Bush Republicans...what does it take to give up on Bush ?

[Rashak Mani]

Dear SMDB Bush Republicans,

After a few books, some commissions, monster deficit, Haliburton, the ongoing Iraq quagmire and no post war plans... Bush still enjoys the support of Red America. What would it take for you guys to give up on Bush ? I would imagine anyone would have started to have doubts about Bush as president from so much flak the guy is taking.

So what would it take ? Confirmation of "no post war plans" ? Rummy admiting Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism ? Another 9-11 ? A sex scandal ? Losing your job ?

Not liking Kerry is understandable... he has culture and education... but supporting Bush no matter what isn't. So tell us what it would take to quit on Dubya ?

(PS I put Bush Republicans in respect to republicans who do not consider Bush republican... )

[Yeticus Rex]

So what would it take ? Confirmation of "no post war plans" ? Rummy admiting Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism ? Another 9-11 ? A sex scandal ? Losing your job ?

A six-pack of Carlsberg Elephant Malt and a really nice carne asada burrito.

Another common BushBash(TM) thread, but an uncommon answer.

[Susanann]

I gave up on bush after the war, the deficits, and the loss of all of our jobs and technology to asia, esp communist china.

Unfortunately, there is no conservative running this year(Perot, Buchannan, Keyes, etc).

[John Carter of Mars]

Since I'm not a "Bush Republican" I suppose that I've got no business replying, but I will anyway.

What it will take for me to vote against Bush is Kerry convincing me over the next six months that he will be a better choice.

For a point of reference, I'm VERY glad that Bush got elected over Al Gore. Make of that what you will.

By Rashak Mani: "Bush still enjoys the support of Red America."
The American Communist Party is now backing Bush? Dude, that's serious news...

[Plan B]

Originally Posted by Rashak Mani

Not liking Kerry is understandable... he has culture and education...

Well, maybe if I felt there was an alternative party out there that didn't treat people with contempt so much of the time, I might find some time to listen to what they have to say.

[astorian]

Originally Posted by Rashak Mani

Dear SMDB Bush Republicans,

After a few books, some commissions, monster deficit, Haliburton, the ongoing Iraq quagmire and no post war plans... Bush still enjoys the support of Red America. What would it take for you guys to give up on Bush ? I would imagine anyone would have started to have doubts about Bush as president from so much flak the guy is taking.

So what would it take ? Confirmation of "no post war plans" ? Rummy admiting Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism ? Another 9-11 ? A sex scandal ? Losing your job ?

Not liking Kerry is understandable... he has culture and education... but supporting Bush no matter what isn't. So tell us what it would take to quit on Dubya ?

(PS I put Bush Republicans in respect to republicans who do not consider Bush republican... )

Wow- voting against Kerry means we dislike educated, cultured people? If only I'd known that 25 years ago! I could have saved my Mom the expense of paying for my Ivy League education.

Come to think of it, G.W. Bush has a bachelor's degree from Yale and an M.B.A. from Harvard. Where'd YOU go, Rashak? It never ceases to amuse me how people whose educational backgrounds don't come CLOSE to PResident Bush's feel qualified to call him a dunce!

But if you want a serious answer? I'll vote against Bush if and when someone else comes along who articulates my (conservative) positions more forcefully and promises to carry them out more skillfully and successfully than Bush does.

I haven't always been happy with the way Bush has done things, and if another conservative Republican came along to challenge him, I'd give him some consideration. But John Kerry is not an option under any circumstances.

[Brutus]

I suppose if W teabags Denny Hastert during a live press conference, I may have to stay home in November. Other than that, your question is misguided. It isn't so much, "What would W have to do to lose our vote?", as it is, "What would Kerry have to do to get our vote?"

GW Bush is not the perfect conservative Republican. That much is obvious. Kerry is not even close to being conservative nor Republican, which is even obvious-er. Logic dictates that off the two, a person interested in voting for a candidate that was at least a bit conservative and/or Republicanwould vote for GW, since the other candidate is a liberal Democrat.

[CoatOfArms]

Originally Posted by Rashak Mani

Dear SMDB Bush Republicans, ...
So what would it take ? ...
(PS I put Bush Republicans in respect to republicans who do not consider Bush republican... )

Right ... Bush is up in FL by 6% and, for the first time, up in PA by 5%! Looks like Bush will win 47 states! Let's guess what 3 states he won't win? ...

[da_pope]

Illinois, for one.

[Mehitabel]

Dude, they're not even BOTHERING to campaign in New York, even though I know plenty of Republicans, esp. Upstate. But no ads, nada, zip, for which I am very very grateful. Living in a swing state is gonna suck this year for all the ads and debates.

Not to say that they don't both swing by here regularly to pick up some money. And of course on cable, CNN etc., and the Sunday morning talk shows, a New Yorker can see all the ads they want. But on a day-to-day basis, it's election? What election?

[Plan B]

Originally Posted by CoatOfArms

Right ... Bush is up in FL by 6% and, for the first time, up in PA by 5%! Looks like Bush will win 47 states! Let's guess what 3 states he won't win? ...

I give up...Can't guess 'em...Did you have 3 specific states in mind?

[flickster]

Yea unfortunately rural Illinois still doesn't have enough ppl to balance the Chicago vote - they get to count the dead and/or the "vote early & vote often" practice

[Plan B]

Originally Posted by Mehitabel

Dude, they're not even BOTHERING to campaign in New York, even though I know plenty of Republicans, esp. Upstate. But no ads, nada, zip, for which I am very very grateful. Living in a swing state is gonna suck this year for all the ads and debates.

Not to say that they don't both swing by here regularly to pick up some money. And of course on cable, CNN etc., and the Sunday morning talk shows, a New Yorker can see all the ads they want. But on a day-to-day basis, it's election? What election?

Does that mean New Yorkers don't get to see the moveon commercials? What a loss!

[Sam Stone]

Rashak: Try flipping it around. Let's say John Kerry were President, and the Republican nominee this year was the most conservative person in the Senate - say, Trent Lott or John Ashcroft. What would John Kerry have to do to get you to vote for John Ashcroft?

My guess - nothing short of eating babies.

[XT]

Well, I'm no Republican, but I'll try and answer your question. In the US there are fixed percentages of folks who ALWAYS vote along party lines...reguardless. Unless the scandal is SO huge that there is just no avoiding it, a certain percentage of people will always toe the line and vote the party. So, there is almost nothing that Bush can do to alienate those core Republican voters RM. Basically Bush ISN'T a main stream Republican. He's more like a liberal Democrat (in somethings) pretending to be a Republican. In this he's sort of like Clinton, who wasn't really all that good of a Democrat, using a lot of conservative/Republican programs and such. And HE retained HIS core voters...simply because he was a Democrat. I know a lot of liberal types that were down on Clinton for some of his policies and decisions or programs...but they still voted for him because they were toeing the party line.

THe votes really in play are from guys like me...non-aligned, middle of the road (or just left or right of center) independant types, or folks who are in one party or the other on paper but swing either way depending on who the candidate is. Among THOSE people it seems that apathy rules atm. Bush is fairly distasteful. Kerry is boring and lacks charisma that folks like Clinton (and even GW, gods help us) have. He's also had a fairly boring and relatively meaningless stint in Government, never really doing anything spetacular or attention grabbing. He's seen in some quarters merely as the lesser of two wievals.

It all hinges on the economy, RM. If the PERCEPTION is that the economy is picking up, looking strong, doing well, etc, they GW gets another 4 years. If it doesn't look good, takes a serious down turn, or is merely PERCEIVED as being bad, they Kerry gets his shot. Forget about all the rest of the stuff you are banging on about. This is the core issue that will make or break Bush.

-XT

[CoatOfArms]

Originally Posted by Plan B

I give up...Can't guess 'em...Did you have 3 specific states in mind?

MA might be one of the 3, unless Mitt goes on the offense ...

[silenus]

Well, I'm registered as a Libertarian, and I hate John Ashcroft more than anybody, but the only way I would ever vote for Kerry is if he foreswore the Democratic Party and everything they stand for. Both sides are loathesome, but the Republicans don't brag on how they are superior to everybody else because they "care." Condescention really pisses me off, so my vote will go to the religious fanatics instead.

