Why was Bush re-elected?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Vic
I think the real issue here is how Kerry ran such an inept campaign and yet almost won.

But meh, the Republican spin machine was in overdrive. My favorite part of the campaign was the debate when Kerry came out against gay marriage, Bush said he was okay with it, and everyone voted the exact opposite. You can't make up stupid like that.

I don't remember that part?

It happened. Maybe there's a youtube of it somewhere. Kerry was apparently under pressure from Catholics on the gay marriage issue, and was pressed to give his position, which he did in saying that he though marriage should remain a one man-one woman thing. Bush had the rebuttal, and he came back with that coy lazy cowboy style that it wasn't an issue to him, and that he was okay with it.
There's a reason why Multnomah county, OR kicked Diane Linn the fuck out of office in 2006 for setting this whole thing up. Her and that SF mayor. Damnit, don't push your controversial agendas in a Presidential election year. It just makes it easier for the Republicans to take advantage of the gullible Religious Right that much more.
And on that note, what has Bush done for his most loyal supporters these past 8 years? Did the Moses of his people get Roe v. Wade overturned? Nope. Is gay marriage illegal across the country? No again.
There are marks and then there are suckers.

Do any big issues ever get dealt with at the national level? I mean honestly, each side has their issues they play off each election and have been doing it since the beginning of time.

I think the best example of this was watching a Robert Kennedy documentary the last Winter. My wife who isnt that big into politics blurted out. "OMG they were talking about the exact same issues back then they talk about now". And honestly I couldnt tell her she was wrong. Parts of the speech we were watching could be taken from any of the speeches given today by any of the political candidates. Hell I think he have been plagarized by now. And who knows, he may have plagarized from somebody else.

I think on some level we are all suckers with this system we put faith into.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
This election bears considerable resemblance to the '68 election. The baby boomers, narcissists that they are, cannot stop reliving the same BS over and over again.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Vic
I think the real issue here is how Kerry ran such an inept campaign and yet almost won.

But meh, the Republican spin machine was in overdrive. My favorite part of the campaign was the debate when Kerry came out against gay marriage, Bush said he was okay with it, and everyone voted the exact opposite. You can't make up stupid like that.

I don't remember that part?

It happened. Maybe there's a youtube of it somewhere. Kerry was apparently under pressure from Catholics on the gay marriage issue, and was pressed to give his position, which he did in saying that he though marriage should remain a one man-one woman thing. Bush had the rebuttal, and he came back with that coy lazy cowboy style that it wasn't an issue to him, and that he was okay with it.
There's a reason why Multnomah county, OR kicked Diane Linn the fuck out of office in 2006 for setting this whole thing up. Her and that SF mayor. Damnit, don't push your controversial agendas in a Presidential election year. It just makes it easier for the Republicans to take advantage of the gullible Religious Right that much more.
And on that note, what has Bush done for his most loyal supporters these past 8 years? Did the Moses of his people get Roe v. Wade overturned? Nope. Is gay marriage illegal across the country? No again.
There are marks and then there are suckers.

I know this isn't a huge issue now, but given that Bush called for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in February 2004 http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOL...04.prez.bush.marriage/ I don't see how he could have said he was ok with gay marriage in a debate with Kerry later that year. Maybe civil unions? It just strikes me as the polar opposite of something he'd say.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Vic
I think the real issue here is how Kerry ran such an inept campaign and yet almost won.

But meh, the Republican spin machine was in overdrive. My favorite part of the campaign was the debate when Kerry came out against gay marriage, Bush said he was okay with it, and everyone voted the exact opposite. You can't make up stupid like that.

I don't remember that part?

It happened. Maybe there's a youtube of it somewhere. Kerry was apparently under pressure from Catholics on the gay marriage issue, and was pressed to give his position, which he did in saying that he though marriage should remain a one man-one woman thing. Bush had the rebuttal, and he came back with that coy lazy cowboy style that it wasn't an issue to him, and that he was okay with it.
There's a reason why Multnomah county, OR kicked Diane Linn the fuck out of office in 2006 for setting this whole thing up. Her and that SF mayor. Damnit, don't push your controversial agendas in a Presidential election year. It just makes it easier for the Republicans to take advantage of the gullible Religious Right that much more.
And on that note, what has Bush done for his most loyal supporters these past 8 years? Did the Moses of his people get Roe v. Wade overturned? Nope. Is gay marriage illegal across the country? No again.
There are marks and then there are suckers.

