The main arguments as I see them are a) economic policy and b) terrorism. Bush is not a fiscal conservatism and he is WEAK on terrorism.
elfkin, bizzwire:
Politics isn’t just about picking a side & seeing who’s most popular. It’s about rational debate. Making decisions & being able to change your mind, & other minds. I admired Bush’s stand against Saddam. But replacing him is a good move now.
I don’t have any good arguments to get a Bush voter to vote for Kerry. But if you just want him to vote for anyone other than Bush, try this one:
“You know, they say a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.”
My favorite suggestion is something I encountered several times last week on NPR and ABC News. Twice I heard retrospectives of the Nixon administration, specifically his domestic policy, and twice Bush (G.W.) was compared to Nixon.
And twice, the commentator said, essentially, “Bush makes Nixon look like a liberal.”
‘President of the United States’ is not a posting for someone lacking the work experience.
It’s easier to avoid contentious issues as much as possible, I think. Focus on how the Bush administration has been massively dishonest and totally incompetent. If he is reelected, it will send the message to posterity that the American people . . .
I can’t finish that sentence. Bush’s presidency has failed so dramatically on so many levels that the only reasonable justification I can see for voting for him, from any political perspective, is the fear that his opponent would be even worse. That is not an absurd position—there is little in Kerry’s past to inspire great confidence. Nor are there strong grounds for worry, the typical distortions to the contrary.
From that perspective, the best way to change the mind of a Bush voter would be to knock down some of the lies that are being spread about Kerry’s record.
I forgot to mention that, IIRC, it would take us another two decades to pump out the amount of economically available oil (estimated @ $30/barrel). So to get even the six months owrth would take a very long time.
This crap got voted down for good reason
Kerry could be GUARANTEED the election if he could sincerely support firearms ownership for individuals and get off unkle Teddy’s coattails.
His 2nd amendment voting record is said to be abominable; the NRA claims that every vote he’s made on the issue further eroded gun owners rights. He claims to support the 2nd amendment, but his record says he doesn’t.
He could make it a landslide if he became “the NRA poster boy.”
Democrats and liberals will vote for him no matter how he stands on this issue. Bush beat Gore largely on this issue (Florida be damned, three states that should have gone for Gore, maryland, I forget one other - Virginia I think, and Gore’s own Tennesee! went for Bush instead.
Unfortunately, we know he wouldn’t. Teddy would give him a spanking and a ride in his limo over the Chappaquidic bridge…
If we can only convince the Bush voters that kerry won’t take away their guns…
Bush said that if the Assault Weapon ban came across his desk, he’d sign it. If he did sign it, you better believe he’d be deserted in droves… Might not be enough, but it’ll help.
I’ve tried convincing the NRA members I know, and that’s their argument. Same with military active duty and veteran!!! They don’t like Kerry’s voting record on firearms, and they think he’s a liar when he says he supports the second amendment.
I think that argument works only when the sitting president has basically declared a new ice age, told people that all hope is gone, that there is no more energy, that they should turn their winter thermostats down to 65 deg F, and that they should brace themselves for the impending fall of America.
Most of the more right-leaning folks I know who are still on the fence have serious doubts about his fiscal policies. They consider balanced budgets to be a good thing. They’re not so irrational as to believe that rampant spending coupled with tax cuts in any way resembles responsible fiscal policy, and they worry that four more years of BushCo., at the rate he’s going, could double or triple our national debt from the already record level it is at.
They’re also big on security issues. Even when they feel we were justified in invading Iraq, the price tag has them turning pale. Was it worth it? They’re not sure. And what if another country is invaded, like Iran? More astronomical sums of money. Bush may not be waging an efficient war on terror.
Really, it boils down to money with most of the moderates, I’m guessing. The devil they know in Bush may or may not be worse than Kerry. If you can convince them that Kerry could manage to be strong on security, but do it for less money, while trying to balance the budget, you might swing their vote.
These folks are highly skeptical of Kerry, though. The MA Liberal thing really has them spooked. They think Kerry might simly take too much of their money from them and dump it into big-govt. social programs, and they hate that idea. So, you have to convince them that Kerry would never do that. Good luck.
I think another big divide is the “How” to fight terrorism. I see an awful lot of americans thinking its a military matter. To them the “fight a sensitive war” comment by Kerry seems contradictory. To them diplomacy and “police work” aren’t big against diplomacy… a simple view of the problem for sure but a hard one to break.
Bush’s macho and aggressive “fighter” image is based a lot on these premises about fighting terrorism… how can one argue to break down this mentality ?
The problem RM is Bush is really the only one coming out and saying what he’d do. Kerry has been pretty vague as far as I’m concerned about what HE will do when he’s president…especially about Iraq. As I’ve said before what he’s basically said is he will do pretty much what Bush has been doing, only better (whatever that means)…and he’ll try and get more international support (which I have serious doubts is going to happen no matter who is president, unless things radically change…perhaps if these folks keep stupidly kidnapping journalists from places like France things might change).
