To be fair, I suppose that arguments could be made for adopting a stance like Kerry’s in regards to the resolution in order to give Bush the backing necessary to be able to apply the pressure to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq. However, voting to give Bush the kind of leeway that the resolution gave him implies a trust for Bush that I don’t think was warranted by foresight and sure as all hell isn’t warranted by hindsight!
Hmmm…it’s kind of a hijack, isn’t it? That really was the main issue that I saw them differing on. But the main reason I liked Kucinich was that when I heard him speak, I really got the feeling that he was speaking his conscience, and not just saying what the polls show that people want him to say. Sadly, though, I don’t think the American people are ready for a truly honest president with true principles. Besides which, he’s much too liberal to ever have been a serious contender. Liberalism doesn’t seem to be much in favor these days.
Oh, yeah - forgot that one. Kerry voted for it, didn’t he? That’s what I’m talking about; I get the feeling that Kucinich really does things because he believes in them.
Hell no - I get that just fine. Because hardly anyone in the thread has said anything else.
And at least one poster has said that his preference for child molestors over Bush is not hyperbole.
What I am asking is, is there anything at all that would lead you to pick one not-Bush over another? And why is your chosen not-Bush JF Kerry?
I am granting you your primary requirement.
Look, you claim that anyone at all would be better than Bush. OK - you Dems have more or less picked someone, and it isn’t Bush. It’s Kerry. Why did you pick him?
Yes, yes - I know - he isn’t Bush. But neither was Dean, or Kucinich, or Sharpton, and neither is Nader. Why did you pick, and why do you currently support (if that is the word) Kerry? And if Kerry isn’t available, is there any way that you could decide who else should challenge Bush besides picking names out of the subscriber list for Salon.com?
Fine. Why did he win? What were the positions that he took that caused people to choose him, and how well do those positions translate among the general electorate?
Almost literally, the only reason I have ever heard put forth to vote for Kerry is that he is not Bush. What I would like to know is, why him? And if not him, then who? And why?
Well, no. Unless you are arguing that Bush was elected in 2000 for the same reasons that Kerry won the primaries, and I don’t think that is the case.
Deep? Support for Kerry is about as deep as a parking lot puddle. Because, as far as I can tell from this and other threads, the only reason anyone has to support him is that he is not Bush. Most of the posters in this thread have acknowledged this.
Well, I will apologize if you like. Before you ask me to do so, I would request that you read some of the stuff rjung and Zagadka have posted in this thread, and ask yourself two things:
[ul][li]Why are Bush supporters expected to have such a thick hide while others’ are so thin, and[/li][li]In what way does my description of “falling obediently in line behind Kerry” any different from your description of the Democratic primaries?[/ul]Maybe I am beating my head against a brick wall. Maybe there really isn’t any reason in particular to vote for Kerry, if you don’t hate and despise Bush with every fiber of your being. [/li]
But given the fact that at least half the country doesn’t hate Bush with every fiber of their being, and needs to be convinced that Kerry is better than a random name pulled out of the phone book, that does not bode well for the Democrats in the general election.
Not my problem. I am not a Democrat. If you really can’t come up with any reasons to vote for your boy, so be it.
Regards,
Shodan
There would be this possibility: If Kerry becomes convinced that the Iraq war was justified, he might be able to convince those of us that support him of the same thing. Given two candidates with identical foreign policy, I would then support that whom I agree with more on domestic policy- namely Kerry.
Pal, if you want to know why Kerry won the nomination, you can easily search this very forum for last winter. But, as has been patiently pointed out to you already, it doesn’t matter anymore. Why do you want to explore that further? Well, let’s try anyway:
You have granted the primary requirement. It follows that the candidate who provides the most likelihood of meeting that primary requirement is preferred. As circular an argument as it is, Kerry is the most electable and should be the nominee, and he’s the most electable because more voters think him so. But you’re not satisfied with that, apparently. Why would they think so, you ponder? Every voter has their own reasons, but common themes would include his seriousness, cautiousness, Washington experience, frequent political courage, personal bravery as shown in his war record, and a (somewhat-assumed) sharing of the mainstream attitudes reflected by Democratic positions. That explain it for you?
For me it was a tough decision because there were so many candidates who offered a similarly-attractive combination of characteristics, though not of course identical. His electability as discussed above, a decision grantedly made partly by other voters, tipped my decision in his favor. That primary requirement you already granted, that is - it’s simply prioritization.
