Was electing bush in the states a good idea? (i think not)?
338125
NO!  There is no way that any other president could possibly have screwed things up worse than he has.  \n\nWe're fighting two wars right now, our resources are vastly over-extended, and now they're talking about bombing Iran.  Talk about incompetent.  Anyone know why the American Colonies were able to defeat a country that at the time had about the most powerful military in the world?  England was busy fighting France, that's why!  It doesn't matter how powerful you are, you can still lose to a little guy if your resources are over-extended.\n\nThen there was the whole Hurricane Katrina thing.  You know, the thing where Bush said there was no way anyone could know the levees would overflow, and then a few days later the media got hold of a tape of him being told the levees would overflow.\n\nAnd there's the minor detail that he's turned an unprecedented budget surplus into an unprecedented budget deficit, and yet continues to simultaneously increase spending and decrease taxes.  Any five year old can tell you that's not the way to reduce the deficit.\n\nOh, and he's managed to turn unprecedented international support after 9/11 into hatred and ridicule.\n\nAnd have we completely forgotten Enron?  I doubt that was the only instance of the government screwing over the public to increase profits for themselves and their rich friend.s\n\nHe's also refused to do anything to slow the destruction of the environment, and in some cases has even relaxed existing limits.\n\nHe's made several attempts to channel government funds to Christian organizations, which is a clear violation of the first amendment.\n\nHe's also appointed judges who seem rather inclined to set civil rights back to the stone age.  There was even that one guy who was literally a Nazi.  As in he fought for Germany in World War II kind of a Nazi.\n\nI could go on, but it's nearly 3 in the morning and I have a paper to write.
744171
doesn't matter what we'd do IF... there's a thousand what would you do if's that you could think about in your mind. the point is, we're NOT in charge, and we didn't make those decisions. and if Bush made the wrong one's, he has to take the blame for that, not have his decisions lessened in their weight by trying to wonder what we would have done. he was elected to do a job, he was trusted to do a job. when he fails, he has to take the wrap. it's not for me to wonder what i would have done because it wasn't be who botched the job. it was him.
877287
Bush's standing with American peopel is SO bad he CANNOT campaign in four tight Senate races in swing states.He had to go to Georgia to rally his far-right base(who remember his broken promises) and Bash Democrats.\n\n\nThat the President has to bark and yell on a platform in Georgia that voting for Democrats is like voting for terrorists is a DISGRACE.\n\nSick but true.\nLike the fact we are "stuck in" Iraq.\nThanks George. Brainiac.
19542
There is a reason that George Bush was elected president in the first place - he is not so dumb as everyone seems to think.  Although he does have his faults, he has not commited an impeachable act, but has unfortunately taken the blame for many political wrongdoings as of late, just by being the president.  What people may not understand is that he is not the only person making decisions for and about this country; he has a large staff that is there advising him, so maybe they should take some blame too??
198532
I dont think that Bush is doing a very good job handeling the war. I think that he is leading America down the wrong path. But, he has made a few "good Choices" for our country. But wat r we gonna do hes our pres for wat 2more years so wat r we gunna do? were stuck w/ Bush and we have to live with his bad choices for the country for a few more years. Hopefully a better president will come along in 2008!
830960
If you are writing about the USA, I am impressed that the voters apparently jerked W's chain.\n\nOf course they elected the douche bag in the first place.\n\nMaybe some sort of meritocracy? What do you suggest?
601542
On the one hand, I applaud the concept of making every participate in our democracy.  No one should feel marginalized if they had a hand in electing their leader.\n\nOn the other hand, I am like a lot of the Founding Fathers who expressed severe doubts that the average person could make intelligent decisions.  I live in a typically middle class area where you would expect people would have the education and the interest in politics to understand the issues.  However, the amount of fallacious thinking I encounter is downright scary.\n\nI'd have to consider your idea further, but right now my gut tells me this: If someone isn't interested enough to vote of their own volition, how meaningful will making them put an "X" in Box-A, or Box-B ?  A lot of these people would know nothing about the candidates.  I think it would encourage candidates to "dumb down" their campaigns, and pander to certain groups.
686065
FIRST OF ALL, I voted for George Bush, and would do it again, i think he has GREAT policies, BUT, I will not try to hide the fact that he is not the brightest crayon in the box, like I said I would vote for him in 2008, if he could run again, but he IS a little dumb. lol.
