Well, I’m not saying that it’s possible necessarily, but I’d like to hear some reasonable, um, reasons.
To have a match,
Me: For small govt., empowering people to do for themselves instead of pretending the government’s job to take care of the people, govt. enforcing a level playing field instead of enforcing equal outcomes, pretty much the core GOP platform.
Not happy with W. on all levels. Seems to stick to things past when they’ve become bad ideas, not happy with way intelligence or prisons were handled. He should have made sure that his commanders knew he would have nothing to do with unethical things, and probably should have gone publicly on record with his stance.
You: Not a nut case, not going to try to tell me that W. went to war to do well in the polls, is making gas prices go up just so he bring them down at the last minute, not just insulting because you hate him on some visceral level, not believing that W. actually lied about what he knew about Iraq.
Remember, I don’t have to read this thread, and I honestly kind of don’t even want to start it, considering the kind of replies that I expect to get. Vitriol will only make me leave and invalidate your and others’ points. This is kind of like the army, where one person can ruin it for everyone. I have enough of dealing with jackasses in real life (seriously), and I don’t have to put up with it here, too.
I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. You want people to convince you to vote democrat, when you’ve made it clear you disagree with democratic ideology. How’s that gonna work?
What do you mean, “pretending”? You don’t think the government is supposed to take care of the people? Do you believe in complete anarchy? We have laws, and those laws protect the people. You can argue the degree to which you believe it shoud be done, but it makes no sense to say the government “pretends” to take care of the people. There’s no pretending about it, that is the function of government.
If you want any kind of coherent discussion, you need to identify some specific issues where you believe people can be “empowered” or “not empowered”. Then we can discuss how Kerry may or may not accomplish that as president.
If you believe in fiscal responsibility in government, I can tell you that the democrats have a much better record in that regard.
If you’re referring to affirmative action, Kerry supports it, so he’s not going to be an ideological match for you there if you are against affirmative action. He also believes in enforcing civil rights.
It’s not really necessary to go that far. It’s hardly extreme to say that Bush made 2 mistakes in pushing the Iraq war: (1) Claiming that Saddam had a huge arsenal of WMDs, and that he was a “grave and gathering” threat to the U.S., and (2) Claiming that Saddam had direct ties to al Qaeda, and implying that he had something to do with 9/11. You don’t have to say he lied if you don’t want to. How about “misled”?
Or forget that altogether if you want. How about the fact that he ignored the sage advice of many people high-up in the military who told him he needed to send more troops? Or his overly-optimistic scenario that the Iraqi people would greet us as liberators and it would be done with? Or the premature “Mission Accomplished” banner, when we were just getting started? Or the flagrant violation of the Geneva convention which has caused a MAJOR international flap, which they first tried to blame on supposed rogue soldiers, which has now been traced right up to the top level of his administration, with ‘smoking-gun’ memos?
Or how about the testimony of former members of both his and Clinton’s administrations that he failed to take the al Qaeda threat seriously until after 9/11, and was obsessed with Saddam from day one of his administration?
Bush has made lots and lots of mistakes. And that’s before we even get into the question of whether he has deliberately deceived the American public. No vitriol here; just an honest opinion of Bush’s performance as president. He made his choices, and I happen to think they were the wrong choices.
If you don’t believe any of this stuff, and you still think Bush is a great president, then by all means vote for him. But you’ve indicated that you aren’t entirely happy with Bush, so I guess you have to ask yourself if that outweighs the couple of ideological differences you have with the Democratic platform. Either that or vote for a third party. I happen to agree with a lot of Kerry’s stated ideals, but if you don’t, how can I convince you to vote for him?
WIthout vitriol, don’t you think that the Bush administration has done quite a bit of damage, Cardinal? Our foreign relations are pretty much in the toilet now; a lot of nations fear us. Maybe you think that’s good; a fair number of people seem to. But consider this: fear drives people (and nation-states) to do irrational things.
The current Attorney General seems to want to create a nation in which Christian fundamentalist morality is enforced by law; is that your idea of small government? This is a government which has stated “If you’re not for us, you’re against us and unpatriotic.” Is that the attitude you want from your administration?