[Squink]

See My misgivings by Bruce Bartlett.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Brutus

since the other candidate is a liberal Democrat.

John Kerry is a moderate Democrat.

Paul Wellstone was a liberal Democrat.

[flickster]

Originally Posted by Brutus

I suppose if W teabags Denny Hastert during a live press conference, I may have to stay home in November. Other than that, your question is misguided. It isn't so much, "What would W have to do to lose our vote?", as it is, "What would Kerry have to do to get our vote?"

GW Bush is not the perfect conservative Republican. That much is obvious. Kerry is not even close to being conservative nor Republican, which is even obvious-er. Logic dictates that off the two, a person interested in voting for a candidate that was at least a bit conservative and/or Republicanwould vote for GW, since the other candidate is a liberal Democrat.

Still trying to erase teabagging scene from my mind....

Otherwise Brutus, you are 100% correct.

Here's another hint for the dem's, the "I'm not Bush" campaign is not working. You will not turn the red states blue with that one.

[CoatOfArms]

Originally Posted by Squink

See My misgivings by Bruce Bartlett.

Originally Posted by Bruce!

Consequently, alternate methods of communicating facts and views to him are shut down.

Like 3,000 Americans murdered on 9/11/01 didn't matter?

[flickster]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

John Kerry is a moderate Democrat.

Paul Wellstone was a liberal Democrat.

Kerry is a moderate as compared to who?

IMHO, the Democratic party still hasn't recovered from the black eye they gave themselves following the Wellstone plane crash.

[PatriotX]

Originally Posted by Brutus

I suppose if W teabags Denny Hastert during a live press conference, I may have to stay home in November.

I know I'm growing more and more square with each passing year.
Would anyone be so kind as to explain "teabagging"?

[Astroboy14]

Originally Posted by SimonX

I know I'm growing more and more square with each passing year.
Would anyone be so kind as to explain "teabagging"?

I believe it refers to sqatting over someone and "dunking" one's testicles on to their face much in the same way you would dunk a teabag into a cup of hot water.

Regarding the OP: I'm still thinking about it...

[elucidator]

Just so I'm sure about this, this is a gesture of contempt and derision, yes? No perv undertones, or anything? This isn't what "In yer face!" means, is it?

And SimonX, you blossoming curmudgeon, its perfectly ok to get squarer every year, long as you start really hip.

[Abbie Carmichael]

I haven't always been happy with the way Bush has done things, and if another conservative Republican came along to challenge him, I'd give him some consideration. But John Kerry is not an option under any circumstances.

Exactly.

Hmm. If undeniable proof came out that Bush knew that 9/11 was going to happen, WANTED it to happen and is to this day glad it happened because he's a sick evil SOB who needed a disaster so he could be a cowboy try to save the day and get re-elected, that'd pretty much make me abstain from voting for him on election day. Or if he suddenly woke up one day and announced to the country that he thinks partial birth abortion is just peachy keen and he was wrong to sign the ban on it, that'd probably do it too. I'm sure there are other really bad things he could do to disenchant me, but none of them are likely to happen. For me it's not about voting Republican. I vote for Democrats all the time (albeit reluctantly). It's about voting for the guy who I think will do the best job of running the country and whose values most closely reflect my own. Sometimes that's a Republican, sometimes not.

There is nothing John Kerry could do to make me vote for him, though. I would vote for *gulp,sweat* Teddy Kennedy before I'd give Botox my vote. Yes, a Kennedy. I'd vote for a lying cheating bloated alcoholic smartass liberal Yankee over Kerry. That's how bad of a President I think Kerry would turn out to be. He lost me the second he declared that he'd spend his first 100 days of office flying around the world apologizing to the countries we've pissed off. I don't trust anyone who wants to make nicey nice with Kim Jong Il.

[Kimstu]

Bush is apparently losing some non-imperialist former supporters among Republicans primarily on the score of his expansionist foreign policy. There's an article about this in the American Prospect:

Indeed, not only is the American right a house divided on Iraq but over the intensifying imperialist drift of U.S. foreign policy more broadly. A convergence of realists, libertarians, and traditionalists (or "paleocons") has taken shape in opposition to the neoconservative foreign-policy agenda. In October, they came together to form the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, which holds that "the move toward empire must be halted immediately." [...]

