TUCKER's WORLD BACKS BUSH
Well okay I put it off and for some good reasons, and at some very bad reasons.
I had to make a decision about how I was going to run Tucker's World during the campaign. What I realized this year is to have a much better political conversation with someone no matter where they stand is to put a topic in the air and look at both sides. I don't usually start the conversation with I THINK BLAH,BLAH,BLAH. I usually start with..what do you think. I get a feel for where they stand on the issues and take it from there. I figured I would try to make fun of the election that wasn't all that funny.
Maybe I was a little to easy on Bush, but most of my readers read TERMINUS, so why beat a dead horse? I did question John Kerry quite a lot on here, and that happened after I realized that many of the people I talked to couldn't give me one thing they liked about John Kerry or even tell me how he was going to fix most of our problems. Not to say they were all uneducated. I just wanted people talking about it.
Well let me just say that I backed out of an making it clear this weekend, because I realized. I am not going to sway anyone's vote. To be honest I am sure some of my readers would have just called me nasty names and attacked me. Yeah, Lima Beanz you are right. It was no secret towards the end anyway. Although, I have had readers tell me they didn't have a clue who I was voting for. Also, most people at work from the way I discuss politics with naturally assumed I was voting for Kerry. Although, I tried to convince someone I was voting for Nader today.
The thing of it is, I didn't make up my mind till about over a month ago. Towards the end it was between Bush and no one at all. At the end of the day, I just wasn't sold on John Kerry. He had better music, and lots of promises, but I didn't buy that he would MAKE A STRONGER THE US. I honestly, think he is totally underestimating how easy it will be to fix the nations problems. If he wins tonight I highly doubt that the terrorists are going to stop what they are doing, and everyone will want to help us with the mess in Iraq.
The war In Afganistian (sp?) was sadly over looked, and I think it was a much larger success than people give credit for. Hell, they actually had elections there. Do I agree with the war in Iraq? For some reasons I do, but not entirely. In the comments section below I will give you list of quotes from others who thought there were WMDs too. In fact given all the confusion who really knows if there were some at one point.
I am not going to make this a long story, because clearly I stand where I stand. The majority of my readers are Kerry voters. So, I must be the only blogger in the world who has the majority of his readers disagreeing with him. Think about that. Most blogs are read by people who nod their heads and say...yeah..That's right.
The sad thing is even though I knew in my heart who I was voting for I wasn't looking forward to saying so on here. Considering I know of only one of my readers (god knows who half the mystery posters even are) for a fact voted for Bush. But really what difference would it have made but to have hate projected towards me? I might even lose some of my new readers which I really hope not, because I consider most of them my friends. I get it a lot when it comes to my worldly views. Most people think those views don't even fit my personality and are shocked to hear where I usually lean.
As I am writing this Dan K asked me how anyone could actually think John Kerry to run this country. The fact is not everyone that votes for Bush is an idiot or rich. So, please I can think of tons of people that are middle class that are voting for Bush. I even know a handful of democrats that are voting for Bush. Today a friend at work told me he was democrat and read a lot about the race, and told me he is voting for Bush because he just doesn't think Kerry is up to the war on terror.
Now, I respect every ones views on my blog. I will never call anyone names that disagree with me. Sadly, I am rarely given to the same respect when I speak my mind. Usually, slandered and called nasty names for people who supposedly love freedom of speech. I had a friend at work that I have been talking about the election almost non-stop for several months. He actually was disappointed in me for voting for Bush. Telling how disappointed it was that I was going to vote for Bush, given how in formed I am.
I just think that Kerry is mostly all style. He will win this election based on all the MTV watchers who know very little and think that we will be drafted if Bush wins. They let Kerry's wife get away with the lie that we would "Catch" Bin Laden a week before Nov2. It was a bold faced lie based on nothing. Sadly, NO ONE called her on that.
I gave Kerry a good chance, but I never was fully sold. I can go on and on. If Kerry thinks we need more people in Iraq...How will HE DO IT WITH OUT DRAFTING YOU? He keeps saying he has a plan. Sometimes citing you have to wait till January to hear what it is.
I really fear Kerry thinks its an easy fix..It isn't.
