The year is 2000. GW Bush is the DEMOCRATIC candidate

[Bobbieo]

for president of the United States.

You know his record as Governor of Texas. You have read the “Bushisms”. As a loyal Democrat will you still vote for him? . Yes or no? - Fess up, now!!!

[Little Wing]

1. Who's the GOP candidate, Paris Hilton?

[valerief]

14. I'd vote for Paris over George. nt

[Itchinjim]

2. He wouldn't have gotten past the Iowa caucus,

let alone the nomination.

[Bobbieo]

5. Yes Jim, I know but that is not the question.

Many of you have stated you NEVER split the party ticket. I'm simply asking how you would have voted.

[Itchinjim]

10. I wouldn't have voted for him simply because I had an immediate and

visceral dislike of the man from the moment I first became aware of him.

[KansDem]

28. I agree, he wouldn't have made it past the primaries.

IIRC, Bush avoided the GOP debates. One instance, when the field of 6 or 7 GOPers readied for debate (in Texas,) Bush simply didn't show up. I imagine his handlers panicked when they realized what a piss-poor job he would have done. I thought then, "HA! He's slitting his own throat." But I was wrong as he was predetermined to be POTUS, with the help of the Corporate Media and corrupt Supreme Court.

Anyway, NO Dem could ever have pulled that crap and gotten through the primaries.

[Vanje]

3. Who is he running against?

If its George W Bush against, say, Augusto Pinochet, I might have to sit this election out.

[rucky]

4. Nader. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

6. Yes. n/t

[Bobbieo]

8. Yes, Lozo - I would have voted agaiinst him after I read the Bushisms

I had never seen a politician as stupid as that man. I was certain Bush never had a chance.

[LoZoccolo]

17. I'm saying yes, I would vote for Bush* in that case. n/t

[blueButGlad]

7. he's not the man he campaigned as

Well, he certainly campaigned as a amore reasonable man than he turned out to be. All that 'compassionate conservative' stuff, vowing to limit co2 emmissions, campaigning against 'nation building'!

[Bobbieo]

9. I pride myself as a "diehard' Demo. but

there is no way in hell I would have voted for that idiot. At the time, I kept thinking of him as "our President, the Diplomat" and shuddered.

[lojasmo]

11. No. EOM

[newyawker99]

30. Hi blueButGlad!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[salin]

12. and just *how* did he become the Dem candidate?

Seriously, in my lifetime there has never been such a vacuous candidate to win the primary for the Dem party. Perhaps some have not been 'engaging' or 'charismatic' - but none with a record like bush's and none with bush's superficiality, nor with his ignorance that shines through his 'bushisms'.

Thus - can't say I'd vote for him - as the premise to too surreal to address in the first place.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

13. Then there has been a political realignment, and the Dems aren't the good guys

Loyalty to the Democratic Party for me is commitment to principles of life, dignity, fairness, freedom, and evidence-based governance. If Bush were the Dem candidate, then my loyalty would shift to wherever those values have shifted.

[citizen snips]

15. WTF?

I think we have better things to talk about.

[Bobbieo]

16. No Mattman! We have candidates coming up right now for 2008.

Now, is time for some "common sense" in probably the most 2nd important election this country has ever seen. We have to pick a candidate who will be acceptable to ALL members of our Democratic Party if we are to win.

[citizen snips]

25. I disagree with your approach.

we can talk objectively about the democratic candidates but asking such a broad question just does not make any sense to me.

[Jackpine Radical]

18. If you loved red apples, and horseapples were red,

would you eat them?

[maxsolomon]

19. the year is 2000. my aunt has balls.

is she my uncle? Yes or no? - Fess up, now!!!

:eyes:

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[maxsolomon]

22. its absurd what-ifing like this post that wastes time our time in 2007

the democratic party doesn't need my snark to help shoot itself in the foot in 2008. all they have to do is nominate hillary.

[PretzelWarrior]

29. no. it's gonna be people who are too stupid to vote

who will make us lose. I think they have a perfect point that setting up such strawmen to argue against is just plain stupid and pointless.

