Although I WAS a strong supporter of Bush I have become very displeased with his performance. He seems to be a do nothing President especially since he has enjoyed a Republican controled Congress. General Clark's creditials seems very appealing to me (military background) but I still don't know how he stands (for certain) on the gun issue. I suspect if elected he'll do about the same for the gun issue as Brush has done or will do. If this should be the case do you vote for Clark (no Clinton link-up) or stay with Brush and hope?
Bush, Average President ?
- Thread starter telewinz
- Start date
- Status
Waitone
Member
Bush is his own contradiction. Without the war on islamofascist terrormongers he'd rank pathetic. He has no identifiable belief system other than accumulation of power. . . .just like the previous president.
I wouldn't trust Clark any further than I could throw him. His career was headed down the toilet until Reno and Clinton invaded Waco. Clark was the CG in charge so all the hardware, people, and training was his responsibility. Strangely enough right after Waco his star started to rise. He went on to a truly remarkable career. Every step along the way was a political appointment.
Clark is a Clinton stooge. His campaign is staffed with Clinton policial operatives. He can't seem to answer a question without checking with someone. . . . not something I'd expect out of a 4-star. He is an employee of Steven, Inc. the same firm so prominent in the lives of Bill, Hillary, Vince, Web, ad nauseum.
I'll pass on Clark, just too many warts.
I wouldn't trust Clark any further than I could throw him. His career was headed down the toilet until Reno and Clinton invaded Waco. Clark was the CG in charge so all the hardware, people, and training was his responsibility. Strangely enough right after Waco his star started to rise. He went on to a truly remarkable career. Every step along the way was a political appointment.
Clark is a Clinton stooge. His campaign is staffed with Clinton policial operatives. He can't seem to answer a question without checking with someone. . . . not something I'd expect out of a 4-star. He is an employee of Steven, Inc. the same firm so prominent in the lives of Bill, Hillary, Vince, Web, ad nauseum.
I'll pass on Clark, just too many warts.
ReadyontheRight
Member
I've heard a quote attributed to Clark "...if you want an Assault Weapon (referring to the AWB definition of a so-called "Assault Weapon"), you can join the Army. We have them..."
Apparently Clark hasn't even bothered to read the Constitution, much less pushing the typical Democrat agenda to change it.
Apparently Clark hasn't even bothered to read the Constitution, much less pushing the typical Democrat agenda to change it.
Moparmike
Member
My opinion has risen a little since he was elected, but Dubbya has done far to many things that will cause me to vote with my brain. I vote LP.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
I voted for George W. Bush as the lesser of two evils, and that's what he's proved to be.
fallingblock
Member
The lesser of two evils.....
BY FAR!
Wes Clark is indeed a Clintoon stooge.
BY FAR!
Wes Clark is indeed a Clintoon stooge.
labgrade
Member In Memoriam
I'm of the either-crowd = I dunno ***:
"vote for the lesser" = Bush, for the "mainstream = screw us, while purpoting "to uphold,"
Vote a Demo/"to just bring it on,"
or "throw away my vote on a 3rd party" & really waste it other than make a protest.
Face it.
The Repubs have screwed us to death.
The Dems always did.
The 3rds can't win.
Whatcha gonna do?
Frankly, I'm not betting that anything voting will do anything at all.
Arguments? Please!
Prove me wrong & convince me otherwise.
"vote for the lesser" = Bush, for the "mainstream = screw us, while purpoting "to uphold,"
Vote a Demo/"to just bring it on,"
or "throw away my vote on a 3rd party" & really waste it other than make a protest.
Face it.
The Repubs have screwed us to death.
The Dems always did.
The 3rds can't win.
Whatcha gonna do?
Frankly, I'm not betting that anything voting will do anything at all.
Arguments? Please!
Prove me wrong & convince me otherwise.
fallingblock
Member
Dang it, labgrade.....
You're probably right....no convincing arguments from me
You're probably right....no convincing arguments from me
RocketMan
Member
Not much of a choice any way you look at it.
EWTHeckman
Member
I have to wonder what would happen if everyone just started voting for who they think is best instead of who they think can win. If that happened, we might actually have a larger percentage of registered Republicans voting for a Libertarian candidate than we would expect.
How many of us would vote for another Ronald Reagan? He completely crushed his opponents, which means even registered Democrats voted for him in large numbers. What we wound up with in the last election was Robot Boy vs. Mr. Lukewarm with the election coming down to party affiliation rather than real principles. The result is that nobody is happy.
So how do we convince the party leadership that their candidates are no good? By voting for someone else that we think is good. As long as we keep voting for candidates who are barely above room temperature constitutionally, that will be all we get.
Here is the key. Bush must be beaten during the primaries. We need a truly conservative candidate who is smart, articulate, principled, and believes the Constitution means what it says. If we can manage to get such a candidate through the primaries, he'll probably wipe the floor with anyone else. And if that doesn't happen, we know for certain where the country is headed.
