A Bush Hater's Poll

Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

Ok, do you believe that Ventura (or any other third party candidate) could defeat the Democrat (asuming it's hands down on Bush) in a national election? Remembering the red and blue map, how many counties and states and how many electoral votes could he take? Which states would go for him?

[Texasforever]

BTTT

[WHATNEXT?]

#8 is a big one for me and I'll add a #13 - too much money into government programs new and old.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Not instilling confidence in Wall St or investors.

How can you say that?

What is he suppose to do?
Loan giant gobs of money?

I think he is doing exactly what needs to be done.
Threaten the crooks with jail time!
Clinton did nothing which is why we have the problem!

[Jim Robinson]

Even if it means Al Gore is our president?

[MissAmericanPie]

I'll pick number 11 and 13 for caving on the UN criminal court, putting immigrants back on welfare, and CFR.

[Jim Robinson]

Going, going, gone.

[Jim Robinson]

So who would you rather see get elected?

[Jim Robinson]

So who would you rather see get elected?

[RLK]

The man I supported for president and did a write-in vote for was Alan Keyes. I thought he was the only intelligent adult on the scene. He also had a grasp of constitutional history.

My quarrels with Bush:

1) I see him as shallow and unintelligent.

2) He didn't prepare himself for the presidency and is making it up as he goes along. He's coasting through life and the presidency.

3) He lacks ideological thoroughness and commitment.

4) He seems in agreement with Fox on what will for practical purposes turn iut to be a Mexican conquest of the Southwestern United States financed by our welfare system.

5) Bush lacks a thorough grasp of economics and particularly the movement of principle industries to China.

6) He's let the Clintons of the hook, even to the point of providing Hillary with free well-connected top government lawyers to defend her against well-deserved criminal charges.

I could go on for 10 pages and have, elsewhere.

I honestly believe Bush is pleasant, but dangerous.

[MissAmericanPie]

Tancredo, but the Republican Party will never run him, so I guess I will.

[Jim Robinson]

So do you believe that it will be better to install Gore or Daschle, et al?

[Sabertooth]

1. Not conservative enough Yes, otherwise all of the other answers would be "no."
3. Is a gun-grabber Undecided.
4. Is a federal power-grabber A tentative yes, though some of this is understandable in wartime.
6. Is a globalist Undecided.
8. Is too soft on immigration Easily, and make that specifically "Illegal Aliens and Arab Moslem non-citizens."
13. Other (you name it) Compassionate conservatism, wants to spend way too much, the prescription drug program (his most foolish promise of the 2000 campaign).

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.

Done, but I haven't said I wish President Bush defeated.

What I have said is that my vote is his to lose, but not his birthright.

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

At this point I'd like to see the President re-elected without making the mistake of his father in taking too many votes for granted.

[WHATNEXT?]

Because your title is: Bush Haters - I'll have to add no hate here. Way too strong - I'm disappointed in several areas as stated above.

[Jim Robinson]

Run? Or sit on your hands?

[brat]

1,6,8,13: CFR, Gov. expansion, big spender, caves into the Dems, UN, Euros and Arabs too much, Yucca Mtn. decision based on fuzzy science.

He should be re-elected because he's better than any Dem.

I have the luxury of voting for anyone I want in the 2004 election. As voting for him will make virtually no difference in Nevada.I'll vote any 3rd.party in protest. It won't be Nadar. It will be a Conservative. They won't win and I havn't a clue who will be running in that election so I can not name names.

[Pyro7480]

There isn't a complete "cave" on the ICC. We're still not going to sign it. But in my opinion, with all the anti-American sentiment in the UN, I think trying to get immunity for our military is next to impossible. This gives us all the more reason to pull out of UN peacekeeping operations. UNILATERALISM all the way baby!

[pariah]

Interesting poll, Jim. Here's my take on Bush:

1) Not conservative enough
No, but better than any President in memory, except Reagan.

2) Not pro-life
Definitely is pro-life. Problem is, there's not a lot a President can do on this issue. What did Reagan accomplish?

3) Is a gun-grabber
Supported gun-rights in Texas, supports them now. Pro-gun AG.

4) Is a federal power-grabber
GB will never satisfy the hard-line anti-gov't/libertarian types, and won't single-handedly dismantle the Federal behemoth of the last 70 years, but I don't see him drunk with power. A landslide re-election in '04 might enable him to abolish some depts. Again, RR never did abolish the Dept of Ed., so I can't expect too much.

5) Will appoint liberal judges
No way!

6) Is a globalist
No way. Rarely has a good word to say about the UN, but must be diplomatic, since we don't need to start a food fight with the entire world community just now.

7) Is in it just for oil
No, but may be unduly influenced by oil considerations. However, this has little to do with his personal business dealings in oil and more to do with the obvious fact that we are an oil-dependent nation. One thing that could possibly turn me against him is if we ended up going to war over an oil pipeline.

8) Is too soft on immigration
Bingo! Bush's soft spot. Why he plays to the immigrant mentality just stumps (and angers) me. Possibly afraid of jeopardizing his Mr. Nice Guy image. Hasn't helped him or Republicans at the polls, so here is one place he should shift gears, imo.

9) Is too soft (or too hard) on Israel
I thought too hard a while ago, but said he might be playing a waiting game, giving Arafat enough rope. Recent events seems to bear that out. I know he will stick by Isreal in a crunch situation.

10) Is a crook
You must mean his immediate predecessor! GB doesn't need the money, he is a true aristocrat. (That's GOOD imo. Means he can't be corrupted into selling nuclear secrets to China.)

Other (you name it)
Tries too hard to please everyone. But you can't argue with 70+% favorability ratings. Just may be the smartest politician of our times. Only time will tell if GB really has a secret agenda to play to a conservative base while preparing the US for NWO conquest and UN monitors!! (just kidding -- mostly.)

[FreeLibertarian]

If need be, yes. I believe that OPEC and Big Oil are just two sides of the same coin and a second term for Bush would be very dangerous for our Nation. I would prefer a true fiscal conservative in the White House.

[Zeroisanumber]

I think he is doing exactly what needs to be done. Threaten the crooks with jail time!

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