Best arguments to convert a Bush voter...

After discussing a lot with conservatives all over the internet I feel that I need some help converting a few moderates. Naturally its no good saying that Bush has a low IQ and is daddy’s boy. These things don’t stick in their minds.

A few arguments I think work in “converting” moderates and moderate conservatives are of course related to Deficits, growing bureacracy and patriot act abuses. Post and comment on what arguments help sway these people… or maybe way doesn’t at all.

  1. My first one is the fact that Kerry will face a Republican Legislative, whilst Bush will go happily spending with no opposition. Kerry might have funny ideas, big social programs, etc… but he won’t get them past the Republicans. Bush has nothing holding him back and never vetoed spending bills either. Once elected Bush would spend more than he has already… Kerry under control would be a safer choice.

  2. “War on Terrorism” is fought by soldiers, police, firemen, CIA and FBI agents that will still be there after Kerry becomes president. These people will not fail on security because the president is a democrat or not. The forces against terror exist no matter who is in charge. Big money didn’t help uncover the 9/11 plot either… so its not an issue of funding. Kerry is not about to cripple US defenses to finance social programs… the voters and congress wouldn’t let him.

More points please…

Well, you already kind of said it. The best arguement against Bush (or, what I personally dislike the most about him) is that his policies are not those of a conservative. He actually reminds me somewhat of Nixon…the SAYS he’s a conservative, but then he comes out with more nanny government programs just like a liberal. He’s still trying to have the government control the economy…and doing a miserable job of it. And he’s half assed about it too boot…he increases social programs AND tries to cut taxes, thus failing all around.

When you use this arguement, just remember to downplay the fact that Kerry will be just as bad…or worse.


[qualifier] I have no stake in this, and am rather impartial to the outcome [/qualifier]

This post, or ones like it, are the reason I think Kerry will lose. It’s akin the the parody that The Onion ran last week on Kerry’s One Point Plan for America. (Anyone but Bush)

You want Kerry to win? Stop offering up reasons why it should be anyone but Bush. It just doesn’t work. There is no better example that item #1 in your post. A reasonable voter might conclude from that argument that Kerry couldn’t possibly do that much damage. After all, he’s got a Republican congress to keep him in check.
(Kerry under control?..) If Karl Rove is watching he’s postively got goosebumps. Stop presenting Kerry as lame. (but it’s OK because he’s better than Bush…)

Item 2# is just as damaging to Kerry. It’s as if you’re saying, ‘Look he’s incompetent, (or…potentially incompetent) but all of those other competent people will still be on the job when he’s president…’ And he can’t possibly “cripple US defenses to finance social programs.”

If I was a Bush backer I would be thrilled with the thrust of your points. By showing that there is no compelling reason to vote for Kerry, but rather weak arguments as to why Bush must go, you will guarantee his re-election.

You need to re-think this whole thing IMHO. Go back to the 1980 Reagan campaign and see how it’s done. Find the policy issues of Kerry’s that would excite the voters and get the message out. ‘The alternative to Bush’ is not a winning strategy IMO.

…or we’ll shoot this dog.

The same argument could be made for Bush. The Republicans won’t be able to overcome the filibuster threat in the Senate, so he will just be another second term lame duck.

The one issue that both could control for which I’m concerned is foreign policy. This is where presidents turn when they are hog-tied with domestic issues, including spending. So tell me, which of the two is most likely to start kissing up to Chirac and his buddies?

:smack: [sup]That isn’t what the OP asked for![/sup]

Voting by proxy are we Rashak?

The problem with looking at foriegn policy is that the two candidates are pretty indistinguishable from my perspective. Kerry, from what I can tell, is basically just saying he’ll do pretty much the same thing as Bush…only better of course. Oh, he’ll make an effort to re-approach our ‘allies’ in Europe, no doubt…but I don’t see how he’s really going to get much traction there. I don’t really think HE thinks he’s going to get much more than lip service from nations like France or Germany as far as assistance with Iraq goes. And Iraq is the central foriegn policy issue…whats to be done?

