I didn’t start name calling.
I didn’t get angry.
I just don’t understand the double standard.
I don’t understand the double talk.
Like some others who have expressed their opinions on this board, I did not feel happy about voting for Bush. I strongly disagree with his anti-gay agenda, and feel that his proposed “defense of marriage” legislation was a disgraceful way of shifting focus away from his foreign policy blunders. His cozying up with the Religious Right came off as creepy and self-righteous, and has helped create a rift between the conservatives and the moderates. I didn’t approve of the top-secret fortress he built around his inner circle – secrecy may have been important, but it threw fuel of the fires of speculation that something unsavory was going on. I found his policy of weeding out any potential “non-fiendlies” from campaign appearances to be unreasonable, uncalled for, and just plain un-American.
However…
The Democratic Party proved to my satisfaction that it had lost its collective minds when it nominated John Kerry as its candidate for the presidency. A man whose claim to fame was the “confession” that he and his “band of brothers” in Vietnam were all state-sponsored war criminals. A man associated with a group of radicals whose “philanthropic” attempts to bring an end to the war included turning over full dossiers on POWs to their captors. A man whose undistinguished senate record reveals few (if any) accomplishments, as well as a consistent failure to understand the basics of foreign policy. A man who boasts of having five-point plants to address every problem in the world, but won’t enlighten the voters as to what these plans might actually include. A man who can dish out venomous diatribes with the best of them, but proved too thin-skinned to be on the receiving end of the same.
Is this really the best that the Democratic Party could do? Was there nobody else they could have chosen to take on Bush, who was incredibly vulnerable in spite of being a) an incumbent; and b) a wartime president? Granted, they almost did it. Kerry was gaining again in the polls and another week or two might have made all the difference. But I think, in the end the only thing that saved Bush from reliving his daddy’s past was being up against a puffed-up nonentity.
The campaign rhetoric coming from the left didn’t help their cause, either. Sure, the GOP ads and soundbites were based on fearmongering (“A Kerry presidency will open us up to another attack”) and cynical half-truths that exploited the public’s general ignorance of the workings of Congress (“Kerry voted against all these weapons systems” – the same ones Cheney voted against). But, in my opinion, what I heard from the Democrats and their supporters was far worse – even more fearmongering (“The GOP is going to institute a draft”), outright lies (“Only the Republicans campaign with fearmongering.”) character assassination (“Bush lied, people died”), spreading of tinfoil-hat rumors (“The whole war is a ruse to help Bush’s oil company buddies”). The Democrats allied themselves with (or failed to disassociate themselves from) anyone who would speak out against Bush, even groups that advocated the violent overthrow of the elected American government. One of their worst offenses was their embrace of Michael Moore and his self-admitted propaganda. Ever the megalomaniacal grandstander, Moore uses a constant barrage of half-truths and events taken out of context to make his audiences see something that really isn’t there, or is questionable at best. There are plenty of genuine critiques that can be made of Dubya’s administration, some of them quite damning. But Moore’s cynical and hate-filled manipulations have been allowed to overshadow the more reasonable and fact-based discussions of Bush’s failures and less-savory dealings. The very idea of Michael Moore’s proclaiming himself to be the man who altered the course of American history is enough to make me violently ill.
In summary, I saw this election as a perfect opportunity for the Democratic Party to win me over. In nominating John Kerry, they failed. In embracing the poisonous propaganda of the far left, they failed. If dealing with another four years of Dubya is the price I have to pay to keep that man out of office, so be it. If voting for a candidate I have little love for is what I have to do to show the Democratic Party what I think of its tactics and unholy alliances, so be it.
Kiz, do you consider yourself a moderate Democrat? Would you like to have seen Lieberman or Edwards nominated? Who was your choice?
I was interested in both Lieberman and Edwards, and thought they might make good running mates. The candidate I was most interested in, though, was Wesley Clarke. But unfortunately, he dropped out before I could even learn enough about him to thrown my support into his camp.
As to my affiliation, I’m still a registered Republican, though I seem to be tiptoeing a bit to the left every day. If I had to classify myself, I’d say I’m a hawkish, slightly right-of-middle Independent.
justwannano wrote
Retirement age was set by Congress at 65 in 1935, when the life expectancy of an American male was 62. Life expectancy has gone up dramatically. Today, at birth, life expectancy is 76. But additional expectancy at 65 is 17 years and growing. It doesn’t really seem fair that people can spend as much as a third of their life on the backs of future generations.
Also, the baby boomers are about to start retiring in 2008. There are enough of them that by 2030, America’s population will have increased by approximately 18%, while retirees will have increased by 100%.
In 1940, there were 42 workers for every retiree. Today, there are 3.2 to one. In 2030, there will be 2.2 to 1.
Do you really think that’s fair? That others should so dramatically pay your way, just because you haven’t saved, and don’t have a job?
Most of my reasons for voting for Bush have already been mentioned.
Specifically, I trust him to keep our country secure, I like the fact that he will limit the UN’s involement in our affairs, and I absolutely love the idea of the Fair Tax Plan and that he wants to privatize Social Security.
(It irritates me when people fuss about the privatization of Social Security like they’re going to cut off your payments next week - if you’d listen, Bush always says that he wants it to start with young people. I only hope that if it becomes a reality, I’ll still be young enough to participate. )
Generally, I think he is more honorable, trustworthy, and genuine than Kerry. Although I am not a religious person and I disagree with him about his beliefs that are influenced by his faith (the usual), I still like the fact that he strikes me as having better morals than Kerry.
Kerry just never said a thing that didn’t put me off.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Bush and Kerry have the same position on gay marriage? As far as I could tell, they are both against marriage, but for civil unions.
