Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bush Cousins Launch Pro-Kerry Website

Comments Filter:
  • Family connection (Score:5, Informative)

    by byolinux (535260) * on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @12:13PM (#10631681) Journal
    These are the grandchildren of his great-aunt (George Bush Senior's Father's Sister).
    • by Rayonic (462789)
      (George Bush Senior's Father's Sister)
      ...former roommate?

      The funny thing is that since Bush and Kerry are distant cousins, we could take George's siblings, daughters, and parents, and point to them as "Kerry Relatives for Bush."
  • fwiw (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I saw on TV last week something about Bush and Kerry already being distant relatives of each other, maybe these are the Bush relatives that are closer to Kerry?
    • Wouldn't Bush supporters tell you that we are all distant relatives, if you go back far enough?
    • Re:fwiw (Score:2, Informative)

      They're cousins [msn.com]. They went to the same school and belonged to the same Fraternity.

      Oh, and Kerry is worth more...
      • From that article: Playboy founder Hugh Hefner is the president's ninth cousin, twice removed
        So why vote for either of the cousins running when you can vote for Hef!
    • Re:fwiw (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pudge (3605) *
      Everyone in the Bush family who is for Bush is a Kerry Relative for Bush. And everyone in the Kerry family who is for Kerry is a Bush Relative for Kerry.

      Yawn.
    • I ran into this in Kerry's wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] initially.

      The source: FamilyForest [familyforest.com]

      I wouldn't make too much of the cousin relationship (honestly, if you're looking into this kind of thing, it's a lot more significant that they both went to Yale and were in Skull & Bones!), but the relationships are funny sometimes.

      For example, Bush is actually more closely related to Gary Trudeau than he is to Kerry. (Trudeau is the author of Doonesbury [doonesbury.com]... a political newspaper comic strip that's -- well -- not very Bu
    • It is John Kerry! And he is something like a 7th cousin to Pres. Bush and Jeb.

      Also, has anyone noticed that they act like old frat brothers when they think the cameras are off? Oh, wait...
  • by rixdaffy (138224) * on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @12:29PM (#10631810) Homepage

    www.monkeysforkerry.org ?

    sorry, couldn't resist... :)
  • www.whogivesamonkeys.org
  • by dan_sdot (721837) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @12:35PM (#10631865)
    ...this one [footballfansfortruth.us].
    It's nominally anti-Kerry, but if this site really convinces you to vote for Bush, then your voting priveledges should be revoked. It's just a funny site.
  • Wow (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by CodeWanker (534624)
    I've got a bunch of cousins who do stupid things, too.
    • Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)

      by 2short (466733)
      Well then you've got something in common with the people who set up this site.

      I've got a cousin who does some pretty stupid things too, like helping architect Reaganomics and being GWBs cheif economic advisor. Then he went and actually admittted his estimate of how much the Iraq war would cost. I respect him for telling the truth, and for the fact that his estimate has turned out to be dead on. But I've got to admit that that too was stupid. He really should have known that telling the truth was a no-n
      • My cousins mostly turn the spare bedrooms of their mobile homes into a drying room for their marijuana plants. And go for high scores in number of complete car rolls during drunken single-automobile accidents. You win!
  • by Col. Klink (retired) (11632) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @12:39PM (#10631910)
    Slashdot is doing a great job covering both sides of this election: both Pro-Kerry and Anti-Bush.
    • It certainly does seem like that. However, the crowd that runs this site, as well as the majority of readers, are a pretty bright bunch that generally takes time to think, and it's hardly surprising that the tendency is anti-Bush. I would disagree with the pro-Kerry statement, though. A lot of kerry supporters (myself included) are not so much FOR Kerry as we are AGAINST Bush. It's all about removing the unprecedented incompetence, not about electing a blue blood from Massachusetts.
      • A significant number of commentators are pretty immature, in that they assume bright people must be anti-Bush. Part of maturity is realizing those who disagree with you are not necessarily stupid.
        • The problem with that theory is that it fails to be supported by the proper objective data.
        • by benhocking (724439) <benjaminhocking@@@yahoo...com> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @01:27PM (#10632481) Homepage Journal

          Granted, there are a lot of bright people who are pro-Bush. I'm sure the assumption comes from people's first-hand experience that most bright people they know are pro-Kerry. I've spent significant time in both academia and in the commercial world, and my experience is that most (but not all) bright people in academia are anti-Bush (and some are even pro-Kerry), and most (but not all) people in the commercial world (including, but not limited to the bright people) are pro-Bush. Of course, I realize that these generalizations are based on my own experiences, so YMMV.

