Quote:
If this were the Presidential ballot, for whom would you vote?

Quote:
Jed Bartlett would clearly do an excellent job during his first term but then loose the plot in his second term.

Quote:

Quote:
If this were the Presidential ballot, for whom would you vote?

I voted for Jed, but only because Kodos wasn't on the ballot.

Quote:
You'd be throwing your vote away! Kang is the clear winner.

Quote:
several years of increasing disappointment as nation realises that the man cannot live up to his image and the promises made.

And this is different from most of our real presidents... how?

Quote:
And this is different from most of our real presidents... how?

Exactly! Actually, I'd like to see Tony Blair standing for president. That would be good for the US and the UK, and probably one of the better scenarios for the rest of the world. Just need you guys to tweak your constitution

Quote:
....but if we tweaked our Constitution, the next *real* scenario would be Schwartzenegger....which might still be an improvement over our *actual* current choices....

"I'm not a war president, but I play one on TV . . ."

Quote:
Or how about this?

Peter Griffin

Quote:
If this were the Presidential ballot, for whom would you vote?

Quote:

Quote:
If this were the Presidential ballot, for whom would you vote?

This BBS often hears laments about its left-wing bias, but I am *very* interested to see (even allowing for the limitations of a self-selecting BBS poll) 19 votes for Bush. Fully 37 percent of votes cast -- not anywhere so lop-sided as minority complaints and posts from the BBS right might suggest.

I can't help but wonder if some of those closet Tories from Cambridge have been stuffing this ballot box!

Jeff and a very few others are willing to stick their neck out to the right on the BBS, but that leaves maybe 14-15 other voters unheard from. Yes, given the prevailing (accepted) wisdom regarding the left-wing BBS tilt, I am surprised to see Bush polling at nearly 40 percent and wonder why we don't hear more about his merits on the BBS. I am curious about that and how the BBS came to be perceived the way it has..

So, I have a few questions for any willing Bush voters.....(Feel free to cherry pick!)

1) Blue-state liberal folks (and BBSers) are sometimes derided as uppity, snobby, effete intellectuals who just can't appreciate that Bush is beloved precisely because he's a "regular guy". In light of this "snobs-versus-regular-guy" phenomenon, what do you make of the influence of Leo Strauss on key members of the administration and do you perceive any contradiction between Bush's "regular-guy" reputation and Straussian philosophy?

2) Four years later, how do you feel about the presidential election of 2000 as compared to what you felt about it at the time?

3) If you are voting for Bush, is it safe to assume that you support his conduct with respect to Iraq? If so, can you state a detailed case (needs to say more than "Saddam was a bad guy") as to why the preemptive war in Iraq was a good idea?

4) If John Kerry wins, what bad things do you predict will happen that you are pretty certain will *not* occur if Bush is elected? The definition of "bad" is left completely up to you.

5) What do you think that bulge was?

Reponses from a Bush voter:

1) You must be an effete intellectual to dig that deep . I never really thought of liberals that way. The imagine of a tree hugging hippie always flashes in my head when I hear liberal. I don’t care how Bush, Kerry or Leo Strauss comes across. I’m voting for Bush because I agree with his stance on the majority of the major issues at hand. That basically sums up why I am voting for him.

2) I felt that since it was so close maybe my vote does count. The inevitable screw-ups of the voting process will really come to light when it is close. I’m sure issues like Florida occur in every election you just do hear as much about them when it’s a landslide.

3) I’m not a big fan of the war now or then. I supported his decision to go to war because this is a republic; we elected him to make these decisions and with the evidence at hand (although it was wrong) I can see why he made that decision. Plus we needed the practice and the warranty on many of the bombs was running out .

4) Bad – More and higher taxes, more money for welfare thus less people willing to work, worsening economy, a weaker stance in the world (Korea will probably step up aggression), more gun control laws, a lot of nothing getting accomplished and more governmental gridlock.

5) I think it was his coat label but really don’t care if someone was giving him his words. A president for the most part is just a puppet anyway. Besides, I will concede that Kerry is a better speaker but that does not make him a good leader.

I’m sure these attitudes do not represent the majority of Bush voters. I usually walk to my own drum. I’m sure the US will go on no matter who is vote in.