I’ve been told by a moderator to shut up.
How do you feel about libertarianism?
I really feel for the Libertarian Party. I think they have some wonderful ideas, but their isolationist philosophy on the War on Terror is highly unrealistic and dangerous, and their emphasis on legalizing drugs puts many people off. Now, if they got behind eminent domain, I think they could hit it out of the park.
I heard that Badnarik got more votes than Nader…is that true? If so, why isn’t that in the news? (Jeez, ivylass, do you really need the answer to that question? ;))
Far be it from me to step on a mod’s toes, but I have no problem with questions, as long as they are framed in a way to get more information, and not in a confrontational, “How in the hell could you do such a thing?” way.
Still, the mods have spoken.
All my reasons have already been stated, but I’ll talk anyways.
As others have said, my feelings on Bush are luke-warm at best- I think he’s done a mediocre job at best, and has really screwed up stuff I wanted to see done well.
If the Democrats had nominated someone who was no-holds-barred about fighting the War on Terror, the War in Iraq, and who was open to suggestions about cutting social programs to reduce government spending, they’d have gotten my vote in a heartbeat.
Instead, they nominated someone who didn’t seem to believe that there was a real War on Terror, who was meandering and flip-flopping on the War in Iraq, and who was interested in continuing to increase government spending at a rate faster than Bush.
So I held my nose and voted for Bush.
See, now, this is one thing I don’t understand at all. In the one concrete example of the sort of thing Bush is going to protect us from- 9/11- he failed. Sure, it may not have been his fault- that was an extraordinary circumstance that no other president has had to go through- but, ultimately, it fell on his watch. And, since he wasn’t prepared for it, thousands of Americans died.
Why do you think he’s better at keeping us safe from terrorism than Kerry would be? Kerry, at least, doesn’t have 9/11 on his resume. Do we have any examples of Bush defeating terrorism?
Why blame Bush for 9/11? He was only in office for nine months. Clinton could have had OBL delivered to him by the Sudanese, and he refused.
I prefer to put the blame for 9/11 squarely on the shoulders of Al Qaeda. It’s what Bush has done since then that has impressed me.
Let’s see, 75% of Al Qaeda is dead or captured, Saddam’s sons are no longer running rape rooms or beating Olympic athletes, Saddam himself is under lock and key, OBL is reduced to repeating the DNC talking points on videotape, and Afghanistan held its first free elections.
I think so, far we’ve done pretty good.
I don’t know. It seems like a lot of Pink Elephant Repellant (“See? No pink elephants! See how well it works?”).
75% of Al Qaeda dead or captured… but not Bin Laden. I can’t fault Bush for this- I imagine it must be hard to find one guy who really, really doesn’t want to be found. But still- for my money, Bin Laden is the guy that we’ve got to get, in order for Al Qaeda to be crushed. Saying we’ve got 75% doesn’t make me feel much better- that 25% and the head honcho is pretty damned scary.
Sadaam… I’ve never believed that Terrorism is the reason we’re in this war. Sure, he’s a bad, evil man. The world’s better off without him. But I’ve never seen anything that’s quite convinced me that he had anything to do with 9/11. And, yeah, his sons were also quite evil… but terrorists?
Afghanistan getting free elections… sure, a good thing. But why are we doing this, again? Isn’t our influencing other countries’ government kinda what got Sadaam into power in the first place?
And why blame Bush for 9/11? Because he was the president. 9/11 happened on his watch. I don’t think that 9/11 is a very valid “vote for me” point. He says he can protect us from something like that happening again… but he didn’t stop it from happening the first time.
Dammit, I did it again.
Lightin’, with all due respect. This thread was not started for debate. This thread was started for clarification purposes of how Bush-voters think.
I don’t fault Bush for 9/11. There was plenty of missed opportunities before he took office by other presidents, including his father, who should have pressed on and neutralized Saddam after the first Gulf War.
(P.S.: Bush never claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.)
You’re right, Ivylass. My apologies. It wasn’t my intention to derail the thread.
griffen2 has this thread helped you understand why some of the people here voted for Bush?
Also, great idea for starting this thread, I have enjoyed reading it.
Something that doesn’t get mentioned much is that Libya agreed to disarm themselves of WMD. I genuinely do not believe that would have happened if (for instance) Kerry were President, and it came about because Bush sees the War on Terror as more than just 9/11.
Another major reason I voted for Bush is that I really, really want Justices appointed to the Supreme Court who think in strict constructionist terms.
And Kerry simply had no record in the Senate of bringing about anything that he claimed was important during his campaign. He is just not a person who can get things done.
But the real deal-breaker, as far as voting against somebody instead of for someone else, was Kerry’s vote on the first Gulf War. I cannot stomach that. I cannot support a candidate who would make that vote. Not ever. As far as I am concerned, that immediately and permanently disqualifies anyone from holding national office.
The most charitable interpretation I can honestly come up with for Kerry voting that way is that he thought sanctions would drive Saddam out of Kuwait. And that seemed to me at the time to be clearly stupid - almost self-evidently so - and, as the history of Saddam’s violations of the UN inspection regime seem to indicate very clearly, it stood no chance whatever of working. Saddam would have consolidated his hold on Kuwait, the French and others would have covertly assisted him in getting around any sanctions, and from there Saddam attacks Iran, Israel, and then Saudi Arabia. And then, quite literally, World War III.
My apologies if this turns the thread into a debate. But those, in addition to the others posted in this thread, is my reason for choosing Bush as the best of the available candidates.
Regards,
Shodan
Ok, so you said “much.”
And you mentioned it first. Sorry I missed it.
Regards,
Shodan