Convince my conservative dad to dislike GWB

Great Debates
1

I don’t think anyone in my family has voted Democrat in three generations, at least.

I’ve come to really hate GWB, and for things I already believed. I think, though, that my Christian conservative dad still would probably vote for him again. Give me reasons that might change his mind. Keep in mind that “being against social medicine” is a terrible argument here, as most Republicans think that’s a bad idea. We need immorality, two-faced-ness, law-strangling, and bad logic. “Bad speaker and a stutterer” are also bad arguments. No one was accusing MLK of being a bad car mechanic, because it really isn’t relevant.

What I can think of right now is:

Saying that Iraq was tied to 9/11.

Thinking that the Iraq war would be funded through sales of Iraqi oil.

Billions of dollars are missing that were shipped to Iraq in literal US currency (little pieces of paper).

Firing of the federal prosecutors (I don’t really understand this story yet, so a summary and a good link would be nice).

Having the shortsightedness to really think that a British-created country like Iraq could “just get along” and adopt democracy.

Thinking that if we just wait a while longer, Iraq will be pacified, and not believing that Americans are dying to only postpone the day that Iraq explodes into a wild civil war that essentially leaves three nations, with one of them bullying the other two.

Something about Cheney’s greed and selfcenteredness (help).

Denying people the right to appeal to civilian courts if they’re “POWs”.

Not really trying to stop illegal immigration.

Sending the message that if you break the law long enough, you’ll get rewarded for it (illegal immigration).

(Apparently) deciding right after 9/11 to go after Iraq, when the evidence just couldn’t have been gathered that fast.

Letting Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Campion go to jail as a sacrifice to the Mexican government, when it’s becoming clear that Johnny Sutton, the prosecutor, supervised lies about the agents before and during trial. He also apparently hid evidence from the defense team. Sutton is still serving.

Something about A. Gonzalez, although I haven’t been really following the news enough to get the point.

Defending Scooter Libby even now (is this right? did W say positive things about Libby after the conviction?).

Thanks for the help. Links to evidence would be nice. I haven’t been following the news very much, partly because it’s so depressing.

2

In addition to those you’ve mentioned…

Appointing an administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency with no experience in emergency preparedness.

Invading Iraq on the basis of neutralizing the threat posed by their possession of weapons of mass destruction. Since the intelligence sources could not be revealed, as head of the executive branch, I view this as him staking his personal credibility on the existence of those WMDs. No such active weapons have been found.

Releasing information about Valerie Plame in an attempt to discredit findings of fact by her husband, whether it was a crime to do so or not.

Awarding money for Iraq reconstruction in no-bid contracts (and to companies that had donated money to his election campaigns).

Increasing the national debt by over three trillion dollars.

Failing to detect and prevent the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001.

Failing to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, after vowing to do so.

In the recent firings of United States Attorneys, allegations are that they were dismissed for investigating or prosecuting republican politicians, and failing to do so against democrats. If true, my concern is less for the fired attorneys and more that those who were retained are using the Department of Justice to further partisan political goals.

3

I think it’s a safe bet he won’t vote for GWB again, no matter what you do.

4

Thanks Bryan. A help as always.

5

Anytime.

6

If one wants to change a person’s views, then one sneaky trick is to get them to state their views, agree with them and gently nudge them.

For example, find out what he thinks about George Bush Snr’s decision not to wipe out Saddam, nudge him on what Ba’athist means and what they think of Moslem fundamentalists.

You’ll probably find it quite easy to move his approbation from the son to the father, at which point you get him to identify a Republican candidate that is closer to the father than the son.

Play it gently and you’ll probably have him saying that GWB is an irresponsible waster who has let the side down. You’ll not make him vote Democrat, but you’ve a good chance of turning him into an anti-GWB Republican.

7

One thing that comes to mind is don’t bring up contriversal issues where there is more then one interpretation. Some examples from your list:
WMD’s - One side > None found = None existed; Other side > The entire world knew SH had them, Not just US republicans, not just US democrats but every intelligence agency in the world = Valid threat.

Iraq tied to 9-11 - one side > no connection, other side Iraq tied to terrorism (which I beleive is more to GWB’s point, if not what he said directly), and Al-Q members were found and killed in Iraq and Al-Q is tied to 9-11 - remember Bush Doctrine.

8

Where are they? What definition of “know” are you using?

