Thanks Its normal to get carried away in Bush bashing threads…
There are many hardcore Bushites that wouldn’t change their votes even if they saw with their own eyes Bush drinking blood and worshipping Satan. These aren’t “target” audiences… by “convert” I mean to instill a shred of doubt in average people or moderate Republicans. Or maybe give them a reason to vote for Kerry. Would it be better to support Kerry instead of downplaying Bush ? Maybe… but for now it seems easier to undermine what people think about Bush. Especially considering how much sound bite opinions about Kerry are being advertised and taken as true.
From years debating these issues I have noticed that most people chose sides and stick to them with very little thought or reason. Inertial votes if you want and in both parties. They might have good reasons for their voting on Bush… its just that they haven’t worked it out much. A lot of them might be persuaded or even consider new possibilities only (IMHO) with reasonable and unemotional arguments. They aren’t “dumb” its just that its clear cut for them until now. (naturally a lot are dumb… but thats not the point). Other voters are “going with the pack”. They have no clear preference but prefer to support the current president… or vote like their peers. Throw at them some information and things might change.
Thanks for the suggestions given... many are very good... others a bit too "emotional".
Bush and the Republican party are being led way too much by the agendas of the Religious Right and Corporative interests, especially oil companies. The “kidnapping” of the Republican Party by fringe elements argument. By electing Kerry this would allow the Republican party to get back to what makes them strong: Small government, no interference in people’s belief, less spending, emphasis on creating good Business environment… not being governed by business.
Anyone who thinks the Religious Right is good would never vote for Kerry anyway… though there are plenty of Republicans who don’t share Bush’s enthusiasm with religious issues or the Religious Right.
That’s a good argument, but the obvious counterargument is, “Well, is Bush really doing more damage on matters than Kerry could?” Given all of the programs Kerry talked about funding/expanding/never letting anyone reform under any circumstances/etc., it’s obvious that whatever fiscal conservatives and small-governmenters dislike about Bush, they’re going to hate about Kerry. You’ll have a hard time convincing even the most small-government Republicans that getting rid of Bush so that, as some hypothetical point, some hypothetical better candidate runs for office, is worth four guaranteed years of Kerry.
If you want to convince a Bush voter to switch, find out why they’re voting for Bush first. On most issues that Bush supporters support, Kerry doesn’t have a chance in hell of making headway.
This one won’t work. Religious (read: Christian) conservatives already live a cognitive dissonance on this count. The usual counter is the parable about the man who had many talents, although I think a more sensible counter is “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” That is, Jesus didn’t so much care about redistribution of wealth - I get the sense he’d prefer a world without money (and a world where church and state were separated - zing!).
Anyway, right-wing religious conservatives don’t believe in turning the other cheek when the country is attacked, nor in government-sponsored charity.
Your other two tactics are good, though, IMO. They’re accurate and appeal to true conservatives.
Right. I’m not a Republican, but I imagine the only line that would work is if you could convincingly make the argument any damage Kerry might cause would be limited by a Republican congress. In those circumstances a protest vote to punish the party for a weak candidate ( whether it be issues like the steel tariffs, expanded social services, limits on personal liberty a la Bob Barr’s arguments, religious pandering - whatever is the trigger for a given disgruntled Republican ), followed up with letters to the RNC explaining why, might engender a more respectable candidate in 2008.
I realize this is off-topic but I just spent an hour trying to find out why anyone would say this. There is nothing special about the Musgrave Amendment other than it doesn’t have the usual time limit on ratification by the states. Am I missing something?
It’s October 1962. You have discovered that the USSR has begun to deploy nuclear missiles in Cuba. Your military advisors recommend a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. What would George W. Bush have done?
I can’t help but believe that Bush would have been a thousand times likelier than Kerry to go ahead and launch the nukes. Reasons:
1- Bush is, at heart, a crusader. He sees himself as the instrument of God in purging evil from the world. He would have considered the USSR to be godless tools of Satan. Fortunately, Kennedy was not that way.
2- Bush’s cabinet would lack the gumption to grill the military brass. Rummy is no McNamara. Ashcroft is no Bobby Kennedy. Sometimes, the correct answer to the military is “no”. I’m not sure that Bush or his handlers realize this.
It’s October 2006. The Chinese are threatening the use of force unless the US abandons defense of Taiwan. Who do you want in the Oval Office? A cowboy or a thinker?
