This one is for those who voted Republican in the 2000 Presidential election.

Let's go back to the Republican primaries for that election. Who did you really support in those primaries? Was Bush your first choice as a candidate?
Don't be afraid to answer otherwise. I won't tell anyone.

The reason I ask is, as a guy who occasionally votes Republican, though so far never in a Presidential election, John McCain was a candidate who I might have been able to get behind. I liked Al Gore, but I've never liked Lieberman. I already thought Bush was useless before he ever announced his candidacy. I'm just curious how the full-time Republicans here look at this question.

I would have liked Alan Keyes. He's a conservative African American.

Alan Keyes came to Illinois as a "carpet bagger" to run for the Senate in 2004. I think he got a couple thousand votes. Even the Republican Party in Illinois was embarrased by his presence here.

They must not have been too embarrasssed since they were the ones who asked him to run when their other candidate backed out.
I supported Keyes for president because of he is socially conservative and his stand on limited government.

I live in Illinois, and follow the politics here rather closely. The original Republican candidate backed out when a small scandal in his personal life became public. As a matter of fact, the Democrat candidate, Barak Obama, even went out and publicly asked people to leave this "scandal" out of it. The candidate who backed out would have gotten many, many more votes than Keyes, though he didn't stand a chance of beating Obama. The Illinois Republican Party had to scramble for a candidate. The mainstream in the party here reluctantly "settled" for Keyes, and it caused quite a bit of embarrasment and in-fighting for them. It was pretty much a hijacking. The mainstream Republicans here, who are practically liberals compared to the Nerdo-Cons that have hijacked the Republican Party elsewhere, were quietly happy that Keyes came and went very quickly.

Whatever. That's not quite the info I got, but it really has nothing to do with your original question which I already answered. I gave you my HONEST answer. In my opinion, Alan Keyes would have been the best choice for the presidential candidate but because he has no name recognition, he wasn't able to advance very far.

What do yu like about Al Gore? And what didn't you like about Joe Lieberman?

Al Gore possesses much more intelligence than Bush. Lieberman is a DINO.

deleted.... Sorry, didn't notice the CON ONLY

deleted.... Sorry, didn't notice the CON ONLY

I was for W from the git-go. While I like Cheney too, I could have just as easily gone for a W/ Senator Joe ticket........although I know that would never have happened.

I must say I was not to impressed with a Daddy's boy ticket but I did and still do have a lot of respect for Dick Cheney. I would love to see him run in 2008 but I don't think that will happen.

Gore's so intelligent he got beat by the Texas idiot Gore is a lunatic. The man is so far off the wall.

Lieberman just lacks personality, IMO.

No, a whole bunch of idiots voted for a Texas idiot, that is why Gore is not President. Then they were dumb enough to vote for him again. 59 million morons.
I didn't know it was possible that there were that many stupid Americans. Silly me.

So the Republican ticket was voted for by a bunch of morons or as you refer to it Stupid Americans?

Explain to me then the demographics of Liberal voters? Who are they exactly?

Not to worry, you were responding to a thread started by a lefty in the righties only area.

Chip

How else can you explain such a miserable failure being put into office? If this is the best and brightest that the right could come up with, what does that say about those who voted for him? How the hell could anyone look up to this idiot? I didn't like Kerry, but he would have been a better choice than this nitwit we're stuck with. All partisanship aside, this is what's wrong with the system-- we end up getting stuck with only 2 choices. The other problem is the damned electoral college.

Allow me to turn the tables for a moment.

How could the left appoint an idiot like Kerry? And if YOU didn't like him, why should the conservatives? At least we knew what we were getting with Bush. I couldn't for the life of me see where Kerry stood on issues.

Some advice. If you seek honest answers, no problem but I doubt you were looking for answers. And stop pointing at Bush and win some elections get your act together, with all due respect.

Hughie

I still can't understand how anyone in their right mind thought Bush was better than McCain. I could have gotten behind him, but in 2000 I was handed a choice between Bush and Gore. I voted for the smart guy. The SCOTUS didn't.

By 2004, Bush had already proven himself to be a failure. You say you knew what you were getting with Bush. I guess you don't mind settling for failure.

Now I have my answer.

I could never figure out why Democrats nominated Kerry? He wasn't even the number one guy from his state. Then you throw in the "I'm a war hero strategy", which everyone and their brother knew he would be attacked about from the people he testified against in the seventies, and you have a recipe for defeat. It's almost like the Dems wanted to lose in 2004.