          Personally, I always enjoy finding a bright person who disagrees with me so I can understand an intelligent alternative view point. Frequently the differences center around your priorities and moral beliefs. E.g., if you're pro-life and pro-environment think that overtuning Roe v. Wade is more important than anything else, Bush is a logical choice. If however, you are think that the environment is more important than anything else, anti-Bush is a logical choice. (Seriously, it's hard to imagine anyone doing more harm to the environment than he has.) There are other reasons to support either belief, and I have made obviously over-simplified statements just to illustrate that differing priorities can lead to differing logical choices, even if both people have the same moral stances and agree on the facts. (Big "if" of course.)

          • I've been looking for an intelligent pro-Bush person to try to convince me that voting for Kerry is anything but the logical choice.

            So far, there has been little attempt and no success. Please, point these people to me. My east-coast post-college psuedo-intellectual social group only has a few weak Bush supporters who prefer not to argue about it.

            (The pro-life argument is the closest thing I've seen to a competent pro-Bush argument, but I'm not pro-life and it's not my biggest issue.)

            • I in no way claim to be intelligent, but one reason I have for supporting Bush (ignoring guns & abortion, which are big issues for me) is that he recognizes that the War on Terror is not like the War on Drugs.

              Bush has also answered questions many times, while Kerry has refused [washingtonpost.com] to answer questions from a reporter that many consider to be left-leaning!

              Bush has also had the balls to say that Social Security is in danger, and will need to be revamped. Kerry's response was, "It'll work long enough." I was
              • "I am more in agreement with the Constitutional Party than with the Republicans in many ways, but I feel that especially after the 2000 election, we need to have a decisive victory."

                Then why not vote Constitutional, man? Third parties have to start somewhere. The Republicrat duopoly wants you to think they're the only two viable choices. Just look rationally at the issues, and support who you agree with most. That's how it's supposed to work. Hell, you're not even in a swing-state... it's not like yo
                • No, but it will help the popular vote count get high enough. (Which means nothing, but many idiots seem to think it does)

                  If it was Bill Clinton v.s. Bush, I'd probably vote Constitutional.

                  However, the Constitutional party is not even an option in California.
          • Not in my world. Most of the people I deal with that are pro-Kerry are idiots. Some are so dumb I thing could qualify for SSI from being so dumb. Granted there are idots on both sides. I think the breakdown is rich and poor = demcrates. Middle class = bush. Look at the states and prove me wrong.
        • A significant number of commentators are pretty immature, in that they assume bright people must be anti-Bush.

          But the grandparent poster didn't say that. What he said (emphasis mine) was:

          [T]he crowd that runs this site, as well as the majority of readers, are a pretty bright bunch that generally takes time to think, and it's hardly surprising that the tendency is anti-Bush.

          Tendency != necessity. Are there bright Bush supporters? Sure; I even know a few. But the observation that more intelligent pe
          • But the observation that more intelligent people tend to be anti-Bush is not invalidated by these exceptions.

            What gets me going is how Kerry supporters can never shut up about how smart they are. Get over yourself, buddy. And all those Kerry-loving proffessors?

            Well, hate to be the one to break it to you, but Profs are just as capable of being as full of shit as anyone else, it's just that they mistake their PHD's for actual superiority in fields other than their thesis.

            And of course, in soft sciences, y
        • by jilles (20976)
          I agree It's dangerous to put things black and white. However, I do notice that most arguments for Bush in threads like these attack the pro Kerry attitude instead of giving us sound arguments about why we're supposedly wrong about Bush & Kerry.

          Bush has had to deal with some specific and very serious accusations. He's accused of being a poor leader, a liar, a proxy for some dark neocon movement, of having a low iq and many other traits we're not looking for in the next president of the USA. Before Bush
          • The reason many of the arguments in these threads attack the article selection is because that is the issue - the article selection being quite biased.

            That being said, there are plenty of thoughtful, well reasoned arguments for Bush out there, if people take the time to look for them. Try Hugh Hewitt [hughhewitt.com] for example. I've actually been looking for thoughtful, well reasoned bloggers for Kerry and had little success. Many of them are pure propaganda (e.g. Michael Moore) or are mostly just sarcasm and snide co

            • There's a lot maybes in your reply and some vague references. Granted, I didn't provide any references either but given the huge amount material out there, it is actually quite easy to prove that george bush has lied about a great deal of topics relevant to this election: I can afford to be lazy in this respect and you can't because Bush is on the defensive here.

