Cut-Throat said:
Well, I'm guessing you voted for the turkey! - Probably even twice!
- And yeah he's doing the job alright, if you consider running the U.S.A's financial and world status into the ditch 'doing the job'!
In fact I voted for him four times, twice for president and twice for governor. Everytime it involved holding my nose.
In Texas the dems have been reduced to switching to the repub party to get elected. There are no dems in any statewide Texas elected office. We're now into the same problem Texas had when the dems had one party control of the state. We have the lib repubs and the conservative repubs. Our budget is out of control, our current governor amazes everyone and we've just about reached critical mass for another reversal.
Bush was a middle-to-fair governor but certainly nothing exciting. He did much I didn't agree with. The dems ran no name, nobody losers against him. I can't even remember who they were now. None of the governor elections were even close which is why he looked so strong as a repub presidential candidate.
In the presidency, Texas was going to vote for Bush so it didn't really matter who I voted for. The dems, however, picked poor candidates that I actually felt it was better to have the mediocre Bush II rather than them. With what I've seen of the world since both elections, I don't feel Gore or Kerry would be doing as well as Bush is despite Bush doing pretty poor. I see no need for specifics. But, I tend to focus more on what, how and why things were done and not judge solely on outcomes.
I think I've said all this before but maybe not at the same time.
I'll also repeat my Obama opinion. He is clearly articulate, personable and intelligent. He also has next to no experience. Where's the "gravitas" for him? If he was a white repub with 2 years of senate experience, he would be laughed at if he announced he was running for the presidency.
Madam Hillary is only modestly better. She's a 1 term senator with her only other experience being hatchet man for Bill. Where's the "she's only running because she was married to Bill" outcry that the Bush father-son evoked.
Edwards falls in between them. He is a one term senator that didn't even try to run for reelection in the senate because his poll numbers were so low. His contribution to the Kerry ticket was probably a negative in the southern states. Now if the dems really want to prove no repub can win in 2008, they need to nominate him.
The strongest qualified dem is Bill Richardson. He has the background to possibly be a good president. He doesn't have the poll numbers to be in contention and may never get them.
I can't see me voting for Edwards, Clinton or Obama. Richarson is a good "possible." Of course, the repubs still have their chance to pick someone so laughable that even Obama looks like the best qualified.
Personally, I am fiscally conservative and believe in less government. That carries over into government staying out of our personal lives so that generally makes me a social liberal. I keep looking for the government program that eventually doesn't cause more problems than it was supposed to fix but I have not found it.
For those unfamiliar with Texas politics, a big block of repub support is in the form of anti-abortion/big government types. That gets meaningless anti-abortion actions done in the Texas legislature and higher spending. Hence, I sense a dem-repub reversal coming so get ready for a big block of anti-abortion Texas dems flooding the national dem party.