9

Contrapuntal I have posted it many times in the past, links to lists of leaders saying what a threat SH’s WMD’s and or WMD programs are. It’s easy enough to google, and the statements are overwhelmingly in support of my statement here’s a start:
What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq’s WMD:
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People – Version 3.0:

10

I took where are they as where are the people who knew about SH WMD,s but think now you are asking about where are the WMD’s themselves. Short answer it doesn’t matter for the OP. The threat, even if false, but believed to be true, not just by your side, not just by both sides, but both sides plus the rest of the world indicated a valid threat.

This is what makes it a poor issue to bring up, there is no way to win, and ultimately you are the one assuming that no found WMD’s = no WMD’s - which is not logical.

And btw some WMD’s have been found

11

So you are talking about belief, not knowledge, and you representation of it as a valid threat is false.

No, I am assuming that if the administration asserts that they exist and that they know where they are, and are unable to locate them, then those WMDs never existed. It would be extremely difficult to prove the non-existence of WMDs, but since the assertion of existence is Bushco’s, the burden of proof is also Bushco’s. And it has not been met.

Which ones? Where? When? Did they constitute an immediate threat to the US? Is their existence justification for the clusterfuck we find ourselves in?

12

You mean the chemical weapons we sold him 20 years ago that haven’t a chance in hell of working anymore? Those WMDs?

13

Turn the question around. Why should anyone like president Bush?

Ask your dad to list Bush’s successes in office. Recall that for the majority of that, he had a Congress dominated by his own party.

My opinion is that a list of Bush’s successes, even where success is measured by advancing conservative values, would be shamefully small.

14

Exactly this. I remain shocked that any Republican would continue to support Bush, because it is exactly this mindless and undying support that has allowed Bush to take the Republican machine - seemingly unstoppable and proclaimed by many Republicans only two or three years ago as permanent - and drive it right over the cliff.

So part of me is happy as a clam to let people like your father and kanicbird continue to support him. I’d hate for him to hit the brakes right before he succeeds in killing off conservative Republicanism for generations.

But I would also say that if the points you yourself have listed in the OP have failed to convince him (and I would suspect that you’ve tried them already), then nothing will. Some conservatives are so affected by something like religious conviction that I do believe they transfer the status of deity upon those they choose to follow. That can surely be a hard conclusion to back down from.

15

OK technically I can give you this one, but the reality is that if there is a perceived valid threat to your nation, and other allied nations it would be irresponsible not to act. SH is the very one who let this ‘false assumption’ continue, he is the one responsible for letting the ‘lie’ continue that lead to his downfall. He ‘fooled’ the ‘whole world’.

Also this is not logical. You know you left your keys on your dresser, you now that they exist and you know exactly where they were at a exact moment of time. You come back later and they are not there, does this mean your keys never existed?

There were many such weapons found over the years, the biggest stash is elluded to by Captain Carrot, Chemical weapons that SH agreed to destroy under the terms of the end of Gulf War 1, but instead hid them.

Again we are not debating if there were WMD’s, just the belief that SH had them justified the war.

16

What Hentor said.

I still see the more than occasional Bush-Cheney '04 or W04 bumper sticker, and I always wonder, ‘if everything that’s happened or come to light between Katrina and now hasn’t convinced them that Bush is a total fuckup who shouldn’t be trusted with anything sharper than crayons, WTF will it take? Will we have to lose a major city in a way that’s directly traceable to Bush’s unique combination of idiocy, ignorance, and uncaring? Oh wait…’

Nixon’s support was stable at about 26% through most of 1974, finally dipping just a few more points just before he resigned. Bush’s support is in the low 30s. In 1974, evangelical Christians were still largely apolitical; today they’re very much in the game, and squarely behind Bush. (I guess if the President is against abortion and for torture, that, on balance, makes the baby Jesus smile. :rolleyes:**) So there’s no reason to expect Bush’s approval numbers to drop all the way to Nixon’s in 1974.

IOW, I think we’re down to the hard core already: Bush could publicly fuck babies, dismember them, cook them and serve them up at a state dinner, and he might lose a couple of percentage points of support. But that’s about it. The rest of his supporters would find some way to justify his actions, one way or another.

17

He’s obviously protecting us from terrorist babies!

18

One Q I have for the OP’er, why do you want to do this? Why waste the energy at all? It’s not like GWB is going to run again. As history unfolds the vision that he has left us will with, for the good or bad, will become clearer, though it will never be clear.

19

At this point, I have to wonder, what purpose does it achieve to convince him he is wrong. He can’t be elected again. The party powerful are turning on him in droves. The neocons have pretty much shot their credibility for the forseable future.

The people left who still believe in GWB do so because they need to feel right. You are not going to move him off that position. All I can forsee is family fights.

20

…You mean you actually feel threatened by weapons that can’t possibly work? And do you have any evidence of anything that we found during the invasion that was close to functional?