Fact is, NO ONE like Bush would ever make it through the ranks of qualified DEM candidates to have a run at the white house.

Say what you will against them, but Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry were NOT anywhere near like a George W. Bush.

[Double T]

21. If bush was the DEMOCRATIC candidate...............

I would have left the party and started a new one, if necessary. I would rather commit harry carry than pull the lever for bush.

[LoZoccolo]

23. What is "harry carry"? n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. He probably meant hara-kiri

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku

[Double T]

26. American slang for Hara-kiri...........

Hara-kiri

Seppuku, (Sape-puu-kuu) the Japanese formal language term for ritual suicide (Hara-kiri (Har-rah-kee-ree) is the common language term.), was an intregal aspect of feudal Japan (1192-1868). It developed as an intregal part of the code of bushido and the discipline of the samurai warrior class.


1. harry carry
7 up, 10 down


to commit suicide (from the Japanesse expression to slice oneself open with a ritual sword. A gross simplification of the actual Japanesse expression.) Example: see the film "Harold and Maude" for an excellent demonstration by the main character, out of context

1)That guy from Brooklyn committed Harry Carry when his wife left him.

2)It was Harry Carry time when his business when under.

3)Those Japs would commit Harry Carry instead of surrendering in WWII, thinking it was a more honorable death.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

27. THE YEAR IS 2155, TREMBLE IN FEAR

George Bush is still president, revived from a state of living death in a cryogenic chamber underneath Texas A&M, grafted now with super strong robot arms and the ability to see into the future. Actual BushBots, hatched from his robotic womb, patrol the streets, snatching people who write things critical of him on message boards from their homes and grinding them into a semi-nutrionious paste, which is then sent to Robo-Ashcroft's Christian Kingdom in Mexico to feed the teaming masses.

Do you:

A) Defy Dread Lord Bush II and continue to write on message boards, knowing full well that your century old Keith Olberman refrences will be lost on the young and you will undoubtably become a bland soup served in Cuidad de Ashcroft...

OR

B) Cower beneath your couches, a sorry, freedom shorn tool of the state.

[LWolf]

31. Not a chance. n/t

[J Miles]

32. Of course not

Easy answer for me, because I'm not loyal to the Democratic Party. I'm loyal to my principles, and as of now the Democratic Party is the only of the two major parties that come closest to sharing them. There are very few differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, but the Democratic Party is far more open to progressive ideals than the Republican Party is (but not by much). Because there is little chance that a third party can have any degree of success at the national level in this country, the most logical thing for progressives like me to do is support the party that's most open to change: the Democrats.

I must say that it's amusing seeing some people dodge your hypothetical question by saying, "How could that ever happen?" instead of giving a straightforward answer--amusing, but more than a little disconcerting, because blind party loyalty is dangerous.

[LeftishBrit]

33. No Way!!!

Under related, but less extreme, circumstances than that, I've voted third-party (Lib Dem, or Green) in my own country since 1992.

I can't think of any Democratic presidential candidate (who won the primaries) in recent times, whom I wouldn't have voted for if I'd been American; but there are limits to party loyalty - mine were exceeded long ago over here. I wouldn't have voted for a Labour Party led by Maggie Thatcher; and the present situation here is too close to that for me to be prepared to vote for Blair. Needless to say, I wouldn't recommed voting for Bush even if he called himself a Dem.

[Crunchy Frog]

34. No.

But then, I really don't qualify as a loyal Democrat, as I actually voted for Nader in 2000. If I was willing to vote Nader instead of Gore, then I certainly should be able to the same with Bush. Unless the Republicans were running a genuine progressive whose positions on the issues I supported.

This whole scenario could be taking place in some parallel universe where the Democratic party was the descendent party of the Dixiecrats, and the Republican party was continuing the traditions of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. If that was the case, I believe I would be a loyal Republican. :)

I have to say that I cannot respect any Democrat who would vote for anyone up to and including George W Bush, as long as he had a "D" after his name. Where do you draw the line? Would you vote for Stalin if he had a "D" after his name? :shrug: