GOPers - Are you happy with Bush?

Great Debates
81

Fair enough, John Mace. I didn’t check my writing in that first post for inconsistencies. Mixing population with households is certainly wrong. And you’re of course right with the other statement in your post. I tried to get it across, but I can’t seem to get the meaning across. Everytime I write something, I find I have to add a caveat, and then I get lost. Presenting statistics in running text is a bitch. Will you let me blame it on that?

However, given better, more refined data, I do think I can shoot down the argument that the [nuclear] family is the basic, i.e. most common, unit of living. Using that as an argument to oppose gay marriages don’t wash it for me. The pillars of society won’t come crumbling down, simply because it’s allready crumbling and have done so for quite some time. There are too many people living outside family/married life too make it the the majority, even tough it’s still the largest group.

Maybe I should just hike over to any of the countless gay marriage threads and continue from there. The topic of this thread is much broader and very interesting to read.

82

WTF dude? Did I piss in your wheaties or something? The basis for my “hope” is that Bush had to pander to the left in order to keep his reelection bid alive. If he wins again, this is no longer a concern. Therefore, I would like to hope, wish, pray, whatever word you think I should use, that he will lean back to the right and use an improved economy to straighten out the current budgetary messes that he aptly deserves credit for.

Your debate style is very interesting. Like I said, you wont change my mind, and you wont lead me into a debate defending Bush, so you attempt again to insult me or something. I have other reasons for voting for Bush, so I feel that I am not the self centered prick that you seem to think. Ultimately, however, I don’t give a shit what you think about me. Feel free to continue however if, criticizing a faceless internet entity somehow brings pleasure to your life.

How about I spell a word “wrng” so you can criticize my spelling too?

83

Yeah, and then the Senate Republicans killed the bill.

I oppose Kerry, because I feel, that based on the company he keeps in the Senate (Schumer, Boxer, et al) that he will not stop at the AWB when it comes to gun control measures. If you want to debate the other issues such as trigger locks, magazine bans, Ted Kennedy’s cop killer bullets amendment, etc, feel free to do so in another thread.

The threat is real. Today’s vote only solidified it. That being said, if Bush were to vote an extension on the AWB I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HIM.

Did you see that Elvis?

84

After we bitch-slapped both Afghanistan and Iraq. “We are willing to negotiate.” has far more power if the other side is quite well convinced that refusal to negotiate in good faith will bring dire consequences.

85

The point is that guns were banned by the way they look, not by the way they function or any other logical measure. This is bad legislation that has made little to no effect on crime. If guns can be banned by their consmetic features, what is next?

86

TG:

I don’t think you need to shoot down the “nuclear family myth” to make the case for gay marriage. In fact, it’s a fool’s errand because even if most households don’t fit that description, you’ll find that most people aspire to that situation and/or **did ** live thusly at some point in their lives. And take the req’t for children to be present in order for a family to be “nuclear”, and the whole argument falls apart.

Better to simply argue that the government should not be selecting one class of people for special benefits.

87

I’ll let it rest. My head hurt from trying to make numbers match up anyway.

Oh, and that other stuff is easy: Take away marriage rights from churches, elvis’ wedding chappel ASF, for any judicial purposes. Only way to have a marriage be legal, is to register it, with witnesses, at some authority. If the couple then wants a ceremony, go get one at place of choice. I find it totally outdated that a church can perform legal duties in countries where the church is separated from the state. Houses of worship is for faith, not for binding contracts.

88

Another registered Republican chiming in here. I certainly voted for Bush in 2000, I could not stand Al gore on bit, and to me John Kerry seems like the typical Democrat with whom I could never vote for, I do believe that he would roll back the tax cuts and probably even raise them if he could.

I am probably in the boat with a lot of fellow Republicans in that I have not been happy with some the things that Bush has done in office, he is certainly not a perfect President, but name me one who was/is?

So all in all, I will probably vote for him again in November.

89

I agree completely. I am not going to defend Bush as I am not a fan of his. That being said, Kerry is not any better. I personally would love to hear why Kerry is better, rather than why Bush is a worse choice…

90

I used to be a Republican. Now, I’m just a conservative.

I define “conservative” the way the Republicans used to: I’m in favor of less government spending, states’ rights, lower taxes, government the hell out of my face, common sense, personal responsibility, law, order, and personal accountability. Government handouts at a minimum, and only to those who can prove they need it or can pay it back in a given time frame.