I know this isn't a huge issue now, but given that Bush called for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in February 2004 http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOL...04.prez.bush.marriage/ I don't see how he could have said he was ok with gay marriage in a debate with Kerry later that year. Maybe civil unions? It just strikes me as the polar opposite of something he'd say.

That's my whole point. Kerry got played. And like I said, it did happen. Look to one of the later debates. Combined with the fact that gay marriage really isn't an issue now and it shows how much Bush's supporters got played too.

Most of electioneering takes place in what I like to call "Upside Down World." The Republicans (with Rove and Bush) are masters of this kind of manipulation, mostly because they learned to play to herd mentality types like the Religious Right and the Dittoheads, who believe what they are told, when they are told it, and have complete amnesia of everything they were told before lest it conflict with what they're being told right now.
 

eleison

Golden Member
Mar 29, 2006
1,319
0
0
Originally posted by: 1prophet
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Because too many Americans are frankly not very bright, and are easily manipulated thanks to years of vegetating in front of the idiot box.

This.

Which makes it even weirder considering most actors /actress on the idiot box openly declare their support for dole/kerry...

Also, since these Americans are not very bright, one would assume Dole/Kerry would not have a problem convincing these people to vote for them.. but this obviously wasn't the case..
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,650
132
106
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Now 2008 is here and Republicans fucked up everything, ruined their base, nominated a robotic candidate with little to no emotion, who is despised by many within his own party, and is older than dirt so who do the Dems run........

A black dude, with a crazy wife, a crazier preacher, and little to no experience in anything.


Its like the Dems relish losing. They are the Chicago Cubs of politics.

Proof that the wife is crazy please.

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Vic
That's my whole point. Kerry got played. And like I said, it did happen. Look to one of the later debates. Combined with the fact that gay marriage really isn't an issue now and it shows how much Bush's supporters got played too.

This? It's from their 3rd and final debate. I don't expect gay marriage came up more than once so this has to be it right? I don't think Bush said what you remember him saying. If this isn't it let me know if you come across the quote. Here's their debate links: http://www.debates.org/pages/debtrans.html

***********

SCHIEFFER: Both of you are opposed to gay marriage. But to understand how you have come to that conclusion, I want to ask you a more basic question. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

BUSH: You know, Bob, I don't know. I just don't know. I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It's important that we do that.

And I also know in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live.

And that's to be honored.

But as we respect someone's rights, and as we profess tolerance, we shouldn't change -- or have to change -- our basic views on the sanctity of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I think it's very important that we protect marriage as an institution, between a man and a woman.

I proposed a constitutional amendment.
The reason I did so was because I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage, and the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the Constitution.

It has also the benefit of allowing citizens to participate in the process. After all, when you amend the Constitution, state legislatures must participate in the ratification of the Constitution.

I'm deeply concerned that judges are making those decisions and not the citizenry of the United States. You know, Congress passed a law called DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act.

My opponent was against it. It basically protected states from the action of one state to another. It also defined marriage as between a man and woman.

But I'm concerned that that will get overturned. And if it gets overturned, then we'll end up with marriage being defined by courts, and I don't think that's in our nation's interests.

 

idiotekniQues

Platinum Member
Jan 4, 2007
2,572
0
71
because too many americans would rather vote for a guy they think they could drink a beer with and have a good time.

 

Deudalus

Golden Member
Jan 16, 2005
1,090
0
0
Originally posted by: Bird222
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Now 2008 is here and Republicans fucked up everything, ruined their base, nominated a robotic candidate with little to no emotion, who is despised by many within his own party, and is older than dirt so who do the Dems run........

A black dude, with a crazy wife, a crazier preacher, and little to no experience in anything.


Its like the Dems relish losing. They are the Chicago Cubs of politics.

Proof that the wife is crazy please.