As a registered Republican (albeit moderate who’ll probably switch to Independent), this is pretty much the line of reasoning I came up with in making my own decision about who to vote for.
Perhaps he would not have lost his nerve and followed through at the Bay of Pigs thus rendering this question moot? This is simply a silly arguement that is going to get you nowhere essentially in answering the OP. If you believe GW to be a foaming at the mouth fanatic and totally wacked you are certainly going to believe he’d blithely push the button counting on God and the Goodness and Right of America to save the day. If you are rational you are going to say…this is a stupid question to ask and has nothing to do with real, rational arguements against GW for president.
I think it’s a valid question. Would George W. Bush have gone ahead and launched the missiles? I’d like to hear the responses. If you think it is a stupid question, fine.
Under a George W. Bush presidency, we’ll just be chained to more of the same old, same old oil dependency. The only difference with him is, his idea of less reliance on foreign oil is to destroy the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to pump some of our own oil. The fact that he’s in bed with the Big Oil companies doesn’t influence his policies, though. Nope. Nor should it matter that studies have shown that only 3.2 billion barrels of oil could be economically recovered from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, that being only enough to fuel the US vehicle fleet for a mere 6 months. [Source].
So if you’re serious about wanting to see more fuel efficient trucks and SUVs, alternative sources of renewable energy and less dependence on foreign oil, the only vote you can make that even stands a chance of seeing any of that happen, is for John Kerry.
Because someone had conflated the amendment with the Marriage Protection Act (which W supported too), which was worded in such a way as to prevent federal judicial review. Then that someone even stated that poorly.
And you think these things will sway a conservative how?
Cite?
2 & 3. Many conservatives are pro-life, so not hindering abortions or (embryonic) stem cell research are minuses. If the question were asked about Bush would you have given the opposites to convince Kerry voters to convert?
So he says. Believing this means you believe campaign promises and that’s rather naive.
Given that Kerry is a practicing Christian are you entirely sure he wouldn’t be tempted to support policy that the church would like? The only guy who has no potential to be swayed by religion is a guy who has none.
So? He will. No two ways about it, even if he doesn’t “want to” burden the future generations with debt he will. We’re supposed to be swayed because he’ll feel real bad about it? Please.
Like two and three this is not considered a plus by most conservatives. I think it is, but that makes me unusual.
I thought we were supposed to judge people by who they are now, not stupid mistakes they made 30 years ago. I suppose Kerry’s incessant yammering about his glorious four months in a PT boat decades ago might have made you forget that the long past isn’t really a good indicator of present character.
There is no nine?
Of course he will. Given this and #4 I think you need to develop a healthy dose of cynicism. The only politician who doesn’t have lies pouring out his mouth is a mute.
And, like with Clinton, congress will never approve a national health plan so this is moot.
You’re kidding, right? He’s running for president, not eagle scout so being pure of heart and a lover of fellow man aren’t really indicators of potential leadership ability. All the warm fuzzys in the world aren’t a good reason to elect a leader.
Why do liberals see the need to try to convert people, anyway? I’m sure there are conservatives who are silly enough to try to convince people to vote for someone else, but I know so many liberals who have made it their duty to inform Bush supporters that they are wrong and should be voting for Kerry; which, by the way, isn’t really an appropriate thing to do at work. I haven’t heard one person try to convince a Kerry supporter to vote for Bush…It’s kind of cultish, really. Are the liberals who do this (and they know who they are, since not all do) really that scared that Kerry can’t gain enough support without trying to change conservative minds? I know I’d never try to convince a person voting for Kerry to vote for Bush instead, there’s no point to trying to reason with them.
Keep in mind, that the rise in oil prices has increased the economically available oil in ANWR. The estimate charts in the the USGS report don’t even calculate prices above $40 a barrel.
Here’s the ONLY source for ANWR info:
Everything else is derived from this report. “Collection of seismic data within ANWR requires an act of Congress, and these are the only seismic data ever collected within the 1002 area.”
IIRC, the relatively small amount of oil available is overshadowed by the rate at which we will be able to access it.
After ten years of developing the ANWR, say 2015, we could get enough oil from it each day to supply a little over an hours worth of our usage at 2000’s levels.
Well yes…actually I am, as I lost my job while Clinton was still in office when my IT company folded as one of the first in the dot com bust. Does that mean I should vote for Bush??
Its normal to get carried away in Bush bashing threads…