Yeah, I agree with that. I think the timing of my poll was pretty lame. But it seems like at least 1/3 of left leaners believe that Bush's 2nd term will be at least as destructive and harmful as his first term. And then 1/4 of left leaners want me banned!
Curiously, about a quarter of libs/dems think that a worsening war situation and economy would be worth replacing Bush. That they care more about replacing Bush than winning the war or improving the economy. Exactly what I thought, and at about the ratio that I thought it, too. I'm actually sort of surprised that so many voted that way - I'd have thought that many who felt that way would vote for #1 or #3 just to make their side look better... (It is one of my pet theories that at any given time, on any given issue, one quarter of the population will end up taking the most repulsive or ridiculous stance possible... just a pet theory) I'm sure that others will arrive at different conclusions...
tree, try not to go nuts with this. Again, most everyone here would prefer all conditions to improve *and* replacing Bush. But the bottom line is, yeah, a lot of us really fear his policies. Many of us see him as a very extreme dude now, while he once preached moderacy. Just my 2 cents.
I'm a strong believer in seperation of power between Congress and the Executive Branches.. Meaning, I prefer a Republican congress with a Democratic President and vice versa I prefer a Democrat controlled congress with a Republican President.
No mystery that a "panel" of Democrats would want to see Bush replaced. If I were a Democrat I would have voted for #1, although I'd want to see Bush replaced too. That is the nature of partisan politics, nothing to get excited about. But after this, I don't think there's much doubt that at least some Democrats/libs would like to see us tank just so that they could replace Dubya. To me, that is a traitorous attitude to take during wartime. Just my 2 cents.
Well, to some of us "traitors," the love of our country means we cannot afford anymore non-essential "wartimes." By the way, isn't the "war" over? Or do you mean the "war on terror," which by its very definition, (ludicrous as it is), necessitates the entire future of humanity? Or perhaps you mean the similarly absurd "war on drugs?" Ugh. I'm sick of this. Peace out for today.
The fact that the all-bad choice gets any votes shows what the liberals here are all about. Who cares if the economy sucks or Iraq is still in conflict, just as long as it gets the hated GWB thrown out and a Democrat president back in power. We'd rather things be terrible so our man can get elected. Your visceral hatred of a man who is anything but a true conservative is just humorous and intellectually devoid of any rationality.
Wow, bama, did Batman Jones pay you to type that... or do you have one of those pull cords coming out of your back? ... or does Karl Rove throw his voice especially well? "all negative" = your assessment. Obviously, a vast majority of democrats (and a vast majority of humans on earth, for what it's worth), see a Bush loss in 2004 as a very positive thing for the US of A and the planet. Okay, cue automatic response #2.
Treeman, And Bamma- I'm not sure about who voted for a worse economy and worse war efforts. I didn't really think anyone would have voted for that until I saw another poster's logic on the matter. The idea was that they would vote for the option of worse war conditions and poor economy as temporary thing. The belief being that if Bush was elected it would cost even more lives and be worse for the economy in the long run, becaus it would mean more unjust wars costing even more lives, and more trashing of the economy. Thus the idea was that by having things go bad temporarily we could put in an administration capable of changing those aspects and the whole direction of the country in the long-term.
I'm a proud liberal and I *LOATHE* Bush's politics. He's the worst thing to happen to this country since disco, and I can't wait to vote against the b*stard in 2004. But I don't wish ill will against him, the economy or soldiers in Iraq. Though one could make the argument that thousands more will lose their jobs and thousands more will lose their lives if Bush wins in 2004, I'd be ecstatic if the economy rebounds and the Iraq quagmire settles before the election. I'd be the first in line to salute Bush. It'll never happen, but we can cross our fingers.
Eight years passed between the WTC bombings and the hijackings which took down the WTC towers. I'm afraid that the terrorists might be that patient before they come after a US target. Surely by then our guard will have been let down. The War on Terror does stretch out before us with an enemy who glorifies themselves in death.
Dangerous too. A high-school friend was dancing on an elevated dance floor with a gal with those cloggy platform shoes, and she started kicking ( ). Hit a poor guy walking by the floor in the side of the head. Disco should be outlawed.
