Without disparaging the man or his opponent, can Bush supporters explain the attraction? What qualities does GW have as POTUS that makes him worthy of your loyalty? Do you admire his principles, intelligence, honesty, communication skills, the staff he's put together? I'm not trying to pick a fight -- I honestly don't get it......

I really hope it isn't just blind party loyalty.....

I don't care about the man. He seems likeable, for a born-again teatotaler. I don't think I'd enjoy him as a friend. But guess what? I don't care. I don't care if he can heal the sick, solve global warming and make Democrats swoon in ecstasy over his fabulous vocabulary.

I care about two things:

Are a candidates policies consistent with mine?

On international stage, completely. I think he has led teh nation and world admirably and I look for him to continue doing it. On this score alone I am relieved that Algore was not selected by the Supremes to be CinC.

On the domestic side--not hardly. If we didn't have a bunch of freaking wacko murderous relgious zealots bent on killing Americans around teh world, whose goal is to stifle freedom and bring their vision of Islamic law to world rule, I would consider domestic issues more important. Right now, I don't care about deficits, I don't care about education, I don't care about environment or trade. I care about killin gthose mad ba$tards and destroying any country anywhere that offers safe harbor or support.

Aside from that, I could support a Libertarian.

The current political fixation on the "Cult of Personality"--whether the Repos mindless slavering anti-Clintonism or the current mindless revulsion, even detestation, of Bush is just as useless and shallow, IMO.

The planet would be better served by not focusing on the inconsequential.

Kirk relentlessly posted a link to some website that has carefull written, even scholarly position papers that he finds terribly dangerous. He may use language that I think is unfocused and rude, but at least he has rational bases for his dislike of the policy. I haven't seen an awful lot of evidence that other folks have taken the time to actually research the underpinnings of the various contestants.

I'm sure waiting for somebody to reveal the satanic underpinnings of John Kerry's philosophical core. Or his enlightened rational, universal philosophy. I'm sure he has one or the other, aren't you? He just hasn't clearly enunciated one.

B

I'm not sure he actually has one -- a core, that is. Candidates typically have platforms. GW has one, Clinton had one, Reagan certainly had one. Kerry has taken a few positions, but I don't see a comprehensive platform other than that of achieving the office. The most positive way I can put it (and it's a stretch) is that Kerry wants to enforce the will of the people, while GW seems to want to impose his will upon the people. The most negative way I can put it is that Kerry seems to have no will. That being said, I do admire Kerry's intelligence and communication skills.

I find Kerry's written word a lot easier to follow than his ponderous, lethargic speaking style. But that's stylistic and insubstantial. Imagine him debating Clinton--the gold standard. Clinton would look like Cassius Clay vs Sonny Liston. Bap-Bap-Bap-Bap-Bap-Bap-Bap-Bap-Bap-Bap-Bap-Bap-thud.

Kerry demonstrably has one thing ol' Dubbie lacks--command of a vocabulary of standard words.

Yes, and Clinton has something in abundance that both candidates lack -- charm -- and that is the crux of Clinton's communication skills. How about a Clinton - Reagan debate? Don't be too quick to sell Ronnie short.

I remember this being talked about in the previous election. W is not on my list of excellent speakers but at the end of the night I'll sleep alot better knowing the man is not afraid to take action if necessary.

Clinton was quite the opposite, a pretty good speaker but blah blah blah diahrea of the mouth only goes so far until you notice the economy is going down the toilet while spoon feeding America on his rhetoric.

__________________
Brandon



2008 S550
1957 Dodge D100
1967 VW Microbus 21 Window
2001 Suburban
2004 Beach cruiser bicycle
-----------------GO DUKE!-----------------

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here." Patrick Henry 1776

Scratches head....

Any economist can tell you that W stepped into office with the economy going down hill. The dems try to pen it on George.. he would be a magician if he could affect the economy so quick.

__________________
Brandon



2008 S550
1957 Dodge D100
1967 VW Microbus 21 Window
2001 Suburban
2004 Beach cruiser bicycle
-----------------GO DUKE!-----------------

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here." Patrick Henry 1776

Ah yes, but IT IS Clinton's fault the economy was going down, according to you, when Bush took office. So do you see the inconsistency in your argument?

He wasn't blaming Clinton he was merely stating that while the economy was in decline he failed to address it, although there's was very little he could do.

I applaud the Clinton Economy BTW.

I'm not a Bush supporter, so I may not be a good judge, but I think Botnst is not typical of the average Bush supporter. I think that a lot of the appeal of Bush is that he sees the world in Black and White. There is no grey in his world. It is like the world of Ronald Reagan except while the White is the same, the Black is very different.
A lot of the Bush supporters I know in my family view the world in Black and White although the two options are not colors but God and the Devil. I don't think it was an accident that Bush made a speech in Springfield, Missouri a few weeks ago calling it the heart of America. Rove is a shrewd calculator. Springfield in the headquarters of the Assemblies of God. That denomination probably has the biggest influence on religious TV channels.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Most of the Bush supporters here have shown many shades of grey talking about administration decisions they have disliked or Democratic ideas they liked, I hate to tell you this but most of the black and white is on your team around here.

I heard a frightening little statistic tonight during the convention: apparently a recent poll concluded that 40% of Americans believe that the world was created exactly as described in Genesis. I was flabbergasted. The point was that the GOP is very good at playing upon the hopes and fears of this group, while the Dems basically ignore them. On the other hand, with only a couple of exceptions, the Bush supporters I know are not Bible thumpers, rather they just seem to like the idea of GW guarding that wall, ala Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men.

I've gotta agree with you there -- GW vs. not GW....

Well said. Bush has played shamelessly to the religious right, which now constitutes something like 40% of the voting public. He believes that he is doing God's will, or so he says. When asked a question about any mistakes he might have made, he has a great deal of difficulty admitting to any. From his warped point of view, if he admits to a mistake, that means that God has made a mistake, which is, of course, impossible.

All of this ought to cause concern in the voting public, across the political spectrum, but it mostly goes unnoticed--or at least, so it seems.

Joe B.