843191
I never heard of this,but I sure don't think it is a good idea.All we need is a bunch of morons who couldn't care less about our country voting just to get paid.Voting should be for those who are actually willing to make an intelligent decision.
452245
no way, bush was stupid to do iraq, we should not go any where  else. bush is the worst president we ever had.
425044
No.  All Bush had to do was read one of his fathers essays to know why it was a bad idea.  Even Cheney was against invading Iraq before he was for it.  The war has created more terrorists and terrorism while not dealing with any of the sources of terrorism.\n\n"I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."\n\n    * At the Washington Institute's Soref Symposium, April 29, 1991
162092
I certainly don't. It was a shameful exercise in partisan politics that led to the Bush regime and our current hapless state.\nWhether you believe the election was fair, of course, is almost entirely based on your bias for Bush or Gore. For example, the incorrect purging of voters, largerly democratic, from the rolls certainly favored Bush. It's also hard to argue that the confusing butterfly ballot did anything but cause many Gore supporters to inadvertenly vote for Buchanan or to have their ballots thrown out. This is pretty compelling, when you look at the ballot and know the political makeup of the county. And, to me at list, the discrepancy between a number of the exit polls and the final results simply reinforces the idea that many voters were disenfranchised for a variety of reasons--and in a Republican-controlled state, guess who is most likely to be disenfranchised?.\nStill, if a simple recount had been allowed, disregarding some of the other problems, the recount probably would have favored Bush. If so, the case might have been closed.\nBut the way it was handled, concluding with the Supreme Court's unusual intervention, creates a controversy that will never end.\nAnd, as far as the popular cry, "get over it," discussing history is actually a useful concept. Maybe we can learn from what happend in Florida and Ohio, for example, we can actually strengthen our own  democracy. Similarly, maybe by revisiting 9-11 we can help strengthen our defense; by revisiting the decision to invade Iraq we can avoid such faulty decision-making in the future; by revisiting Katrina we can help Homeland Security do a better job.... \nSo, no I won't "get over it." Neither will I dwell on it except when asked about it.
1133905
No I don't like president Bush. It's not him as a person. It is him as a leader.  Maybe he believes in God, and wants to save unborn babies.  Maybe he is otherwise a great guy but that doesn't mean he knows what he is doing in the way of leading a country.  Perhaps Bush coveted ,only, the idea of being president.  He wanted to follow in his daddy's footsteps, and be a great and powerful man.  Now he has what he wanted and doesn't know what to do with it.  He's like a teenager who just got his license and now wants to drive everywhere for no reason at all except for the fact that he CAN.  He figured "Well,... I have all this military power at my disposal.  I want to have some fun with it before I go".  Like a little excited kid playing make believe with the nation. His motives aren't as much for the good of the world as they are for is own childish enjoyment.  Sadly many Americans bought into him.  People have always had problems with Americans and probably always will, but with George W. Bush the world really has lost what respect it had for the U.S.
892003
i also wonder \nthe swing 2 the democrats must re-new some faith in democracy, doesn't it?\nlets hope the next US election is a darn-sight uncontroversial as the last!\ni didn't realise u could influence the vote that easily with money u can buy the presidency, regardless of votes, strategy or qualifications!\nmore missing votes/voters, hanging chads & more corruption, can't possibly b accepted again, \ncan it?\n\ni'm in the UK and Bush scares the hell outta of us Brits.\nBush Part 3  ( Jed or whoever ) would probably kill off democracy 4 good!
610859
I could not vote when Bush was elected and re-elected, but if i had my way, he would have never been in office...anybody thinking what I'm thinking...?\n\nIMPEACHMENT!!!
842327
I don't take personally the result of the policies made by George Bush.  I happen to be a citizen of this country, but I'm not responsible for the asinine decisions he's made.  I didn't vote for him, so it's hard to take the views of those in other countries personally..  They should understand that I cannot control the President any more than they can control the leader of their country.
234880
I firmly believe that Bush was voted in because Kerry was a bad Democratic candidate. There can be no other earthly reason why Bush could have got in otherwise. I mean what can I say - he seems a lovely guy but he just sucks at being President.