If you had to choose:

You can't just blow off the election because you don't like either candidate. Weigh the pros and cons of each and make a reasoned choice. But, if you cannot see how Bush was the right man for the job, well, maybe you should just remain apathetic.

 

First off, I said I voted for Bush. I believe he was the lesser of two evils in this election. That does not mean that I have to be thrilled that we have to go through another 4 years of Bush simply because there was no better option at time.

If I was going to 'blowoff' the election, why the hell would I go out and vote? I take great offense to you making assumptions like that. Guess it must be nice to be so far to either the right wing or the left wing that you never really have to think about who you think should have the job, but I don't think either Bush or Kerry are good for this country. I was not trying to be apathetic, I just think it's a lose-lose situation. What is there to be excited about that?

 

I understand what you're saying and I definitely side with Bush's party right now more than the Dems but it just seems like there would be a candidate somewhere out there better than GW. I don't know if there needs to be a valid 3rd party or what but it just seems like our system needs work. I want a leader that I'm in awe of. One day it will happen but for now Bush just needs to get us through the next 4 yrs.

I look at GW as a Trent Dilfer. He can perform well with quality people around him but isn't that talented leader you would expect in the position. I'm not huge into politics so take my opinion for what it is. I do think Bush has good intentions and that can take him and our great country a long way.

 

Sorry. I misunderstood. Entire post is retracted.

 

It's alright. Truth be told, I like almost all of Bush's policies except one. I just don't like his attitude toward outsourcing. Everytime he says the word 'economic isolationism,' I want to throw something at the TV.

 

i like it better than 'Nafta' unless you love the bilingual language on products. it did give that to us....at a cost of course.

 

That's not quite true. Bush is a very intelligent and great leader. He's not a very good public speaker, but that is in no way indicative of his leadership skills. Don't believe everything you watch on talk shows.

 

What ever happened to the idea that good leadership is defined by the ability and willingness to make decisions based on what one feels is right - especially when that decision is not very popular? George W. Bush has not faded, not skated, not waffled one bit in four years despite the cheap shots, the sucker punches, the intense scrutiny, the hate, the lies, the insults on his intelligence, the forgery of government documents to smear his name, the vile, the spin, the personal attacks, the hidden agendas, the liberal media's blatant hatred for the man and total disregard for what was once an extremely revered public office in this country...

How exactly do you define leadership? Do you want a man driven by polls and popularity?

Bush has stayed the course and he has never faltered and never wavered. Bush is an extraordinary leader and a man of strong convictions. I think the definition of fine leadership has been distorted. What do you people want in a leader? Me, I like leadership in my leaders, that is why I support Bush…

 

:dis: It sucks that Michael Moore's website is down right now because all these angry liberals have no one to tell them what to say. You are a miserable little man who is severely misinformed. America has spoken - the votes have been counted. You and your ideals have been soundly defeated. Go away and come back in 4 years and run on the same platform your party has been running on for 4 decades. You liberals just don't get it...

 

After readng that nonsense, it may be time to once again debate whether or not members can vote to ban people.

Ahh the heck with it. Brett step up and get rid of that fool. He contributes NOTHING to this forum.

(in reference to lilcrawdad/venice/moron)