              The point is, Bush supporters don't care that Bush lies. Worse they want to believe the lies (because if the lies are true they are not stupid for
              • I'd started writing up a long post, but in the the end decided it isn't worth it. My response at least contained two specific links for where one could get more information. Yours essentially contained assertions only, and yet you end with criticism that mine is the one in denial, factless, etc. I think our basic thought process as to what are facts, what is information, and what is opinion is so different that we probably can't feasibly communicate.

                ...still looking for a good, thoughtful pro-Kerry blog th

              • I think Bush was the first president to be compared to a monkey so convincingly

                This says alot more about the people who made the comparisons then Bush himself.
          • I don't think that it is very surprising that people who bother to inform themselves about stuff that matters are mostly pro Kerry.

            Yet, from reading this, it would appear that you are completely unaware of some specific and very serious accusations against Kerry.

            For example, The Swift Boat Veterans for truth. Now, the first thing that's often brought up by Kerry supporters when mentioning the SBVT is that they've been 'discredited'. However, this 'discreditation' consists of only having been shown to be
      • You are among a group of people who get it, just not in the right way.

        A vote AGAINST someone isn't the same as a vote FOR someone.

        Why not use your vote to vote for the guy who YOU agree with more?

        Why do people refuse to vote for a guy who, in their opinion, couldn't win.. but his views are the closest to the ones they agree with?

        I got into a discussion with a friend of mine who said that my vote was worthless and being thrown away because I'm voting for neither of the two big guys.
        • Why not use your vote to vote for the guy who YOU agree with more?
          Why do people refuse to vote for a guy who, in their opinion, couldn't win.. but his views are the closest to the ones they agree with?

          Because in that circumstance, if I vote for the guy I agree with most, the guy I agree with least will be more likely to win?

          How hard is that to figure out? You have to go with the realistic alternatives.

          Luckily(?), this time around I like who I'm voting for better than I like any third party candidate.

        • I'm unhappy with the direction the USA is progressing. I'm not sure I'd be happy with Kerry's plans, either.

          But in reality, I'm voting to STOP the current direction, fully realizing that with a staunchly Republican House Kerry will have a difficult time getting ANYTHING done. The worst problems on BOTH sides of the fence will not come to pass, in this circumstance. For anything that REALLY needs to be done, pressure typically goes directly on the President, so that's visible and gets reacted to. If Kerry i
          • There is one thing Kerry can (and almost certainly will) do that is important - he'll get some of the neocons a little further from power. I consider those people [wikipedia.org] to be dangerous.

            Though I take anything written by an anonymous author claiming to have inside information with a grain of salt, this article [1accesshost.com] is a pretty interesting take on what may happen in a second Bush administration.
        • Why do people refuse to vote for a guy who, in their opinion, couldn't win.. but his views are the closest to the ones they agree with?

          Probably because there's no points for second place in American democracy. Al Gore beat Bush in the popular vote, and almost beat him in electoral votes, but the Democratic party has had little influence on the course of the nation the past four years. Think about it: ten million more Nader votes wouldn't have made as much difference as a few hundred more votes for Gore i

        • I'll disagree with them and say that, if you're in a battleground state, your vote for a third party candidate is half as useful as a vote for the lesser of two evils.

          True, you're not voting for either of two evils, so neither of them can count your vote as sanctioning their decisions (should they win), but by voting for the lesser of two evils, not only do you deny your vote to the more evil, but you add it to his opposition's totals.

          Thereby increasing the chances still more that the lesser of two evils
        • Seems I opened up a can of worms here.

          Believe me, I am not the most pro-Kerry left-winger out there, and I would much rather see Nader instead of Kerry. However, I am a realist, and I know as well as the rest of the world knows, that one of these two men will be president. So the question becomes, do I want a 1 on a scale of 10, or do I want a 5 on the scale of 10? I can't have a 10, so I am forced to pick the lesser of the two evils.

          In 2000, I DID vote for Nader, because I lived in Massachusetts at the t
          • You seem to be confused.

            A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. A vote for Bush is a vote for Bush.

            What's so hard to understand about that?

            If your have to choose between K, B, and N.. and you put your vote in pile N, pile B does not get bigger.

            Vote for the guy you want to win, not the "lesser of two evils".. because with each "lesser of two evils" the evil is getting worse and worse.

            Why accept ANY evil at all?
            • No, you are the one that seems confused.

              Remember, you don't really vote for the president, you are indicating your preference to your states electoral college members (Electors).

              A vote for Nader is a non-preference for Kerry and a non-preference for Bush. But the electoral votes will only be used for Kerry *OR* Bush. So, if you want to get Bush (or more importantly his administration) out of office, you have to vote for Kerry because that is the only possible way that your preference can have any effect

              • And because everybody believes that, nobody votes for who they want elected.