This is why I’m no longer a Republican, since as far as I can tell, the Republican party doesn’t seem to stand for these things much any more.

In fact, under Bush, “Republican” seems to mean “we who do what we damn well please if we can get away with it, and then we’ll spin-doctor the unholy hell out of it to bamboozle the American people, who we don’t really listen to or care about anyway.”

I’d have voted for McCain over Bush, and for Dole over McCain. I voted for Gore in the last election, but only in the absence of a decent opposing candidate. If McCain or Dole had been in there, I’d have felt a lot better about voting for either of them.

…but, you see, Bush had been governor of Texas for a while before launching his White House bid. I live in Texas. I saw what the sonofabitch was doing, and I knew damn good and well he’d do the same thing if he got in on the national level. This is not a statesman. This is a businessman who simply wants to play with the big electric train set… and, while doing so, benefit his cronies and power base in any way he can.

Bush is not a civil servant. He is a civil master. He is not interested in the least in the “will of the people.” I would, in fact, be amazed if I really thought he gave a damn about gay marriage one way or another; I see the whole thing as a big smokescreen to get the more rabid members of his constituency distracted from the utter mess our foreign policy and economy have become since he got into office.

And, unless some sort of miracle happens in the Republican National Convention, I suppose I’ll be voting for Kerry this election. Not that I’m wild about Kerry, but the idea of Bush – back in power – still not giving a rat’s ass what is good for his country, or what anyone thinks of him – AND NOT HAVING TO WORRY ABOUT GETTING RE-ELECTED…

…scares the unholy crap out of me. He’s already acted irresponsibly. Ghod knows what he’ll do if he gets in there for another term.

91

I’m with you in this, except for a difference of emphasis.

I believe Karl Rove has decided the best chance for a win in this election involves increasing the GOP turnout.

Nothing if not realistic, swaying the swingers is a lost cause.

The gay marriage thing is a call to the otherwise complacent social conservatives. Largely Christians and religious. It’s a strategy to let them know GWB is onside although he can’t declare it out loud. The US being nominally secular and all.

For my money, though the swingers will decide it, which means Ta Ta G’dubya.

92

I’m with you in this, except for a difference of emphasis.

I believe Karl Rove has decided the best chance for a win in this election involves increasing the turnout. With a bias to the GOP inclined.

Rove’s nothing if not realistic, swaying the swinging voter is a lost cause.

The gay marriage thing is a call to the otherwise complacent social conservatives. Largely Christians and religious. It’s a strategy to let them know GWB is onside, although he can’t declare it out loud. The US being nominally secular and all.

For my money though, the swingers will decide it, which means Ta Ta G’dubya.

93

Just a brief aside to all the Republican non-fans of Bush who will vote for him anyway:
As I see it a vote for a candidate is a vote of affirmation. A candidate has to earn my vote – he has to get it by making me want to see him in office. I am a Democrat, but right now Kerry has done nothing but turn me off. If he doesn’t change his act, I will go vote but I don’t know if I will vote for him – I may not cast a vote for president. It surprises me that more unhappy Republicans/conservatives aren’t considering doing the same with Bush.

94

[QUOTE=TeaElle]
This is exactly where I am. The goodwill engendered by Bush’s performance in the post-9/11 days and the support I had right through the summer of '03 are gone thanks to the two-facedness of the pandering to the base with FMA and the betrayal of same with the cash mad spending that’s been going on. It is frightening that Rove & Co. think that they can keep true conservatives around with this obnoxious discrimination ploy when both it and the deficit-running turn conservative principles entirely upon their heads.QUOTE]

But they are, aren’t they?

Is there a single post in this thread by a Republican who has said, “Man, Bush has fucked up so badly, I’m voting for Kerry”?

Most say that they’ll vote for Dubya because, well, Better Dead Than Dem. The rest say they’ll just throw their vote away on a candidate who is, let’s just say politely, not going to have a real effect.

So, no, they’re not managing to “keep true conservatives around with this obnoxious discrimination ploy when both it and the deficit-running turn conservative principles entirely upon their heads”, but their voters still aren’t going to vote for a Dirty, Dirty Democrat.

So, are they really losing that much?

