| REVIEWER | RATING & REVIEW |
 | ILikePie (53)
04/25/2008 | This is ridiculous, and it's one of many reasons that people do not think through their votes before selecting the most apt candidate. Democracy is not like supporting a football team; what is the point of sticking with one party for your entire life if another better suits your needs? At each election, you should sit down and think about giving your vote to the party which suits you the best.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | GenghisTheHun (173)
09/13/2007 | Well that had to win it for him.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | abichara (62)
05/29/2006 | No, always judge a person based on their individual talents and abilities. Here's the bottom line, incompetent's exist in both parties! Weak candidates are elected to high office because way too many people out there are one issue voters. Even though a candidate might be relatively unqualified versus their opponent, they'll still pick the less qualified candidate simply because they take the same position on some social issues like abortion or gay rights as theirs. That's what happened in 2004 when we chose to re-elect Bush. Now it seems as if there's a significant amount of buyers remorse out there. The stakes are too large at this point in this countries history to be having it run by visionless political hacks.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | doobiesNhof (21)
05/24/2006 | Standing by a party is not necessarily the best thing to do when voting for any politician. Their qualifications and vision(s) are far more important. Bush has no vision and has been lead astray by Cheney and Rumsfeld which demonstrates Bush's lack of leadership and intelligence. Bush is not liked by a lot of Republicans (especially the more conservative ones). With an approval rating in the 30s, there are plenty of unhappy people out there and they are nervous about Bush's next move no matter what party they are a member of...
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | CanadaSucks (48)
05/19/2006 | ". . .no matter how wrong they are, no matter how many lies they tell me, and no matter how many innocent brown-skinned, non-christian civilians die in the nation that had nothing to do with 9-11!"
(6 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | HistoryFan (98)
05/19/2006 | Back in 1999/2000, I voted for John McCain in the primaries. Dubya got the majority vote.
I still voted for Dubya twice because I figured he was the lesser of the evils.
Now I can only hope that John McCain runs for president in 2008. I dunno; Dubya's a nice guy and all. He's charismatic but he's no conservative. He's not aggressive enough on terrorism.
I want a Teddy Roosevelt type that will personally go after Bin Laden HIMSELF if need be and Dubya just isn't that type.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | oscargamblesfro (80)
05/19/2006 | I don't buy this one. Some people automatically believe that if you criticize or disagree with Bush, then you automatically must be a Kerry supporter, or a leftist, or a communist, or a clueless liberal, or some other label like that. Yes, I have heard a few people trot that old communist accusation out as if this was a 1954 McCarthy hearing or something. There are still people who vote strictly along party lines and what not, but there are, and always have been internecine squabbles- Republicans vs. Republicans, Democrats vs. Democrats, and so on, and some of these quarrels are as vicious as they come. So while people of all sorts will put party loyalty above issues, I don't personally think that in this case, or any case, that's particularly wise.
(7 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | zuchinibut (40)
05/19/2006 | I am not a huge fan of either party, and I absolutely despise blind loyalism to either one. I am disgusted by people who identify themselves more by their political party than they do by their beliefs. I will not believe something solely because some party wants me to.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Djahuti (56)
05/19/2006 | Here's the numbnut logic behind that quickly shrinking group of "die-hard" Bushies.This is exactly why I'm an Independant voter.I'm not about to defend someone for screwing up royally just because I may have voted for them.I voted for Clinton ONE TIME.When he turned out to be a lying schmuck I was the first to admit it.Buck up,fellas-you voted for a LOSER!
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | magellan (164)
05/18/2006 | I'm not a big fan of this argument - as I believe that partisan politics is bad for the country.
I understand partisan politics a little bit better in cases where a political party stands for an ideology that you support. So you support a guy that may not be the best, but at least stands for what you believe in.
However. In the case of President Bush, it is unclear what his ideology is. Indeed, in terms of how he chooses to govern, it ressembles more closely a leftist / populist administration, than a conservative one.
So those conservatives that support this guy solely based on his party are guilty of the worst form partisanship imaginable - a partisanship that is independent of political ideology. You don't care about ideas, and you don't care about record - all you care about is your team winning.
And that, my friends, I have a hard time understanding.
(7 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | EschewObfuscation (65)
05/18/2006 | REVISED. I know there are a few people who think like this, probably no more than eight or nine across the country, but this is not a defense of this or any other administration. (Not trying to upstage Drum, but those typos bug me.)
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Drummond (58)
05/18/2006 | It's what some people think, whether they want to admit it. Or more to the point, "I don't care if I don't have a job, we in perpetual war, and I'm being lied to in order to justify war, I don't want homos living together and calling it marriage!"
(6 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| 1-12 OF 12 | View All |