Your Ad Here

Now that the nation is united in support of George W. Bush, will the liberals in congress stop obstructing his agenda?

Question: The President received more votes than any candidate in history. Now that the nation is united in support of George W. Bush, will the liberals in congress stop obstructing his agenda?
Created by: dion at 07:41:55 AM, Wednesday, November 03, 2004 PST


Dion, two things: The US is definitely NOT united in support of Mr. Bush. And, while numerically more people may have voted for this president, what is important is the size of the popular vote, around 51% for Bush and 49% for Kerry. That is not unity at all. It is the definition of a divided country. More people voted for Bush than before only because the population of the US is larger than before.

anonymousNov 04 2004 2:47pm

Dion, two things: The US is definitely NOT united in support of Mr. Bush. And, while numerically more people may have voted for this president, what is important is the size of the popular vote, around 51% for Bush and 49% for Kerry. That is not unity at all. It is the definition of a divided country. More people voted for Bush than before only because the population of the US is larger than before.

anonymousNov 04 2004 3:32pm
John Kerry indicated in his concession speech that he will continue to encourage both sides to work together. Kerry impressed a lot of people by not attempting to drum up litigation at the end of the election. If Kerry's followers sincerely believe in his message, they will not continue the mean spirited Bush-bashing and hate rhetoric. They will realize there is nothing to gain by trying to discredit the commander in chief durring a war. Bush has offered the olive branch to the Democrats before. He even let Ted Kennedy have a big role in the education program. As long as the Democratic party allows itself to be represented by the likes of Michael Moore and Whoopi Goldberg, it would serve them well to at least attempt to appear positive and willing to contribute to the well being of America. The results of this election are proof that the American people are not buying what the left is selling. If John F. kennedy were here today, he would look more like a Republican than a Democrat. The party needs to move to the center if it ever wants to regain credibility and power. As far as the numbers go, you may be right. But even so, it is still enough to win.

DianneNov 04 2004 9:21pm
Kerry is a true war hero. He lost the election because of the lies perpetrated by the Swift Boat Veterans.

AnonymousNov 06 2004 8:55am
If that is true, then why did he refuse to release his military records? To this day, he never signed the form to make his military records public. He never confronted his opponents, never confronted the allegations. He just called them liars from a safe distance and whined about having his background questioned. These are the actions of someone with something to hide.

DianneNov 06 2004 9:01am
America is indeed united behind the President. The liberal element is only willing to support democracy if it is fixed in their favor. But if Bush wins, they all "threaten" to go to Canada or some other country. Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Barbara Streisand, Whoopi Goldberg, Pee Diddy, M&M, and all the rest of mainstream Democrats are welcome to leave. They were never Americans to begin with.

BobNov 06 2004 12:40pm
Please keep Michael Moore. Like most of the world I don't like Bush but we don't need Moore coming up here to continue his look at me campaign. I don't understand how anybody can criticize his own country as much as Moore does. I prefer Canada over the States but that's natural, I'm Canadian. I probably dislike Bush more than Moore does but I don't dislike your country, you have a great country. You don't seem to be a very united country at this point in time which is a shame because you still seem to be doing a lot of soul searching and that's understandable. One thing American Bush haters should try to support is his current attempts to appease the rest of the world. As far as foreign affairs is concerned, His administration is no longer nearly as arrogant as they were. When he said "You're with us or you're with the terrorists" I know it sounded good to Americans but what it sounded like to the rest of the world was "Shut up and do as you're told." All he ended up doing was alienating himself and unfortunately Americans in general from most of the world but now he realizes that the US is not omnipotent and you do need your allies and we are entitled to our autonomy. Most importantly, his administration seems to understand that they deeply offended a lot of non-Americans on a personal level with that tough talk. Duly noted and appreciated and so it should be within his own country.

AnonymousDec 26 2004 3:43am
The United States is not "omnipotent" except when the rest of the world (including those who vow to destroy us) needs help. And we always help. But it is never enough.

AnonymousJan 03 2005 9:58pm
Everybody else always helps each other too. You're not the only country that extends assistance to other countries. As far as western countries go, nobody really has anything against the States, nobody is gaga about you either but so what. I don't expect Americans to say "Oh God!! Norway!! What a country!!" I remember when there was an enormous and unfair hatred towards the French in your country but a poll taken over there at the time revealed zero anti-American sentiment. You say it's never enough? Apparently what the rest of the world does isn't enough for you either. Your contributions to the tsunami relief is commensurate with your population and economy but it isn't any more or less than what several nations are doing. China should be ashamed as should the oil rich Arab nations. Japan has sent more money (~500m)than any other country in the world plus specialists, Canada has pledged the second most money so far (~350m)plus specialists and both of those countries have much smaller economies and populations than the US so please don't think that you stand alone when it comes to world aid in times of crisis. You do more than your share but so do other nations. If you're upset about being underappreciated then perhaps a you of all people shouldn't underappreciate what other nations do.