Regardless of how you guys would like to spin it, she actually did come out and say "this is the first time I have been proud of my country" which is a totally ridiculous statement to make.

I'll put it to you this way. They spent 20 years listening to that crazy preacher rant and rave about how much America sucks and how we invented AIDS to give to the darkies and other crazy shit. Now you can argue how much bad or good America has done to the world, but saying what he said the way that Rev. Wright said it is just plain retarded and is blinded negativity.

So what does she do? She says "this is the first time I have been proud of my country". Which leaves out:

a: "I have a dream"
b: "Tuskeegee Airmen"
c: Desegregation of schools
d: Women's suffrage
e: Jackie Robinson
f: Do I need to keep going here?

Now then, could it have been a slip of the tongue and she didn't mean it that way? Maybe so and maybe not.


But what I do know for a fact is that she spent 20 years in that church absorbing or at least listening to that bullshit and then she made a statement that sounds very much like she believes it.


Now let me ask you this...... If a Republican and his wife had spent 20 years in a church that was very negative towards minorities and he ran for president and disavowed that crazy preacher and said "oh I had no idea yadda, yadda, yadda" and really tried to distance himself from that church and say he doesn't think that way.

But then his wife comes up and gives a speeches that has something that could easily be construed as negative against minorities.....

Would you give her and him the benefit of a doubt?


Bear in mind the Trent Lott situation in which he is from Mississippi who said some nice words about Strom Thurmond (who by the way was a racist and a hypocrite) at a Strom Thurmond appreciate banquet when dude was like 90 years old and ready to keel over at any minute and Trent Lott was labeled a racist for saying nice words to a very old man at that very old man's banquet.

He didn't even say anything racist, he just said that he thought that . By that same logic if I said I like Hitler's stache people could infer that I want to kill 7 million Jews.

What Michelle Obama said was a lot more plain and it isn't a leap given her history to label her as a bit of a wacko.
 

benzylic

Golden Member
Jun 12, 2006
1,547
1
0
I would say a lot of it had to do with the fact that in 2004 nobody knew what Kerry's stance on the issues was. I'm not sure John Kerry even knew
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Deudalus
-snip-
Bear in mind the Tom DeLay situation in which he is from Mississippi who said some nice words about Strom Thurmond (who by the way was a racist and a hypocrite) at a Strom Thurmond appreciate banquet when dude was like 90 years old and ready to keel over at any minute and Tom DeLay was labeled a racist for saying nice words to a very old man at that very old man's banquet.

I think you mean Trent Lott (not Delay).

Fern
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
Originally posted by: quest55720
Because the democrats nominated a ultra liberal. If they nominate any sort of moderate they win 2004. I blame the dems for the 2004 loss I don't like bush but was not going to vote for kerry.

yip me too. Bush's first term wasn't that bad.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: quest55720
Because the democrats nominated a ultra liberal. If they nominate any sort of moderate they win 2004. I blame the dems for the 2004 loss I don't like bush but was not going to vote for kerry.

this.

ITT: More fools who fall for the two party "system".
 

Deudalus

Golden Member
Jan 16, 2005
1,090
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Deudalus
-snip-
Bear in mind the Tom DeLay situation in which he is from Mississippi who said some nice words about Strom Thurmond (who by the way was a racist and a hypocrite) at a Strom Thurmond appreciate banquet when dude was like 90 years old and ready to keel over at any minute and Tom DeLay was labeled a racist for saying nice words to a very old man at that very old man's banquet.

I think you mean Trent Lott (not Delay).

Fern

Right you are thank you.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: jonks
3. The rest of your analysis especially wrt a Democrat winning in Nov is just way off. Al Gore was in no way more formidable than either Hilary or Obama. He's become some sort of GW guru in the last 8 years but back then he was just the incumbent VP. And as VP he was the go-to guy but had zero charisma and no die-hard support from a specific demographic. And he did win the popular vote, and if one examines what really went on in Fl and with the SC decision, he technically won the election too.
To be blunt, Al Gore is a very intelligent, well spoken white man and Bush beat him. I really can't see the electorate as a whole voting in either a black or a woman, regardless of the relative prowess of their candidacy. If it does happen, I will be shocked as to the progress the US has made since the 50's.

