How could I possibly vote for your guy?

[Acsenray]

Imagine this conversation taking place in 1999:

Republican: Bill Clinton is an embarrassment to the country. I feel ashamed that he is our president. We need a president who is going to return dignity to the White House.
Democrat: Why do you hate your country so much?

See, it’s a bullshit argument, but those of us who criticize Republicans are faced with it constantly.

[Mtgman]

Anyone who wishes to read the New York Sun article referenced in the OP can find it here. A couple of choice excerpts.

A survey conducted by The New York Sun of 253 protesters who took part in the United for Peace and Justice march found that 76% plan to vote for Senator Kerry in November’s presidential election.

The poll found that 59% of the protesters interviewed live in New York City, while an additional 21% reside in the tri-state area. Of those marching who were surveyed, 52% said they agreed with the statement that “America is overall a negative force in the world.”

I leave it to each individual to determine if this is a representative sample of Kerry’s supporters or what should be done about it. I might also point readers to the Sun’s Opinion and Editorial page which, at this time, contains the following excerpt.

Kerry at the Legion
New York Sun Staff Editorial
Senator Kerry’s speech yesterday to the American Legion convention in Nashville was a stark reminder of why our nation is far safer under President Bush’s leadership that it would be under President Kerry’s.

Some information about The New York Sun paper itself may be in order as well. An interview with the paper’s founder Seth Lipsky

Although many papers have been started and become defunct in New York, The New York Sun took root and now boasts a daily paid circulation of about 30,000. Lipsky credited the Sun’s success to its undisguised conservatism and its focus on local issues.

“The logic of the Sun depends partly on the recognition that The New York Times has made a strategic shift in its decision to become a national newspaper,” Lipsky said. “We ought to come in and make it a slogan to have New York on the front page [of every issue].”

Lipsky said he does not think the Sun should worry about objectivity or try to hide its political views.

“I don’t believe in journalists having ‘responsibility,’” Lipsky said.

Enjoy,
Steven

[DirkGntly]

I never accused anyone of “hating their country.”
I DID say that I believe the majority of Kerry supporters believe that America is currently a negative influence. I indicated that I did NOT think America is currently a negative influence. I then asked WHY you think a person who CURRENTLY SUPPORTS those who believe America is a negative influence should be the leader of that country.

In a nutshell: I believe we’re better off w/GWB, and that’s how I’m voting. ONE (of the many) reasons is that I believe America is a more positive than negative influence under his leadership (your welcome to disagree with me, but THAT is actually the crux of the debate, I suppose). As long as I believe we’re better off with GWB, HOW COULD I POSSIBLY VOTE FOR YOUR GUY, as long as he holds, or at least tacitly supports those who hold the opposite view (at least on this particular issue, for the purpose of this debate)?

I think that maybe clarifies it a bit - I could be wrong.

Now, I’m also willing to admit that this coin usually flips with the incumbent/party in power at the time…

[Algernon]

I also am deeply offended with your implications that if I disagree with the current administration’s policies, then I am somehow un-American or un-Patriotic.

If you believe and agree with the policies and behavior of the Bush administration, then vote for him. I would never ask you to do anything differently. That’s what a vibrant democracy is all about.

It should matter not how you feel about the Kerry supporters. This should have nothing to do with perceptions of positive or negative influences in the world because that is nearly impossible to accurately determine. Was it positive or negative when our country was an ardent supporter of Hussein? Often one can only determine “rightness” in the context of historical perspective.

I personally disagree with many (if not most) of Bush’s policies and our countries recent actions, both domesticaly and internationally. As a consequence, I will be voting for Kerry. Happily, and without reservation.

[Ravenman]

@DirkGntly

I DID say that I believe the majority of Kerry supporters believe that America is currently a negative influence.

Can you take a look at my questions a little further up? I am genuinely curious to know your thoughts.

[Sevastopol]

What is the evidence that Kerry supports those who think America is currently a negative influence?

Not that they support him. No, that he supports them. Is there a speech somewhere of Kerry saying: “* If you think America sucks, I am with you?”*

Are you indicating that if there is no such speech, you will therefore be compelled to vote for Kerry?

[Acsenray]

In a nutshell: I believe we’re better off w/GWB, and that’s how I’m voting.