I’ve noticed that a lot of people, when they say they are for smaller government, really mean that they want lower taxes. If that’s the most important issue to you, then Bush is your man. But I hope you don’t have kids, because they’re the ones who will pay for it.
If you need convincing at this point, frankly I don’t know what to tell you. The case for non-Bush speaks for itself. I don’t care who you vote for, but don’t vote for Bush. Hell, vote libertarian. Really. I like libertarians.
Yes, definitely. If you’re fed up with Bush, but don’t agree with the Democratic party’s positions on various issues, then vote Libertarian. They’re a basically interesting philosophy that could use some public support. And aside from the radicalism that comes from being such a small movement, they’re basically what the GOP was 30 some odd years ago.
Shodan is no doubt referring to his repeated attempts to get folks on the left to explain why Kerry should be president and what Kerry would have to do to lose their support.
He has been told repeatedly that many posters would simply vote for anybody besides Bush and that Kerry’s actual policies don’t matter one bit.
Cardinal, your politics sound pretty close to mine. I’m a small government conservative/libertarian type. Registered independant.
I’ve got plenty of bones to pick with Bush. He is far from perfect. However, Kerry would be far worse. He has a voting record that’s more liberal than Ted Kennedy. He will push for much larger government if elected.
The good news is that even if Kerry wins, he won’t be able to do much with a Republican house and congress. The really good news is that if Bush wins, he won’t have to worry about re-election again and can really start implementing some change. (hopefully) His tax cuts were a good start, but he needs to cut government programs much more aggressively than he has been. With four more years, free from worry about re-election, he can do this. Education vouchers and social security privatization would both be very possible in a Bush second term.
I guess you didn’t notice the about government GROWING under Bush, eh? How much Bush could get done is up for dispute anyway, since Democrats stand a reasonable chance of taking control of the Senate.
Well, I can say that Kerry would lose my support if, like Bush, he decided to use “I hate Gay people lots and lots and lots!!!” as one of his campaign themes. That’d wouldn’t get me to vote for the Dry Drunk in Chief, but it would pull me out of the Kerry camp.
How can anyone who has a lick of libertarianism to them vote for George “I Hate Freedom And Appointed John Ashcroft To Prove It” Bush? The man’s White House has used 9/11 as an excuse to wage an all out roll back of the Bill of Rights.
Clearly, when it comes to keeping the government books in order, a GOP Congress and a Democratic President is a good mix. Republican President with Democratic Congress spelled big deficits and growing government (Reagan era, Bush I). And pairing a Republican President with a Republican Congress has resulted in the largest and fastest growth of government in history, which when mixed with reckless tax cuts (reckless because they weren’t offset, reckless because Bush ditched PayGo and other budget controls) have produced a deficit of absurdly immoral proportions. And I mean immoral – it is absolutely wrong at a fundamental level to foist this sort of debt on the next generation, and Bush should be ashamed. But I’m sure he isn’t. He flat out doesn’t care.
Don’t hold your breath. He will govern just as he has governed now. He loves big government, only he wants to telling you what to do in your bedroom instead of how to run your business.
Not even a remote chance. And in any case, even if one supports education vouchers, to implement them at the Federal level is absurd. Federal money for education isn’t like state money, it doesn’t impact pupils as directly. If you want vouchers, you need to work at the state level. At the federal level, it’s just not effective. And it’s also an abrogation of the Republican tenet of decentralized government.
Not that Bush cares one lick about maintaining philosophical continuity with the traditional notions of the Republican party.
There are a thousand wonderful reasons to vote for John Kerry. Here are just a few:
College Tax Credit: Kerry proposes a credit of the first $4000 in tuition for each year of college. As the parent of an incoming college freshman, that appeals to me much more than continuing to let the wealthiest Americans raid the treasury.
Education: Kerry recognizes the flaws in the “No Child Left Behind” act. Kerry will make sure that we do not turn our schools into test-prep institutions. From Kerry’s web site:
If the above makes sense to you, and it does to me, the Kerry reforms are reason enough to vote for him. I challenge anyone to read the Kerry tax reforms and pronounce them as “liberal”. Kerry is truly a visionary, and exactly what America needs at the moment.
