Miller is a Democrat in name only, being one of the remaining Southern conservatives who hasn’t yet switched. His voting record lines up better with the other side of the aisle.
MLS, if you have another reasonable way to interpret what you’re being told, then please tell us what it is. That’s debate. But sure looks like you’re choosing to simply ignore facts when they turn out to be inconvenient with that approach.
How sad that you are deciding such important matters for yourself based on your emotions, rather than your head.
These are not matters that are really much in question, except for the spin. Bush didn’t protect you from anything or “hit back” at anyone who really tried to hurt you, he just made it look that way by going after somebody else completely unrelated. * Clinton actually succeeded in finding and dealing with the real terrorists. * It may be more satisfying to go to war…that’s big and noisy and expensive and flashy. But it is and has been incredibly ineffective at doing what you claim to desire. He has pandered to your anger, that’s all. There is no there there.
(shudder) right back atcha.
I apologize, MLS. I didn’t mean for this to happen.
I voted for Gore last time and while I certainly wouldn’t taint my soul by voting for the current president I have moved away from the Democratic Party in the interim. I am now Green and quite unwilling to vote for pukes like Lieberman or even Kerry. I don’t doubt they would be less disasterous for the country than the president we have now but I still wouldn’t trust them at the helm. I feel essentially the same way about Howard Dean but he is an outsider and the candidate of the “liberal wing” of the party even if he isn’t a liberal himself and that should be encouraged so, after much soul searching, I have decided I would give him my vote if he is the Democratic nominee. If instead the Dems offer up Kerry as they seem intent on doing I will find someone worthy of my vote even if I have to write them in.
I usually vote for whomever I feel is less likely to appease our adversaries. In other words, I’m a hawk.
In 2000, when Bush was opposing nation building, threatening to make Colin Powell the secretary of state, and cozying up to anti-Israel Arab-American groups, I voted for Gore. This time I will obviously vote for Bush.
I preferred Gore in 2000, and currently I find myself undecided. I tend to lean Democratic when my own pocketbook is taking a hit, and Republican when I am more prosperous. (Yes, I am an unprincipled voter.) This election, no matter who wins, I am going to have to ignore the fact that I disagree strongly with a number of their proposals or policy stances. I prefer to know who the candidate is on the Democratic side before deciding how to vote.
Anecdotally, I’ve been hearing just the opposite.
A Recent post from the vile “El Rushbo” leads me to believe this anti-Bush sentiment might be spreading even amongst the most diehard Bush supporters.
From Rush:
How interesting. No disrespect MLS, if honest I admire your honesty but the position you describe is on the edge of parody, which edge I cannot say.
It’s what I think of as the Orc-person vote. The salient question is how many Orc-people there are that GWB can count on. Many, a few?
And a big hellody to a certain familiar face. 
I’m another Democrat who will vote for Bush–reluctantly. Here’s why. Through my businesses in Asia I spend an inordinate amount of time with various US officials from various government departments and bureaus. By far, and I’m talking about gov’t officials at the ambassador level down to lowly appointed State Dept. officials, those brought in by the Bush administration have been the keenest, brightest, and utterly less taken in by b*****t than any other administration I’ve had the pleasure of working with.
On the other hand I’ve always been a foreign policy junkie.
Left Hand, I hope you are right. But the republicans could actually receive more votes in ‘04 than they did in ‘00. I recently read (somewhere in the news) that Karl Rove thought 2000 was close because far fewer right-wing bible-thumpers turned out to vote (for Bush) than he expected. This time around he plans to motivate the flock towards a high turnout. Playing up the gay marriage “threat” will be part of this strategy, I believe.
Swing voters who went for Gore in 2000 may not like Kerry. We can count on republicans to wave the flag a whole bunch to get “patriotic” support from swing voters for their wartime commander-in-chief. Also, Kerry may turn out to be an uninspiring turkey like Dukakis (am I the only one who sees a similarity between the two?)
Perhaps a better way to word the question would be, “Knowing what has happened in the last four years, are you glad you voted the way you did in 2000, either for Gore or for Bush?” I myself can say that I voted for Bush and do not agree with everything he has done in the last four years, but still, if we had somehow could have know ahead of time that 9/11 was going to happen, given the choice between Gore and Bush in 2000 I still would have voted for Bush and would actually have been more likely to vote for him. I shudder at the prospects of Gore in office post 9/11. I think we possibly would still be debating over war in Aphganistan and there would be little change to the national security up to this poing because they’d be allowing the ACLU to dictate the terms, which would mean there would be almost no changes made. Again, in a similar manner to the Bush-Gore decison, I certainly don’t agree with EVERYTHING in the Patriot Act, but I am glad changes have been made. With Gore in office, I tend to think the Patriot Act would still be “under debate” and the country would be more vulnerable to more attacks.
Its all speculation and opinion, I know, and hard to prove, but thats what i thinkHomerIU, that’s very much what I was trying to say. Thanks. And I voted for Gore.
There were 3 posts before yours indicating that a person who voted for Gore in '00 would vote for Bush in '04. Don’t bother me with facts, I have an opinion to state. :rolleyes:
Ah, for the days when it was the right which called the left stupid and the only insult my type had to hear was that we conservatives were callous and selfish.
Putting that aside, the President does not appoint diplomats except in some formal and meaningless sense. Colin Powell could appoint diplomats, but from what I have read he tends to accept the recommendations of the career federal executives in his department. The diplomats now choose each other for the various posts with little politicial interference, leading to a happier workforce.
I’ll buy that last sentence.
My opinion is that countries do not go to war because of the character of individuals. Gore would have had the same CIA chief, Clinton holdover George Tenet, giving him the same information as Bush gets. Gore would have had a hawkish VP pressuring him from the right, just as Bush has. As a Democrat, Gore would have had, if anything, more need than does a Republican president to show himself to be tough.
As for Iraq, the number one cause for last year’s invasion, the need to resolve the 11 year old no-fly-zone war, would have been unchanged. Other causes, such as Iraq’s terrorist training camps, would have remained unchanged. Economic factors would have been unchanged.
Yes, Gore today is no hawk. But this is just a partisan reaction to the GOP.
So, are both parties the same? No, on domestic matters there are big differences. And this year, there are big foreign policy differences. But the differences were far more subtle in 2000. Gore would have started from that point and then reacted to the astounding tragic events.
I voted for Gore in 2000 and I’ll vote for the Democratic nominee in 2004. Again and again and again.
And a stronger bureaucracy. :rolleyes:
I voted Libertarian. But this time, if the Democrat is not one of those centrist Demublicans but rather is a defender and advocate of civil liberties, I am voting Democrat. The Republicans have spooked me quite enough, thank you. And the Libertarians are politically incompetent.
When I voted for Bush in 2000 I remember thinking
“Tax cuts are easier to repel that spending increses”
Arrrrrrrrrrgh
I’m worried that the democratic canidate will want to cut and run out of Iraq.
Well I guess what I am trying to say is that I will have to see what the democratic canidate has to say about foreign policy.
Bush will not automaticly get my vote.