In that case, I don’t understand what this discussion is about. If you agree with Bush’s policies, then you should vote for him. That’s how it works. And those of us who disagree with his policies should vote against him.

Unless you’re saying that you’re not sure what Bush’s policies are or that you are not sure that you agree with them and you want us to try to persuade you otherwise. I’m sure there are plenty of threads on this site that can make those arguments.

Or unless you are arguing that even if we disagree with Bush we should still vote for him, because that’s what loving your country means. If that’s the case, then I call foul.

Let me ask you though – what is it that makes you think that our policies have had more positive than negative effect? I would encourage you to cite facts rather than conjecture.

[TitoBenito]

Many of Kerry’s supporters might be anti-American nut-jobs and maybe even the majority of his supporters think the US is overall a negative force in the world today. But guess what? I don’t care what supporters of John Kerry believe. I only care about three people opinion in this upcoming election. That’s George’s, John’s, and Tito’s. I’ll pick the candidate who I think comes closer to my views regardless of who their supporters are.

I don’t believe that this country is an over all negative force in the world. I think the US is perhaps the cornerstone of stability and prosperity in the global community today. If you took all the positive things this country does and then subtracted all the bad things we do, we’d definitely still come up in the black. But what scares me is that in the last two years we’ve been losing some of this overall net gain, and just like our budget’s already done, we’ve slipped closer to the red. I don’t care if people in the far left think this country is rotten to the core. Hell, most of those folks believed the US was rotten way before Bush even took office. But it is apparent to both those critics and myself that this country has made a turn for the worse. And both those people and I have decided the best way to put the country in a better direction is to bring Bush back to Texas and never let this guy run a country again. The anti-Americans and I may not have a lot in common, but on that issue we agree.

Plus if we want to talk about voting according to the voters for each candidate, I’d like to remind you that it’s probably true that the majority of Bush supporters believe that evolution is a hoax and that Saddam was somehow responsible for 9-11. That scares me. What scares me even more is - I think Bush believes it too.

[Shayna]

@Mtgman

I might also point readers to the Sun’s Opinion and Editorial page which, at this time, contains the following excerpt.

Kerry at the Legion
New York Sun Staff Editorial
Senator Kerry’s speech yesterday to the American Legion convention in Nashville was a stark reminder of why our nation is far safer under President Bush’s leadership that it would be under President Kerry’s.

Riiiiight.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52746-2004Sep1.html

Text: Remarks by John F. Kerry to the American Legion

(All emphasis mine)

And we not only honor those who have served, but we’re going to stand by those who are serving today. We are a country at war. We know that too well. The president talked about it yesterday, others are consumed by it.

We’re a country at war and not only in Iraq but a global war on terror against an enemy unlike any we have known before. In all corners of the world our soldiers’ lives are on the line. More than 150,000 troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are far away from their families and thousands more are in harm’s way elsewhere.

My friends in the Legion and my fellow Americans, we owe them the truth. We owe the American people the truth. And I’m here today to tell you the truth as I see it.

I can’t come here and fulfill my obligation as a candidate for president of these great United States of America and not give you an honest and serious appraisal of the challenge we face in Iraq and the war on terror.

No one in the United States doubted the outcome in Iraq or how swiftly the war would be won. No one. We knew we had the best trained troops in the world and, true to form, they performed magnificently, and we are all proud and grateful.

(APPLAUSE)

But the certainty of winning the war placed the most solemn obligation on the civilian leadership of this country to make certain that we had a plan to win the peace. The Army chief of staff, General Shinseki, told Congress we would need several hundred thousand American troops to win the peace and do the job properly.

His candor was rewarded with early retirement and his advice ignored, sending a chilling message throughout the ranks of the professional military.

**By dismissing the State Department’s plan for postwar Iraq and proceeding unilaterally, the civilian leadership simply did not put the mechanism in place to be able to secure the country.

They were unprepared for the looting, insecurity and insurgency that burst out with the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime.

They failed to secure Iraq’s borders and so allowed thousands of foreign terrorists, Islamist militants and intelligence agents to penetrate and destabilize postwar Iraq. **

Amazingly, they had no real plan for postwar political transition.

All of this happened despite clear and precise bipartisan warnings from Congress and regional experts.