"Bush's advisers are nervous about these splits," [political scientist Kenneth Hoover] says, pointing to the administration's "go-for-broke strategy to get through as much of their agenda on taxes and deregulation in the first term as possible." He adds: "The cracks are beginning to show among conservative elites and the masses are getting restless, judging from the polls. ... One wonders how much faith the insiders really have in the re-electability of their leader."

(Oh by the way, I also think that the OP's insinuation that Republicans don't like "cultured and educated" candidates is indefensible. It's true that some conservatives (including the current President, IMHO) have sometimes pandered to anti-intellectual prejudices, but I think it's completely unjust to imply that Republicans in general fall for it.)

flickster replied to RNATB: "John Kerry is a moderate Democrat. Paul Wellstone was a liberal Democrat."

Kerry is a moderate as compared to who?

Um, isn't that the comparison you're looking for sitting right there in front of you, staring you in the face, if it was a snake it woulda bit you, etc.? Namely, Kerry is a moderate as compared to, e.g., the late Senator Paul Wellstone.

If you're trying to ask who among living Democratic politicians could be similarly compared to Kerry, I'd suggest liberals such as Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Barney Frank, and Dennis Kucinich.

[elucidator]

Oh, really? If it might well save several hundred thousand lives? And the man you trust more, the man you consider more responsible, he wouldn't either?

So when Mr. Musharaff gets gushing praise poured over his head, about how he's just the swellest ally a boy ever had, about two weeks after we find out his own personal Mr. Wizard has been conducting a nuclear Amway sale for years....

Compared to this, you find Kerry too willing to cut slack? Kerry too much the hypocrite being willing to cozy up to unsavory characters. That's Kerry you're talking about, right? Just to be sure.

[Kimstu]

AC: I don't trust anyone who wants to make nicey nice with Kim Jong Il.

Then I think it's kind of odd you're supporting Bush, considering that---despite his earlier hard-line "pygmy" and "axis of evil" rhetoric---his Administration has resumed negotiations with NK, and expects to continue them.

Mind you, I'm not faulting this reversal of policy; in fact, I think that negotiations and attempts at some level of diplomatic rapprochement with Kim Jong Il, despite the admitted loathsomeness of his regime, is one of the few things that Bush is currently doing right. But if you are as opposed as you say to any kind of "making nicey nice" with NK, I don't see why you'd support Bush in doing so.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Rashak: Try flipping it around. Let's say John Kerry were President, and the Republican nominee this year was the most conservative person in the Senate - say, Trent Lott or John Ashcroft. What would John Kerry have to do to get you to vote for John Ashcroft?

My guess - nothing short of eating babies.

Do you imply that John Kerry is the most liberal member of the senate? I don't think you can relate Ashcroft and Kerry in terms of "how far out there" they are. It's not even a contest.

Of course, Bush isn't way out there either. He just tried (and was able) to con a majority of Americans into believing that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. He then started a war based on that and other erroneous assumptions. This presents thinking persons with a good reason not to re-elect.

Not all of us look at a half-full glass and assume that we're entitled to a full one, either. Another reason to vote out he that would protect the riches of the old-money at the expense of the middle-class.

[blowero]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Rashak: Try flipping it around. Let's say John Kerry were President, and the Republican nominee this year was the most conservative person in the Senate - say, Trent Lott or John Ashcroft. What would John Kerry have to do to get you to vote for John Ashcroft?

Let's see...if Kerry were to allow the worst terrorist attack on American soil to occur, then lie about the events leading up to it and what steps he took to prevent it, then go against the U.N. and the opinion of most of the world by attacking Iraq with a very flimsy justification which turns out to be pretty much bald-faced lies, have several of his staff resign and then severely criticize his abilities as president, then take away a good chunk of our civil rights under the guise of fighting terrorism, and do a piss-poor job with the economy...oh, and blur the seperation of church and state. Probably then.

