Why shouldn't Bush be re-elected?

Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Why shouldn't Bush be re-elected?
By Isaman (Isaman) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 01:04 am: Edit

In response to a previous thread on why Dubya would make a good president, it seems only fair to let all you left wing people say why you dissaprove of our current president.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 01:39 am: Edit

I think they did enough of that in the thread that was meant to be only the positive things. The have been so many of these threads already.

By Averagemathgeek (Averagemathgeek) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 03:16 am: Edit

If Bush is re-elected, it is possible he could launch another war in the Middle East.

By the way, not all people who disagree with Bush are "left wing."

By Tropicanabanana (Tropicanabanana) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 03:34 am: Edit

Yeah, there was a full page ad taken out in either the Post or the Wall Street Journal (mabye both?) by Republicans condemning Bush.

Bush shouldn't be reelected, because in my opinion, he's simply not worthy or capable of leading 280 million people.

This position should be an honor and should be accompanied by some kind of extraordinary commitment to the country or a brilliant potential. We have neither A nor B with Dubya.

By Calkidd (Calkidd) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 12:46 pm: Edit

Why Bush Shouldn't be Reelected:

Iraq: Lots of nations are ruled by dictators. Lots of those dictators support terrorism, in even more direct ways than Saddam might have. Conservatives accuse those of us who disagree with the war of being coldhearted to the Iraqis we liberated from Saddam. Where were you when the US was supporting Saddam's regime? Where is your outrage against the other dictators of the world, many of whom our CIA helped put into power? More important than this, why did we up and leave Afghanistan with the job nowhere near completed? And why is it that a Republican, who preached against nation-building in his original campaign, is suddenly hell-bent on democratizing the world through brute force?

The Economy: Tax cuts for the rich may help the overall GNP, but that doesn't give a true picture of the quality of life most of the people in this country have. The war in Iraq should have been enough reason against this: if our troops are over there risking their lives on a daily basis, is it so much to ask that millionares continue paying the $50,000 a year they saved with Bush's tax cut?

If one seriously thinks that infusing money into the top of the economic food chain is the way to spur innovation and growth, one ought to realize that there has to be an incentive for people to be investing that money in young, growing industries, rather than in small islands or yachts. If the government is going to be funding industry through subsidies and tax loop holes, it should be funding the small companies that will make products that other countries will import - what South Korea did for the flat screen TV. The industries we do fund - oil and agribusiness (through massive subsidies) are neither major exporters nor innovators.

On social issues, Bush is about as far to the right as one would ever expect a president to be. From consistently challenging Roe vs. Wade to attempting to legalize state funding of religion via voucher and assistance programs, he has given the religious right more power than Pat Robertson probably ever hoped for.

Bush's presidency marks the ultimate triumph of image over substance. Many liberals think the man is stupid; I think he's a lot smarter than most of us give him credit for - he's just wrong on so many issues. These 'stupid' actions that people on the left laugh about are part of Bush's anti-intellectuel image that has fooled so many Americans into thinking "he's just like us" despite the fact that he's rich kid from Connecticut who went to Yale and then Harvard, not a self-made businessman-cowboy from Texas.

Incidentally, when talking about Bush, conservatives glamorize his character, often contrasting it with Clinton's. Even if I agreed with these characterizations, I wouldn't care too much about that. I will never expect a politician, musician or professional athlete to be a role-model for me or my future kids. What I care about are Bush's social, economic and foreign policies, and on all three fronts he and his administration have failed.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 01:03 pm: Edit

Because he has beady eyes.

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 02:26 pm: Edit

i agree with noodleman.

By Aquaholic (Aquaholic) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 02:39 pm: Edit

...because Americans want change and don't realize Kerry will screw up this country and others we're involved with much more than Bush could ever dream...

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 04:14 pm: Edit

please explain how Kerry will "screw up this country and others we're involved with much more than Bush could ever dream"

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 05:32 pm: Edit

noodleman, did you get that line from the nofx song?

beady eyes, he's kinda dyslexic
can he read? nobodys really quite suuure

great, now it's stuck in my head.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 05:34 pm: Edit

nope. just being jerky.

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 06:37 pm: Edit


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page