I went to a Bush Rally

You read that right. Me, the guy who dislikes politics and tries to avoid it, went to a political rally on Friday. Actually it was kind of fun and I'm glad I went. Bush was in town and the governor of "Caleeforneeah" was to be with him. We got several personal phone calls from recordings of important people inviting us to come. My wife, again prodding me to get off the couch and do things, thought we shouldn't turn down an opportunity to see both the terminator and the president. When will I next get such an opportunity? So we went. Here are my thoughts and observations:

  • We had little difficulty getting in - except the line 4 1/2 blocks long! We got in line at 5:15 and got inside right at 6:00, when the doors were supposed to close. For a while I thought we had spent $15 to park for nothing.
  • We had pretty pathetic seats. We were in the very top row at the very back of the auditorium. I took that picture with my Palm Camera (A wopping 0.3 Megapixels). The podium is in the middle of the white area. It was so far away, you didn't even look down there and just watched on the jumbo-tron. So in the end it wasn't much different that watching TV.
  • Buttons, shirts & hats - oh my! There was an endless string of folks hawking Bush paraphernalia. These didn't strike me as supporter, just opportunists. I bet the showed up at Kerry rallies too.
  • It was a pretty packed house, only the luxury boxes and some scattered seats, mostly with blocked views, empty. Nationwide arena seats just shy of 20,000.
  • There was only about half of the floor with people standing in it, the rest was empty. This is the cheering squad that you see on TV.
  • I expected more protestors, in fact I was a little worries that we might run into some confrontations. But there were few of them. One RV circling the line to get in with a loudspeaker proclaiming "Bush L – I – E – D!" and a group of 4 on the opposite side of the street with a loudspeaker.
  • An R & B group performed a version of the Musiq Soulchild song "Love" using the "George" instead of "Love" in the lyrics. Real hokey. They also sang a bunch of acapella patriotic songs. They weren't that good and frankly were probably there because they were 4 young black guys supporting Dubya.
  • I thought that my kids would appreciate having a flag or something that I assumed would be handed out for folks to wave. It makes for good images, that sea of waving banners. But it turns out only the folks in the lower seats got them.
  • Here in Ohio, especially near Ohio State, you can split the crowd in half, point at one side and shout " O H!" and the other will immediately respond 'I O!" You'll then get an alternating "O H!" "I O!" for just about as long as you want it. Well, after a couple rounds of that they changed it to "B U!" "S H!"
  • There was a series of speakers prior to the main event, most of which we didn't see. Then there was some video of Bush and Cheney from various events and then just some music while we waited. Just after 7:00, the music changed, exactly like the music before a professional sports team comes out into the arena. After about 5 minutes of that, they introduced Arnold and the place went nuts. Only about 30 seconds or so later they announced Bush and he came out with Laura. The three of them stood on the stage waving for a 7 minute ovation (I timed it.) It was incredible and I hadn't anticipated how emotional that would be. There's something about seeing the president coupled with the screaming adoration of 20,000 people that can't help but move you. It moved my kids too as Jessica hid under her coat from the noise.
  • Arnold spoke first, and for only about 10 minutes. I thought he'd speak longer, but he was only there to, in his words, "pump you up" to get support Bush. This was the only campaign stop for the Governator. He has a special relationship with Columbus, having won the Mr. World competition here in 1970. He has since made it sort of his second home. He owns part interest in a local mall and holds a fitness expo here every year.

Then Dubya spoke for about 30-40 minutes. I expected to hear the series of sound bites that have been played on the news fro the past weeks. To some extent I did, but there was more to it. I heard about what he believes in and what makes him different that John Kerry. Not just why John Kerry was bad (there was a fair bit of that) but what the difference is, in Bush's eyes, between them. He was not the bungling idiot that you see on Letterman, nor was he very eloquent. (BTW – best quip of the night by Bush: "[Arnold] and I have three things in common; we married well, we have trouble speaking the English language and we have big biceps") He somehow became a little more real. For that reason, in hindsight, I wish I would have gone to see Senator Kerry on Thursday to get a better picture of him as well. I doubt it would have swayed my vote, but I would at least felt that I knew him better.


You are so lucky; I don't think we folks out here in Utah have had a visit from a presidential candidate since sometime in the late 60's.

Thinking about campaigns - I remember going to a Bush, Sr. campaign rally in San Diego back in '87. That was fun, cool pins and everything. Only select Republicans and other supporters where allowed to go, but I got an extra ticket from a college Young Republican, which made me probably the only Socialist at that rally. The keynote speaker for the evening was President Ronald Reagan. Bush, Sr. was busy some place else so he couldn't make it.