So, we are back to domestic issues to differentiate the two candidates…because thats where they DO differ in any meaningful way. Even there, I find it hard to really differentiate the two in my own mind. I suppose the biggest divergence is that Kerry will certainly repeal the tax cuts, while I’m unsure of what Bush will do (but I feel that he will also find ways to increase taxes). Bush has already shown that he’s all for tax and spend policies…and Kerry I’m sure will one-up Bush on that score. Environment? I have serious doubts that anything meaningful will happen on this front reguardless of who is president. Quasi-religious issues? Well, Bush has paid lip service to the religious-right factions, but he hasn’t actually DONE much of anything. I think that a Kerry president will do similar things to the loony-left factions…pay lip service to things like gay marrage, without actually doing much of anything. Confidence? Well, here is an actual issue…which candidate will generate more CONFIDENCE in America and in their presidency. This is not to be under-rated, and on this one score I think that Kerry might actually have an edge.

So, the list goes on. What it comes down too is…the size and shape of their head and the amount of stuffing in their flight suit. :slight_smile: 6 to one side, half a dozen to the other, take your pick and roll the dice.


Pin the “L” word on him, while making a vague reference to the Bible verse about wolves in sheeps’ clothing. Say something like, “You know, he says he’s conservative, but he spends your money like a drunken liberal sailor. Maybe you should wonder why.”

Why the need to “convert” anyone?

Why presume that your POV has more vallidity than your “opponent?”

What makes you so sure that you are right, and “they” are wrong? (I mean outside of the fact that since you believe it, it must be right)

What ever happened to respecting the fact that other people may have opinions different than yours, that they are comfortable with, and that they have arrived at without your help, thankyouverymuch.

In short, why bother?
(who just gave $150 to the DNC)

Since cross-posting is frowned upon here, I’ll simply direct you to my post, here, which illustrates why I like John Kerry. I trust it meets the criteria of being about John Kerry and not about “ABB.”

Because Kerry will roll back the tax cut on the richest 1% of Americans, helping to stop the bleeding going on with the national debt.

Because Kerry knows that arithmetic is empirically more sound than the Laffer curve.

Because Kerry will allow stem cell research unhindered.

Because Kerry will not appoint judges based on their belief that abortion is unconstitutional.

Because Kerry will study problems, get groups of experts together, and come up with solutions, rather than deciding the solution first, then finding the experts who will support that.

Because Kerry won’t make scientific funding contingent on preferred political or religious beliefs.

Because Kerry doesn’t want to stick your kids with the burden of paying back our debt, cleaning up our pollution, and regaining as allies countries we have pissed off.

Because Kerry won’t try to pursue a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage worded in such a way that it cannot be undone ever.

Because Kerry has not hidden a drunken driving conviction or refused to answer drug use questions.

Because Kerry didn’t out and out lie about where the bulk of his tax cut was going.

Because the United States has the highest health care costs in the world, but has one of the lower life expectancies among industrialized nations.

Because Kerry may make mistakes, but he will honestly have the best interests of the citizenry at heart, where Bush’ administration simply does not. Bush is not against the citizenry; they’re simply irrelevant.

Depends on what your friends’ hot buttons are. If it is terrorism, remind them that Bush hasn’t caught ObL yet, and doesn’t seem very interested in doing so. If it is taxes, and they aren’t rich, Kerry will try to cut middle class taxes and raise taxes on the rich. If they work, just remind them that Bush has lost 1 million jobs (not counting not growing the job pool for people entering the work force) despite creating a gigantic deficit.

For health care, forget about the “rightness” of it - companies are not hiring now because they can’t afford health care for new workers.

If they believe in free enterprise, maybe they don’t like Bush’s corporate welfare program - especially for corporations run by his buddies.

If they are moral, Bush has outlied Clinton 100 - 1, and on more important stuff.

And for certain extreme right wing wackos, Lib’s idea is good. Won’t get them to vote for Kerry, but perhaps you can get them to vote for the Libertarians.

Um, he’s trying to convert a Bush voter, not a Clinton voter. After hearing your list, the guy will send the Bush campaign a contribution.

If the person is a Nam veteran and is now suffering the effects of all that Agent Orange defoliant that was used there (diabetes etc), remind him or her that it was Kerry who helped craft and push the bill to get at least some benefits for Agent Orange victims, while the “other guys” sat on their hands and deny deny deny any effects at all. It worked on one diabetic vet I know.

