You are one misguided individual.

Sorry, just wanted to get that out.

Peace,
John

Posted by John at June 14, 2006 09:25 PM

John, I listened to Kerry's speech of yesterday where he was doing one of his famous flip-flops--this time on the Iraq war. Once again, he was pandering to the left rather than being a leader.

In thinking about a vote between the two candidates, I was reminded that I don't respect Kerry (who has yet to give a full release of his military medical records and seems to be concealing a likely dishonorable discharge that stood until Carter's pardon), and I don't trust Kerry to put the interests of our country above his psychic need for glorification by the left and a bunch of European weenie countries who would love to see us fail in whatever we do.

Bush has been a big disappointment because of his unwillingness to say no to spending, but I won't say that Iraq was a mistake. It will probably take another ten years before we will know how this worked out. I do believe that Hussein had and was developing weapons that would threaten us. I also believe that the establishment of democracy in the mideast will have long-term benefits.

If Kerry were in charge, he'd still be joining in U.N. resolutions against Hussein and weakening the strength of and respect for our military across the globe. Also, Bin Laden came out and gave as much an endorsement for Kerry right before the election. When the lead terrorist against us favors one candidate, it sure makes the other one look better.

I don't know that I'm right, but I distrust Kerry as much or more as people on the left do Bush.

Those are just some of my reasons. Besides being critical, what can you offer that's logical and factual to support your view?

Posted by Woody at June 14, 2006 10:14 PM

President Bush has demonstrated that he is serious about the security of our nation. He is relentlessly pursuing our enemy. They are dying in the mountains of Afghanistan and the deserts of Iraq. Some say he's not doing enough. Others say he's doing too much. But the fact of the matter is that he has been a very steady, reliable wartime leader.

John Kerry's past shows a stunning lack of regard for our national security.

Kerry slandered our military in his 1971 Senate testimony.

He betrayed our nation when he met with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong in Paris, France in 1971.

Giving aid and comfort to our enemy did not stop in 1971... in 1986, he met with Daniel Ortega, leader of the Nicaraguan Sandinistas, to urge Ortega not to knuckle under to President Reagan's pressure on their communist regime.

He voted against the 1991 Gulf War (which exceeded all conditions of his "Global Test" -- remember that from the 2004 debates?).

He voted for the current Iraq War, but voted against funding our troops.

His senate record is filled with votes against improving our military and intelligence organizations.

He has yet to publicly release his FULL military records as he promised over and over and over again.

He's not fit to be a United States Senator -- and he certainly ain't fit to be the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces.

Posted by MerryMadMonk at June 15, 2006 02:30 AM

I would vote for Bush, again.
He is a proven leader and isn't affected by polls.
He has been tough on terrorists, and considers the safety and good of our country before that of international opinion.
He released his military records.

Kerry- I agree with what Woody and Oyster said.
Kerry also said our present day troops were terrorizing Iraqi's.
A redux of his lies about Vietnam vets.
Kerry is a liar, a follower, a kiss up, and an incompetent and he stabs the real Heroes of this country in the back, past and present..

Posted by Ben USN (Ret) at June 15, 2006 03:21 AM

I agree with Woody and Oyster.
Kerry is a liar, a brown-noser, a follower, a flip-flopper and an incompetent.
He stabbed the real Heroes of this country in the back, past and present.

Posted by Ben USN (Ret) at June 15, 2006 03:23 AM

People may not like GW for what he stands for -- doing what is right and standing by what you do ... John Kerry wouldn't know how to do that with a road map and instructions in French.

Posted by Jo at June 15, 2006 04:29 AM

I know I'm preaching to the choir on this site, well, except maybe for John and his friends. Notice that John opened with an ad hominem on Woody, rather than address the question. I'm not surprised in the least and I fully expect more comments like that.

John Kerry noted in his recent speech that "...You can't have it both ways..." yet, that is precisely what he has done in the Senate, and in his run at the presidency.

Bush in a heartbeat and I'm not thrilled with Bush and the Republicans either.

Posted by GM Roper at June 15, 2006 06:03 AM

I would vote for John Edwards, the man who should have been the Democratic nominee for President in the last election. I'll vote for him in the '08 primary, too.

Posted by e. nonee moose at June 15, 2006 07:09 AM

e.nonee mouuse: I'd never vote for John Edwards. As a trial lawyer, he took hundreds of doctors to court over "baby birth defects." And made a PERSONAL FORTUNE in the process.

The result is that many OB's have either left the state or quit practice. Pregnant women have to travel miles to find someone to deliver their babies. It has become a state crisis.

We need a President who will put through tort reform ASAP.

Posted by Maggie at June 15, 2006 07:18 AM

I'd vote for BUSH AGAIN...for the record.

Posted by Maggie at June 15, 2006 07:19 AM

Did I miss Oyster's comment? Did it get deleted or is it on another post? Oyster, if your comment got put on the wrong shelf, will you please repost it? Thanks. (It's possible that the others said Oyster when they meant MerryMadMonk.)

One thing about this question is that it's more realistic than simply asking how you rate Bush--without considering the alternative. It's asking if you made a mistake and what would you do if you could do it over--sort of like John Kerry does when it suits him.

I'm not surprised by the results that I'm seeing on this site, as I wouldn't be surprised with the results that I would see on the Democratic Underground. It shows me that given another chance with the same alternatives, people pretty much stick with their original choice.

I think that part of it has more to do with trust and values rather than specific actions of the candidates. People who didn't trust and share the values of Kerry back then still don't today, and he has done nothing to change that.

This also gives me an indication that the Democratic Party is going to miss the boat once more if they think that dissatisfaction with Bush will result in gains for whoever they put up and no matter how liberal he (or she) is.