The real question should be "Why didn't the Democrats try and win the 2004 election?"

The DLC. That crew is nearly as inept as Bush is. I'll now forever leave the Conservative sandbox. Adios.

Well I was more conservative back in 2000 (fiscal balanced budget type conservative), so I think I can reply in the conservative area of the board.

I was all set to vote for McCain in the 2000 primary - by the time my state got its chance to vote in the primary, the nomination was already locked up for Bush. The nomination process stinks, and no offense to people in New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina - but you pick lousy people (on both the Rep and Dem side) for our general election.

Aw forget it, early primary/caucus states, please take offense, I'm sick of suffering due to your inept choices. I was salivating for a Bradley vs McCain general election - as a result I voted 3rd party. Now I'm unafflicated and don't have to vote in primaries (actually I'm barred from primary elections - even for voting on non-primary stuff - in my state if I don't have a party afflication)

Bluecollar



I'll give you one reason right now, the torture bill McCain is pushing for is ridiculous. How could you say that torture does not work but allow for a ticking time bomb provision? I'm not saying that I am for extreme torture but come on



Why is it you see Gore to be smart, I don't think he has ever had a reputation for being smart.



Failure is your perception. Don't forget he won by a LANDSLIDE



They don't know how to win elections, IMO. I also think most didn't want any part of Iraq.



I doubt it

Hughie

Ummm..... failure? Who's in office right now?

Well, they don't even call themselves liberal anymore...... I think that's a good start for why they lose.

This is a main reason dems continue to lose. Anybody that votes republican is an idiot in liberal view. Then they wonder why dems turn off middle of america.

I find it interesting that I never post on progressive only board, even though have liberal stances. Some libs can't resist, this is the same thing when you see dem leaders that can't control themselves when on tv and continue to interupt. They just can't seem to help themselves or think they are more intelligent. Quit the intelligent crap, being a dem/liberal does not make you more intelligent. Just more full of yourself.

I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 primaries as well as general election. Would do it again, given the same choices.

I like McCain on alot of things. He can articulate why were in Iraq alot better than the Administration.

But I can't get past the fact he put so much effort into passing one of the dumbest, speech-stiffling laws ever passed. That was campaign finance reform. Seriously, how anyone could think that it would clean up or improve the election process is beyond me. The money's going to flow no matter what. It's imposible to stop a flood. The more barriers you put in place, the more it will flow through the outer edges--and thus unaccountable--of American politics.

We all agree or disagree on policies, but we can see the objective our opponents are shooting for. In this case, there are no positives in the ends or the means.

If I'm ever able to ask him: "So, what the hell were you thinking when you pushed so hard for this law???" I would. But since I won't, I'll leave it to a good, solid conservative blogger or talk show host.

That's all.

JC

removed by tritumi

You cannot corrupt an honest man or women. We need new people.

Just one uncomfortable fact. Gore won in 2000. That's a simple fact, not an opinion. He may be a lunatic but he still got more votes than Bush.

I thought Gore's environmentalism was spot on. I hated Clinton so much though that I was a bit suspicious of Gore. I was seriously looking at McCain. His conduct in VietNam was so heroic that I was an immediate fan. The way he was attacked by the Bush/Rove machine robbed us of a good American candidate. Had the race been Gore - McCain, I think I would have gone with McCain.

as for Lieberman, he is a zero in any party.

except where it counted, at the electoral college.

What a name, GoreWon_KerryToo. Parsnips by another name.

i've checked a few dictionaries... i can't find this word. please, for the less erudite, what does phyric mean?

It was misspelled.

pyrrhic

adj 1: of or relating to a war dance of ancient Greece; "pyrrhic dance movements" 2: of or relating to or containing a metrical foot of two unstressed syllables; "pyrrhic verses" 3: of or relating to or resembling Pyrrhus or his exploits (especially his sustaining staggering losses in order to defeat the Romans); "a Pyrrhic victory" n 1: a metrical unit with unstressed-unstressed syllables [syn: dibrach] 2: an ancient Greek dance imitating the motions of warfare


In other words, a technical victory but not worth the cost.

Looks like the C.O. concept is out the window here.

Chip

Yes. It has come down to what is mine is mine and what is yours is mine.

