Conservatives renouncing the GOP? Post here

The BBQ Pit
61

Anti-Bush people have made a convincing case why he’s a subpar president and should be voted out. But it’s only half the battle.

What I need is for them to sell me on why I should vote for Kerry. If you asked me to say the first word that comes to mind when I think of Kerry, it’s “pusillanimous.” Pusillanimous is not a trait I want in a president.

I’m ready to vote against Bush. I’m just not ready to vote FOR Kerry, at least not yet.

(As an aside, this presidential race reminds me of the 2002 California governor’s race between Gray Davis and Bill Simon, at least so far. I’m not a Californian, but wasn’t Davis despised by a goodly number of California voters, including Dems? The problem was, the California Republicans nominated a turd in Simon, a guy the voters hated worse than Davis, and Davis won a desultory election. Those who know better: Is this description of the 2002 CA gov. election pretty much accurate?)

62

For fuck sake. You know that “pusillanimous” means “cowardly”, right?

And you know that Kerry wasn’t AWOL during the Vietnam war, right?

And you know that when Bush pushes the “war button”, it’s not Bush’s life that’s at stake, right?

Pusillanimous. :rolleyes:

63

Calm down, Desmo.

I don’t mean Kerry’s “pusillanimous” in the sense that he’s a physical coward. Yeah, I know Kerry fought in Vietnam. He only mentions his Vietnam experience 8,739 times a day, Desmo. I got it, OK?

However, I do think it’s legitimate to describe Kerry as pusillanimous politically, which is what I meant. Throughout his career, Sen. Kerry has shown an amazing propensity for staking positions on all sides of, well, ALL issues (Welfare Reform, Mandatory minimums, Affirmative Action, death penalty, education reform, taxes, Social Security, and free trade).

Besides, Desmostylus, don’t forget Kerry pushed the “war button” too with his vote authorizing war in Iraq in the Senate (not to mention he voted for the Patriot Act).

So spare me the indignation, Desmo.

64

100% agree.

Even the part about CA. I live in CA, and you nailed the situation perfectly. But we did take care of it in the end… :slight_smile:

65

Goodness, you certainly have the Party line down. Can you also say “Polly wanna cracker” as well? Can you cite any of this? Oh, and you forgot the clincher: about how its all Kerrry’s fault that our soldiers were sent into combat poorly equipped. He didn’t want to, but Kerry made him do it. See, Jane Fonda was wearing a costume that looks like a giant Queen of Hearts…

Don’t read the newspapers much, huh, guy? Kerry’s vote was entirely appropriate, given his rather unfortunate gullibility. He voted to authorize the use of force if necessary. Those are important words there at the end, scooter, so I want you to read them again. If necessary. If you have a moment, reflect on the matter of “necessity”.

Yes, Kerry was somewhat gullible. He believed that Fearless Misleader would not lie about something so crucial and so essential as the need for war. Yes, he was wrong. The difference is, you still are wrong, and he has changed his mind.

66

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Goodness, you certainly have the Party line down. Can you also say “Polly wanna cracker” as well?

[QUOTE]

Thanks, 'luci, but I only recite the GOP Party line on weekends. From Monday through Friday, you’ll hear me muttering “No blood for oil,” “radical neoconservative cabal,” and “Bushiviks” (I love that term, BTW).

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Can you cite any of this?

[QUOTE]

How about this?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096540

I know it’s opinion, but the table at the end of the article seems relatively straightforward. And since it’s from Slate, I hope you can trust its ideological “reliability.”

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Oh, and you forgot the clincher: about how its all Kerrry’s fault that our soldiers were sent into combat poorly equipped. He didn’t want to, but Kerry made him do it. See, Jane Fonda was wearing a costume that looks like a giant Queen of Hearts…

[QUOTE]

::offers 'luci a handkerchief::

You OK there, elucidator? Your nose is gushing blood. Seems your knee jerked so hard, it hit your schnozz.