"Best arguments to convert a Bush voter… "

Ain’t no such beastie. Anyone who can look at Bush’s governance of the last four years and declare it to be a good thing which ought to be continued is clearly beyond help.

for the religious conservative: Bush claims to be a Christian, but is he really following Christ’s sense of social justice? Jesus was opposed to the accumulation of wealth by the rich while the poor suffered. Look at the parable of “The Rich Man & Lazarus”! (Jesus almost makes Marx look moderate!) I think Jesus would favor the Democrats’ social-liberal efforts over GOP self-righteousness. Read the Gospels & pray about this, then look at what the Republican leadership (as opposed to the average GOP voter) is doing. Even if you decide not to vote Democrat this year, it may help you advocate real Christian principles in politics.

for the fiscal conservative: Yep, Kerry is a welfare-state liberal. Of course, so’s Bush, really; no one in politics is seriously abolishing the Great Society. And Bush gives money to private institutions in his “faith-based initiatives,” instead of keeping strict oversight of all that taxpayer’s money. The big difference is in the political culture in Washington & of “successful” Republican Congressmen. At some levels, party leadership is more interested in personal politics & personal loyalty than philosophical consistency. A Republican Congress will sometimes do wasteful, un-conservative things because a Republican President asks for them. With a GOP Congress, Kerry will be stymied by partisan hostility, which is silly, but in this case, useful.

for the “War on Terror” advocate: Here’s why I’m voting for Kerry.
Bush has done a lot of stuff that needed doing, but has lacked credibility even when he was right. It’s been too easy for Bush’s enemies to slander the war in Iraq as being for oil, because of Bush & Cheney’s histories in the oil industry. Furthermore, while we do need to set up ad hoc military tribunals for the terrorist suspects that have been seized, deciding to make those secret really was a mistake. It shows a disregard for international law that hurts this administration’s credibility both at home & abroad. Bush has, fairly or not, been demonized abroad to the degree that re-electing him would play into the idea that all Americans support him & support his supposed war-mongering.
But Kerry, elected as a response to Bush, would be able to go through the various issues & policies, & say, “Here, Bush was right, & we’ll continue this; here, he was mistaken, & we’ll correct it.” Some of Bush’s programs will be vindicated. Others will be reversed or simply handled differently by the new administration. And the American people can send a message to the world that we don’t really support that “warmonger” Bush. Which isn’t entirely fair to Bush, but necessary for us–so the US seems to be dealing in good faith as we try to catch terrorists around the world. Bush is damaged goods, imagewise, & we’re probably safer to dump him. And I don’t think it’s unfair to vote against him for having created international hostility. He created it, it’s his own fault, & we’re playing with fire, here. And Kerry will continue most of what Bush is doing. He’s not some pacifist who’ll just say, “OK, Osama, you win.” He has more foreign-policy experience than Bush had four years ago, maybe than Bush does now. He’s better at this kind of thing, which is really not Bush’s strong suit. Bush was the right asshole to kick ass & take names at the right time. Now we need to get someone with more tact & diplomacy to rebuild bridges & secure the peace.

/loses all respect for rjung

as long as it’s not a raindog… :wink:

How do you see this working? Will Bush policies suddenly be considered wrong but not wrongheaded? Take another look at rjung’s post above and tell me that we will simply look reasonably at all the policies and keep many, or even most of them.

I don’t really want to start a fight, or hijack this thread, but this is one issue that worries me about Kerry. If you could flesh this out for me, I would appreciate it, and it may be an opportunity to convince any other “Bush voters” in my boat.
Rashak ManiAs one of the posters who criticized you for your past thread something like “Why are so many people supporting Bush” in which you implied stupidity was required, I’d just like to say thanks very much for this thread. Well done. the raindog takin in the context of that other thread, this is an imeasurable improvement. I understand that some of the phrases might rankle a few feathers, but come on, we can at least acknowledge that the OP was a reasonable attempt at a rational debate on the subject. Simply look at rjung’s post for contrast.

If the fear of GWBush in office four more years with no worries about re-election aren’t enough to convince “undecided” voters, then there’s not much you can SAY. They WILL be the difference again in the election I’m afraid. The one’s waiting for a “sign”. GWB’ll pull a rabbit out of his ass at the last minute. You wait and see. OBL is going to turn up in the last few days before the election. That and/or some other vote swaying stunt. Maybe he’ll call and end to it and order the troops home, declare victory or whatever else it’ll take.