McSame looks to be a political equal compared to Bush. Obama may be a better candidate than Gore or Kerry, but he's less electable barring a miracle in race relations.

So "based on the previous results" has zero to do with the upcoming election which has no incumbent in the race, a weak economy after 8 years of a republican in the WH, over 75% of the country saying we are headed in the "wrong direction", housing foreclosures, record gas prices, still in Iraq after 6 years...this is what we call a "change year" in politics. Throw in the fact that the Republican candidate is a really old Senator denied his party's nomination several times and the soft support for him among the base and you have a very strong likelihood of democratic wins across the board in November. There have been three special elections in the past few months in solidly Republican strongholds and the democrat has won. These are indications of what's going to happen in Nov. Can McCain win? Sure. Are the odds stacked against him? Very much so.
After Bush's win in 2004 I refuse to believe that the Democrats have even a fair chance of winning this election. The people voting Republican are obviously stubborn and vote based on ideology rather than who the candidate is. A couple of Republicans even came in here and stated as much. They are conservatives and vote for the more conservative candidate.

The Republicans seem to have obtained a sort of "critical mass" among the American electorate.

You look at all the valid reasons I posted why Bush won, and then all the reasons why it's likely a democrat will win in Nov and all you can say is "After Bush v Kerry [when Bush was the incumbent war president!] I can't see how a dem can win". Care to explain how Clinton or Carter won?

i have no idea how Carter won... however clinton was young, and hands down the best public speaker to hold office. That man knows how to give a speech and how to talk to his audience.

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: eleison
Originally posted by: 1prophet
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Because too many Americans are frankly not very bright, and are easily manipulated thanks to years of vegetating in front of the idiot box.

This.
Which makes it even weirder considering most actors /actress on the idiot box openly declare their support for dole/kerry...
And? That's totally off on a tangent for at least a couple of reasons. First, are you perhaps aware that actors and actresses engage in an activity called "acting"? That's where they pretend to be someone else, performing a show based on a script that is usually not connected to their personal political views.

Second, and more to the point, the pervasive effect of TV isn't as much due to the material presented as it is to the very nature of the device. Studies have shown that watching television tends to put one's brain into a highly passive, almost hypnotic state. This makes the brain more receptive to the material presented. The theory is this is why television advertising is so effective, coupled with an advertising industry that's spent decades learning how to best package their sales pitches for maximum manipulation.

It is also speculated that years of steady television viewing tend to have a quasi-permanent numbing effect on the brain, eroding one's ability to think and reason. I don't know that this has been backed with solid experimental evidence, however.


Also, since these Americans are not very bright, one would assume Dole/Kerry would not have a problem convincing these people to vote for them.. but this obviously wasn't the case..
The Democrats certainly tried. I think the drone of television is one of the reasons Kerry shot from nowhere to overtake Dean in the Iowa caucuses. The party machine wanted Kerry, started a whispering campaign about Dean's "electability" compared to Kerry, the local media picked it up and got the pundits parroting the question, and within a couple of weeks, Kerry went from way behind to front-runner. It was an irrational and unfounded non-issue, yet it found its mark thanks in large part, in my opinion, to the repetitive drone of the idiot box.

As far as the overall election, the Democrats just aren't as good at wielding TV as the Republicans. The Dems simply lack the skill, the singular focus, and, in my opinion, the ruthlessness of the Republican marketing machine. Rove may be an evil bastard, but even his most vocal enemies acknowledge his exceptional campaign skills. His manipulation of the media is absolutely masterful ... and he's not alone in Republican circles.

Another tremendous strength of recent Republicans, especially when it comes to television, is their ability to zero in on a single message and relentlessly, unvaryingly hammer it home. When the Bush admin or RNC developed a new talking point, we saw 15 different spokesmen pop up on the weekend talk circuit and news programs, all repeating the exact same message, often word for word. This is extremely effective on television. When most people hear something on television, they tend to assume it's true. When they hear it dozens of times, its ingrains itself as subconscious certainty, as above challenge as saying the sun rises in the east.

