In the spirit of this thread, what arguments can be used to convince moderates to vote for Bush?
Some I can think of:
Bush does what he believes needs to be done, whether it’s popular or not.
As a Republican, he would be very much inclined to support strategic efforts to bolster security and stability at home and abroad.
He understands the need for America to be involved abroad, as unpopular as it may be here and abroad. This need is not only for America’s sake but also for the sake of other oppressed people.
The exegiences of the current state of the world necessitate the use of unpopular measures, programs, and policies. Bush is not afraid to stick to his guns (in many senses of the metaphor).
As a Republican president, the Executive Branch operates through the President’s Cabinet - they determine policy, really, with the President making major decisions and acting as a figurehead. This means people who know their thing are involved in decision-making, rather than some charismatic/popular/populist figure calling the shots.
At least Bush stands for something, unlike Kerry who says what people want to hear so they’ll elect him.
Better the evil we know than the evil we don’t.
I don’t want to debate the above (unless they’re not worded in the most appealing fashion). What else may be said to sway voters to vote for Bush?
Now I noticed he is a commentator from FOX news which I gather has a low standing on this board. Also, I don’t know Ken Adelman from Adam, I don’t watch television and can’t comment on that one way or another, but his essay does bring up some interesting points.
When I googled his name and story I found lots of sites that were critical of this piece.
Well, the problem is, Bush isn’t a moderate’s candidate. He himself is a fundamentalist evangelical christian, and therefore when he sets his own policy that is his moral guide. He has surrounded himself with neoconservative radical right wingers with respect to foreign policy, and socially ultraconservative executives and advisors on the domestic side.
That’s why the only “positive” campaign tactics he could use in 2000 were “I’m a uniter, not a divider,” and “I will change the tone in Washington,” and “No Child Left Behind.” And he’s still trying to use at least one of them.
The rest of his positive campaign themes this year all center around his qualifications to lead the country “in a time of war.” And still, most of the time his camp talks about this, they’re insinuating that Kerry is not qualified.
The only other things he has in his arsenal to use on moderates, progressives, and the rare undecided liberal are fear and smear.
And after four years (and even longer if you count the post-Gingrich Congress during Clinton’s term) most of us are tired of fear and smear.
He changed overtime rules, so those greedy moneygrubbing workers won’t have to pay taxes (on the O/T they will no longer get).
He “improved” unemployment - more people are out of work. Ahh, the magic of outsourcing.
He streamlined the government by trying to gut any and all protections gove emplyees have.
He has made us safer by watching what library books we check out.
He got us more involved abroad by starting a war based on false premises, and is now stuck with no exit plan. Now the “blame” is on the military… they won too fast and Bush wasn’t ready for that. Also on being more involved, he has successfully infuriated and alienated just about every ally we had and probably several neutral countries also.
He does what needs to be done, as in getting daddy and friends to “appoint” him to the “Champagne unit” of the National Guard, at which time he decided not to show up. Or as in getting his goons to smear someone (McCain was just one), while he keeps his hands clean. Or as in the Harken deal, getting Daddy’s pals to buy him out when his business deals go bad.
Yup, he is our Great Fearless Leader alright.
Like those HUGE tax cuts for the rich? They weren’t exactly popular with the less rich (i.e. the majority)
So we blow up Ahmed’s house or shoot his kid and now the entire extended family hates us.
Wait wait… We have oil execs in office that oppose green technology so we require the oil IV from the middle east. We put bases in Saudi Arabia, pissing off OBL and he sends terrorists to kill a few thousand Americans. Still the oil execs are writing the energy policy to help themselves out.
PATRIOT act… Mostly written before 9/11.
War on Iraq. Never killed any Americans nor did he have any WMD. Oh, he was ruthless? How about an evil dictator WITH WMD that we know about? Like N. Korea?
Oh yeah, I forgot about how the Democrats subcontract all duties out to movie stars.
I’m not saying he’s exactly as evil as this example, but Hitler stood for something too.
Progress… Things arn’t good… Lets not vote in a guy who might do something else that might work.
I saw a pro-Bush advert. a while ago, the substance (so to speak) of which was “Bush is an optimist. Kerry is not. Vote for Bush.”
I guess I can see how optimism would be a good quality in a leader, as long as it’s not a completely irrational level of optimism. It’s not a terribly stringent criterion, one’s tendency to be upbeat, but it’s a standard voters appear to care about, or the Bush campaign wouldn’t harp on it.
