Maybe the Republicans were correct to nominate Bush in 2000

[Renew Deal]

Back in 2000, I thought McCain should be the republican nominee. He was talking a good game, and seemed more competent than Bush. Also, I felt like McCain had an easier path to victory than Bush. McCain could win by a bigger margin than Bush. Now, I'm doubting myself. I still think McCain had an easier path to victory, but he's a terrible candidate. He's a flip flopper rivaling Romney. He's a bullshitter rivaling Guiliani. And he's out of touch rivaling Bush Sr. The pukes may have been correct to nominate Bush in 2000. How sad is that?

I've been thinking this for the last couple weeks, but this is what set me off: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6419923&mesg_id=6419923

[rwheeler31]

1. Who knew he was the most arrogant, sadistic man on earth.

[Drunken Irishman]

2. Bush knows how to campaign.

He was always weak on policy and substance, but really knew how to work the crowds. Gore, on the other hand, was the exact opposite. Had Gore campaigned the entire 2000 election like he did the final 48 hours, his 2nd term as president would be ending January. But he had to play catch up and that hurt him. Kerry too.

McCain, on the other hand, seems to have some substance -- more than Bush, at least, but does not know how to campaign and sell himself to the public. He's Bob Dole. He's George H.W. Bush. He's Michael Dukakis.

[rwheeler31]

3. How many ad agencies do you need to ruin a government?

[Hippo_Tron]

4. He was 8 years younger at the time and not nearly as much of a flip-flopper as now

McCain would've been a more formidable candidate in 2000.