Do you think you'll vote for Bush in 2004?
Very unscientific, but the larger the sample size on that, the better. [Edit: Also, the more diverse the sample, the better. This isn't one I want to throw by having only those who are known to dislike Bush voting in. I made it viewable to none for a reason. I'm not going to come to your house at midnight and put you to the question if you vote for him.]
At any rate, I'm seeing a large number of people remarking, saying, declaring, and even ranting that they'll be voting for anyone but Bush. It seems that as more of his activities are drawn out into the light of day, fewer and fewer people actually support him. Even the things that he's done right have been done haphazardly and for the wrong reasons. vidicon is better at preparing well-researched rants than I am. Go ask him about it.
(Yes, Saddam Hussein and his gang were and are awful, awful people. Bush still did not handle the situation at all well. Osama bin Laden can suck my nuts too.)
I'm wondering what is going to happen to Bush's support at this rate. His administration, from what I've been reading around (here, there, and especially in sos_usa) depends on smoke and mirrors, dark corners and the undersides of rocks, to keep itself alive. When opponents and concerned citizens come in with ventilation fans, spotlights, levers, and big smashy objects to uncover the truths and reasons behind some of the actions, Bush is going to be looking worse and worse.
But, supposing at the nadir of his popularity, Bush found Saddam or bin Laden? Wouldn't everyone want to vote for the man who brought those great evildoers to justice? Wouldn't anyone want to know how he'd managed to pull them out of his ass just in time to get himself re-elected?
I'm telling you this: if Bush produces any notable Bad Guy at the 11th hour before the vote, I'm not voting for him. I feel he's a cheap-labor conservative who's bungled this administration enough so that any accidental successes he has in worthy areas are more than balanced out by all his previous errors. The man has managed to sink the country deeper into debt with what should have been a booming wartime economy. He is a religious fanatic without the wisdom to appreciate the viewpoints of religions other than his. He has managed to erase the sympathy of other nations that was caused by the terrorist attacks, by being the very picture of the bully-boy American. With all that against him, I don't care if he manages to get the endorsement of the Christ Himself (note lack of in-vain here; I'm saying this as someone who's had distinct religious experiences involving that particular deity), I'm still not voting for the fellow!
Smoke, mirrors, dark corners, and the undersides of rocks. Those are places that no honest politician has a place being. With that in mind, consider: Could we possibly elect someone worse than Bush?
sithjawa and I discussed it. I proposed Donald Duck as a worse president. "No," she said. "We've had a figurehead President before." It just matters what interests are controlling the figurehead President, and more importantly, what their methods are.
Any President, party, or special interest that depends on the concealment, spin-doctoring, obfuscation, manipulation, et cetera, of information, is not one to be trusted. Let loose the papers and tapes! Share the dirty laundry with the world! The only exception I could see fit to make for concealing information would be things such as not revealing the identities of covert operatives. And gee, what did the Bush administration just have happen? (Ideally, of course, one would not need anonymous observers about, but that's not going to happen any time soon.)
[Edit: After I wrote this, I rambled about the various types of concealing information that people could do, and which forms were acceptable.]
Read sos_usa. Read metaphorge. Read vidicon. And never trust anything that thinks for itself unless you can see where it keeps its brain.
[Edit: from a comment to quillismightier, who kindly pimped this: See, what I'm doing here is comparable to the sort of sermon one would give to the converted. Most of us have seen or heard news articles to back my points, so one's brain can fill in the backing to my points, and you'll be nodding knowledgeably at what I have to say, and not notice that I'm never actually supporting what I say.
If this were to be an article intended to sway someone who's sitting on the fence, or convince a supporter of his to defect to at least a more neutral camp, I would have to include properly cited sources to back up everything I say. Which metaphorge and vidicon are much, much better at. ]