To respond to the OP in the spirit in which I assume it was made:
Just about every one of your points is incrediably slanted, subject to opinion (and in some cases to facts to the contrary) and lacking in actual substance. They’re good propoganda pieces to excite folks who already support the guy; they’re not going to convince anyone who hasn’t made up his or her mind.
Well, I feel compelled to comment on the OP’s list anyway, but first I’ll try to state the arguments in favor as objectively as possible.
Organized a military response to the 9/11 attacks that, at least until the adminstration launched its bizarre vendetta against Iraq, was reasonably effective.
Has taken some steps toward increasing domestic security; I will leave the question as to whether the adminstration has done all it can, or done it most effectively, for another thread.
Has, at least in the short term, reduced taxes for some of the population (proably not those most in need of tax reduction, and I would have to be convinced that this is entirely a Good Thing, but I can see the appeal to the casual voter).
The administration may have taken steps to improve education, although I’m afraid I don’t know enough about initiatives like NCLB to judge on this point.
Has made what seems a reasonable, but ineffective (at least so far) attempt to resolve the endless Israel-Palestinian conflict.
Since I’m not enough of a wonk to follow every little thing the Admin. has doen over the past four years, that’s pretty much it.
OTOH, the OP makes a number of assumptions about what voters find attractive that would require considerably more factual support before I could accept them as valid:
Why should I invariably support a President who completely ignores the wishes of a large percentage of the population?
Well, I have yet to see evidence that the current administration has done better than any other in this regard, or that Republican administrations in general are better at this than any other.
With the sole exceptions of the military engagments in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the sputtering ‘Road Map’ initiative, I know of no general enthusiasm within the administration to be involved abroad anywhere outside of its existing commitments. I would have to call this administration the least interested in general foreign affairs that I can recall, going back to Eisenhower’s tenure . I will happily stand corrected if someone can point out some policies or programs that I missed.
Meaningless statement, unless one further defines ‘The exigiences of the current state of the world’.
Nothing special here. Firstly, a large number of Bush supporters seem to have practically developed a cult of personality for their revered leader. Furthermore, there is not the slightest thing about the above statement that could not be said of any presidential administration, at least since the Depression era.
Again, without factual support, I have no reason to accept the implied claim that ‘Kerry stands for nothing’ is true. Of course, the real question is whether I, as a voter, find what Bush claims to stand for to be in my best interest. In this case I must say that it does not.
Really? So all US presidents should assume office for life?
It’s easy to paint yourself as “a war president” or a “war leader” if you started the damn war to begin with. So where are the WMD? Where are them newkewlar thingamajigs? What the hell did Iraq and Saddam (who hates bin Laden) have to do with saving anyone from bin Laden? Where the hell is bin Laden (we had a pretty good cowboy speech about huntin the varmint down and bringin him to justice but where the hell is he)? Was he too smart to get caught, or was the entire US too damn incompetent to find him? For conspiracy fans, did we NOT want to find him?
As for optmism, screw that.
Optimism comes easy, with enough liquor, and Bush has a more than passing acquaintance with booze and other things. I prefer a sober realist.
Conditions that might persuade me to think about voting for Bush would have to include all of the following:
[ul][li]A radical shift in policy which would include a constitutional amendment stating that rights of marriage between any two consenting adults, regardless of gender, will not be abridged, an expression of full support for legal abortion on demand for any reason or no reason at any point in pregnancy, a humongous tax hike on the rich, socialized health care, education and child care, complete decriminalization of all drugs, the elimination of the FCC and drastic overhauls in environmental policies as well as creating programs and task forces to work on the problems of global warming and to develop alternative energy sources to fossil fuels. These programs would be funded by appropriating masive amounts of rich people’s money (as St. Jerome once said, “all rich people are either thieves or the heirs of thieves”).[/li]
[li]A constitutional amendment prohibiting capital punishment as well as a commutation of all prisoners currently on death row to life without parole (or until the DNA tests come back).[/li]
[li]John Ashcroft must be fired and replaced with either Janet Reno or Hillary Clinton.[/li]
[li]Rumsfeld must be replaced with John McCain.[/li]
[li]Bill Clinton must be appointed as Secretary of State.[/li]
[li]Dick Cheney must resign pending a criminal investigation for his involvement with Halliburton and with the Valarie Plame scandal.[/li]
[li]Al Franken must replace Dick Cheney as Vice President.[/li]
[li]One billion dollars, tax free, must be direct deposited to my bank account.[/li]
[li]A three way for me with the Bush twins. (This one is negotiable. You should always ask for more than you think you’re going to get. I could be persuaded to settle for Anna Kournikova) [/ul][/li]
I’m not even really kidding that much. This actually is about what it would take for me to vote Bush.