I was curious as to why you support Bush. Frankly, with a man of your intellect, I find myself disappointed that you would support one of the worst presidents that this nation has ever seen. Wow, that was way combative. I don't mean to be, and I'm not sure that I will or will not vote for him. I do think that he has turned this country for the worse, and I could go into that easily. However, it is a known fact that the next president will be choosing four maybe five of the next supreme court justices. I would have to go conservitive on that issue. I'm still a little torn. I'm inclined to vote for Kerry, but again with the choosing the supreme court justices. Not that Sen. Kerry doesn't have his own misgivings, but I tend to be a little more on the demacrate side. I am serious about wanting to know why you support the Pres. for this election. I do have a great deal of respect for you, and would like to hear what you have to say. Thanks.

Being a 'swing state' this year, we've seen both Bush and Kerry more times than I can count in Columbus alone, let alone the rest of Ohio. As Peter Segal from NPR's Wait Wait Don't Tell Me said, "They've been circling Ohio like they lost their car keys here." In fact, Kerry was here on Thursday andn back in Ohio (somewhere) again today. Bush was back today too, in Cincinnati. He arived here in Columbus on Friday after a stop in Toledo. It was cool, and yes we were lucky to be able to go, but sometimes all that attention didn't feel all that lucky. More annoying.

it is a known fact that the next president will be choosing four maybe five of the next supreme court justices.

Not to sound combative, but WHERE THE HECK DO YOU GET THIS?

This isn't true, my friend. Is it possible? I suppose so. Is it probable? No. And it certainly is not even close to a "known fact."

At this point, the likelihood of Supreme Court vacancies in the next four years is one -- Renquist, due to cancer. It's possible another vacancy may occur, but not probable. And four or five is just ludicrous, especially to state as a "known fact."

I find it offensive that you'd question the intellect of a Bush supporter (being one myself), but I find it ironic that you'd make such a statement and then follow it with this completely un-intellectual Supreme Court vacancy hooey.

And people wonder why we on the Right find the Left so hypocritical and condescending and arrogant and . . .


Please be careful with your tone. Paul is a very good friend of mine and I know him well. I can vouch that he meant no offense by his comments and sincerely wants to know where I stand (more on that later). He's a man with great integrety and a passion for the truth. He jsut sees things differntly than you and I in politics.

I feel that, though we've never met, I know enough about you that I think the emotion and tone that I saw when reading you words toward my friend was not what you intended.

You are probably right, there will not be 4 or 5 justices chosen in the next 4 years. However, to imply (by association with 'the Left') that he's hypocritical, condescending and arrogant is over the top.

Jared, please take no offencse at this, I just want to nip this in the bud before it gets out of hand.

This is why I hate politics. It get's people all worked up and drives a wedge between two men that I think could have some very good, inteligent and meaningful conversations about things that really matter.

You're right; I apologize for my terseness.

I was offended by the "intellectual" remark (because I've heard it so often) and I shouldn't have let my offense appear so unrestrained.

Yes, I too am sorry if I came across wrong. I overstated when I said it is a known fact. I was watching either Tim Russert, or someone like that, and he was talking about possible losses and rumored retirements, and mentioned that there could be as many as four to five supreme court justices picked in this next presidential term. It seems perhaps that the TV personality may have his facts wrong, and ergo, I am wrong. Again, I truly am sorry.