The Democrats are not so synchronized in their messages. They tend to be more individualistic, giving some attention to the party talking points, but also pushing their individual agendas and issues. This dilutes the effectiveness of their television presence.

The Republican's third big edge is their ruthlessness, or at least the ruthlessness of some of their supporters. Some Republican groups are absolutely shameless in fear-mongering and spreading Big lies to help their cause (see, for example, the Swiftboat Liars for Bush). Sure, the Dems will stretch, twist, and exaggerate, but I just don't see them casting aside every last shred of honesty and decency to smear their opponents. Some Republican groups will, and it works. No matter how preposterous the lie may be, many people will swallow it if they hear it repeated on the TeeVee enough times.


====
Finally, to digress for a moment, this is why I laugh when the right whines about the "liberal media." If the media were really so liberally biased, they would put a lot more time and effort into debunking anti-liberal smears and lies. Instead, while the mainstream media will occasionally throw in a brief article explaining why this lie or that smear is misleading, their headlines and major air time are devoted to the usual stories of tragedies, celebrities, and scandals.

It wouldn't have been good for business to follow every Swiftboat Liar ad or interview with a ten-minute analysis of why the whole non-issue was an empty, unsupported smear. It wouldn't have been good for business if every BushCo Iraq+9/11 sound bite was followed by several minutes of pointing out that, if one parsed the exact words carefully, one would note they didn't explicitly state Iraq was connected to 0/11, but merely connected them with innuendo. No, that would bore their viewers and anger the advertisers paying good money to air their lies, and that would have been bad for business.

That's the true bias of the MSM. They aren't really the liberal media. They are corporate, capitalist media, and their overriding focus is selling ad time and maintaining the status quo. That's what's best for business.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: 1prophet
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Because too many Americans are frankly not very bright, and are easily manipulated thanks to years of vegetating in front of the idiot box.
This.
All nations have the idiot box, yet only yours managed to pull off such a political coup d'état.

I did get a good laugh out of that post but I highly doubt it's true or that Bowfinger was serious.
I am absolutely serious. See my post above. I don't think you'll find many countries with television like ours, at least not yet.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: mxrider
I would say a lot of it had to do with the fact that in 2004 nobody knew what Kerry's stance on the issues was. I'm not sure John Kerry even knew
More nonsense, another victim of the TeeVee effect I suspect. Kerry's problem wasn't that he didn't have a stance, it was that his stances were too "nuanced" to fit into simple-minded sound bites. Unfortunately, once again thanks in part to television, too many Americans lack the attention span for understanding anything requiring more than 10 seconds of thought.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: 1prophet
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Because too many Americans are frankly not very bright, and are easily manipulated thanks to years of vegetating in front of the idiot box.

This.
All nations have the idiot box, yet only yours managed to pull off such a political coup d'état.

I did get a good laugh out of that post but I highly doubt it's true or that Bowfinger was serious.

Start here if you are truly interested in how easily the American population can be controlled using their own fears and desires using the media like television, along with an education system that is based not on critical thinking but becoming a complacent consumer.

 

bctbct

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2005
4,868
1
0
Roughly half the voters thought there is no way he could get any worse and couldnt admit they made a horrible mistake the first time.

they were wrong
 

sjwaste

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2000
8,760
12
81
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Is that an ignorant viewpoint?

Why did people like him, and continue to like him? What has he done that is actually good? Has he left any sort of positive legacy in any regard? What did he accomplish during his first term that made people think "Hey, we should re-elect this guy!"?

As a Canadian outwardly viewing your situation down there, I fail to comprehend the answer to any of my above questions. I saw right through his invasion of Iraq before it happened (and thankfully so did our PM at the time).

I'm assuming it's die-hard Republicans that I need to hear from here.

The thing is, I view Al Gore as a more formidable opponent than Hilary or Obama. That's the incredible thing. Bush actually beat him. Is there any chance that the elections are rigged down there? Based on the previous results I can't see a Democrat winning anything in the upcoming vote.

Honestly, because John Kerry was that bad. A lot of people voted Bush to keep Kerry out of office, and it worked.

But I think your view from up there in Canada is skewed -- all of our candidates suck most of the time. The real question is, why does anyone even bother to vote for any of them?