[Galemp]

I am an American, and I vote for the candidate whom I feel will be best suited to govern this country, not anyone else's.

Oh, the irony!

[karajorma]

And I am equally sick of being called "stupid" because I voted for a particular person in an informed manner with the honest belief that he would be better than the alternative.  It's almost the exact opposite reason as thesizzler, but I completely agree with his opinion about that nebulous "rest of the world" concept.  I am an American, and I vote for the candidate whom I feel will be best suited to govern this country, not anyone else's.  The political and social environments of the United States and Europe are two vastly different things, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let a bunch of complete outsiders sit on some high horse and look on me with disdain because I made a judgment call based on my understanding of my own country and its needs.

The problem is that most of the outside world knew that Bush wouldn't go a good job governing your country either. You can claim that the outside world were all against Bush cause of his foreign policy all you like but most of rest of the world knew his domestic policy sucked too.

So the question is, how come you didn't know that?

[chief1983]

How will George W. Bush be remembered? It’s way too soon to know,
 and it will depend on the observer’s politics. But a few things look likely:
                His most lasting legacy may be in creating a more conservative judiciary.
More than a third of active judges were appointed by Bush. All have lifetime tenure
and many are relatively young...a boon to business and social conservatives for years.
                He’ll get credit for uniting the country after Sept. 11, even if only briefly,
                And for the absence of another terrorist attack on the United States.
Also for moving quickly to oust both the Taliban and al Qaeda from Afghanistan,
although some will blame him for easing up too soon, leading to further trouble.
                His Iraq legacy is still being written...now beyond his control to influence.
If Iraq emerges as a stable, self-governing nation, today’s criticism will be muted.
                Bush will be linked by history with a sluggish economy, banking chaos,
falling home and stock prices and surging budget deficits. Blame for all of this
should be broadly shared, but presidents are always held responsible, fairly or not.

That's an excerpt from Kiplinger's newsletter.  As it mentions at the end, Bush isn't the only one to blame for the economy being like it is.

[Mongoose]

The problem is that most of the outside world knew that Bush wouldn't go a good job governing your country either. You can claim that the outside world were all against Bush cause of his foreign policy all you like but most of rest of the world knew his domestic policy sucked too.

So the question is, how come you didn't know that?

"Knew," or "already felt that way because they disliked him to begin with"?  I take opinions coming from certain parties with a massive grain of salt, particularly when said parties were griping against Bush from the very first moment they heard his name in 2000.  And as I've already mentioned, having an outsider dictate to me who would institute a better domestic program in my own country is nothing more than a source of humor to me.  From where I sat in 2004, Kerry was an indecisive candidate with an uncertain economic policy and a view on foreign relations that I did not agree with.  I didn't think that Bush was perfect by any means, but his declared policies and track record meshed much closer with my own social and economic beliefs than Kerry's did.  Therefore, I made my own informed choice that my country would be better off under him than Kerry, and despite the last four years being a rough ride, I stand by that choice.

But that's really neither here nor there for this topic, is it?

[TrashMan]

So you say. So you think.

Don't we all? 

You know what they say - Opinion is like a a**. Everyone has one.

[chief1983]

You know what they say - Opinion is like a a**. Everyone has one.

But some people are one.

[TrashMan]

Maybe. Such a thing is not easy to judge without actually really knowing a person...so it's better to not make such rash judgments.

[Polpolion]

And I am equally sick of being called "stupid" because I voted for a particular person in an informed manner with the honest belief that he would be better than the alternative.  It's almost the exact opposite reason as thesizzler, but I completely agree with his opinion about that nebulous "rest of the world" concept.  I am an American, and I vote for the candidate whom I feel will be best suited to govern this country, not anyone else's.  The political and social environments of the United States and Europe are two vastly different things, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let a bunch of complete outsiders sit on some high horse and look on me with disdain because I made a judgment call based on my understanding of my own country and its needs.

The problem is that most of the outside world knew that Bush wouldn't go a good job governing your country either. You can claim that the outside world were all against Bush cause of his foreign policy all you like but most of rest of the world knew his domestic policy sucked too.

So the question is, how come you didn't know that?

Mongoose said that he thought Bush was the better alternative to Kerry, he never said that Bush would do a good job. The question is actually "How come Europeans didn't 'know' that Kerry was a lesser alternative?"