But wait, there’s more from the guy who isn’t bothering to defend his fantasizing any longer:
Where the hell do you get that? Bush supporters are expected to defend their views with facts and reasoning, like everyone else is. If some of you have trouble doing that, it isn’t anybody else’s fault but your own.
Because it dismisses the thought processes of millions of voters as being simple order-taking. Who gave the order, then? I must have missed it. No, it’s a lot of people living in the real world, with largely-similar worldviews, assessing the same facts in light of those worldviews and coming to the same conclusions. IOW, it’s the electoral process. How does that differ on the Republican side, IYHO? I don’t see anyone else you even had available to vote for over there, so what decisionmaking process did you go through?
I think you’re making an error in logic. Just because some of us are saying that virtually anyone would be better than Bush, doesn’t mean Kerry isn’t a good candidate. On the news this morning I heard that a recent CBS poll shows that if the election were held today, Kerry would win.
Let’s say Abraham Lincoln is running against Hitler in an election. You’d vote for ANYBODY if it meant defeating Hitler, wouldn’t you? That doesn’t mean Abraham Lincoln is a poor candidate.
Shodan, you’re off topic here. If you want to know the plusses of Kerry, start a thread about it. Just really quick off the top of my head, he:
-
Supports U.N. involvement in Iraq.
-
Supports renewable-energy research, conservation, and clean-air standards.
-
Is against tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% of Americans.
-
Supports civil rights.
-
Supports gay civil unions.
-
Committed to helping Native Americans.
-
Supports college affordability.
-
He’s not Bush. (Just kidding)
I like his plan to cut military spending by 15% and spend it on healthcare. Although I think he doesn’t go far enough. We could cut our military budget in half and still spend twice as much as our nearest competitor.
He also wants to create a Department of Peace. I know hawks like you laugh at that, but why not give it a shot? It’s a crazy enough idea that it just might work.
Marijuana decriminalization. I’d love to see that.
Unfortunately, I live in a (relatively) conservative country, so I have to face the cold harsh realities that major slashes in military funding, universal healthcare, and marijuana decriminalization aren’t going to happen this year.
Kerry has the nomination, so I’ll have to compromise my idealistic dreams and go for pragmatism instead. Left wingers aren’t the only ones doing that this year. I’m sure a lot of Right Wingers would love a candidate who would crack down on illegal immigration and would actually show fiscal responsibility, but they don’t have that as a realistic option this election. Neither do I have the luxory of getting everything I want this time around.
That’s the best point 
I don’t know if it was CBS… I saw a poll showing Kerry winning IF NADER doesn’t run… with Nader Bush wins. Pretty sad.
Fine. I’ve had two people tell me discussion of the issues that lead one to support Kerry are off-topic in a thread about how strong is the support for Kerry.
:shrugs:
We return you now to your regularly scheduled episode of “Bush - Bad or Evil?”, part MDCCCXXII.
Regards,
Shodan
The thread is about “what would it take to give up on Kerry?”, not “how strong is the support for Kerry?.”
It’s a hypothetical “What would Kerry have to do for you not to support him”.
It’s not asking “Do you like Kerry?”
See the difference?
Shodanreasonably asks:
Any of those, if they are the frontrunner against Bush, regardless of what party nominates them.
If the Republican Party splinters in two and Republicans Part A nominates Olympia Snowe, Christine Whitman, Rudy Giuliani, Dennis Hastert, or Pete Domenici, I’d vote Republican Part A against Part B candidate George W. Bush.
For that matter, for some of those individuals, I’d strongly consider voting Republican Part A against a Democratic candidate, depending on who the Democratic candidate was. Olympia Snowe, Republican, against Joe Lieberman, Democrat? I’m pulling that “R” lever on that race. Chris Whitman versus Kerry? Probably Kerry, but I’d pay much much closer attention at that point. (And how nice it would be to have such a choice!)
Harder decisions would be if Republican Part A were nominating Orrin Hatch with Tom DeLay as veep and running against George and Dick, and there were no other significant contenders in the race. Now we’re into nose-holding territory to be sure, but I’d vote for Hatch and then go out and get blotzo drunk and cry a lot.
