I voted for George Bush in the 2004 election.

Re: I voted for George Bush in the 2004 election.


I voted for him in 2000 so I'm somewhat responsible. However, in my defense I lived in AZ who voted for Bush pretty overwhelmingly so my vote really didn't matter.

Bush was the best option you had BG. Would you have rather voted for, gag, Kerry?

Hey BubbaGumbo, haven't seen you in a while.

You're belong to a category of people I've been curious about, those who reluctantly voted for Bush. Good to see your thoughts.

(Can I ask who looks good to you in 2008?)

Learn from mistakes and move on Bubba (it's more than Bush will ever do). Now you know you have to do more than watch commericals to decide on who to vote for (or against). I despise Bush and think he has dragged this country to it's lowest point in our history, but I don't put all Republicans into his box. Many Republicans are intelligent, fiscally responsible people who can speak properly (and are secretly ashamed to be associated with Bush & Co.). If Bush was a Democrat I would probably become a Republican. Next time just pay better attention.

I think Phoenix has expressed similar sentiments.

I semi-agree with McG on the choices available at the time. I reluctantly voted for Kerry as the other non-choice. In both elections, Bush vs Gore or Bush vs Kerry it was really a matter of no good choice which, IMO, is precisely why both races ended up in a dead heat. It really didn't matter who won, all three of them would have been equally awful.

opinions vary... and feel free to gag... choke if you like :wink:

No worries, BubbaGumbo. It's not like you had a plethora of choices. I blame the party for choosing him in the first place and both parties for successfully locking out any alternative candidates.

I blame the flouridization of our drinking water....

I blame Pong.

I don't think you need to apologize, and certainly not to rake yourself over the coals about what a disaster this administration has proven to be. Hindsight is notoriously much sharper than the discernment we are able to exercise at the time of an event.

I applaud your honesty about this, and suggest that you give yourself a break.

I agree, especially since that was your first election you were able to vote in, right? That indicates that you are fairly young, which makes your honesty and examination of your choice that much more impressive.

What I liked about Kerry was he didn't conduct illegal wars, condone torture, hold suspected "terrorists" without due process, or tap our telephones.

But then again, he wasa flip-flopper (I mean, the TV said so!), and in flip-flopping, thousands of innocent Iraqi civillians were killed.

And for all we know he might have restored competence and integrity to the oval office.

I for one never voted for the disaster in the oval office. Foresight is better than hindsight.
And yes I have voted for Republicans for the office of president.

For those who thought Kerry was a bad choice. Ask yourself one question Do you still believe that we better off by having the idiot child in office.

can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs though, right?

I thought he was an admitted war criminal. :wink:

Bush adm. doomed from begining
BubbaGumbo, I can sympathize with the angst you are feeling. Your have learned a valuable lesson. You also have an advantage that old folks like me never had. You have Google to make a wide range of information available to inform you about candidates. You don't have to rely on TV sound bites, misleading ads, politically biased talking heads. You can easily research the history of people seeking leadership positions. Quality newspapers with integrity motivated journalists are a great resource. You can no longer be lazy in your investigation, you must be active in learning as much as you can before you vote---including all sides of the issues. You must learn to know your enemy as well as your friends. The Republican Congress failed in their oversight responsibilities because they lusted for power and the wealth it brought them instead of doing the right thing for the common good. Shame on them! Maybe they have learned a lesson---but then, maybe not. I hope the Democrats have learned the same lesson and will not make the same mistakes. At least the 2008 election presidential candidates of the Democratic Party are far superior in knowledge and experience instead of religious ideology as demonstrated by all of them in their campaign to destroy the separation of church and state. I suggest that if these Republicans want to live in a Theocracy, they should move to the United Kingdom and they can bow to the queen-head of the Church of England.

The Bush administration was doomed from the outset because it was not based on a moderate democratic Meritocracy. Bush failed at everything he did despite the path being set up by his daddy and his daddy's friends and their money. They also bailed him out after each failure. Bush had a long history of incompetence---except for politics. He knew politics but did not know governing, foreign policy or domestic policies. His worst failure was his lack of knowledge about the rest of the world, primarily about the Middle East. All of us who knew anything about the history of the Middle East, it's culture, Islam, and the ancient tribal rivals were appalled at the Bush administration's ignorance. His second worst decision was placing the evil twins Dick Cheney and Ronald Rumsfeld in power positions. Then there is the amoral macavelian, Karl Rove. Every move Bush made in establishing his administration and setting policies were based on politics and loyalty to him, not competence, instead of to the Constitution and to the country. It will take years to recover from the bad choices he made domestically and the world, including incompetent appointments. I wish the voters could know, before they vote, on whom the presidential candidates would appoint to key positions in their administrations. That would give us a better insight into what sort of administration we would have.