Personally I think this is part of his problem, why he hasn’t broken this election wide open (Kerry should be double digits ahead right now IMHO)…he has been vague about most of what he intends to do. Bush hasn’t really…thats why he’s so open to attack. For good or bad we know EXACTLY what he will do if he’s re-elected (gods forbid).
I think this would be a bad tack to take for a Bush supporter to try and convert them. Stick with the economy or harp on the fact that this stupid war is pretty much Bush’s fault ultimately, and comment on the fact that the Iraq war distracts us from going after terrorists and destroying or at least seriously disrupting their operations.
-XT
I don’t think Bush has been that clear about what he will do either… but then he does have strong rhetoric and denies wrongdoing. Stronger America, bla bla bla … So why change anything ?
Kerry sure should have defined himself better… that I agree fully. Still he has to avoid being too precise about anything… any mistakes will be clung onto by Bush in order to discredit Kerry. Americans don’t feel there should be many changes and Kerry proposing anything a bit grandiose will make him look very bad.
As for drumming the bad war... so many think Iraq was related to terrorism... its frustrating to attempt to "debate" about it.No one else responded? I think it is a very good question. Maybe the rest of you are too young to have been scared shitless in October 1962.
First, forget the Bay of Pigs. The Cubans were not about to rise up against Castro. If Kennedy had continued, we would have had another Iraq - but much worse, for invading a Russian ally. If they had invaded Turkey next, say, what could we have done?
During October 1962, some generals did recommend a strike against the Soviet Union. If Kennedy had been like Bush, not interested in diplomacy unless we got our way, there could have easily been a war. We’re lucky that we’re not in that position now.
I’m not sure the question will convince anyone, but all intelligent Bush supporters should consider it.
Ask a Conservative these questions: Do you think President Bush told the complete truth about his reasons for going to war? Do you think financial policies which increase the deficit are sound? Do you think the federal government should have all the power it’s been given by the Bush administration? Do you think there’s more or less danger of terrorism than there was five years ago? Do you think President Bush has lived up to the promise he made at the start of his term of office to be a uniter and not a divider?
Or you could tell them there are women at Fthevote who’ll have sex with them if they don’t vote for Bush.
Thank you for the response. I think it’s clear- in October 1962 we needed a president that was willing to tell the military no. If GWB had been president then, we would not be alive today.
I don’t think this is so. Clearly, Bush won’t rush into war when the results would be disastrous. His actions toward North Korea prove this.
He’s also capable of strong diplomacy not linked to military action, proof of which can be seen in the Libyan concessions and in the Sudanese negotiations.
It’s tempting for leftists to paint the president as a warmonger, but doing so requires one to ignore many things he’s done that have been good examples of restraint and diplomatic cooperation.
Even the worst warmongers are constrained by resources. Bush’s flip-flop on North Korea from his previous confrontatory position might be from tasting reality, or from the realization that we don’t have the resources for a second Korean war today. And no one has said that Bush never uses diplomacy. The question remains - in a Cuba like situation, who would be more likely to get us into a disasterous war - Bush or Kerry? The answer is clear to me, at least.
I thought of pointing out the extent to which Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” platform of 2000 has been buried by the likes of Ralph Reed, driving the party headlong towards endorsing a Constitutional gay-marriage ban that also is worded so as to outlaw civil unions. Perhaps the spectre of Rick Santorum’s idea of social conservatism would give the centrist pause.
So I tried it out on a pubbie acquaintance. No dice: “Well, maybe, but Kerry’s way to much of a big-spending Democrat who wants to push his own social agenda.”
I give up.
Because these are not real arguments.
Well that’s the whole problem with Kerry, isn’t it? I’m not a huge Bush supporter but the big question is does Kerry have the political backbone to win the war on terrorism and finish the war in Iraq? He talks a good game but the general consensus is that he basically says whatever he thinks his immediate audience wants to hear? It’s not that people are clinging onto “mistakes”. People are clinging on to contradictory statements that make Kerry appear to be a “flip-flopper”.
It becomes a military matter when there are countries involved that harbor terrorism and pursue development of WMDs. It is hopelessly naive to think that you can stop terrorists simply with diplomacy and traditional law enforcement when they can train and operate with impunity in countries like Afghanistan. And who is our most important ally we should be diplomatic with anyway? France? Germany? Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have been more relevant allies in the war against terror.
I am having a real hard time picking who to vote for. Maybe if someone could combine the best attributes of each candidate, I would vote for him.
Also, the fact that all the freaks and weirdos support Kerry (or “not-Bush” to be exact) makes me nervous.