                Nader can get Electoral Votes if enough people show their preference to their states electoral college members.

                And I understand that if I don't vote for the guy who's ideas I agree with the most, I'm voting for the wrong person.

        • A vote AGAINST someone isn't the same as a vote FOR someone.


          Actually, if you work it out, a vote for Candidate A instead of B is the same as half a vote for Candidate C. It doesn't give a vote to C, but also doesn't give a vote to A. Therefore, there is a half vote difference.

          This assumes B won't win.
      • Even folks who are pro Bush seem to want to distance themselves from him. I have a *misguided* friend that intends to vote for Bush in CA but says that because he is in CA and his vote will be overridden by the majority of voters in CA that "he can't be blamed" if Bush wins. Sounds like a great way to wash yourself of responsibility of re-electing the worst president this country has ever had!
    • by Anonymous Coward
      He's right. Slashdot's politics section is a veritable soapbox for Kerry supporters, which isn't surprising, since most of the editors here are liberal. Sure, they point out that pudge is a Republican, but who cares? Alan Colmes is a liberal, but most people think Fox News reeks of conservative bias anyway.

      This place is becoming like the lite version of Democratic Underground. How about some criticism of Kerry and the left? They're not perfect either.

      • I've got plenty of criticism for them- problem is most of the things I can think to criticize them on (like their ties to corporate money, their lack of respect for individual rights, their downright bigotry on pregnancy and birth, and large government intruding into our lives), Bush is actually worse on. Which is why if I find time to vote today, My vote will go to [electoral-vote.com] Kerry- but I'm not promising that I'll find time to vote today, and it could just as easily flip-flop to either Bush or Kerry winning Oregon b
        • A better site for polling breakdowns is this one [realclearpolitics.com].
          It averages out all the polls to get a global view of what is going on. It also has and electoral map [realclearpolitics.com] and electoral count [realclearpolitics.com] breakdown, as well as polls for each state.
          They actually show you the data that they are basing their numbers on.
          • Interesting charts. Read all the way to the bottom of the page, and it's clear that by *every* source, more people think the nation is on the wrong path than think it's on the right path. In fact, in only one poll is it less than a 54% majority that think we're on the wrong path.

            Yet only a few polls show Kerry winning, and most show Bush winning decisively.

            This is unsettling, largely because of how WRONG our current path is, IMHO, and that as a nation we're apparently choosing to keep going that way, anyw
          • In the case of Oregon, it doesn't seem to make any difference whatsoever- both sites show Oregon going to Kerry, but with less than a 10% lead (leaning Kerry, not actually solid Kerry).
        • Kerry, as his lack of action in the Senate, will not change any of the things that matter to you.

          He, like Bush, says one things and does another.
          • The difference being that he's an intelligent hypocrite rather than an idiot puppet. Not much difference, I'll admit- but different in three very important areas:

            1. Admitting mistakes.
            2. Changing plans to fix mistakes.
            3. Giving a rat's ass what other people think.

            That's why the complaints that Kerry is a flip-flopper don't matter as much to me- I'm COUNTING on him being a flip flopper when it counts.
            • Plans are not actions.

              Kerry never takes actions, he just makes plans. Hell, I can plan to take over the world, that doesn't mean that I can put that plan into action.

              Kerry, however, can put his plans into action but he doesn't.

              Why Not?
              • Right now? Probably because he has to convince 99 other people, or rather at least 50 of them, that his plan is a good one. That will defeat any good plan. Give him Executive Orders and that will change.
                • It would also put his positions down on paper, something he will not do. That isn't the mark of someone you can trust.

                  You also should lookup what an Execurive Order can and can not do.
                  • It would also put his positions down on paper, something he will not do.

                    Have you bothered to look at the website? It's chock full of PDF white papers on his positions.

                    That isn't the mark of someone you can trust.

                    I can't trust ANYBODY who actually wants the job. So sorry- can't trust Bush either (he never puts anything down on paper because he can't spell- he's dyslexic).
                    • Seems like if anything, too much detail. Being able to change is a mark of being intelligent. And no- you wouldn't have to put down EXACTLY what you want to do to get a bill past Congress- Congress passes funding bills all the time for stuff they can't tell the public about and have no details on. All you have to do is convince the rest that it's a good idea- and it will be done.

                      You are an idiot, you will vote for kerry who you can not trust, but will not vote for bush because you can not trush him. Yo

      • Anyone who uses the words "liberal" and "conservative" shows that he or she is not thinking deeply. Those words are used in so many ways that they have lost their meaning, except as epithets.

