Ulterior motive?

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by NaasPreacher (C4K), Nov 4, 2004.

  1. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse

    Oct 21, 2003
    Likes Received:
    I trust that we can keep the ugliness out of this thread from all sides, please.

    I have an honest question, since I am not "on the ground there."

    Euronews was showing interviews with several voters. One of them piqued my interest and got me to thinking.

    The voter was a young, female, college student. I don't have her exact quote, but it was something like this.

    "Well, I hate Bush, but I voted for him because I figured, 'Hey, as bad as he is messing things up let's give him four years to really mess things up so that Hillary Clinton will be elected in 2008. that way we can have a woman president.'"

    Do you think this thought process was common, or did they just happen across a "nutcase"?

    Please, this is an honest question.I ask because traditionally a large youth voter turnout favours the challenger. Was soemthing going on that we did not know about?
  2. Daisy

    Expand Collapse

    Apr 1, 2003
    Likes Received:
    I can only hope she was joking.

    Frankly, I don't know anyone who even considered that this time around. In 1999, when an economic downturn was predicted, some people did say that whoever won would be blamed, so maybe it would be just as well to lose. What was not foreseen was how Bush would cut taxes at the same time as he increased spending triggering a record deficit.

    I know people say that the president doesn't control the economy; while that's true, he does exert a major influence. What I believe Clinton did well was to listen to Greenspan and implement his recommendations.

    Cheney has spent much of his career advocating the outsourcing of government functions, especially military support. Halliburton is now performing functions such as meal delivery that used to be done inhouse. Of course, the idea at the time was that the US would not be constantly at war, but only as needed so the need for support functions would be periodic; therefore it would be more economical to rent/lease these services as not paying for it during lull times would offset the overhead involved with middlemen. Now that we have a "war president", those savings will evaporate.

    This term, Bush et al will probably preside over the dismantling of social services, including social security.

    Also, for a person just starting out to vote for a jobless president doesn't make sense in the long term.

    So, yeah, nutcase.

Share This Page