'luci, suffice to say that I expect both parties to sling mud and spew histrionics in the manner you describe for the next eight months. The bullshit has already started, and Terry McAuliffe’s bullshit smells no better than Karl Rove’s bullshit. I don’t give a crap that Kerry sat a few rows behind Hanoi Jane at an anti-war rally 30 years ago, OK? I also don’t give a crap that Bush may have been AWOL from the Alabama Nat’l Guard 30 years ago, either.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Don’t read the newspapers much, huh, guy? Kerry’s vote was entirely appropriate, given his rather unfortunate gullibility. He voted to authorize the use of force if necessary. Those are important words there at the end, scooter, so I want you to read them again. If necessary. If you have a moment, reflect on the matter of “necessity”.

Yes, Kerry was somewhat gullible. He believed that Fearless Misleader would not lie about something so crucial and so essential as the need for war. Yes, he was wrong. The difference is, you still are wrong, and he has changed his mind.

[QUOTE]

OK, then, may I gently ask why “gullibility” in matters of foreign affairs is a trait I should want in a president, considering that as president, he would have to deal with such upstanding truth-tellers as Mssrs. Kim Jong-il, Khamenei, Assad, Arafat, Chavez, and Mugabe.

It is eight months before the election. I am U-N-D-E-C-I-D-E-D, elucidator. Is that OK with you? Do you mind if I take a little time trying to figure out exactly which lying, money-grubbing, hypocrite I pull the lever for?

Jeez, what is it with some of you leftbots? As much as you’ve bitched (correctly, in my view) about “You’re either with us or against us,” some of you are the worst practitioners of that very philosophy.

Now if you excuse me, 'luci, I’m going to watch March Madness, an infinitely better way of spending a Saturday afternoon than debating the numerous shortcomings of mediocrities like Dubya and Kerry.

67

Time to recalibrate your irony detector. Kerry didn’t have sufficient suspicion to believe that he was being lied to. More importantly, he couldn’t prove it, the only sources of information were controlled. Did the fact that openly opposing a popular President on a matter of WAR! was likely to be political suicide, did that sway his opinion? Frankly, I hope to God. If I wanted a polticial virgin to sacrifice on the altar of ideological purity, I would have backed Kucinich.

The Rove machine stampeded all the spineless Democrats, with few exceptions. They didn’t have the guts to face the dangerous questions. But if you read the original document, you will behold a masterpiece of weasel-think. It authorized the President to go to war “if necessary” to - disarm Iraq. Oh, what a cornucopia of interpetive possibility! As we now know, it was interpreted to mean that war with Iraq was unanimously urged at the earliest possible instant, to protect America from nuclear-anthrax armed pink unicorns.

You ever stop to think: what if we hadn’t? What if the French were right, and we played along? The inspectors go in, they find nothing. We go in, we find nothing. Suppose the military pressure worked, and we know then what we know now: Saddam was a shadow of a paper tiger, most likely he couldn’t have taken Belgium in a fair fight.

Now that would have been somewhat momentarily embarassing. But it could easily be spun, “we forced Saddam to admit he didn’t have WMD’s!”. Declare victory, hand out a bunch of medals and go home. Expensive, but mercifully free of body-bags. But point made, international rule of law strengthened. American leadership supported and, at least somewhat, justified.

Turn right, geopolitical triumph, Turn left, stinking quagmire. Bush is now accusing Kerry of being the kind of guy who would turn right. I hope so. That’s why I’ll most likely vote for him (unless, of course, those rumors about his allegiance to a Korean Satanist Zen cult turn out to be true…)

68

Frankly, even though I’ll definitely be voting for Kerry in November, if you don’t feel he’s the best candidate for the job, then don’t vote for him. Just voting against Bush is a positive step IMO, and if you want to vote for Nader or Buchanan or write-in a vote for Bill O’Reilly, that’s your right.

As for reasons to vote for Kerry… short answer is that, of all the serious candidates in the race (yeah, I know, short list), he’s the most qualified by far IMO. All that talk about Kerry’s “flip-flops” is just GOP propaganda; no one has eveer told me why it’s so horrible for Kerry to change his mind as time passes, but it’s okay for Bush to change his mind on issues (Steel tariffs? Osama bin Laden? Bringing the Iraq war to a UN vote? Yeah, George has really held the course there :rolleyes: )

Yep. And I’ll say it again – while I voted for Davis because he was less disagreeable than Simon, I really wish the California GOP had nominated Richard Riordan instead, who IMO could out-think both of them with one lobe tied behind his cerebellum. But nooooooooooooooo, Riordan wasn’t “conservative enough” in his litimus test, apparently…

69

I used to be a card-carrying Republican.