Concerning the intellect thing, I meant no offense. More so, I was wondering what motivated Salguod to lean more on the Bush side. I tend to be more liberally inclined, however, as a Christian, I found myself leaning more conservative at the polls today. However, I truly tried to get as informed as possible concerning this election, and from what I found (and my antennie may lean to far in one direction), it seemed to me, that concerning domestic and foriegn accomplishments, it seems (to me and I cannot speak for anyone else)that GWB is not doing a great job. He shatterd the record for the largest annual deficeit in US history. He spent the US surplus and effectivly bankrupted the US Treasury. During his term, the record has been set for the most private bankruptcies filed in any twelve month period. An all time record drop in the history of the US stockmarket occured during his Presidency. In the first year of his term, 2 million Americans lost their jobs. The members of his cabnet are the richest of any administration in US History. His His poorest "millionaire" is Condoleeza Rice, who has an oil tanker named after her. He set the record for the most campaign fund raising trips of any US President. He's an all time record holder for recieving the most corporate campaign funds. His largest lifetime campaign contibutar, and close friends is Kenneth Lay. He presided over the largest energy crisis in US History and refused to intervine when corruption in the oil industry was involved. He presided during the highest gasoline prices in US History. He has broken more US treaties than any other President. The first President in US history to have the UN remove the US from the Human Rights Commision. Withdrew the US from the world court of law. He refused to allow inspectors access to US "prisoners of war" detainee's, and have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention. He is the first President in US history to refuse UN election inspectors in an election (2002). He set the record for fewest number of press confrences since the advent of television. He set an all time record for the most vacation days taken in one year of any US President. He has cut health care for war vetrans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families during war time. Uuggh, I tire of this. Not to mention that his is the first President in US History with a criminal record. That is just some of what I have found. I completely understand the voting inconsitancies of John Kerry. He is a congressional politician which usually means "it's" all a game of who's on top and who wins the day. To me, it's like picking the best person out of two poor choices. At the end of the day I had to choose and it was a choice that I could live with and not betray my morals and conscience.

However, I am still iterested as to what the attraction is to GWB. I just don't get it.

Paul, I think you have some more fact checking to do.

I'd mention that at least the President's sway over the economy (which isn't that bad, in my opinion) is not great. Other factors had more direct influence -- the dot-come collapses, the energy company scandals, 9/11. None of those Bush had anything to do with.

I also find it odd you'd criticize Bush based on wealth. His income pales in comparison to Kerry's, and taking a look at their income tax returns, Bush gave a much larger percentage to charity than did Kerry.

Here's why I voted Bush, if you're interested:

I do not trust Kerry to prosecute the war on terror. He supported the resolution to go to war and later criticized the President for doing it. He slammed the President for going despite the lack of WMDs and then said he'd have gone to war even knowing there were no WMDs. He voted against the measure that would have supplied our troops with more body armor and weaponry, essentially cutting of their support even as he's bemoaning our losses in Iraq. He has indicated that he'd subject U.S. national sovereignty to a "global test." I'm of the mind that the U.S. should have the final say on what is in the best interest of the U.S.

Frankly, I have no idea where Kerry stands on most issues because he has no voting record to speak of in his many years in the Senate and he has consistently taken opposite positions on present issues in his campaign depending on what group of people he was speaking to.

The next most pressing issue for me is abortion. I believe it's murder, point blank. My conscience will not allow me to vote for someone who thinks murder is a matter of personal choice. Kerry voted against the partial-birth abortion ban. If you've never seen just what's involved in PBA, look it up. It's barbaric. That he can okay that scares me.
Bush is pro-life, so he's my man on the issue of our modern Holocaust, an issue I think every Christian ought to appalled about. That Christians are more interested in money and other issues than the lives of unborn children never fails to confuse me.

Also, I trust Bush's leadership. He is a man of conviction and he does not waver. You know where he stands. He is resolute.
I also believe he is a Christian. An imperfect one, to be sure, but the evidence of his faith is strong and genuine. I cannot say the same for Kerry.

We have not had a terrorist assault on this country since 9/11. The Taliban is kaput. Osama is on the run, and al Qaeda is splintered. Afghanistan held their first democratic elections, which included women. A murderous dictator has been overthrown. The job of securing democracy in Iraq has been hard, but it was never promised to be easy, and I believe many good things are happening there.

Finally, I am better off than I was four years ago.

All of that and more is why I voted for Bush.

Well, I guess I better chime in here, huh? :-)

I tend to lean republican because I am conservative. I want to see less government, that's the principal that I guide my voting by. I fundamentally believe that government's role is to provide an environment for the success of the people, not to give them that success. The liberal position is that it is the government's role to provide for the people. (Frankly, I was surprised how different the two are in that respect.)

The reason I believe that is that in every instance that I've seen government at work – the BMV, construction projects, military spending, even how my poling place was run (poor layout, no communication and long lines) – it has been wasteful, inefficient and in many cases corrupt and discriminatory. Why give them more responsibility? I believe in most cases the best thing that government can do is get out of the way and establish an environment for individuals and organizations to do the work. George Bush shares that view. He wants to give people control over some of their Social Security money. AMEN! I give 7.65% of my pay and my employer gives another 7.65% and I won't get back as much as I put in when I retire. Let me save it, direct it and make it grow so I can take better care of my own retirement. He also believes in providing us with medical savings account that would give us more control over our health care spending. Right now I do not make the decisions on the spending. My employer decides what plan I will have and what it will cover based on their financial abilities. I pick my doctor, but they decide what he will get paid. As the consumer of health care I have very little say in the actual spending. I would gladly take the $700 or $800 that my employer spends on my insurance and have a go at figuring out how to best spend it on my healthcare. I'd like to choose my doctor based on both his abilities and his prices. I believe that will bring the prices down better than the strong arm tactics and negotiations of big insurance companies.