Drug Benefits for Seniors
The Bush Medicare Bill prohibited the government from negotiating lower prices fro the drug manufacturers. Kerry’s plan would eliminate that restriction. John Kerry will allow individuals, pharmacists, wholesalers and distributors to reimport FDA-approved prescription drugs from other countries at lower prices.
I don’t wish to burden the reader with an overly long post, but I recommend that you visit www.johnkerry.com, read the positions on the issues, and ask yourself if you support his ideas. I think you’ll be surprised at how much common sense lies in his proposals.
Thanks for the snapshot, BobLibDem. I have actually posted material regarding Kerry’s tax plan before. Unfortunately, folks like Shodan and Debaser only hear “He’s not Bush.”
Debaser goes into the lightning round as well, repeating the favortie old standby: “Kerry will be far worse.” How this is unlike “He’s not Bush” is beyond me. Debaser does try to support his statement, by saying “he’s liberal” and “he’ll push for big government.” Yes, this is like trying to support a mahogany credenza with a balsa wood flyer, but you have to give him some credit for the effort.
Anyway, I think it is important to rephrase “He’s not Bush.” In actuality, those who use the phrase mean, “He’s not a deadly incompetent half-wit.” Which, as far as presidents go, is a crucial first start.
Kerry, like Bush is opposed to Gay marriage, is he not?
The bill of rights is just fine. Despite all the scare mongering about how the Patriot act has eroded our civil liberties, there are plenty of folks who just aren’t buying it. I’ve read thread after thread on the Patriot act and John Ashcroft’s supposed evil. It just isn’t there.
Cite?
A president that is in favor of school vouchers would be a good thing for both the federal and state levels getting vouchers to happen. I’d tend to agree that having vouchers implemented locally would make more sense, however, I don’t see why that makes it absurd for those of us who like the idea of vouchers to vote for a president who favors them over one who doesn’t.
We could go on and on about the positives of Kerry, but the OP has already poisoned the well by strongly implying he doesn’t believe in Democratic ideology. The Democratic party is generally for civil rights, environmental protections, education, etc. If one has a strong belief that such things are outside the purview of the government, then there’s really nothing to discuss, because what I consider a positive, you will consider a negative.
You seem to have missed Fear Itself’s post, where he showed that government has grown under Bush. I really don’t think you can fob that off on Bush being “worried about re-election”, unless you care to explain how being worried about re-election would cause someone to do the exact opposite of what he, in your mind, supposedly stands for.
You’re not gonna get smaller government in a Bush second-term. If you just can’t bring yourself to vote for Kerry because you think he’s too liberal for you, then it would make more sense to vote Libertarian.
If you’re already unhappy with what Bush has done so far, imagine what he’d do with another four years in office, without the spectre of re-election restraining his excesses.
I think erislover has it covered, though; at this point in the game, the best reason not to vote for George W. Bush is George W. Bush.
From my own reading, there are two problems with the assertion that “Kerry is more liberal than Ted Kennedy” based on those roll call surveys. My primary issue is with the simple categorization of votes as “conservative” or “liberal” based solely on the bills’ partisan proponents. For example, I believe it’s the ADA listing which suggested that voting against Bush’s prescription drug plan was “liberal”. I’m sure that’s quite a shock to all the conservative Republicans who voted against it, also…
My lesser problem, again I think more with the ADA tabulation, is that because Kerry was on the campaign trail in 2003, he only returned to Congress for close – and highly partisan – votes. As such, it follows that his overall voting record for 2003 would in fact be more consistently partisan than that of someone like Ted Kennedy who had been present for a wider range of issues.
I didn’t say that. I was telling you where I was coming from.
The people who are slamming Kerry out of hand aren’t getting my attention any more than those slamming Bush for being “dumb”.
This is exactly the kind non-reason / vitriol that I was talking about. The conversation can sink to this level, but I won’t be here to read it.
Also, I can spot holes in the reasoning sometimes here. Both sides want to point out the parts of an issue that argue for their side.
“He’s growing government” sounds like a big slam for a Republican, except that I’m sure one of the other slams would be, “He’s ignoring national security at a time like this” if he weren’t adding people to security teams/forces.
Mind you, I’m not a ditto-head at all. I told you where I was coming from, asked you all for good reasons to change, and in part got responses of “it’s unfair because you aren’t coming from where I am”, and “your guy is a doodyhead.”