AnonymousJan 14 2005 3:35pm
I'd like to add to the above comment; I don't think we here in the west appreciate the burden of admitting refugees to the extent that some countries do. Rwanda had 3 million refugees in 1994, the bulk of whom fled to Uganda. Pakistan has admitted millions of Afghan refugees throughout the years. That puts a huge strain on their economies. There has never been any need to open our doors to millions of Mexicans but if the need did arise, I'm certain they would be required to live in internment camps until the problem passed. There would probably be a lot of grumbling about it too. We're fortunate not to have been encumbered with hostile neighbors and centuries old tribal conflicts and the rest of it. As nations go, we are like a kid who was born with a silver spoon. The kid might lead a very successful life but many of those advantages were the result of the kids father or grand father. We're pretty much the same and we shouldn't forget it. What is it? Something like 10% of the world population uses about 80 or 90% of its resources. I don't give a poo if anybody in the world officially recognizes us when we provide aid. Unoffically we are recognized. We are extremely lucky and we should give something back because we sure as hell take a lot. I know I do, I make a great living and enjoy great vacations, I eat suptuously and wear expensive clothes, drive a nice car and I feel no guilt for that and never will. But I also doubt I would have all that I have if I was born in the Sudan or Belgrade. I give annually to international relief, it didn't take a tsunami to galvanise me.

AnonymousJan 15 2005 10:09am
You got a silver spoon stuck up your ass. So you are cool for now. But the spoils of your wealth have left you soft and weak. In the end, you will not survive.

Mo-hamFeb 01 2005 5:00pm
Dion,bush received more votes agianst him than any other sitting president.

bradFeb 10 2005 5:55am
The fact he is still there indicates he received more votes than anyone else who ran. Let's face it, the liberals have really gone completely whacko of late. Between Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Barb Boxer, Al Gore, etc... you have about the craziest group of lunatics you could possibly essemble. To win an election, you must find someone who can be taken seriously. That person just does not exist within the Democratic party today. Most people who voted for Kerry really did not support him, they were just voting against Bush. That is not enough momentum to win a national election. The Dems need to rid their party of the cartoon characters who have ruined their credibility in order to take back power. The problem is, the cartoon characters are calling the shots for the Democrats, and liberals blindly continue to support them. C'mon, Howard Dean as Chairman? After his display of insanity, isn't it time to distance yourselves from his losing track record? Think about it.

GeneJul 23 2005 3:26am
Don't be offended, I am only trying to help by offering a different viewpoint. You gotta admit, something is wrong when you lose elections to someone who has been labeled as a "dunce". If Bush were actually as much of a fool as the left believes he is, he should be easy to beat.

GeneJul 23 2005 3:32am
i have voted democrat for 7/8 of my life. after watching the clintons/gores/kerry's/kennedys'..i must admit..i'm with bush. at least he stands for something. have you ever heard a clinton say the word no? and this kerry was a jkerk back in goodness he only went to viet nam to appease ted kennedy. the media twist every story. michael moore is going to educate people? oh gosh..that man ought to take a bath and maybe look in the mirror..he looks like a carnyee. woopi goldburge knows more than us regular folks? she seems more like a nit wit.

lance larsonSep 14 2005 1:10pm
Bush is a great president at a time in history when greatness is necessary for survival. There is contraversy around many presidents who made tough decisions when the stakes were high. Thank God he has the courage to do what is right instead of what the polls say to do. Semper Fi!

DukeNov 29 2005 9:54pm
Bush has done absolutely nothing right and as for the polls, he received almost unanimous support for some 2 years after 9/11. Contrary to battling weak opinion polls, the few people who did speak out against him were labelled unpatriotic. He is an extremely populist president and now that he is no longer popular, he barely shows his face. When his debacle in Iraq appeared to be going well, he couldn't get enough of the camera.

AnonymousJan 07 2007 7:19am
No administration does everything right or everything wrong. When someone makes a blanket statement that a president "has done absolutely nothing right', it is clear that person is blinded by partisanship and is incapable of seeing things with any objectivity. It does not matter what Bush does, it is wrong specifically because Bush does it. People who think this way can't make a positive contribution to society, only to an ideology.

Dr. FrankenApr 28 2007 9:46am
Kerry won the popular vote but bush won more electoral colleges. definantly NOT REPEAT NOT the most votes in US history

AnonymousMay 03 2008 8:52am
DNyW6s levitra nizagara

gTyMGrrIaOct 18 9:16am
uvPyke viagra online

IGULEoteCkNov 13 6:24pm
SJ5WaI write my essay

ddvLHeaeQThu 6:41pm
Add a comment:


Vote | Results | Home
Vote Results