Then as the challenge grew around our troops, the civilian leadership failed to respond adequately; failed to share responsibility with NATO, the greatest alliance we’ve ever built; failed to share it with the U.N., which also offered assistance; failed to share reconstruction or decision-making as a way of inviting others to shoulder the burden; and **failed to provide the security on the ground necessary for postwar reconstruction.

They rushed and short-changed the training and equipment of the Iraqi police. They failed to recruit enough experts in language and culture of the region and used those that they had ineffectively.

The civilian leadership made a decision to disband the Iraqi military completely, so there was no internal structure to maintain order. They chose consciously to put an American instead of an international face on the occupation; failed to prepare for a large number of prisoners; and most significantly, failed even to guard nuclear waste and ammunition storage sites, despite the fact that weapons of mass destruction was their fundamental reason for the war.

And some of the weapons that we didn’t guard are the very weapons being targeted at our troops today.

As a result, today terrorists have secured havens in Iraq that were not there before. And we have been forced to reach accommodation with those that have repeatedly attacked our troops. Violence has spread in Iraq. Iran has expand its influence and extremism has gained momentum. **

Now, I know that some of these things are hard to listen to. I know that it’s always tough to talk truth to power. But I think the president himself on Monday admitted that he miscalculated in Iraq.

In truth, his miscalculation was ignoring the advice that was given to him, including the best advice of America’s own military.

So when the president says we have the same position on Iraq, I have to respectfully disagree. Our differences could not be plainer, and I have set them out consistently.

When it comes to Iraq it’s not that I would have done one thing differently, I would have done almost everything differently.

I would have relied on American troops in Tora Bora, the best troops in the world, when we had Osama bin Laden in our sights, trapped in the mountains. I would not have sent Afghans up into those mountains who a week earlier had been fighting on the other side. I would have sent the best-trained forces in the world to get the number one criminal and terrorist in the world.

(APPLAUSE)

I never would have diverted resources so quickly from Afghanistan before finishing the job. I would have given the inspectors the time they needed to do the job, not because that might have done the whole job of getting the weapons, but because by doing so we could have brought other countries to our side, which is the way you provide our troops with the best protection and the way you provide America with the greatest chance of success.

I would have made sure that we listened to our senior military advisers.

I would have made sure that every soldier put in harm’s way had state-of-the-art body armor, state-of-the-art Humvees and the equipment we needed.

I would have built a strong, broad coalition of our allies around the world because every one of you sitting here knows, no matter what – take away party affiliation: This isn’t Democrat. This isn’t Republican. This isn’t independent. This is just common sense. Because everyone here knows that the best way to protect the troops is to make sure not only they have the equipment, but that you’re going from the maximum position of strength.

**If there’s one thing I learned from my service, which was a difficult time as we all know, I would never have gone to war without a plan to win the peace. That I think is critical. **

(APPLAUSE)

Now, the bottom line, fellow Legionnaires, is this: that I don’t believe we, you, have to be shouldering nearly the entire financial cost of this war – more than $200 billion – and short-changing investments and health care and veterans, in education, and our safety at home.

But the question now is not just what we should have done, but what we can and must now do. I don’t think we need what President Bush has defined as a catastrophic success. I think we need a real success.

We need to bring our allies to our side. We need to share the burdens, the cost to the American taxpayer. We need to share the burden and reduce the risk to American soldiers. Together, we near to more rapidly train Iraqi police and military to take over the job of protecting the country.

That is what I will do as commander in chief because I’ll tell you what, that’s the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home as fast as possible.

Yeah, George W. Bush has done a peachy-keen job of ensuring my safety, hasn’t he? What with terrists running around with nuclear materials and ammunition he left unguarded. Could anyone have done a better job at completely missing the point, distorting reality, omitting facts and outright lying than the guy who wrote that piece of shit? Jane Fonda? He invoked Jane fucking Fonda!

[TitoBenito]

@BobLibDem

Unfortunately, negative campaigning works and positive campaigns do not. Bush I rode Willie Horton all the way to the White House, Bush II smeared mud over McCain all over South Carolina.

Pointless sidenote: I actually worked for the company in Houston that did all the smear and push polling in SC against campaign. I worked there 2 year or so later when we were doing some push polls for the Republicans primaries for the 2002 congressional elections. The vast majority of people are really dumb and do not realize that they are being led on. The rest basically just cussed me out for being unethical. What low levels a college student must sink to to earn a measly 7 dollars an hour in this economy. It beat working 12 hour assembly shifts at compaq and busing tables though.