How many of us would vote for another Ronald Reagan? He completely crushed his opponents, which means even registered Democrats voted for him in large numbers. What we wound up with in the last election was Robot Boy vs. Mr. Lukewarm with the election coming down to party affiliation rather than real principles. The result is that nobody is happy.
So how do we convince the party leadership that their candidates are no good? By voting for someone else that we think is good. As long as we keep voting for candidates who are barely above room temperature constitutionally, that will be all we get.
Here is the key. Bush must be beaten during the primaries. We need a truly conservative candidate who is smart, articulate, principled, and believes the Constitution means what it says. If we can manage to get such a candidate through the primaries, he'll probably wipe the floor with anyone else. And if that doesn't happen, we know for certain where the country is headed.
Bigjake
Member
My take
I'll never vote for a dem, i'll keep my $$ and my guns thank you.
I most likely won't vote LP, like em but way to extreme on some issues (ie: open borders?? no....)
Republicans are stupid and apparently spineless (though thats the line i vote), 4 years of controling the house, senate and the WH, and what did they do?? the one thing that everyone agrees on, vote themselves a raise.
there is no good situation here, so i go lesser of the evils.
I'll never vote for a dem, i'll keep my $$ and my guns thank you.
I most likely won't vote LP, like em but way to extreme on some issues (ie: open borders?? no....)
Republicans are stupid and apparently spineless (though thats the line i vote), 4 years of controling the house, senate and the WH, and what did they do?? the one thing that everyone agrees on, vote themselves a raise.
there is no good situation here, so i go lesser of the evils.
Something we're trying in Calif. with Tom McClintock. The principled part usually means the candidate lacks enough funding to get the word out and keep up with the unprincipled candidates. Plus I think the people who post on this site are, unfortunately, not your average citizens. I see the majority of posts here -- from whatever side of an issue -- generally based on principled beliefs and not strictly party affiliation. Go to the Democratic Underground for a taste of the latter. On the Republican side, I often peruse the Hollywood halfwits site. If you read posts there, you find the majority of Republicans on that site think Tom McClintock is arrogant for not dropping out to let Arnold win the Calif. Governorship. They don't care about principles, they care about the party. Unfortunately I think this is what US politics have come down to -- making sure your "team" wins no matter what the cost. Principled voters are thus caught in the quagmire of voting our true beliefs with a candidate with single digit poll numbers to make a statement, or doing the "lesser of two evils" thing between the two big dogs. Either way I know the Founding Fathers are reaching hypersonic rotational velocities as we speak.
Ala Dan
Member in memoriam
Stay with the current President; Mr. Bush.
Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
tiberius
Member
And Clark is the Evil of two lessers.
atek3
Member
the lesser of two evils is still evil. Casting your vote for a person you acknowledge is evil is in effect saying "I want an evil person to be elected." Come on people 
I'd rather have a Democrat, who gets elected on the "I'm going to screw you" platform, that I voted and campaigned against than a republican who lies to you and says "I'm going to be your friend in office", then SCREWS you when he gets elected. G.W. Bush "Mr. I support tariffs, federalizing education, gun control, keynesian economics, and rampant foreign intervention" can take my vote, and shove it.
atek3
I'd rather have a Democrat, who gets elected on the "I'm going to screw you" platform, that I voted and campaigned against than a republican who lies to you and says "I'm going to be your friend in office", then SCREWS you when he gets elected. G.W. Bush "Mr. I support tariffs, federalizing education, gun control, keynesian economics, and rampant foreign intervention" can take my vote, and shove it.
atek3
AZLibertarian
Member
BenW
This is only my opinion, but I do think that voting one's beliefs can have an impact on the mainstream political parties. The case that comes to mind is Ross Perot. In '92 he got 19% of the vote (myself included), primarily from voters who would normally have voted Republican. As a result, this 19% in effect, allowed Clinton to win (mea culpa). However, after 2 years in office, many Americans were very unhappy with Clinton's performance and the train of scandals that he begun to bring to the WH. Simultaneously, the Republican Party learned (only temporarily, as it turns out) that a liberty-oriented platform might bring them voters. So Newt Gingrich writes his "Contract with America", which had many Libertarian elements in it. And President Clinton's party was absolutely creamed in the mid-term congressional elections of '94...a 54-seat turn around if I remember correctly. Clinton spent the remainder of his presidency with a Republican-majority in Congress. The press called this the "Republican Revolution", yet this is a mis-nomer, IMO. It ought to have been called the "Libertarianism of the Republican Party". But as things turned out, the Republicans have drifted back to their old ways, and IMO, we're seeing the same old performance from R's as we had in the days when there was another President Bush looking for re-election.
They're not the only ones...