With Kerry he consistently espoused views showing that he believes that government is the answer and that government knows better that I do. That's my fundamental beef with liberals and democrats. They look at taxes as their money to take rather than my money to give. They tend to win points from the have-nots by beating up the haves – business or the wealthy. Kerry proposed a huge, expensive government health care plan and a middle class tax cut but yet said he'd balance the budget. Kerry's stance that he's supposedly a devout believer but it doesn't influence his politics was ridiculous. He was trying to have it both ways, both independent and committed. He seemed to do this a lot and has seemed to be a pattern to me with many liberals. He portrayed it as strength, the ability to change his opinion with new information. If that was the case it would be a strength, but what I saw was a man whose principals I couldn't identify. What was really guiding him? I couldn't tell. It seemed that he would change is position when his position became unpopular. And of course the abortion issue was a big one as well.

There were things that I didn't like about Bush. I didn't like his No Child Left Behind act. The aims are good, but it's another big, confusing federal program that places burdens on local schools and takes away their ability to decide what's good for their kids. I don't like Washington telling me they know what's good for my kids here in Columbus. I am disappointed in the wait in Iraq. The reasons for being there are fuzzy, even if there were WMD's (Jared won't like that :-) ). The patriot act and the abuses of our liberties in the name of security is very troubling as well. But Kerry is not going to be any better in any of these. In fact, his plan for the future of Iraq is nearly the same as Bush's. He says that he'll just do it better.

I also think that many of the things you mentioned aren't quite true. Worst energy crisis? What about the oil embargos of the 70's? Highest gas prices? Yes, in raw numbers but not when adjusted for inflation. Same with the stock market (assuming that's true) it may be the largest point drop but not in terms of percentages. I agree with Jared that the president has little influence on the economy, but even if he did the economy was on the down turn months before he took office. If the recession can be said to be a president's fault, this one should arguably be blamed on Clinton not Bush. And I think that the wealth of the president or his staff is a red herring as well. Nearly everyone in Washington is wealthy, frequently Democrats more so than Republicans contrary to popular view. To me wealth is not an indicator of character.

Does that help? :-) So you've told me why you didn't like Bush, why did you like Kerry?

I really appreciate your input, from both of you. I have been inudated by my family on the issues, and I tend to take what they say with some weight. Like I said, I voted conservative yesterday, except for some local stuff, but I have been blasted with anti-Bush stuff for years. I asked for you all's viewpoint for a reason. I had very little doubt that GWB was going to win the election. Mainly because of the upsurgence in the push of the Christian vote. I know that the Christian culture has been pushing the moral choice. And it seems to have worked. I know that when it came down to it, we felt we had very little choice. But the reason I asked for your veiw point is that the Bible instructs us, as Christians to "honor the king" as it were, and I hope to do just that.

The reason for me wanting to support Kerry was two fold. You see, things haven't gotten better for us in the past 4 years. Regardless of a personal tragedy, our ability to recover has been nill. I rely on medicare for my health care, and what little I do get a month is tampered by what I have to pay out in a Long term disability insurance payment for my prescriptions (which runs $250 a month, with insurance) because medicare can't touch what my insurance can do. With my insurance payment, I pay over three hundred dollars a month for prescriptions. Our annual houshold income is $16,000 and that kind of money is sorely lost. If Kerry could have gotten into office, perhaps some medicare reform could have taken place. If I remember correctly, GWB has hurt our Medicare system (I'm really tired right now and can't remember the numbers)to the extent of more out of pocket expense on our part. I know that he estabished the medicare savings card, however, that is an extremely complicated plan. There are over 80 different cards to choose from, and each card has a set of prescriptions, and if none of those cards plans meet your needs, you are out of luck. The good news is that GWB does have more plans for his prescription plan. All I heard from Kerry was medicare reform and healtcare reform. That was singin' my song baby. Plus, my wife and I had to move to an economic area that could support our income, due to her having difficulty finding work that could properly support our income. We moved to this small town, and it turns out that their economy has tanked also. We are burned out financially, and Kerry was singin' the tune of a better economy. It just all fell into the right place.