[you_with_the_face]

Dirk

I DID say that I believe the majority of Kerry supporters believe that America is currently a negative influence. I indicated that I did NOT think America is currently a negative influence. I then asked WHY you think a person who CURRENTLY SUPPORTS those who believe America is a negative influence should be the leader of that country.

How does Kerry support anyone? Doesn’t it work the other way around?

You say America is a positive influence. Why do you believe that? Is this belief unconditional, like the love for your child? Or is this belief honestly based on something more than patriotism? What would have to happen for you to re-assess its standing?

Politics are a bit more complex than “America good!” and “America bad!”. If you think the country is headed in the right direction, you like the decisions the President has made, and you feel confident that the future holds good things under the current admin, then by all means, vote for Bush.

If you’re like me and many others, and you feel that the country is not headed down the right path, you think the incumbent is a terrible leader who keeps making bad decisions for the country, and you are scared about the future under his leadership, then vote for someone else. It has nothing to do with who is supporting whom. Sheesh, whose name is going to be on the freakin’ ballot? It’s not going to be “Kerry-supporters who think America is a doo-doo head.”

Kerry supporters include all types. I don’t really care what the breakdown of types are, because I don’t define myself or my prefered candidate based on who else will vote for him. But maybe I’m strange or something.

I think ascenray’s first post in this thread is great.

[bup]

Dirk -

You apparently (MtgMan provided the link, I guess that was the article you were talking about) saw that a bunch of demonstrators are 76% for Kerry, and 52% of the opinion that America is overall a negative force, and came to the conclusion that 52% of Kerry’s supporters believe the US is overall a negative force.

Here are the hidden assumptions/assertions necessary for your conclusion, which are wrong:

1. 75% of the demonstrators said they were voting for Kerry; 52% think America is a negative force; therefore, 52% of the Kerry supporters at the demonstration feel the same. Why it’s wrong - simple math.

2. Having established number 1, you extrapolated from the population of demonstrators outside the RNC to the whole of Kerry’s supporters. Why it’s wrong - See, demonstrators have a higher percentage of extremists than the population at large. Also, out demonstrating, demonstrators tend to overstate their feelings a little bit. It gets them on TV, in newspapers - it gets their message out.

[scr4]

I’m one of those who think the US has, in the recent years, been a negative influence over the world. And I am offended by the implication that I do not “believe in America.” I believe America can be a positive influence under the right influence, but for that to happen, we need to face the unpleasent fact that not everything we have done in the pas has turned out well. Why would I bother to criticize America if I didn’t think it has the potential to do better? The real pessimists are the ones who look at the current status and say it’s good enough. So don’t tell me I do not “believe in America.”

[John_Mace]

@Mtgman

Anyone who wishes to read the New York Sun article referenced in the OP can find it here. A couple of choice excerpts.I leave it to each individual to determine if this is a representative sample of Kerry’s supporters or what should be done about it. I might also point readers to the Sun’s Opinion and Editorial page which, at this time, contains the following excerpt.Some information about The New York Sun paper itself may be in order as well. An interview with the paper’s founder Seth LipskyEnjoy,
Steven

Good investigative work, Steven!!

DG: Since your OP is based on faulty information, how about asking a mod to close this thread?

[glee]

@DirkGntly

In a nutshell: I believe we’re better off w/GWB, and that’s how I’m voting. ONE (of the many) reasons is that I believe America is a more positive than negative influence under his leadership (your welcome to disagree with me, but THAT is actually the crux of the debate, I suppose). As long as I believe we’re better off with GWB, HOW COULD I POSSIBLY VOTE FOR YOUR GUY, as long as he holds, or at least tacitly supports those who hold the opposite view (at least on this particular issue, for the purpose of this debate)?

I think that maybe clarifies it a bit - I could be wrong.

As a Brit, I can assure you that my personal view is that Bush is a disaster for the USA and that therefore America is indeed currently a negative influence.
(I hasten to add that this is extremely disappointing, since the US democracy, especially its constitutional freedom of speech should be an example to the world.)
Judging from the massive protests when Bush visited recently, the vast majority here agree with me. We normally welcome US Presidents - not this one.