A good presidency isn't as an objective trait as we all want it to be. Mongoose weighed the possible consequences of each choice, and reached a conclusion. He still stands by that conclusion, so as far as I can tell, he made the correct choice based on the criteria with which he was evaluating the candidates.

[McCall]

Without getting too political here (ummmm...) we Europeans can't exactly claim a great record on electing leaders - Hitler being the extreme example! 

Seriously though, many question the sense of electing Bush on the assumption that he was bad for everyone; chances are a lot of ordinary people did rather well under him, thanks very much. It is quite common for some here in England to talk about how awful Maggie Thatcher was and how people suffered. Actually, I reply to them, my family did a lot better under her than it ever has under New Labour.

It varies from case to case. I'll bet a lot of perfectly respectable folks are gonna really miss Bush and lose out, just like a lot of perfectly respectable folks are gonna thrive under Obama.

[Mongoose]

Mongoose said that he thought Bush was the better alternative to Kerry, he never said that Bush would do a good job. The question is actually "How come Europeans didn't 'know' that Kerry was a lesser alternative?"

A good presidency isn't as an objective trait as we all want it to be. Mongoose weighed the possible consequences of each choice, and reached a conclusion. He still stands by that conclusion, so as far as I can tell, he made the correct choice based on the criteria with which he was evaluating the candidates.

Thank you...you put it far more eloquently than I did.  Let me make it perfectly clear that I'm not saying that a Kerry presidency would have been automatically better or worse than a Bush presidency, any more than the upcoming Obama presidency will be automatically better or worse than a McCain presidency would have been.  All any voter can do on the day of an election is select the candidate whom she or he feels is capable of doing a better job of performing the duties of their office.  That's exactly what I did in both of the presidential elections I've been able to vote in; I still stand by my first decision after knowing the consequences, and along with everyone else, I'll wait and see whether or not my second would have held up.  Any what-ifs or might-have-beens are just that, and outside of uncovering an alternate dimension, spending any time speculating on them is rather frivolous in my humble opinion.

[StarSlayer]

With the majorities the Democrats will control in the legislative branch Barrack Obama is going to have the most power of any president in generations.  He has the potential to be the best president since FDR if he wields that power effectively.  He literally is carrying the hopes and dreams of the nation on his shoulders, more so then any candidate in a long time.

That said some people do have legitimate reasons to be a bit jittery about the way the elections turned out as a whole.  While i believe strongly in energy independence, education and many of Obama's campaign promises, all the proposals we've heard will cost a lot of money, which will translate into higher taxes for probably more of the populace then what was proposed.  Whats more dangerous is that many Democrats are just radical and corrupt in their own way as the fools coming out of oval office.  It will be difficult for him to say no if those elements of the party start trying to slide ridiculous legislation down the pipe especially now that their basically is no counter weight.  From the prospective of someone in the middle it could easily turn into us having traded one extreme for the other.   With control of the executive, legislative, and possibly the judicial branches their really isn't any reason for the Democrats to meet halfway or compromise.  The country does best when they need to work together  and be bipartisan when drafting legislation.  This isn't to say thats how it will play out, but to point out that not everyone is voting out of some "My Guy Good You Guy Bad!" knee jerk reaction.

Another point is that the whole "McCain was Bush 2.0" is lazy thinking in a just as (but not nearly as bad) the "Obama is a Muslin"[sic] was.  Not to say the Democrats didn't utilize it successfully but it's still a campaign gimmick.  They used that strategy in elections at every level this time around.  The Republicans seriously screwed the pooch over the last eight years, and they need to take their medicine and either reinvent themselves or collapse so we have a refreshing of the parties.   However, Bush and his cronies where part of that special blend of NeoConservatives/Evangelicals that do not represent the same Republican philosophy as McCain nor the traditional dogma of the GOP.  While Bush was going AWOL from the Air National Guard to do cocaine McCain was getting blown out of an A4 Skyraider and strung up by his shattered arms in one of the crappier POW camps in recent history.  And while he was there he earned a bone deep love for his country, and whether or not you care for his policies there was no doubt he would do what he thought was best for it.  The man has spent the better part of his political career doing his best to fight the corruption and profligacy that infests both parties, and if you watched his speech at the Republican convention then you would know he rebuked his party for their recent conduct.  Heck if your familiar with the 2000 primary then you would know the McCain probably hates George W Bush's guts more then most Americans.  Point is McCain is a genuine patriot and public servant comparing him to that inept bastard Bush isn't fair or accurate.  John McCain was just as viable candidate for President as Barrack Obama is and acting like everyone who supported him was a moron is a thoughtless blanket statement.