BTW, I've enjoyed the Bush=Lesser of Two Evils; Clark=Evil of Two Lessers lines. LOL
This is only my opinion, but I do think that voting one's beliefs can have an impact on the mainstream political parties. The case that comes to mind is Ross Perot. In '92 he got 19% of the vote (myself included), primarily from voters who would normally have voted Republican. As a result, this 19% in effect, allowed Clinton to win (mea culpa). However, after 2 years in office, many Americans were very unhappy with Clinton's performance and the train of scandals that he begun to bring to the WH. Simultaneously, the Republican Party learned (only temporarily, as it turns out) that a liberty-oriented platform might bring them voters. So Newt Gingrich writes his "Contract with America", which had many Libertarian elements in it. And President Clinton's party was absolutely creamed in the mid-term congressional elections of '94...a 54-seat turn around if I remember correctly. Clinton spent the remainder of his presidency with a Republican-majority in Congress. The press called this the "Republican Revolution", yet this is a mis-nomer, IMO. It ought to have been called the "Libertarianism of the Republican Party". But as things turned out, the Republicans have drifted back to their old ways, and IMO, we're seeing the same old performance from R's as we had in the days when there was another President Bush looking for re-election.
They're not the only ones...
BTW, I've enjoyed the Bush=Lesser of Two Evils; Clark=Evil of Two Lessers lines. LOL
I voted to keep him. Bush, in and of himself, isn't the bad guy. It's the likes of AshKKKroft that are killing us slowly.
You have to remember, Bush and his administration were already off to a rocky start with the Klinton Klean-up underway, then, 9-11 happened. I kind of feel sorry for the poor guy. Who could perform in this envrironment today?
The way I see it is that Clark will surely sink the ship while Bush can hopefully bail just a bit more than we are taking on. I won't vote third-party (even though I am a LP) because he will lose if all the fence-sitters vote anything other that Republican.
GT
You have to remember, Bush and his administration were already off to a rocky start with the Klinton Klean-up underway, then, 9-11 happened. I kind of feel sorry for the poor guy. Who could perform in this envrironment today?
The way I see it is that Clark will surely sink the ship while Bush can hopefully bail just a bit more than we are taking on. I won't vote third-party (even though I am a LP) because he will lose if all the fence-sitters vote anything other that Republican.
GT
10-Ring
Member
I voted for the President & I'll vote for him again.
lee n. field
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 4,324
How many of you voted for George W. Bush because you wanted him, and how many because you didn't want Gore?
Maybe I'm just paranoid. Dubya seems like a probably a nice enough guy, good Christian man and all that, but I suspect he has "handlers".
Maybe I'm just paranoid. Dubya seems like a probably a nice enough guy, good Christian man and all that, but I suspect he has "handlers".
.45Ruger
Member
I voted for Bush and as of now am planning to do so again, but if he signs renewed AWB that vote is gone. I have been willing to give the President a lot of slack when it comes to the growth of government because of the war, and the tax cuts have helped. The biggest problem Bush has in getting re-elected is the morons who think he is responsible for the economy. I can't stand when people try to blame government or give it credit for economic conditions. The simple fact is that we live in a country with a sem-capatilist economy that goes through cycles. Government action has very little effect on it. I always try to explain this but some people just expect the government to solve their problems for them.
Monkeyleg
Member.
I'm with .45Ruger on this one. I voted for Bush because I believed in him and thought he was a genuine person, something I still believe.
That said, he's ticked me off with the bloated spending and the Patriot Act. I'm still hopeful that he can wrap things up in Iraq in a reasonably short period, and that the economy shows some signs of rebounding. But if he signs the AWB, I'm voting for Garfield. (The cat, that is).
That said, he's ticked me off with the bloated spending and the Patriot Act. I'm still hopeful that he can wrap things up in Iraq in a reasonably short period, and that the economy shows some signs of rebounding. But if he signs the AWB, I'm voting for Garfield. (The cat, that is).
sm
member
I've never voted for a D.
Always voted for whom I though best, more often ended up being the lesser of evils, which happen to mean I've always voted for a R.
Concerned about 3rd party and votes, hate to see a repeat of what happened when Perot rec'd so many votes.
My feeling well know in regard to Klinton, I recall him from way back when as I was here when all things transpired in AR...Clark, sure reminds me of Klinton...'nuff said.
What to do? Don't like the tromping of rights now, not happy. Lesser of evils -again -I suppose, and it wont be a D vote I assure you. Waiting...
Hey Tamara, Markos...any thoughts on giving it a go?
[talk about a shake -up, and dismantling of not needed alphabet agencies...]
Always voted for whom I though best, more often ended up being the lesser of evils, which happen to mean I've always voted for a R.
Concerned about 3rd party and votes, hate to see a repeat of what happened when Perot rec'd so many votes.
My feeling well know in regard to Klinton, I recall him from way back when as I was here when all things transpired in AR...Clark, sure reminds me of Klinton...'nuff said.
What to do? Don't like the tromping of rights now, not happy. Lesser of evils -again -I suppose, and it wont be a D vote I assure you. Waiting...
Hey Tamara, Markos...any thoughts on giving it a go?
[talk about a shake -up, and dismantling of not needed alphabet agencies...]
- Status