But no, to answer your question, I would not vote for absolutely anyone who “isn’t Bush”. If Republican Part A went with Pat Robertson and Dan Quayle, I’d actually vote for Bush. Better to have an hilariously incompetent fundamentalist nutjob invading sovereign countries and dissolving individual rights on domestic and international fronts than exchange him for a team that would be just as horrid but might turn out to be slicker and more effective at orchestrating political opinion, and therefore even more destructive in the long run.
Damn right I would. Bill Bradley would be high on my list.
Because he’s more agreeable than Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan.
I, personally, was deciding between Dean, Kerry, and Edwards when the primaries made the matter moot. Any of them, however, are still more agreeable than Nader or Buchanan (or Bush).
Considering all the bullshit the Republican Party has been tossing out for the last twelve years (cf: the Bill Clinton years), as well as the bullshit they;'re tossing out now, I think this is simply a matter of “Can you take it as well as you can dish it out?”
You mean “He’s smarter than the alternative” isn’t sufficient?
I’m not a Democrat, but I am planning to vote for Kerry. I’m registered as a Libertarian, and that is how I would prefer to vote, but some of the things Bush stands for are just so hateful to me that I will break my personal rule and vote for the lesser of two evils.
If Kerry were to come out in support of the Musgrave amendment, he would lose my vote. If Kerry were to align himself with the Religious Right in any way, he would lose my vote.
It ain’t gonna happen, though.
Wrong. As I said in my response, I agree with much that Kerry stands for, and I’m NOT a reluctant supporter. I truly admire this man who’s spent his entire life in public service – I admire his intelligence, his courage, his compassion, his strong positions on the environment and a women’s right to choose, his cajones in standing up for himself, and yes, his careful, considered reflection on issues that has sometimes resulted in his willingness to change his mind.
But that wasn’t the question asked in the OP, so I didn’t bring all that stuff up. The question was, “what would Kerry have to do in order for you to turn against him?”
I think we’ve seen the answer. He’d have to be Bush.
BTW, to those who feel that people prefer voting FOR someone rather than AGAINST someone – don’t bet on it. Do NOT underestimate the power of Bush Hatred. It’s led to some pretty strange bedfellows (with many Republicans and Libertarians so disgusted by the pResident that they’re willing to vote Democrat for the first time ever just to get him out). It’s also led to a groundswell of financial support for the Democratic Party and the Kerry campaign; the creation of the Bush and His Fellow NeoCons Totally Suck book publishing genre that’s practically overtaken the bestseller lists for the past several months; an entire radio network, blogiverse, and cottage industry of hilarious & creative artists all devoted to giving the opposition to Bush a much-needed voice; a tremendously successful pro-choice march – the largest protest rally in U.S. history – primarily brought on by Bush’s fetus fetish; and, most importantly, extraordinarily high voter turnouts just for primaries!
That’s pretty freakin’ impressive. Remember, it’s only April! And many Americans haven’t even begun to get to know Kerry.
I’m certain that the more they do, the more likely it’ll be that in November, people will be glad not only to vote for NotBush, but for John Forbes Kerry himself – a damn good man who’ll make a great president.
Okay, shodan, isn’t it about time you walked us through the thought process by which you decided Bush is better presidential material than Kerry? What alternatives did you consider, what criteria did you apply and how did you weight them? Don’t disappoint us now.
Well, I am not a Kerry Democrat, but I do intend to vote for the man. Personally, I would have preferred to see Clark as the nominee, but that’s a bit of a different topic. Kerry’s not my ideal choice, but here’s what I see he has going for him vs. his primary competitor, the incumbent:
- Likely to have taxes and spending a bit better aligned (still not enough to suit me, but it’s a start)
- More oriented toward true international coalition-building for solving international problems
- Record of being opposed to war, even though he’s willing to fight one if necessary
- More of a supporter of individual liberties
- Does not force his religion on others
If you changed all these factors, it would sway me. I still wouldn’t vote for Nader – I personally think ol’ Ralph needs more tinfoil in his hat. I’d probably do a write-in at that point.
Why not just go straight to Shodan’s source?
Seriously, I’d rather have it from him directly and in his own words. If he asserts the right to snipe at all of our thought processes and values, or deny that we even have them, he had better be able to describe his own with the same scrutiny he uses himself - scorn, too, if it’s called for.
I get so tired of using the H-word, “hypocrisy” that is, and I’d really like to be able to give one of the Usual Suspects more credit than I’ve been able to so far. But I’m still waiting.