I don't give a rat's butt" arrogance of the US is what makes people want to bomb you. It isn't excusable but it is very understable.
Reply #19 Top
To drmiller

Here is a native American with 30 years of military experience and corporate experience saying, The Republicans would be far better off without George W. and the conservative minions that are killing our nation with debt , an ineffective war and economic policies that are not working!javascript:editor_insertHTML('message','')
javascript:editor_insertHTML('message','')
Reply #20 Top
Well I could always chime in and add negative comments about John Howard, Jacques Chirac, Paul Martin, Koizumi Junichiro, etc.

Would that be acceptable by your standards if I started saying negative comments about a head of your government or do you feel that they are good representatives?

With the exception for Koizumi the rest I just listed are poor representatives if you want me to break them down.


I don't think Champas would care - he's written articles lambasting John Howard on a frequent basis. And I don't think there are too many French and Japanese Joeusers, so go ahead with Koizumi and Chirac.
Reply #21 Top
Responding to the title, not to the message...

I think that there is a good chance for a huge irony, that in the fiercest presidential election in memory, the winner in November may be the loser in the long term.

The problems we currently face are not likely to diminish quickly:
* Even if we capture Bin Laden, the hate wing of the Mulim extremists are likely to pose a significant threat for some time to come.
* The human and budgetary cost of Iraq will be high, and the pictures ugly for the forseeable future, regardless of whether the actual outcome eventually helps or hurts our position
* The deficit is likely to grow -- even balloon
* Gas prices are likely to remain high enough to be a drag on the American economy in general
* Maybe most importantly, the country is likely to remain split between a party that feels fully entitled to power and one that sees the office of the presidency as being illegitimately obtained, creating a white hot opposition which prevents an honest effort to try out the president's policies

Further, regardless of the winner the country's leader will be far from the best available representative of the particular perspective, more of the person best qualified to win a TV campaign than the best person to govern according to one of the two dominant philosophies.

Thus, if I were a betting man, I would not be anxious to bet my money on the winner or his party looking good in two years four years. In fact, I think it is more than a small chance that the winner will do more to unite the opposition than to demonstrate the viability of his own political philosophy.

Of course, there is another side: the winner will appoint a lot of judges, including Supreme Court justices, and will get his way on some significant environmental and business matters -- prizes worth having, to be sure. And, as I heard a couple days ago on an afternoon Fox financial report, if Bush wins, it will be good for Haliburton stocks, and if Kerry wins, it will be good for health sector stocks.
Reply #22 Top

Once again, liberals feeling instead of thinking.

I don't think Champas really has looked deeply about learning anything about Bush. Rather, he just repeats what he's been told over and over again.

I meet highly intelligent people all the time who are not good public speakers. Moreover, the choice isn't between Bush and some fictional wonderful public speaker. The choice is between Bush and Kerry. 

I find it unlikely that Kerry is more "intelligent" than Bush. Kerry's thought process shows a distinct lack of logic and reason based on his actions during his life. His understanding of global politics and diplomacy seem almost..child like. There is something infantile about Kerry that I can't put my finger on. 

So our choices are between two spoiled frat boys. But at least Bush seems to have a better and clearer understanding of how the real world works. And if you doubt that, you should look closer at Kerry's record, both in the senate and before.  Kerry, like so many liberals, simply has never developed the concept of being able to fully understand the consequences of his actions. He is self-absorbed to a fault.

Reply #23 Top

Reply #19 By: COL Gene - 10/30/2004 8:29:17 AM
To drmiller

Here is a native American with 30 years of military experience and corporate experience saying, The Republicans would be far better off without George W. and the conservative minions that are killing our nation with debt , an ineffective war and economic policies that are not working!


Sorry, but I don't see Kerry doing any better!
And to be quite honest, I really could care less even if you could trace you line back to the "Mayflower". In my eyes it doesn't make you any more right in your opinions than anyone else.
Reply #24 Top
Citizen MythicalMino - 10/26/2004 5:10:40 AM

well, the only good thing about Bush losing, and Kerry winning....that postpones Hilary Clinton for at least 8 years.

But really....why do the democrats go to John Kerry? IN FREAKING WAR TIME??????????????? This guy has no solid record on standing with the military, OTHER than something he did 30+ years ago....and even that is shady.

Oh, and thanks for insulting me too, by the way....just love the liberal mentality of justified superiority of ignorance from the left


There is no way the Democrats would nominate Hillary. She is a horrible public speaker and has America even more entrenched against her than they were against her husband in the height of scandal.

Win or lose, the Republicans WILL certainly nominate Jeb for President in 2008. Bush Sr was a horrible President who could not even win an election after winning a war in Iraq. W is repeating all the mistakes of his father. Does anyone think that an America led by a Bush patriarchy is a good thing?
Reply #25 Top

Reply #24 By: whoman69 - 10/30/2004 11:31:53 AM
Win or lose, the Republicans WILL certainly nominate Jeb for President in 2008. Bush Sr was a horrible President who could not even win an election after winning a war in Iraq. W is repeating all the mistakes of his father. Does anyone think that an America led by a Bush patriarchy is a good thing?


I don't see this happening! I think John McCain will be their candidate of choice.