Quote:
Reponses from a Bush voter:

Quote:
He would also tax the “wealthy” more. I’m not currently in that group (or anywhere close), but I like to think that someday I could be. If I were, I would not want the government to take a significantly larger portion of the earnings I worked so hard for. I would be giving a significant portion of my income to social and religious causes anyway, and I think I can best decide where my money should go.

Me too!

OK, to be different - "Like he said!"

Quote:
That may be the longest post I've ever made. Usually I just wait for Jeff and then say, "Yeah, me too

Every Batman needs his Robin.

Quote:
Usually I just wait for Jeff and then say, "Yeah, me too."

I'm glad you expounded in more detail this time. I have to agree with most of what you've said here, and I think you it put much differently than I would have. Or to say it differently: "Yeah, me too."

Quote:
I was also surprised, having spent the last month reading old posts, and the point is valid even if you have to figure that the folks who voted for Bartlett will likely vote for Kerry if only in desperation--this is very much an "anybody but Bush..." election. It is also part of the rhetoric of the right to suggest that anything that doesn't agree with their world-view is liberal left-wing bias without any acknowledgement of the amount of conservative right wing (increasingly media-driven) bias.

hmm, I think you're taking the observation too far here. While it is interesting (and surprising) that there are so many here who support Bush, I still think the opinions found throughout the life of the BBS show a definite leaning toward the left. I'm not saying this is bad, but the history of our discussion is replete with dominant left-wing opinions. I've never personally been offended by this, nor have I even asserted that it’s a problem. I know what I'm getting into whenever I post here, as does everyone else for the most part. It may be (as I think Jim was implying) that those with liberal tendencies are more vocal than the conservatives here, but the result is that our discussions have a decidedly left-wing focus.

I also think, however, that there is a simple reason for a left-wing leaning on a board founded for the sake of a cutting edge mp3 player. I just about any gathering of technologically savvy people, which this clearly is (though not all of us fit that mold, it is dominant), is going to have a tendency to move toward the left. Technology implies forward thinking, and the left is, by definition, about changing and moving forward (though we conservatives tend to believe this thinking isn’t really “forward” when it’s taken as far as the left does). But truth be told, as conservative as I am in this context, in “Real Life” I’m both more technically savvy and more liberal than most of my friends. I’d dare guess this is probably true for a lot of the conservatives on this board.

One thing I’d like to point out that has impressed me here is that while there does seem to be a "liberal bent", no one seems to feel the need to stuff themselves into a pigeonhole and remain there. Sometimes very surprising opinions come from people unexpectedly, and there are clear instances in which those on opposite “sides” have agreed (markedly different than the presidential candidates, who will NEVER agree on anything- I’m sure if one said the sky was blue the other would come up with some way of asserting how his view is different and superior). It's refreshing to know you're having a conversation with a thinking person rather than a machine that compiles the question, lines it up against a set of stone ideologies, and spits out an answer (Perhaps "Tony the bot" notwithstanding - just kidding, of course. Tony is as flexible as the rest!).

As far as right/left wing media bias, I'm afraid that the media panders to whatever is popular at the moment. So whenever the media panders to "the other side", the bias decried by the side it is “against”. A good example I see is NBC on Wednesday nights. You see the West Wing and think that NBC has a liberal bias. Then you get Law and Order, which thought it has had many characters with different bias through its long run, it now has a VERY strong conservative personality in the character of the head DA. NBC doesn't care about left or right wing; they just want us all to watch their dramas.

Incidentally, have you heard that the West Wing is considering a GOP president to fill Bartlett's shoes? I don't know if it’d be out of an attempt to be artistically credible or simply a product of more pandering, but I wonder how its viewership will respond if that happens?

Quote:
I wonder how its viewership will respond if that happens?

For me, West Wing was all about the writing and not about the politics. The last season almost lost me for a while, but it really got pulled together in the last couple episodes, and this season's opener was just brilliant. So if they can keep up this quality of writing, they could have a fascist anarchist in the the office and I'd watch it.

And by the way, you've never seen me try to touch my toes. It's not a pretty sight.