It is impossible to ignore the fact that the UK followed the US into Iraq to seize non-existent WMD’s.
Why was the UN Security Council ignored?
Why is there now a ludicrous back-dated attempt to claim that this war was about ‘saving Iraqi citizens’?
Why did companies that were major Republican donors get all the contracts in Iraq?

Why are there UK citizens (and many others) held prisoner in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba who have no access to lawyers or family?
How can the US campaign for human rights with this example?

Why do you think Tony Blair has not collected the medal Bush awarded him?
Because it will cause a storm of protest here.

[Blalron]

On the flip side, how could I possibly support Bush when so many of supporters are complete bigots?

[John_Mace]

If we made our voting decisions based on the candidates’ supporters, we wouldn’t vote for anyone!

[MaxTheVool]

@DirkGntly

In a nutshell: I believe we’re better off w/GWB, and that’s how I’m voting. ONE (of the many) reasons is that I believe America is a more positive than negative influence under his leadership (your welcome to disagree with me, but THAT is actually the crux of the debate, I suppose). As long as I believe we’re better off with GWB, HOW COULD I POSSIBLY VOTE FOR YOUR GUY, as long as he holds, or at least tacitly supports those who hold the opposite view (at least on this particular issue, for the purpose of this debate)?

OK, I’m still missing something, here… I’ll respond to your paragraph bit by bit:

@DirkGntly

In a nutshell: I believe we’re better off w/GWB, and that’s how I’m voting.

Certainly. If you belive that an America led by Bush will be better than an America led by Kerry, you should vote for Bush.

ONE (of the many) reasons is that I believe America is a more positive than negative influence under his leadership

Well, there’s a step missing here. You’re basically saying that America-with-Bush is a better-than-neutral country, and therefore you’re voting for Bush. Does that mean that you believe that America-with-Kerry would be a worse-than-neutral country? Or at least that America-with-Kerry would be worse than America-with-Bush?

As long as I believe we’re better off with GWB, HOW COULD I POSSIBLY VOTE FOR YOUR GUY, as long as he holds, or at least tacitly supports those who hold the opposite view (at least on this particular issue, for the purpose of this debate)?

Here’s where you lose me entirely. If you believe we’re better of with GWB, you should vote for him. If you don’t believe we’re better of with GWB, you shouldn’t vote for him. Thus, your paragraph should stop after the capitalized part, and it would make sense. The rest is irrelevant and confusing.
Presumably, Kerry supporters think we’d be better off with Kerry. Presumably, some of them think that America is good now but would be better with Kerry. Others probably think that America is neutral now but would be better with Kerry. Still others probably think that America is bad (ie, a negative influence) now, but would be better with Kerry. That’s why they will vote for Kerry.

So… what’s your point?

By the way, just for the record: I love this country. I get tears in my eyes when I hear the Stars and Stripes forever. I cheer for all our olympic teams. If I were cryogenically frozen for 400 years and came back and there were no longer a USA, I would be crushed. I think the US has been an enormous force for good, both in our actions and in the example we’ve set, over the course of our existence. I love America. That said, I’ve been ashamed of our actions concerning Iraq, and I’m deeply troubled by a lot of what the Bush administration has done. If 52% of Kerry supporters agreed with what I just said would that still cause you to have the reaction (whatever, precisely, it is) that you’re having in this thread?

[Lord_Bubbington-Smythe]

As a fellow Brit, I am in total agreement with glee.

DirkGntly, perhaps if you reprhased the “believe that the US is a negative force” to “believe that the US is a negative force under the Bush leadership” then your argument falls apart.

[bizzwire]

Dirk
I commend your civility in the face of much opposition.

I guess that it all boils down to this: What positive results has President Bush’s administration and policies resulted in? I’m talking real meat-and-potatoes, tangible things like the $300-$600 tax break you probably got last year, not stuff like freeing the Iraqi people from the clutches of a tyrant.

So…whaddaya got?

Actual working peoples incomes have gone down.
We have an enormous budget deficit.
We are involved in a war of our own making, with no exit plan. What tangible benefits have accrued to the American people from our incursion into Iraq?

I could go on listing all the ills that this administration (Administration, not country, mind you) has wrought. However, that’s not the point (and it makes me unpatriotic, apparently)

Please tell me of all the good things that we Americans have gotten from this administration, if you would.