Because the Dems suck. I agree that the Dems did not seem to want to really win 2004. Maybe b/c they are just as corrupt and profiteering as the GOP and winning the presidency is not that important. I don't know how else to explain it. Kerry was a crappy choice, military experience notwithstanding. As an independent, I chose to vote for neither of them. Seriously, it galls me that from a country of 300 million people, we are left with only 2 viable choices. Does that seem a tad absurd to anyone but me?

The electoral college is something else that needs to go. I don't care what the outcome is...the winner of the popular vote of the country should automatically be the winner of the election. It is the only reasonable and democratic result.

I would love to see a count of conservative offenders to the PO forum vs Progressive offenders in CO forum.

Mods?

When it comes to politics, it is often a matter of choosing the lesser of evils. I make my decisions based on what I can sort through as truth, very difficult task for people I don't know personally. A good deceiver can appear to be a good choice. Seeking wisdom and guidance from those wiser than I are also taken into consideration. My faith in Christ and what the Bible teaches is above political parties. Republican way of thinking fits better into my understanding of the Bible; reward for being industrious and be a charitable giver verses forcing charity and punishing the industriousness. Above all, my faith tells me that God puts people into power as he sees fit. That means even if someone ungodly is elected, I know that all things work together for good for those who love the Lord. Why do I even vote if God will put in power whom He sees fit? Because we are guided to obey our government and those in power. They are the ones who have requested the people to cast their vote. It is all about obedience.

Don

I could personally say that I did not vote for Bush in the primary… not because I did not support it but because of the fact during the primaries I was to young to vote lol…

I had just turned 18 a few days before the election of president and I did vote in the 2000 elections and I did vote for President Bush.

ooops it posted it Twice....

Technically, I in fact didn't vote for Bush in 2000, because I was on active duty at the time. I dutifully filled out my absentee ballot and mailed it to Florida, and then learned that they can't actually account for and never actually read their absentee ballots, even when the election is as close as the one the Supreme Court ended up deciding. If they had opened that ballot, they would have counted the vote which I cast solidly against Gore. Not that I thought Bush-Lite was better, mind you, just that I thought he was less bad. I wasn't able to vote in the primary for that election, because I was out to sea at the time. If I had been able to, I would have voted for McCain ... but only because the genuine article is still set on remaining the senior Senator from VA and won't run for the White House.

I had no illusions about the Governor of Texas. I knew I didn't like his policies, and I strongly doubted that he had a sufficiently profound grasp of the issues that truly matter to America's future. Unfortunately, there wasn't a Republican available for me to vote for, so I had to settle for him.

That's right, that's what I said ... Dubya is not a Republican. At least, not what the word meant before I enlisted back in Ronnie's first term. Dubya is the face-man for the Robertson/Dobson coalition. Their entire constituency voted against Nixon and Ford. They aren't what the Republican Party stood for twenty years ago ... they're Big Government, "control the poor mindless pee-pul because we know far better than they do what's good for them" types ... in other words, classic liberals. They just suddenly got the willies in the late Seventies when they woke up one morning and realized that they were sharing their Party with Anita Bryant and the Pro-Choice people. So they fled to the other side of the fence, but they brought their Big Government ideals with them when they did.

So, if I detested Bush Jr so much (and I did), then why did I vote against Gore? It was a tough call ... but mostly, I voted against him because I am an environmentalist. Yes, I know that sounds confusing. I'll try to explain.

The EPA, prior to its emasculation at the hands of the current Administration, had nearly the most stringent environmental protection regulations on the planet. (Notable exceptions do exist, Scandinavia in particular, but their total population is almost statistically insignificant on the world stage.) Unfortunately, as should be obvious without needing to state it, those regulations are only binding on Americans. Gore, under the guise of pretending to be an environmentalist, led the charge to facilitate the export of industries (and jobs) which had adverse environmental impact to other countries that didn't have laws even remotely like ours. Not discourage or obviate the need for those industries, mind you ... just send those industries (and their attendant jobs) somewhere else. Saves our backyard, for a little while at least ..... but it's all ONE environment. By pretending to protect the environment, he actually provided impetus to make the problem worse.

I'm rambling again .... I'll shut up now .....

I must say I thought McCain was 'the dickhead,' and Bush was the 'good guy.' That Gore was an idiot and all Democrats were bad.

My how things have changed.

Sadly, there are very few conservatives that want to serve. The good ones will never step up and run for office because they cannot afford to take the pay cut and grief is not worth it.