E. Nonee Moose took another route to the question and named a Democrat that he supports and who might have the best chance against a Republican in 2008. However, John Edwards wasn't the primary choice back then and was chosen to balance the ticket. I'm not even sure that he will be the choice in 2008, if the Democrats continue to go with wild left-wing ideology rather than electability.

The thing that bothers me about these results is that the Republican Party may see it the same way and keep spending and acting like the old Democrats and going too far to the left, because the fiscally responsible Republicans have no where else to go. I don't see a third party as a possibility, so I may have to go to the polls, hold my nose, and vote Republican again. But, it sure is bad when you have to choose between the lesser of two evils rather than vote for someone who stands entirely on principles.

Posted by Woody at June 15, 2006 07:36 AM

No, I didn't comment. But perhaps Ben is psychic because I would agree with him and what many have already said here.

Yes, I would vote for Bush again. I have no regrets. While he has upset me too over things like spending and illegal immigration, I won't forget his attempts to reform Social Security in a manner I find to be the best solution. I also won't forget that he has brought about a booming economy due in part to tax cuts. And if we can come up with a candidate that will pick up that mantle and run with it again, I will vote for him. Someone who will fight to give us control of our own money and our own retirement. If that candidate is also for the Fair Tax, all the better.

And now, many people don't know that he has given cities an ultimatum to solve their problems with the homeless. And some cities have responded with new and better solutions and are getting the support they need to see them through. ACLU be damned.

Posted by Oyster at June 15, 2006 08:00 AM

Oyster, booming economy?? Where did you read that? It may be true, and the press certainly pressed that issue when Clinton was President, but the good economy seems to have been lost on them now.

That's extra good news when you consider that Bush came in after the recession had started under Clinton and then had to pull the nation out of a terrible economic drop after 9-11.

So, you think that the tax cuts "for the rich" had something to do with it. Maybe the press doesn't know that if they worked for Kennedy that they can work for a Republican, too.

Posted by Woody at June 15, 2006 08:07 AM

If the treason and sedition laws of this nation were enforced, John Kerry, along with Jane Fonda and others, would now be pushing up lilys. The last two presidential elections were no-brainers. Why would I want an anti-American, pro-communist for a president? Having served in the military, and some of that time in Vietnam, all I can say is that if you'd do a census of the people standing in line to take a dump upon John Kerry's grave site, you'd find me close to the head of it.

Posted by Vulgorilla at June 15, 2006 08:42 AM

Well actually, there are those who simply deny that our economy is moving along at a pretty fast clip. And some that don't deny it quickly point out how bad it is to have a good economy because interest rates might go up or they start in on the mantra that even though the unemployment rates are low, these poor souls who are working now are not making enough money. Good economy=bad and low unemployment=bad. And then, slow or stagnant economy=bad and high unemployment=bad. It's a lose/lose argument with a lot of people.

Posted by Oyster at June 15, 2006 10:32 AM

I'd vote for Bush in a heart beat!

Posted by kathie at June 15, 2006 01:04 PM

The right guy won. IF Kerry had won - we'd have re-run of the enforcement that was carried out during the FIRST WTC bombing. There would be more terror attacks RIGHT HERE. AND IF - Kerry just happened to follow through and get serious about ending terrorism - we would certainly end up in a REAL Vietnam situation - running away! - Which would also invite more terrorism!

Posted by chrys at June 15, 2006 01:16 PM

In retrospect? You mean knowing about all of Bush's "lies"? That is to say, looking back, having the advantage of 20/20 hindsight? Considering all that we now know to be true?

Hmmmmmmmmmm....

Hell YES! I'd mark my ballot for President George Bush in a NY minute!

He's not everything I could ask for (especially on immigration) but he is far, far better than the giggilo from Mass.

I didn't trust "Lurch" back then and he has done nothing to change my opinion of him since the election.

John Kerry (or as he likes to think of himself JFK) SAYS he went to Cambodia. Maybe. Maybe not.

President Bush WENT to Bagdad. Twice! I know that for sure.

It's about character and spine and testicular fortitude, and Senator Kerry, in my book, keeps coming up short.

Posted by Johnpend at June 15, 2006 01:38 PM

Bush, even moreso thi time. Kerry has gotten less appealing recently, although as far as Iraq goes Bush is solid on performance, resolve, and willingness to lead.

Kerry is not...at all. He wants us to "redeploy" our soldiers and abandon the Iraqi allies we have made. Pathetic.

My vote in 2008 will be cast with only ONE thing in mind, and that is regarding which candidate is willing to pish Iraq towards peace and democracy NO MATTER WHAT.

That's all. I dont want to see the US punk out and leave people in the lurch like the Democrats advocate. I would be ashamed of being an American. The economy can tank for ten years, the housing market can fizzle, and John Kerry can have an aneurism...but I don't want to give up this fight.

Posted by QuickRob at June 15, 2006 02:55 PM

I'd vote for Bush again--not that I'm thrilled with his second term, you understand.

In case you're interested, here is a little satire on Kerry.

Posted by Always On Watch at June 15, 2006 05:25 PM

Supposedly there are no "dumb" questions but I gotta tell ya WM - that one comes pretty close.
Like that ol leopard (JK) has changed his spots?
I don't THINK so.
What I would probably do though after voting for Mr. Bush again would be to start a letter/e-mail/fax drive to have as many copies of the Republican Contract With America sent to him for those times he and the party forget!!!!!
"FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress." What's the first name that pops into your head?
Yes. I would vote for Mr. Bush again - mainly because of the war on terror.

Posted by Andrea at June 15, 2006 08:36 PM

Oyster- I KNEW you were going to say that! :^)
And I agree with all my fellow commenters, sans the 1st one.

Posted by Ben USN (Ret) at June 17, 2006 04:54 AM