With the abortion and stemcell research stuff, well, with a Republican majority (with an even greater majority today) I had little doubt that they would let any type of law passed concerning those issues. Moreover, now that the house minority leader (Tom Daschel spelling?) has been voted out of office, and there will be somewhat of a scramble to replace him, the Republican majority will dictate much of what happens in the form of law and constitutional amendments and what not. From what I heard and understood, with Kerry in the whitehouse and a Republican majority in Congress, there would have been very little accomplished during his term anyway.

Yes I was having a very hard time deciding who to vote for. But it seemed to me that GWB may be a Christian, but doesn't seem to be an intellectual, and my impression is that Dick Cheney was calling the shots. It seemed to me that the whole business with Haliburton stuff fringed corruption. But you two are obviously more educated than I, and perhaps with higher IQ's.

But it seems as though President Bush will remain our President. Perhaps with eight years to accomplish his objectives, and with a Republican majority along with his this term too, much good will be done. Our civic obligation was to vote, our Biblical obligation is to pray. May God bless us all.

Hi Salguod,

Thanks for this discussion. I have to comment about what you said regarding controlling your own healthcare spending. Unless you're rich, that only works if you're not facing anything catastrophic. In February, my husband had emergency open heart surgery. We get a monthly statement from our insurer listing what our benefits were the previous month. The month after his surgery, our costs (covered by insurance, save $50 for the emergency room fee), were $86,000. There's no way we would have been able to negotiate or pay for those services if they had come out of our pocket.

The same thing is true with charitable needs. Charity, rather than government benefits, works well with short-term catastrophic needs (say, helping a family burned out by a fire get back on their feet), or long-term, non-catastrophic needs (such as a food pantry or soup kitchen).

But what about long-term, catastrophic needs? There are 8 men and women in my congregation who are wheel-chair bound and permanently disabled. They all live in government subsidized handicap housing, and receive SSDI and Medicare benefits. No matter how well-intentioned, the charity of our congregation could never substitute for those benefits. It would be hard for them to live with other brothers and sisters, since most of our homes are not handicap-accessible. Most of them employ PCA's (personal care attendents) who help them with their personal needs, usually for several hours a day. While several brothers and sisters help them out periodically, I don't know anyone who has several hours a day available to help on an ongoing basis, when they have their own families to care for.

And a few of these brothers and sisters have medical emergencies two or three times per year. I don't know the costs of those emergencies, but let's say it's $86,000, like my husband's. We couldn't afford as a congregation to raise $86,000 six to nine times per year to help them out. Then there are all their medications. Even though I had insurance and was only paying co-payments, my husband's medications for the first few months after surgery ran about $200 per month out of pocket. For these brothers and sisters, their medical needs are ongoing.

I'd really like to hear how you think, absent certain government benefits, these needs could be met.


There are no easy solutions for this. No one solution will fit for everyone. That's why a government solution that covers everyone is a bad idea. For example, the needs of Paul's family are vastly different than mine, in every conceivable way. Why should we both be pushed into the same solution? The only attractive thing about a government health care plan is that is makes you feel good. There, we fixed that. But the likely hood is that the majority will end up worse off while a few benefit.

I think that if health insurance and health care spending were in the hands of the consumers more creative plans to meet the diverse needs of Americans would emerge. This is not really a Government problem for a large part, it's a mindset issue. People talk of health care when they really mean health insurance. People want a plan that takes care of everything. Their employer pays for it, the insurance company pays their doctor and hospital and they just go get care. That sort of disconnect between the consumer and the one paying the bills leads to high costs and decisions about care made for reasons the consumer may not agree with. I think if we remove the middle men (employers and, to some degree, insurance companies) we'll have a more efficient system with lower costs.

Regarding your situation, Amy, what if you have all the money your employer paid for insurance and then could go buy your own policy? I think my employer spends something like $9,600 per year ($800 per month) on insurance for my family (including my co-pay) I imagine that I could buy a catastrophic policy that would cover your situation fro a lot less, probably well under half. I would then be responsible for my day to day care and if any one illness was severe, I would be protected by my catastrophic policy that would kick in after I paid a couple thousand dollars. Most years I'd be way ahead. So if you had an extra even $7,000 in your pocket to buy insurance and say your catastrophic policy coast you $3,000 you'd have $4,000 each year to pay for doctor's visits and prescriptions and the rare major illness. If the deductible was $2,000 on the big one, you still would be close to being ahead for the year. Most years I bet you'd have an extra couple of grand in your pocket.

