I did not vote for George W. Bush. He appealed to Americans as a non-intellectual who would defend our country from other nations. Sansa Morse, Tucson, Arizona
I believe the United States Voted for George W. Bush (at least for the second term) because he was reacting to the things that those in the States wanted. After 2001 Americans wanted action, something to prove that the sleeping giant had just been woken up. After a couple of years of the "war on terror" and the knowledge that our citizens were dying the public began to tire of the war and Bush's administration. But we did not remove out troops then because of all the destruction we caused there Bush decided that helping to rebulid the area was the best plan and he carried his actions out until he was voted out of office.
It was only after about 6 years the George W. Bush's approval ratings began to fall in the United States.
Which is why we now have Obama. Our votes are won by canidates using a platform, or an outline of what they would do with their time if they were voted into office. Obama's platform gave some closure to the war and he claimed he would get U.S. troops out of the Middle East.
People tend to vote for the party. And a famous family name doesn't hurt.
In 2000, the race was very close, but the pendulum was swinging to the conservative side after President Clinton's scandal. Given the scandal, the race was surprisingly close (Al Gore actually got slightly more votes). I think it shows that Bush was not a particularly strong or popular candidate. The party won in spite of Bush's weaknesses because of Bill Clinton's behavior basically handed the election to the Republicans.
In 2004, Bush was propping up the economy through the Fed's keeping interest rates low, through tax cuts, and through massive military-industrial spending. (All three of these things would have negative long-term effects, but they were good for Bush's popularity in the short term.) And we were in the middle of a war. For these reasons, Bush won again.
The question uncovers a far more serious issue, which is, how did someone like Bush get so far in the Republican nomination process and then go on to win the Republican primary? (He was known to be intelligent, but didn't have a very impressive resume.) If I understand right, his success was mostly due to effective fundraising. Bush and his family had business and political connections which allowed him to raise more money than any candidate before him ever had.
The American system seems to require this for any serious political candidate. Therefore, the likelihood of having another President like Bush in the future is very high. In order to mitigate this problem, the country needs major campaign finance reform. (McCain had promised this; Obama seems less dedicated to the cause.)
I did not vote for George W. Bush. He appealed to Americans as a non-intellectual who would defend our country from other nations.
ReplyDeleteSansa Morse, Tucson, Arizona
I believe the United States Voted for George W. Bush (at least for the second term) because he was reacting to the things that those in the States wanted. After 2001 Americans wanted action, something to prove that the sleeping giant had just been woken up. After a couple of years of the "war on terror" and the knowledge that our citizens were dying the public began to tire of the war and Bush's administration. But we did not remove out troops then because of all the destruction we caused there Bush decided that helping to rebulid the area was the best plan and he carried his actions out until he was voted out of office.
ReplyDeleteIt was only after about 6 years the George W. Bush's approval ratings began to fall in the United States.
Which is why we now have Obama.
Our votes are won by canidates using a platform, or an outline of what they would do with their time if they were voted into office. Obama's platform gave some closure to the war and he claimed he would get U.S. troops out of the Middle East.
Because they were scared and because people could relate to him.
ReplyDeletePeople tend to vote for the party. And a famous family name doesn't hurt.
ReplyDeleteIn 2000, the race was very close, but the pendulum was swinging to the conservative side after President Clinton's scandal. Given the scandal, the race was surprisingly close (Al Gore actually got slightly more votes). I think it shows that Bush was not a particularly strong or popular candidate. The party won in spite of Bush's weaknesses because of Bill Clinton's behavior basically handed the election to the Republicans.
In 2004, Bush was propping up the economy through the Fed's keeping interest rates low, through tax cuts, and through massive military-industrial spending. (All three of these things would have negative long-term effects, but they were good for Bush's popularity in the short term.) And we were in the middle of a war. For these reasons, Bush won again.
The question uncovers a far more serious issue, which is, how did someone like Bush get so far in the Republican nomination process and then go on to win the Republican primary? (He was known to be intelligent, but didn't have a very impressive resume.) If I understand right, his success was mostly due to effective fundraising. Bush and his family had business and political connections which allowed him to raise more money than any candidate before him ever had.
The American system seems to require this for any serious political candidate. Therefore, the likelihood of having another President like Bush in the future is very high. In order to mitigate this problem, the country needs major campaign finance reform. (McCain had promised this; Obama seems less dedicated to the cause.)
Tara Bates
Monterey, CA