[blowero]

Originally Posted by Abbie Carmichael

That's how bad of a President I think Kerry would turn out to be. He lost me the second he declared that he'd spend his first 100 days of office flying around the world apologizing to the countries we've pissed off. I don't trust anyone who wants to make nicey nice with Kim Jong Il.

Cite?

[DKW]

You couldn't pay me to jump into this pool 'o sharks, so I'm going to offer a wise man's perspective on the subject: http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2004_03_03.html

As much as I agree with the contention that the Bush administration has been an wholesale disaster (and until I and others like me can get secure jobs, I am summarily discrediting any and all hogwash about how great the economy is), I'm not convinced that Kerry would be much better. He'd certainly be better...he'd almost have to be...but is that worth my vote?

Ironically enough, this is the exact situation I found myself in last election, where Bush was extremely dubious but Gore did nothing to impress. Not an easy choice then, either.

P.S. - You Republicans shouldn't be complaining, given how astonishingly conservative Great Debates is. Most of the Republican viewpoints I've seen expressed here would get ripped to shreds on any other board I go to.

[blowero]

Originally Posted by DKW

I'm not convinced that Kerry would be much better. He'd certainly be better...he'd almost have to be...but is that worth my vote?

Um, yes? I don't understand. You think Kerry would be better, but you plan to vote for Bush?

[ambushed]

Originally Posted by silenus

Well, I'm registered as a Libertarian, and I hate John Ash croft more than anybody, but the only way I would ever vote for Kerry is if he foreswore [sic] the Democratic Party and everything they stand for. Both sides are loathesome [sic], but the Republicans don't brag on how they are superior to everybody else because they "care." Condescention [sic] really pisses me off, so my vote will go to the religious fanatics instead.

Oh, right... Seeking some greater measure of justice and fairness and equality for every citizen is just so condescending! How dare they care about better lives for everyone! How could anyone bring themselves to vote for a party who advocates that?

No condescension here: people who care more about condescension than basic human rights and civil liberties are people we'd be better off without.

[ambushed]

Originally Posted by Abbie Carmichael

That's how bad of a President I think Kerry would turn out to be. He lost me the second he declared that he'd spend his first 100 days of office flying around the world apologizing to the countries we've pissed off. I don't trust anyone who wants to make nicey nice with Kim Jong Il.

Cite?

[rjung]

I think the folks who are still planning to vote for Bush at this time are the folks who reason, "John Kerry must be a liberal, because if he wasn't, he wouldn't be a Democrat! Duh!"

Originally Posted by Plan B

Well, maybe if I felt there was an alternative party out there that didn't treat people with contempt so much of the time, I might find some time to listen to what they have to say.

If you don't like politicians who treat people with contempt, why back Bush? He thinks we're dumb enough to believe "the terrorists attacked us because they hate our freedom."

[Rashak Mani]

I'll defend my OP once more. I know "conservatives" don't like Kerry... and many don't like Bush either. I know that most would still vote party lines rather than go democratic... that is why I ask what it would take for these guys to quit on Bush.

Kerry is certainly lacking in excitment and rhetoric... I like him because his name doesn't include Bush first and foremost. I do feel the guy has good intentions and has a better shot at being a good president if his party doesn't muck about. Still he is not Bush.

I want to know the other side... what would Bush do that would make you say... "enough is enough" and switch sides ? Its easy for me to feel the callous Iraq quagmire is enough... but what about for these guys ? Taking Kerry out of the picture what would make or break Bush if the "truth" came out on a certain topic.

(I'm pretty sure if another good Republican came along to compete... he would certainly get better rating than Bush... but thats my opinion only.)

[PatriotX]

Originally Posted by elucidator

So when Mr. Musharaff gets gushing praise poured over his head, about how he's just the swellest ally a boy ever had, about two weeks after we find out his own personal Mr. Wizard has been conducting a nuclear Amway sale for years....

You know, of course, that we've known about Mr. Wizard's activities for years, not weeks.

[PatriotX]

What if you found out that Bush had trusted known felons, defrauders of Congress, terrorist fundraisers, and those who have illegally passed classified national security secrets to agents of foreign governments, with our national security and with access to classified national security information and gave them influence over our foreign policy?

Would all of these things unfortunate things taken together be enough to sway anyone?