-Joe

95

Good points, Merijeek. Are the Republicans going to jump to Kerry? Not many. But they don’t need to. Bush won key states in 2000 with some defections by some Democrats, vote drain by Nader, and strong support from independents. Those three factors were a perfect storm and even with it, he only won a razor-thin electoral race. The Democrats are more united now than in any time in my memory, Nader has no following this time around, and a lot of those that lost their jobs are independents. Kerry keeps the 2004 Gore states and adds Ohio OR Florida OR Missouri and he wins the White House. If he wins all three of these swing states it’s an electoral blowout.

96

One thing I’d caution ya’ll on here is that people on this board are not exactly representative of the country over all. I know it seems, from this thread in particular, that Bush is going down fast but I don’t think the mood of Joe Citizen out there is exactly the same as that of the folks that are on SDMB or in this thread. So, don’t be shocked if the race is much closer than some of you are presently fantasizing about guys…at this point it could go either way.

-XT

97

Weeeelll…

First off, you’re right. I think things will be a whole hell of a lot closer than the (anti-Bush) optimists think it will be.

Really, I think that it’s depressing that after all the lies, all the bullshit, and everything else I’ve seen happen for the last three years, that Dubya could actually still win. That thought right there is really what makes me fear for the future of my country.

BobLibDem kind of misinterpreted what I was trying to say, I think. I wasn’t saying that Bush giving a big “Fuck you” to most of the ideals dear to his supporters was going to kill his chances of being reelected. I’d like to think so, but I don’t believe that’s the case. The Better Dead Than Dem attitude is what allows him to get away with it.

My whole point was the people in this thread who disagree with Bush on absolutely everything, but will still vote for him are doing exactly what Bush & Co. want them to do.

Basically, they can be used, abused, and fucked over and they’ll sit there and take it. They’ll smile about it. They’ll FUCKING VOTE FOR IT TO CONTINUE…as long as it’s not a Democrat doing it to them. As long as you THINK that Democrat is going to come take your guns…even though Bush just voted to extend the AWB. Because we all know a Democrat would have done…well…the same thing.

But at least it wasn’t a Democrat doing it.

-Joe, never actually hated the GOP until 2001

98

I’d say that attitude is why he thinks he can get away with it. And his Neocon base certainly is not going to jump to Kerry. My point is that they don’t need to jump in order for Bush to lose. Only a fragile coalition of disaffected Dems, independents, and the Nader spoiler role got Bush into office in the first place. That coalition is gone. If Bush thinks he can pander to the right, fine. Those votes weren’t in play anyway.

99

Ok, I’ll ask you enlighted ones again… Please oh Bush haters, why should anyone vote for Kerry? Besides voting against Bush, why on earth would a vote for Kerry be the way to go?

100

How about, instead of breaking out the sarcasm, you try telling us why on earth a vote for Bush would be the way to go?

Why whole point is that people like you sit there and smugly ask the question, “Why should someone vote for Kerry?”. And, unlike you, some people actually ask the question in a totally sincere way.

For me, personally, I would vote for the proverbial ham sandwich before I’d vote for George W. Bush. I would do this because I think he has been an absolutely horrible president. I think he has made the wrong decision on pretty much everything set before him.

Normal people have lost their life savings, yet the prosecutions of those responsible won’t roll around until shortly before the election.

A perfectly justified war is launched to dismantle the Taliban and hunt down Osama bin Laden, and instead of sticking around until the job is finished, Bush uses a lot of vague terms and spooky handwaving to segue into a totally unnecessary war.

Social programs suffer while taxes are lowered, forcing those social programs to suffer even further. Meanwhile, strangely enough, my taxes have supposedly changed and yet my bottom line hasn’t. I guess from a Bush point of view, being a single guy and making $42,000 a year means I haven’t made it up to “middle class”. Maybe once I hit six digits a year or something.

In that case, for the slow of thinking, I will be voting against George W. Bush. Why? Because for the first time in my life, I am actually ashamed of my country. I’m not talking about the big things, either. I can’t believe that my fellow Americans can be fooled so easily, and once having been fooled, and will not recant, even when the plain and obvious truth is there right in front of them.

I expect people to vote for Kerry because they can see what a truly impressive total fuckup the presidential administration of George W. Bush has been. They can vote with the knowledge that, no, Kerry could not possibly do a worse job.

And neither could the ham sandwich.

-Joe