I was referring to people who think the country must be united behind the President in time of war. They don’t necessarily think Bush is doing a great job, but apparently feel that to criticize him is treasonable. They think any criticism of Bush and the war is damaging to the war effort, and that those who criticize Bush are helping the “enemy.”
Obviously not all conservatives think that, but it seems to be a fairly common theme on talk radio and message boards.
Sigh.
[http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/09/cheney.halliburton/]
xstime, the Democrats will cite Halliburton and Enron as representatives of the corporations that Bush tries to help. That is a real campaign issue, despite your poo-pooing.
I am very pithy.
More specifically, there are plenty of people that feel the anti-Bush movement goes too far. To take myself for one: I think he’s made mistakes and refused to own up. His spending is out of control. The gay marriage amendment is a travesty. While I agree with most (not all) of his foreign policy choices, I’m annoyed at the smugness with which he carries them out. To me, they all spring from a guy who was inexperienced coming into office and it’s shown, and I would be open to a responsible alternative.
But every time I read the frothing-at-the-mouth, “Bush=hitler,” Halliburton-conpiracy types – hell, when I hear Ted Kennedy say that “the only thing we have to fear is George Bush” – it makes me think that there must be something to say for a guy so hated by such idiots. Hell, read this thread for the same dynamic.
I think Reeder alone has created a dozen votes for Bush.
I don’t know whether to say that I object to this oft-repeated line of reasoning, or whether it merely reflects a lack of thinking that I look upon with disdain. Generally, it takes the form of: “I will hold my vote for Kerry hostage to your capitulation to…” Look, you know your mind and your conscience. You know what is right and what is wrong. Vote it or don’t vote it. But don’t blame others for you cutting off your nose to spite your face.
The part I find disdainful is that so many on the right appear not to be able to vote a particular way because they would be voting the same way as others they do not like. I’d hate to think that someone was such a conservative automaton that they would find themselves in the voting booth ready to cast their ballot and saying, “This one’s for the anonymous guy on the bulletin board!”
I used to think that Republicans really did have integrity. I honestly believe that they once did.
Oh, I know, but my point is simply that anyone who believes George’s list of “accomplishments” at face value is dumber than a box of rocks, given how reality doesn’t jive with the rhetoric.
I can claim I’ve won the Nobel Peace Prize three times, but that doesn’t make it so. Similarly, Bush can claim anything he wants, but the facts aren’t there to support it.
Yeah, but we both know that there are quite a few people out there who, despite being intelligent and well-informed in general, actually buy into this bullshit. And the question was, what will Bush say in his acceptance speech. You just know they’re gonna eat it up, just as we loved Kerry’s speech (although, of course, they’ll have considerably less intelligent and realistic justification 
). But John, despite the fact that I frequently disagree with his politics, isn’t one of them. He may vote for Bush in a triumph of ideology over sense (sorry, John, but that’s how I see it!), but he’s not gonna believe the bullshit.
I didn’t say I was one of the dozen. I’m not a Republican. And if you think lots of people on all sides don’t vote on gut instincts and emotion, you’re nuts.
Like spite? Well, I guess there probably are. And it wasn’t you so much that inspired me to say that, but the general sentiment in your line about Reeder that I have seen several times here: “If you don’t stop pointing out how Bush is an asshole, I’m going to vote for him!”
Back to the OP, did anyone else get the impression that many of the introductory speakers, starting with the hamster story, then the band of brothers, and finally with Max Cleland, where they were weaving a tapestry of a theme - that John Kerry knows how to provide leadership in crisis and under fire, that his judgement doesn’t waiver when the heat gets hot.
And how that theme just tends to juxtapose on the topic many Americans are discussing around the water cooler these days - the scene from Fahrenheit 9/11 and the infamous seven minutes?
Is that just me, creating links where none exist? Or was that scripted political brilliance on the part of the speechwriters?
I’d say that Reagan was the only Republican I ever voted for without holding my nose. This elesction is going to be a tough one-- I’m not sure I have enough strength to hold my nose tightly enough to keep out the stench. 
Honestly, though, I haven’t yet made up my mind. I may do something really pointless and “throw my vote away” on a 3rd party candidate. I don’t really like it when either party has control of both the administrative and legislative branches.
[shameless plug]
Check out my new GD thread: “A multiparty system is better than a two-party system!” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=269169
[/shameless plug]
In spite of your own indictment of Bush’s record and the fact that there is a reasonable and experienced alternative you would vote for Bush because of what someone, someplace at some time said?
Incredible.