There will be holes. People like Paul and the men at your church, with high ongoing medical costs and low income potential due to health issues, are not going to be profitable and won't get any attention from insurance companies. We need to be creative about finding ways to fill those holes and provide for those people, but we shouldn't tailor everyone's health care around their needs. I imagine that there will be a need for government involvement to help these people or to help charities or others help them. (Off the top of my head – perhaps a tax on health care premiums. Those of us with means pay a little more into a pool to help Paul and those like him buy their own insurance.) Also, as we age our needs for care (and the cost) go up. It's not like cars (our auto insurance operates much like I've described) where we just trade in an old car when it's too expensive to operate. We can't trade in our deteriorating bodies. I don't know how to deal with those things exactly but the way we're doing it now or a big, all-incusive government program isn't the right solution either.

I think Amy's point, and definitely my point is that if you were in my shoes (God forbid) you would probably have a different way of thinking. I wish the Government played a bigger role in my health care. THe fact of the matter, is that if I loose medicare, I would not be able to get health insurance. I couldn't get coverage because of my continual doctors office visits, the four or five times a year that I go to the hospital, The $2,000 plus perscription cost (with out insurance), and so on. We would have to go with out medicine, and within a short time, I would meet my demise. IT would get ugly. The truth of the matter is that there are poverty strickin people out there who can't afford to treat their cancer, and are dying. If we had a government controlled health care system, abortions would also drop. Did you know that the abortion rate has actually gone up since GWB took office? An increase of a better health care system would encourage our young ladies to seek a healther alternative, that they wouldn't have to face huge debt to consider. However, I have to consider your stand point. I think if we were doing well, and healthy, I would agree with you. But think about this. I pay into your health care and control it more like you said. THen your daughter falls off of her bike (God forbid) and has a paralysing head injury. She is crippled for life and need constant medical attention. Would that not ruin you finacially if you hadn't put into your own health care what was needed to cover that? I'm just thinking out loud, but I think you get what I am trying to say.


Knowing your situation, I believe that you are right, my perspective would be different were I in your shoes. It's good for that reason to have you in this discussion. I want to believe that the free market is the easy answer in much the same way that others want to believe that a government system is. This is not an easy thing to fix. Right now, however, I still maintain that we have two big flaws in our system. One is the mindset that good heath insurance is comprehensive and requires no or little out of pocket from the individual. The other is that insurance comes from your employer. That means if I get sick and loose my job I could loose my insurance and be ruined.

I don't know, I'm just glad I'm not charged with fixing the system! Frankly, I bet it's easy to fix it for the majority (in fact it's not broken for the majority), it's the folks like Amy's church friends and you that are difficult. It is too easy for society to look past them because it takes work to take care of them.

Well well well, the Bush folks speak. How can you idolize a man who spends 137 Million dollars of our tax money killing innocents in Iraq? Well, I am going to the anti bush rally January 20 in Washington to voice my protest!

Hmm, Rucky, have you read anything else here? Actually, did you even read this post? I would guess not, because you'd know that I don't 'idolize' Bush at all, nor would I say that nyone who commented here does. In fact, you might find that I too have serious reservations about this war, both how we got into it and how it's going. Yes I voted for Bush, but I would hardly call myself a 'Bush person'. I simply found more to support and less to object too in Mr. Bush than I did in Mr. Kerry.

My guess is that you just wanted to get a plug in for your rally, your not seriously interested in knowing why I voted for Bush.

Monthly Archives

Recent Comments

  • Hmm, Rucky, have you read anything else here? Actually, did you even read this post? I would guess not, because you'd know that I don't 'idolize' Bush at all, nor would I say that nyone who commented here does. In fac...

  • Well well well, the Bush folks speak. How can you idolize a man who spends 137 Million dollars of our tax money killing innocents in Iraq? Well, I am going to the anti bush rally January 20 in Washington to voice my pr...

  • Paul, Knowing your situation, I believe that you are right, my perspective would be different were I in your shoes. It's good for that reason to have you in this discussion. I want to believe that the free market is t...

  • I think Amy's point, and definitely my point is that if you were in my shoes (God forbid) you would probably have a different way of thinking. I wish the Government played a bigger role in my health care. THe fact of t...

  • Amy, There are no easy solutions for this. No one solution will fit for everyone. That's why a government solution that covers everyone is a bad idea. For example, the needs of Paul's family are vastly different than...