I lean liberal, but I’m not dyed-in-the-wool or anything. I have voted for Republican candidates a number of times over the course of my voting history, as well as various Independants and Democrats.
In talking with many Republican voters and other like-minded conservatives, I have found that many of them agree with me that Bush is making the kinds of mistakes and implimenting policy that are anathema to my American sensibilities. In these discussions, many lament the lack of offering of a Democratic candidate they feel they could vote for. Last week I suggested to one such Republican that they start a movement for Republicans that don’t want to vote for Bush, but can’t bring themselves to vote Democratic, which would involve going to the polls and voting on whatever else is on the ticket, but leaving the presidential slot unmarked. Basically, they’d be casting a blank vote. I told her that if enough people got on that bandwagon, it would send a HUGE message to their own party, would rid the country of Bush, and they could claim that they were able to preserve their principles.
And I’ve been thinking about it a lot since then. We were really just brainstorming, and while I’m decently politically savvy, there may be glaring holes I’m not aware of. What do dopers think? Am I crazy? Or is it a good idea? Any suggestions?
The problem with that is that, while a lot of those Republicans you talk to think Bush is bad, they think the Democratic candidate is worse, and if they do what you suggest, it helps the Democrat win. So, while the country would be rid of Bush, the new president would be a “Democrat they couldn’t vote for”
It’s crazy. For myself, I’m considering voting Libertarian if I don’t vote for Bush and if Kerry can’t win me over. But I live in CA, so a vote for Bush is not that meaningful anyway.
What you are suggesting might happen by default in many cases, but I just don’t see an organized movement forming around the idea.
It’s not a bad idea. Go for it. My problem is that Bush, aside from the big issues, also does not reflect the traditional small government, conservative financially, generally less reguulation sort of thing I traditionally expect from a Republican. He seems intent on growing the government and creating social programs as much as any Democrat. Admittedly, they’re from a different perspective, but they’re still social programs. The government does not belong in my marriage.
That’s one way to look at it, but how about this? It wouldn’t be aimed at helping the Democrats, that’s just a potential side effect. The point would be that it seems a way for people to protest in a manner that might be more befitting to their political sensibilities than grabbing a sign and heading off to a free speech zone. It’s something they can do to be proactive, and if enough people did it, the message it would send would be loud and clear, putting the party on notice that candidates should reflect the ideals of the constituency rather than…whatever this is (opinions vary). It’s an action that has larger implications for the political future.
Thanks for the responses so far, btw. I’m really interested to know what people think.
If my party (Democratic) nominated Ralph Nader, I would probably bolt to a third party. That would let the Democrats know that they have lost a potential supporter.
So yes, I’d suggest that disaffected Republicans vote Libertarian.
OTOH, I might also note that Democrats have gotten a bum rap in many ways. For example, Democratic Presidents consistently propose budgets with smaller deficits (or surpluses, on occasion) than Republican Presidents do.
As for evangelicals, it is difficult to see what they have won in Washington, other than 25 years of lip service.
ALSO, Republicans that are uncomfortable with Bush policies might consider voting for a write-in candidate during the primaries. Pete Peterson perhaps?
Have to completely agree with Brutus here – the majority of Republican voters don’t have enough moral courage to vote their conscience, and will simply punch the ballot for whoever has the little “Republican” label next to their name. Heck, this monolithic groupthink is arguably one of the strongest weapons in the GOP’s arsenal.
There is no almost no way any party would unseat a sitting president. If it was going to happen, it would have already. It’s a non-starter.
The Democrats had a chance to attempt to nominate a candidate more in line with mainstream thought, the Rs had McCain in 2000 (sigh), but the Democrats litmus test all their candidates into a strong anti-war position. The Republicans do it on social issues.
The anti-war position seems dated. Now it’s how to get out without allowing a civil war to start. Arguing about the old Iraq issues will only play with the left.
Kerry has a higher ADA rating than just about anyone. I don’t think he ever supported a weapons system, many very successful ones. His long record of inconsistent foreign policy votes is nothing now, or new, but we still have months. More importantly, GWB has a huge ad budget that remains untapped. Everyone will know about Kerry’s record within a few months.
Bush’s 1.5 billion for a federal marriage bill, but pushing FMA, all while proposing one billion for ?Mars? – 1.5 billion for straight marriage, 1 for Mars – was all quite underwhelming. However, I tend to vote foreign policy. The Democrats really give me no choice.
