A Bush Hater's Poll

Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

This is an unofficial quick and dirty presidential poll. Apparently, there is a good sized contingent on Free Republic that believes that President Bush is:

1. Not conservative enough
2. Not pro-life
3. Is a gun-grabber
4. Is a federal power-grabber
5. Will appoint liberal judges
6. Is a globalist
7. Is in it just for oil
8. Is too soft on immigration
9. Is too soft (or too hard) on Israel
10. Is a crook
11. All of the above
12. None of the above
13. Other (you name it)

Please list the numbers that best match the reasons you don't like Bush (or state other reasons if not on the list) and state whether you believe that President Bush should be defeated even if it means installing a Democrat in the Whitehouse.

Conversely, if you believe President Bush should be re-elected, please state why.

Please state who you would like to see win the Presidency in 2004 and whether or not you believe he/she has a chance of winning.

Thanks,
Jim

[billhilly]

You forgot to mention that he is "unliterate."

[brat]

"I thought he was the only intelligent adult on the scene."

He was.

[MissAmericanPie]

Writing in Tancredo isn't sitting on my hands, right? It's a legal vote the powers that be have to count it.

[PRND21]

Going, going, gone.

Good. Put the natives can be bitter. Go George.

[Pyro7480]

1) I see him as shallow and unintelligent.

Shallow perhaps, but unintelligent??? I think you've bought a media lie. Yes, he's not an Alan Keyes on the articulate scale, and he got C's at Yale, but so what? I suggest some immediate "deprogramming" by reading Ann Coulter's "Slander." ;-)

[Jim Robinson]

But you're willing to install Gore or Daschle over Bush? How about Hillary? Or Feinstein?

[carpio]

1 through 6 and certainly 8.

[Sabertooth]

You forgot to mention that he is "unliterate."

In Europe the say, "unilaterate."

[Jim Robinson]

Hah. Ok, technically you voted. Hope your guy wins.

[Jim Robinson]

Ok, you're against globalism. And Mr. Global Environmental Guy Gore will do a better job for you than Bush?

[Texasforever]

He's not instituting any laws or reforms that will make it harder to cook the books.

What do you suggest ,Nationalizing the corporations?

[ppaul]

Jesse Ventura got elected on an Independent ticket.

Which confirms P.T. Barnum's famous axiom.

[toenail]

1 -- Not conservative enough. And it's an insult to be called an "uncompassionate conservative" if I don't swallow the Manhattan Institute's bastardization of conservatism.
2 -- Not pro-life. It's in the family.
4 -- Is a federal power-grabber. Beyond dispute.
5 -- Will appoint liberal judges. Begrudgingly, perhaps, but yes.

My pick for '04? I'd like Ron Paul. Chance to win? Hardly. But I won't vote for someone who stabs my family in the back (which means no Bush and no Democrat, but I repeat myself).

[billhilly]

Jesse Jackson provided the observtion that the president is "unliterate" just this week at the NAACP convention. I thought RLK inadvertently left that out of his reasons for not liking the president.

[Zeroisanumber]

What do you suggest, nationalizing the corporations?

No, I'd rather not live in a socialist paradise /sarcasm.

Both Greenspan and GWB's economic adviser (his name escapes me) have made several moderate suggestions that would give more power of oversight to corporate board members and force executives to include stock options on earnings reports.

For whatever reason, Bush doesn't want to take the advice of his two (non-liberal) economic honchos.

[Jim Robinson]

Interesting. You won't stab your family in the back, but you will knowingly install Gore who most assuredly will. Tough choice.

[jeremiah]

I think Bush is not conservative enough. He will appoint liberal judges. He is too soft on immigration, and will compromise on nearly any issue, to the detriment of his avowed political leanings. GW, will be remembered in 60 years, as the President that started the still ongoing war against terrorism. This war has all the markings of political hay, much like the war on drugs. Neither can be won without maximum force, (he seems unwilling to use) and a cleansing of our internal parasites and enemies(it would not be seemly, and he would lose the Hispanic vote) Other than that, he is a decent enough man, and his best attribute is he is not X 42.

[EaglesUpForever]

Is there no subtlety allowed? Is it a binary choice? That would be absurd. It would be a better argument for Bush that "he's not a perfect conservative, but he's far better than the alternatives." Honesty is always best, the Democrats are the ones who tend towards a Mob mentality, and it makes them look stupid, particularly when Clinton's "economic miracle" is just as spectacular as the fact that he stayed in office despite being proven a rapist (on this forum) while in office... time will judge all.

In Clinton's case, his legacy is 9/11 and the current corporate sleaze coming to light, and the fact that Democrats were like lemmings and kept him in office for a second term is a direct reflection of the pack-like behavior characteristic of a dumbed-down populace. Republicans should do better. They should encourage honest dialogue. The US won out over the Soviet Union by allowing dissent, not by being a party-line state.

I think Bush is (a) too pro-Saudi, (b) too mixed up with Saudi's, (c) a bit too globalist, but a heck of alot better than any alternative. Call me a Bush-basher...

[EaglesUpForever]

Oh, and it'll be Bush 2004, Landslide.

[Marine Inspector]

#8

Other than that one point, GWB is doing fine.