        Programmers and those who administer complicated computer systems must be logical. If they aren't, they cannot write a working program or troubleshoot problems. If logical people read enough books and gather enough facts, they must come to the conclusion that Bush should not be re-elected.

        I could give hundreds of
    • In other news, our regular news sources are happy to put on a person who tells the truth, and another one who tells nothing but lies, and call it balanced coverage.
    • Slightly off-topic: I'm pretty sure I was the first one to make this joke on Slashdot (see the post [slashdot.org]), but I knew that I had finally made a difference in the world when I saw myself quoted in a Slashdotter's sig. Sad, I know...
    • Whine. Whine. Whine.

      It's not Slashdot's job to tell people what they should think - they're merely just putting information and stories online. Considering the old adage "blood is thicker than water", it's probably newsworthy that relatives of GW are actively campaigning against him. If you don't think so, it's probably you that are the most biased.

    • What makes you think that geeks wouldn't have a firm opinion [catb.org] about the religious zealot [catb.org] currently running the White House [catb.org]? True, not all Slashdotters are male SF Fan, heterosexual-in-theory and monosexual-in-practice, liberal-to-libertarian hacker [wikipedia.org] whackos. However, there's (apparently) a strong correlation to each of these characteristics individually. Virtual communities, like most other forms of community, form around COMMONalities. Those who don't like the neighborhood, move on. (This may or may not be
    • If the facts favor one candidate over the other, then reporting those facts is not bias.
  • I'm rather bemused by how dynastic politics is in a country that was based on rebellion against monarchy. It seems in many minds being named Bush or Kennedy automatically makes you representative of some particular ideology. If I ran for President today my own wife probably wouldn't vote for me let alone distant cousins. What does that prove about anything?

    And another thing, why do so many Americans refer to "the queen" when they mean "the queen of England?" You know you don't have a queen because you k

  • This is my letter to the Bush relatives:
    _______

    Bush Relatives,

    The three movies and 35 recently published books reviewed in the article linked below describe U.S. government corruption:

    Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government [futurepower.org]

    There were several books published before and during the Clinton administration about former U.S. President Bill Clinton. However, the situation with Clinton and previous presidents was not even remotely comparable. There are man
  • so what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dh003i (203189) <dh003i@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @01:03PM (#10632214) Homepage Journal
    The fact that these people are distant relatives of Bush is completely irrelevant. They have added nothing to the discussion that hasn't already been said in a more intelligent fashion elsewhere. All I see is a poorly designed website that's like a run-on sentence with no organization.

    PS: Vote Badnarik (Libertarian).
    • But on the plus side, it seems to be standing up to a Slashdotting pretty well, so at least they got quality hosting before putting up that eyesore.
    • All I see is a poorly designed website that's like a run-on sentence with no organization.

      For my money, that just proves these people are related to Bush.
    • Not only is it irrelevant... it makes sense. Bush and Kerry are actually related. Here [ancestry.com] is their family tree... they are Ninth cousins twice removed! I wonder where the "Bush Relatives" who support Kerry fall into the mix... are they also Kerry relatives???
  • Big deal (Score:4, Informative)

    by jbarr (2233) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @01:18PM (#10632362) Homepage
    So he has relatives who don't agree with him. So what? Don't we all? The problem with these types of stories is that they make an issue out of a non-issue. Imagine if a story was run that stated that EVERY relative backed Bush: there would then be whining of collusion and conspiracy.

    Nothing to see here. Move along...
  • I'm going to start a web site where I proclaim that, since my Uncle's cousin's brother-in-law's 2 wife once sold a dog to Kerry's ex-wife, and my uncle's a Bushite, we all should be.

    It would have about the same relevance to this election.

  • Unfortunatly I threw it away but I got a chain email about some site showing that Bush and Kerry are releated by a few generations. That seems quite likely, so this really isn't too suprising. Bush could start his *own* web site and call it "Kerry relatives against Kerry".
  • Folks, JOHN KERRY is Bush's cousin. What meaning, if any, do you imagine this has?
  • Why Are Some American Christians So Bloodthirsty?

    Understanding Pro-war Christians' Indifference to Civilian Deaths
    by Dr. Teresa Whitehurst

    It's been going on for years now. Almost daily we read that another
    child, another parent, another sister or brother, another grandpa or
    aunt, is killed in Afghanistan or Iraq by U.S. weaponry in Mr. Bush's
    "war on terror." Sometimes it's a wedding party, or a bunch of kids, or
    a family of six. Sometimes it's a journalist, or a whole group of
    journalists, who may even be

If you're not careful, you're going to catch something.

Working...