The Candidates on George W. Bush

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments (13)

  Page 1 of 1 pages

  All the canidates should agree to devote one dabate to ouestions for WUYA and drop the attacks on each other. There is so much to condemn in the Bush policy it vould occupy one whole evening and maybe make the Democrtic Party look stronger. WE need to beat BUSH.

  Posted by roxie on Dec 17, 2003 at 12:39 AM

  what happened to edwards?

  It seems like he dissapeared from any contention.

  Posted by brad on Dec 17, 2003 at 5:57 AM

  Hey Jr. an intelligent man has that look in his eyes ,an intelligent man doesnt have to say the same sentence to Gemany 99 times, a smart man would not put on a miitary uniform if he never wore one himself
  a smart man wouldnt get his picture taken without his makeup,
  and a smart man who would be president would take care of his country ,not fight AND THREATEN everybody else and forget the USA——-a SMART MAN WOUDVE LISTENED TO HIJACK WARNINGS ISSUED
  BEFORE 911

  Posted by Jeb Stuart on Dec 17, 2003 at 6:53 AM

  in Wars the vets with agent orange die,old soldiers never get good medical care.Ive known 13 Nam Vets die
  in the last few yrs and many WW11 vets too
  what does the govt do for us ??? Nothing but
  B/S WHATS THE USE ,HERES A WARNING TO THOSE GREAT SOLDIERS WHO FOUGHT IN iRAQ ,wHEN THE GOVTS DONE WITH YOU YOUR JUST A FORGOTTEN NOBODY
  THEY AINT GONNA DO A DAMNN THING FOR YOU

  Posted by Fred Nam Vet on Dec 17, 2003 at 7:02 AM

  Just so you can put faces to names….and the quotes are pretty good, too.

  Posted by jeff on Dec 17, 2003 at 4:33 PM

  I like to pay attention to what 3rd party candidates have to say about about the president.  they have absolutely no chance of winning any any significant office, and they know it.  so unlike the democrats, they aren’t as likely to lie when they speak.  It’s common knowledge to anyone with an ounce of sense and who pays attention that gwb is every bit the liar that his father is.  but is he a bigger liar than bill clinton Is?  I don’t know.

  Posted by robert c. keever on Dec 17, 2003 at 8:01 PM

  Hey…what about Lyndon Larouche?

  Posted by Alex on Dec 18, 2003 at 4:12 PM

  John Edwards is the best candidate - if you ever get a chance to watch him speak he is amazing. Charming, smart and has the balls. Unfortunately, he may not get the nomination but at least he’s young.

  The only two names up there that can carry the South are Edwards and Clark. Historically, the Dems need someone who can at least carry part of the South to win. Clark kind of scares me, but with those 4 stars of his he should be able to pulp Bush’s credibility as the AWOL p*ssy that he is.

  Of course, it may not make a difference when one of the government’s two largest contractors for electronic voting machines has a CEO who pledged to “do everyting in my power to deliver votes to George W. Bush in the next election.”

  That’s the real story, and unless we fix it it really doesn’t matter WHO we run against Bush. . .

  Those receipt-less, paperless babies may do all the real heavy lifting if we’re not paying attention.

  Posted by Ed Mellon on Dec 20, 2003 at 2:07 AM

  Roxie.. you’re totally right.  WE need to beat this.  Those of us who feel the nation needs to be revamped… and taken back into the citizens hands… need to rise up together.  If we can’t inform the public of the half-truths on “our” airwaves because of media control, why dont we instruct our leader-hopefuls to display the REAL truths on air.  THEY’VE got the leverage.  THEY’VE got the airtime.  Let’s use it positively.  Instead of beating eachother up, let’s beat up the bad guy! 

  Posted by Megyn on Dec 22, 2003 at 10:08 AM

  True.  I agree with what Al Sharpton and Edwards have both said at different times, that anyone of the candidates would make a better pres. than W.  As to Clinton’s lie, why is it that some folks can rustle up all kinds of indignation about the sex part, but show no remorse or regret whatsoever that the other side spent over 70 million taxpayer dollars investigating it?  How many hungry children could that have fed?  How many school books could that have bought?

  Posted by Susan on Dec 22, 2003 at 9:49 PM

  go, kucinich.

  Posted by another college kid. on Dec 26, 2003 at 1:57 AM

  I think the only thing to resolve these situations is to vote for a new President, because this so call on is not doing his job and is afraid to do his job. I am a freshman in college just starting to vote; Bush will not receive a vote from me.

  Posted by Shonta'e on Feb 4, 2004 at 8:09 PM

  Bashing Bush will not get us anywhere, not supporting our men overseas who are protecting innocent people from torture (yes, torture- read the news) will only create more conflict, and wasting our time with the negative, and not helping create positives is the worst thing we can do. Bush is ours for a few more months, hopefully a few more years, so lets spend that time supporting him- if you have so much to say, run for president.

  Posted by Erin Rayala on Feb 18, 2004 at 5:18 PM

  Page 1 of 1 pages

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also by Brian Cook and Ana Hristova

• The Candidates on George W. Bush