I think Kerry is in big trouble. Clearly, his press could not get any better. I predict that the news about him is about to take a nosedive. His foreign policy votes, his post-Vietnam record, and a couple simmering personal issues might make some Dean or Edwards people stand up and cheer over the next week or so. I’m so unsure about the veracity of this personal stuff, so I really don’t want to rumor monger. I suggested one of them in jest right here a few days ago. Politicians, so predictible.
That’s what you expect from a Republican? You know, i hear this quite a bit and, when the topic is presidential politics, i’m not sure where the hell it comes from.
Name me a Republican president in your lifetime whose administration really reflected notions of “small government, conservative financially, generally less regulation.”
George Bush I? I think not.
Ronald Reagan? Bwahahahahahaha!
Gerry Ford? Well, he hardly had enough time in the job to really make an impact.
Richard Nixon? Hell, even an “America hater” like Noam Chomsky calls him the last liberal president.
Dwight D. Eisenhower? Come on. Fiscal conservatives spent most of his presidency whining that he was just like Truman, only with medals.
Herbert Hoover? Well, we’re stretching the limits of likely lifetimes here, but even Hoover, with his notion of an associative state, wasn’t exactly a raging libertarian.
I think we’re in the presence of a myth with no basis. Sure, there are true small-government Republicans, but it’s been a looooooong time since one lived in the White House.
Wow, I really like that 2002 Senate Zeroes list from ADA. Gramm, Helms, and Nickles are on that list, and this time around, they’re gone. Murkowski has replaced his own image with that of his daughter, but she doesn’t hold a candle to Dad.
It looks as if a new generation of arch-conservatives are needed to fill their rightful positions of ignorance in the Senate. Think I’m making some sort of partisan swipe? Well, it might be just a coincidence that the states which elect the most conservative Senators also happen to be the states that spend the smallest amounts on their students.
I feel for you, I live in Texas, and any vote other than one for Bush is effectively pissing in the wind.
Assuming Kerry can’t get your vote from you, and no independants show up that you can stomach, you and I are both effectively prevented from getting anything for voting presidentially.
Well, I already do this. Course, I’m not a republican so I probably don’t count anyway. I’m voting third party as neither candidate appeals to me whatsoever. Some of the things I’ve heard from the Kerry side recently about trade (and a few other things) are scary…and well, frankly nearly everything about Bush is scary. Both are flakes as far as I’m concerned so it will be either none of the above for me, or I’ll vote third party (probably Liberatarian as the Reform party is pretty well gone now…hell, I’m betting they would run ME if I really wanted too ;)).
So, not such a bad idea. I’ll tell you though you are dreaming if you think the die hard Republicans are going to go for such a thing. My dad doesn’t particularly like Bush AND he respects Kerry (my dad is a Vietnam vet too), but no way in hell he’ll vote anything but the party line. Most of the 'Pubs I know are pretty much the same thing…they are a bit apathetic about Bush, but don’t like Kerry much either and will stick to the party line. Even a lot of my non-aligned friends are pretty much either flipping a coin or gonig Bush…mostly because of Kerry’s recent stances on a few key issues and a feeling that the devil you know…
I think its going to be VERY close…and it didn’t have to be this way. I really believe that if the 'Crats had of run Lieberman or even Edwards they would have had a VERY strong candidate that really appealed to the middle. I could see a lot of the non-aligned, and even quite a few moderate republicans going for either of those two. However, the 'Crats chose to go the path they did…I figure its their way of handicaping or something…wanted to make it a close race or something.
BC, can you be bothered to actually argue sensibly for anything, or is simple denial enough for you?
The premise is: which of the Presidents listed actually made government smaller and less powerful. Can you explain why you think Nixon did this? Reagan is probably the closest you are going to get, but for goodness sakes, make a CASE for it, rather than these pointless denials. Are you really going to argue that NIXON, who imposed massive price controls for goodness sakes, was a free market hero? A man who shrunk the authority and size of government.
What kind of a response is “think again?” Even plenty of prominent conservatives are PO’d with Bush for pumping up the size and powers of the federal government. For goodness sakes, both you and the President are for taking the issue of marriage out of the hands of the states. How is THAT consistent with a stance for empowering the rights of states to make up their own minds?