Now I have heard so many nasty things about the Bush. That's fine. No problem with that. However, there are many people that are close to me and important in my life that did vote for Bush. They aren't even close to all the nasty things that are said about being a Bush supporter. In fact some of them are some of the best people I have ever met. I respect peoples views. I am not a bigot, I am not against minorities, and I don't think anyone voting for Kerry is dumb, un-American, or bad people.
You can't change my mind I can't change yours. We can talk about stuff all we want, but the bottom line at the end of the day. I voted for Bush. I could endorse him, but who would listen? I am not in that business its up to you to make up your own mind and vote. That's what makes America great. Hopefully, you people will continue to read my blog and respect my views.
Thanks for reading and following the wild election ride. Sorry for the delay in this post. Keep reading and thanks again for supporting Tucker's World.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
You know, Keith, given that it was your idea, it would be nice if you made some acknowledgement of John Kerry Week. I put a lot of work into that, and I explained at tremendous length why people should vote for John Kerry. I was very disappointed that you never gave any response to any of the arguments that I made.
It's also quite ironic that in your whole "endorsement", you never explain why you think Bush deserves to be re-elected. You're right about Afghanistan being overlooked. Many Americans don't know that the Taliban has reformed and controls parts of the country, or that Afghanistan has again become the world's largest producer of heroin, the sale of which is once again supporting terrorist organizations.
Anyway, your guy won. Congratulations. Don't say I didn't warn you.
Drew, yeah sorry that I didn't say anything about John Kerry week. I am really glad that you did take me up on that offer. I read each article and it was really a good idea.
I learned a lot thanks a lot. Hey, I think for once you will be wishing you were wrong. Being as if you were right we are in serious do-do.
Your right, I really went off on a tangent there. I was writing it amongst the craziness of the election night coverage. Just sort have got on a tangent.
Do you think the democrats fumbled here and backed the wrong Horse? Do you think they should have let Dean slide for that crazy scream?
It's a good question. If Kerry was the wrong guy, I don't think Dean was the right guy. The advantage of Dean over Kerry is that Dead didn't vote for the War in Iraq. But I don't think that would have helped. The election was decided on "moral values", which apparently don't include honesty.
I don't know if the Democrats had a guy in their group this time who would have done it. Or, maybe if Kerry had picked a different running mate, somebody who could have done more to help in states like Ohio, he could have won after all.
What's really upsetting about the election is that Kerry ran hard, created clear points of difference between himself and Bush, and he still lost. Given a real choice between two clear alternatives, people chose Bush. There's always a tendency to assume that anyone who wins an election therefore ran a strong campaign, and anyone who loses an election therefore ran a weak campaign. Kerry did not run a weak campaign. He just got beat.
Thats true. What about if they did the switch-a-ro that I talked about months ago? Do you remember when I thought they might have been better off the other way around?
Think about it they could have side-stepped the whole swift boat attack. Maybe the thought Edwards looked too young, and I guess he was cleanly beat Kerry last spring.
I dunno I think they could have side stepped a lot of the daggers thrown. Also, he comes across more like a real person. Which is why they are giving credit for a Bush win.
Drew, or anyone for that matter...did you think Bush would have acutally broken the record of votes?
Be careful about giving too much credit to Bush for breaking the record. After all, Kerry also broke the record. It's mostly a function of population growth and turnout, but mainly population growth. Look at the top five vote getters:
1. Bush 2004
2. Kerry 2004
3. Reagan 1984
4. Gore 2000
5. Not sure, but probably Bush 2000
The only really impressive one on that list is Reagan 1984, because he won in a landslide, winning every state but one, if I remember correctly.
Think about it, on that list, you've got two losers: Kerry 2004 and whichever guy you think lost in 2000. That makes it pretty obvious that population growth is the most important factor.
I think there were about 105 million votes cast in 2000, maybe a bit less. The exact same turn out would have produced about 114 million votes this time. We actually had about 120 million (probably a little less, but we don't quite know yet). Assuming steady population growth and the same turnout as 2000, there will be about 124 million votes in 2008. 60 million votes (less than 50%) will be enough to break Bush's record. Assuming the same turnout as 2004 (unlikely), we'll have somewhere over 130 million votes, so significantly less than 50% would be enough to break Bush's record.
It's really not a big deal.
Post a Comment