I hope Obama does a excellent job, he will have the power to do more for this country then anyone in a long while and god knows we need it.

Go Barrack Go!

[Galemp]

  Point is McCain is a genuine patriot and public servant comparing him to that inept bastard Bush isn't fair or accurate.  John McCain was just as viable candidate for President as Barrack Obama is and acting like everyone who supported him was a moron is a thoughtless blanket statement.

I would have agreed with you... up to the point where he agreed on Sarah Palin for his running mate. McCain, when he was McCain, had my respect, but with Palin he sold his reputation to the religious right and lost all credibility in the eyes of independent and moderate America. The neo-cons had made a mess of the government by appointing people based on ideology, not on qualifications, and Palin is the most egregious example of that.

McCain ran a good, clean campaign in 2000 that he should have been proud of, and up till September I believed he would have made a good president. But if he would have run the government like he ran his campaign, I wouldn't have wanted to see it.

[Mars]

With the majorities the Democrats will control in the legislative branch Barrack Obama is going to have the most power of any [Democrat] president in generations. 

I'm just sayin...

[Ford Prefect]

McCain was the next Bush as far as I was concerned because McCain is a Republican. I am a liberal; I vote for the candidate who comes closest to my political alignment, and that person is always a Democrat. That's the only qualification I give a rat's ass about. Didn't anyone besides me know who they were voting for before they even knew who they were voting for?

To quote Bill Kristol (the first time I've ever agreed with him), "It's not a psychodrama."

[Scuddie]

McCain was the next Bush as far as I was concerned because McCain is a Republican. I am a liberal; I vote for the candidate who comes closest to my political alignment, and that person is always a Democrat. That's the only qualification I give a rat's ass about. Didn't anyone besides me know who they were voting for before they even knew who they were voting for?

That's particularly the kind of attitude that got Bush elected.  He is a Republican, therefor he is the better choice.

If you aren't informed about who or what you are voting for, you have NO RIGHT to cast that vote.

[KappaWing]

If you aren't informed about who or what you are voting for, you have NO RIGHT to cast that vote.

Unfortunatley, one technically does. 

[Ford Prefect]

That's particularly the kind of attitude that got Bush elected.  He is a Republican, therefor he is the better choice.

If you aren't informed about who or what you are voting for, you have NO RIGHT to cast that vote.

Bush's elections were determined by people who don't think that way at all: swing voters. My point has nothing to do with being informed or uninformed. I have opinions that transcend the circumstances of any one election. Which candidate seems more qualified to me is inseparably tied to whose opinions are closest to mine, because when I agree with a politician, it means I think they're right, and if I think they're right, I think they should be in charge.

[chief1983]

Republican and Democrat don't mean that much, assuming they agree with you because they have an ass or an elephant on their bumper sticker doesn't mean sh*t.  The fact is, Palin's pretty retarded, McCain is old and not different enough from the status quo, Obama is more concerned with himself than anyone else and Biden can't keep his damn foot out of his mouth.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

* Androgeos Exeunt wonders how six pages of posts appeared during his absence.

[Ford Prefect]

Republican and Democrat don't mean that much, assuming they agree with you because they have an ass or an elephant on their bumper sticker doesn't mean sh*t.  The fact is, Palin's pretty retarded, McCain is old and not different enough from the status quo, Obama is more concerned with himself than anyone else and Biden can't keep his damn foot out of his mouth.

None of that describes what any of their policies would be. The two major parties may be bloated, but they still have different platforms based on different approaches to government. Certainly not different enough, but different. The Democrats' platform represents a collection of philosophies that are generally CLOSER to what I believe the role of government is. If there's ever a Republican who's more socially liberal and economically left than the Democrat, I'll vote Republican. I'm not holding my breath for that.