Here are the two biggest reasons why G.W.Bush has lost utterly the possibility of being supported by the remnant of my political thought which still could be called conservative:

  1. We had the sympathy and support of the world after Sept. 11, 2001. Bush’s hard-nosed, “you’re either with us or you’re against us” policies have alienated most of our closest, significant allies and have driven world opinion against U.S. interests on a global scale.

  2. After an incredibly fractious and controversial election in 2000, Bush had the responsibility, which he assumed, of being “a uniter not a diver.” After Sept. 11, 2001 he even had a superb opportunity to be such, even within a narrowly divided Congress. Nevertheless, he utterly squandered all hope of bringing a divided nation to any kind of greater unity. The electorate is more polarized than ever. It need not have turned out that way*. This is quite simply the result of Dubya’s administration being so pathologically intolerant of dissent–even within his own party!–and showing absolutely no interest in trying to understand, respect, or reach out to individuals, groups, or parties which hold contrary points of view. He has behaved, or allowed his staff to behave, as if points of view in disagreement with his own are invalid. This is no way to run a democracy, regardless of what side you’re on.

*Many Democracts voted for Reagan, many for Bush I (the first time around), and many Republicans voted for Clinton. With both administrations there was a lot of room for voters in the middle. One certainly can’t say that now.

70

Are you bragging or complaining? As a Democrat from his state, I think it’s great that he had their help.
What is a “Centrist”, anyway?

71

There was no need to re-write this because it says what I feel perfectly. Last election I voted for Brown because I didn’t really like Bush then either. Now I really, really want Bush out of office, so will be forced to vote for Kerry. Gad, why couldn’t the Democrats have put up someone better. Anyway, 4 years of Kerry have GOT to be better than 4 more years of Bush.

72

In fairness to Kerry, it’s hard if not impossible to be a Senator for that long and not appear to have inconsistencies. You might vote for or against some bills, not based on ideology at all, but upon such considerations as riders, attachments, conditions, and political debt and credit.

73

Let’s take it as a given that the people posting here don’t want to vote for Bush. As such, if the GOP actually seriously considered other candidates, who would you be likely to vote for? McCain? Powell? Buchanan? The Libertarian candidate? Sharpton? Just kidding about that last one, obviously.

Who’s the best choice to “take back” the GOP?

74

I’d vote for Ron Paul.

75

I’d vote for Giuliani. McCain and Powell are my kind of Republicans, too.

And incidentally, I would look kindly on anyone who might be able to bring James Baker out of retirement.

76

So should we expect The Presidenator soon?:wink:

77

Question: if you are going to grudingly vote for Kerry, how about contributing money his campaign? Volunteering? Trying to convince others? Would you go that far? In for a dime, in for dollar? Or is it just a protest vote against Bush without any real desire to see Kerry actually win?

This is something that’s going to kill him if he can’t learn to explain himself better. He’s not going to get any help from the press. They seem professionally incapable of doing anything other than repeating what candidates feed them, actual facts and research be damned:

http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2004_03_14_archive.html#107961467061936787

78

Vote third-party. Vote Nader. The two-party system in the US is a crock of shit. We need more parties and more choices in our elections. Support third party candidates. There is no way in hell they’ll win in '04, but if they get enough votes we may see some viable ones in the future. Voting third-party in the '04 race shows both the major parties that you’re pissed off at them. I’d kill to see third-party candidates get double-digit percentages. I like to vote third-party, especially in races which are foregone conclusions. If I were in your position and I wanted to defect from my own usual party but not all the way to supporting the opposing viewpoint, I’d find the third-party candidate who was least abhorrent to me and throw my vote away on them instead of voting for either of the two evils in contention for the actual title.

Enjoy,
Steven

79

The famous liberal wants to make it so!

80

I almost think some Republicans would be better served voting Libertarian this time around than voting Kerry. A strong Libertarian vote could send a message to the Republican party that too many former members are unwilling to let the party be owned by religious conservatives; I know I, a hard-core liberal, would be a lot happier with a Libertarian-oriented Republican party than with the current 700-Club oriented party.

A vote for Kerry won’t necessarily send such a strong signal.

Daniel