[elucidator]

No, actually, I hadn't. By "we knew", do you mean that certain well-respected gentlemen with sufficient security clearance were entrusted with this knowledge? Or that it was common knowledge amongst we who are permitted our information a spoonful at a time? I note as well a deluge of "news" about the massive Pakistani effort to "get" ObL, such effort and sacrifice sadly unavailing.

Not that this is anything but sheer coincidence. And not to suggest that Mr. Musharaff is anything but the most egalitarian and democratic public servant to sieze power by military coup. Or anything.

[PatriotX]

What if one of the people appointed by GWB, despite the objections of the FBI and the NSA, tried to use their influence as a chairman of the PotUSA's defense advisory board to arrange for a front for China's military intelligence to buy the phone company that handles the Federal government's and the Army's phone lines?

Would anyone think that GWB's decision to continue trusting someone like this was a sign of poor judgement?
Would it be enough to keep you from voting for GWB?

[PatriotX]

Originally Posted by elucidator

No, actually, I hadn't. By "we knew", do you mean that certain well-respected gentlemen with sufficient security clearance were entrusted with this knowledge? Or that it was common knowledge amongst we who are permitted our information a spoonful at a time?

No, the IAEA was busting Pakistan on these sorts of things since 1998, IIRC.

Citations for the skeptical forthcoming.

[Fiddle Peghead]

Originally Posted by Plan B

Well, maybe if I felt there was an alternative party out there that didn't treat people with contempt so much of the time, I might find some time to listen to what they have to say.

Just for starters, does the Bush admin's refusal to come clean on the cost of the war, who's going to pay for it, how we can sustain such wars in the future with limited military personel without instituting a draft (would you seriously consider joing the Nat'l Guard at this point?), and its insistence that we can still afford a tax cut suggest, even for a moment, that they treat you with anything but contempt?

[Desmostylus]

Well, gee, SimonX, that's a bit unfair. They had their "hair on fire" trying to stop all of that stuff, doncha know?

[Fiddle Peghead]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Rashak: What would John Kerry have to do to get you to vote for John Ashcroft?

My guess - nothing short of eating babies.

Not that anyone needs me defending them, but let me get this straight: the OP asks a perfectly reasonable question (for instance, would a Watergate-type scandal do the trick?), and not only do you not answer it, you flip it around as you say, and make an abhorrent assumption about Rashak in the process.

Not too classy.

[PatriotX]

Here's a bit recorded in the Congressional record:

(Courtesy of FAS)

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of the members of this House, and of the American people, some recent, disturbing information about the continued role of Pakistan in the transfer and proliferation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

As if this recent disclosure about Pakistani nuclear missile technology with North Korea were not shocking enough, there are reports this week that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is investigating whether a leading Pakistani scientist offered Iraq plans for nuclear weapons. The information, first reported in Newsweek magazine, has been confirmed by the IAEA. According to the report, in October 1990, prior to the Persian Gulf War--but after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, while our troops were massing in Saudi Arabia under Operation Desert Shield--a memorandum from Iraq's intelligence service to its nuclear weapons directorate mentioned that Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist, offered help to Iraq to `manufacture a nuclear weapon,' according to Newsweek. The document was among those turned over by Iraq after the 1995 defection of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, who ran Iraq's secret weapons program.



There're, of course, more possible citations. I hope that this one is sufficient for now.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by DKW

I'm not convinced that Kerry would be much better. He'd certainly be better...he'd almost have to be...but is that worth my vote?

Um, how could it not be? What reason can you offer for voting for the guy you consider worse over the one you consider better?

P.S. - You Republicans shouldn't be complaining, given how astonishingly conservative Great Debates is. Most of the Republican viewpoints I've seen expressed here would get ripped to shreds on any other board I go to.

Okay, got it. That was a whoosh.

[elucidator]

I believe, according the SDMB Protocols, that the 35 megaton thermonuclear whoosh is proscribed, as a protective provision for the irony-impaired.

(Aside to SimonX: OK, OK, I get it: you knew and I didn't. Fine! smartass...)

[ElvisL1ves]

I haven't had my coffee yet, dammit. Lea'me 'lone.