A little bit of closely watched moderate democratic meritocracy might have had a different outcome, but Bush was not capable of it. What is really scary is the thought that if Bush's appointees had been competent, how much worse the damage might have been?

I've included information about Meritocracy government in case you are interested. I wish the information government list had included Abraham Lincoln, who appointed political opponents to cabinet positions because they were the most competent to do the required jobs for the common good. I don't know if the people are willing to do the work to protect and integrity of a meritocracy any more than a loyalty government. It all depends on the vigilence of the Free Press and the people's determination to govern for the Common Good.

I knew about Bush's personal flaws, his personal and business failures including the nasty history of his mother's and father's families. If the Bushes were going to offer one of their sons for the presidency, they, and we, would have been better off if that choice had been Jeb Bush. Jeb was at least intelligent, sane, and experienced.

The best thing that bush has accomplished is to seriously wound the radical Republican Party. Now, maybe the Republicans will rid itself of religious radicals, corrupt politicians, and return to it's traditional fiscal and moderate social conservatives who will put the common good of the country first instead of a lust for power and wealth. Even in a Meritocracy, the people must be vigilant to avoid a similar takeover similar to that which happened in the Bush Administration. Government must always be watched to reduce corruption and abuse of power. Any form of government will become corrupt if not closely watched and punished by the people. ---BBB

Meritocracy - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Meritocracy is a system of government or other organization based on demonstrated ability (merit) and talent rather than by wealth, family connections (nepotism), class privilege, cronyism, popularity (as in democracy) or other historical determinants of social position and political power.

The word "meritocracy" is now also often used to describe a type of society where wealth, position, and social status are in part assigned through competition or demonstrated talent and competence, on the premise that positions of trust, responsibility and social prestige should be earned, not inherited or assigned on arbitrary quotas. Meritocracy is used[citation needed] both to describe or even criticize competitive societies, that could accept large inequalities of income, wealth and status amongst the population as a function of perceived talent[citation needed], merit, competence, motivation and effort.

Origin of term

The term 'meritocracy' was first used, in a pejorative sense, in Michael Young's 1958 book Rise of the Meritocracy, which is set in a dystopian future in which one's social place is determined by IQ plus effort. In the book, this social system ultimately leads to a social revolution in which the masses overthrow the elite, who have become arrogant and disconnected from the feelings of the public.

Despite the negative origin of the word, there are many who believe that a meritocratic system is a good thing for society. Proponents of meritocracy argue that a meritocratic system is more just and more productive than other systems, and that it allows for an end to distinctions based on such arbitrary things as sex, race or social connections. Detractors of meritocracy, on the other hand, argue that the central dystopian aspect of Young's conception -- the existence of a meritocratic class that monopolises access to merit and the symbols and markers of merit, and thereby perpetuates its own power, social status, and privilege -- has rapidly appeared in many if not all societies that have embraced meritocracy.

In writing the United States "Declaration of Independence" Thomas Jefferson relied heavily on Chapter Five of John Locke's Second Treatise on Government, which conceives of a society where the foundation of all property is solely the labour exerted by men. Locke argued that the acquisition of property was not morally wrong, if it were acquired through the exertion of labour and if it were in order to meet one's own immediate needs. So, he said, society is necessarily stratified, but by merit, not by birth. This doctrine of industry and merit as opposed to idleness and inheritance as the determining factor in a just society argued strongly against kings and governments of nobles and their lackeys, in favor of representative republicanism. [1]

Often, opponents of the concept of meritocracy argue that characteristics such as intelligence or effort are simply impossible to measure accurately. Therefore, in their view, any implementation of meritocracy necessarily involves a high degree of guesswork and is inherently flawed. Those who support free markets, on the other hand, believe that the free market can and should determine both merit and reward.

Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism is a social theory which holds that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is a model for the development of biological traits in a population and is sometimes incorrectly applied to human social institutions. Social Darwinism was at its most popular from the late 19th century to the end of World War II. Proponents of Social Darwinism often used the theory to justify social inequality as being meritocratic. Others used it to justify racism and imperialism. At its most extreme, some Social Darwinists appeared to anticipate (coercive) eugenics and the race doctrines of the Nazis.

I didn't like anything about him, but I voted for him for these very reasons.