EJ So your beef with Bush is that he has pandered to the religous right and has pursued an interventionist foreign policy. You claim to have voted for him in 2000. In the campaign that year he talked about how Jesus is his favorite philosopher because “He changed my life”. He campaigned on partnering with faith based groups to help the poor. He was open and upfront about the role religion played in his life and would play in his administration. Do you really think his position on gay marriage today is any different than it would have been 4 years ago?
On foreign policy, it was tempting for the GOP after winning the cold war to go back to Bob Taft style isolationism and Bush seem very sympathetic to that. However 9-11 changed that and Bush has been upfront about how his thinking was changed by the terrorist attacks. To change your position after the worst attack on American soil in history is not dishonesty but a willingness to adjust to events. To contine the feckless foreign policies of his father and Clinton after they were shown to be a failure would have been foolish.
Secularism and isolationism are legitimate points of view, but don’t sully the good name of conservatism with them.
I and all the other Liberal Republicans* who were pushed out years ago welcome to the Dark Side ExecutiveJesus and whatever other Moderate Republicans are left.
Platform: Balanced budgets, prudent diplomacy, loving the military but not about to send it on wild adventures, respect for the Constitution, Capitalism with a conscience, a sense of duty to those less fortunate than us, keeping our noses out of other people’s private business, inclusion not exclusion–remember the Big Tent?–but no crackpots, thankyouverymuch. Just your basic Good Midwestern Values TM.
In other words, we were for everything the present administration is against.
You can, of course, prove this. Because otherwise, as I’m sure you know, this is nothing more than slander masquerading as argument. And your credibility as a poster would approximate that of a monkey in the zoo flinging his own crap.
Like the cowboy whose horse threw him and suddenly became afoot, you dear Dropzone, have become a Democrat by process of elimination. The party of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld is not the party of Reagan, Goldwater and Nixon. It is clearly not the party of Eisenhower and Taft. Hell, it sure isn’t the party of Lincoln. None the less, it is flabbergasting that every day you run into somebody who is determined to vote for Mr. Bush simply because Lincoln won the war.
I, too, would like to see you prove this, Shodan, as I spent a great deal of time unraveling the whole Clinton/Loral/“Chinese missile secrets” farce for a past thread and found it to be a load of tinfoil-hat BS. Please enlighten us, or retract.
Exactly. For many of us conservatives, this election really is a case of “the devil you know.” Had you dems nominated Liberman or Edwards, some of us might have gone over to the dark side- at least for one election- but you nominated Kerry. I’m not too thrilled with Bush, but there’s no way in hell I’d vote for John Kerry, and I’m not an idealist so I’m not voting for Nader or another useless third party, so Bush it is.
Would it’ve helped, if instead of becoming a Senator and dealing day in and day out with the complicated foreign and domestic issues that face the United States, Kerry’d bought a baseball team instead?
Is owning a ball club the kind of prior experience you’re seeking in a PotUSA?
That makes sense, in a perv kind of way. You find out your wife is a $2 crack whore who has infected you with AIDS, syphilis, gonnorhea, chlamydia and a half-dozen exotic and less well knows sexually transmitted diseases…
But hey! You’ve already got them, why divorce her now? Yeah, I can see the reasoning…
The obvious reply is “Why would you think Kerry, or anyone for that matter, would screw up as badly as Bush has?”. Unless you want to vote for the greater evil, don’t you have to think a little more just who is more likely the lesser?
Nah, Randi wouldn’t touch this – no psychic powers are necessary, just enough cynicism to believe the conservative Republicans(*) will use whatever down-and-dirty tactics they can devise to keep Bush in the White House for another four years.
(* = As opposed to the afformentioned “liberal Republicans,” the folks who should simply rename themselves “conservative Democrats” and be done with it. )
Well, again I want to caution folks that the views of ‘conservatives’ and ‘republicans’ on this board aren’t necessarily representative of the views of Joe or Jane voter out there. I think its still going to be a close one unless something radically changes.
That said, I became disaffected with the Republican party years ago, so it wasn’t really GW that made me leave. It was the distressing tendency of the Republicans to mix politics and religion basically. From what I can tell based on my own friends, most of the moderate unaligned types are still divided as to whether to go with Bush (devil you know) or Kerry (who is perceived by some as being indecisive and weak…hey, just telling you what they tell me). Most of the hard core Republicans are probably going to stick with Bush reguardless, much like the hard core Democrats would stick with whoever their candidate was, reguardless. Your crack whore little diddy goes both ways, as you well know elucidator. Hard core Democrats are just as likely to stick with a loser as Republicans voting strictly by party lines.
In the end I think its going to come down to how the economy and especially the jobs market has recovered or not recovered by early next summer. I’ve pretty much said this all along, and I’m staying with it…all the other stuff (Iraq, war on Terror, blah blah blah) will fall by the way side if the economy recovers and people get back to work at their former salaries (or something close), and if that doesn’t happen or its a weak recovery from a jobs perspective (something I’m starting to think likely) then Bush will get hurt…badly.
I have a vision of Shodan on stage, his back turned to the audience, and the choir singing back, “Hell, yeah!”
I would argue that after only four years in office, President Bush still lacks the knowledge and experience that John Kerry has in the areas of Commerce, Science & Transportation, Finance, Foreign Relations, and Small Business and Entrepeneurship, all Senate Committees upon which Senator Kerrry currently sits–some of them for twenty years.
Yet Shodan is right. The Presidency is not an entry level position, and we were clearly in error to give the job to a rank amateur back in 2000, although most of us tried not to even back then.
IIRC, the Republicans didn’t have complete control until Bush’s term when the deficits were being run. Also (IIRC) most of the cuts in the Clinton era came in the military, which hardly seems to be the work of classical Republican thinking.
Ultimately, Congress does control the budget, but Bush seemed more or less happy with the Republican legislatures’ deficit spending. He favored the tax cuts and the average american has yet to see any value from running a deficit.
Just wanted to add that I heard today, through the friend of a friend, so I’d appreciate it if Sofa King or someone else with a decent ear to the ground in DC could confirm this, that the Pentagon has more or less decided that Bush is a one-termer.
Based on his votes. He voted against the first Gulf War, in favor of the invasion of Iraq, but opposes paying for it. He talked out of both sides of his mouth when called on his first Gulf War vote, basically lying about how he voted. elucidator (of all people) cited him on this - I can dig it up if you like. Now Kerry is flip-flopping pretty strenuously on his vote on Iraq.
My expectations on the deficit and on Kerry spending come off his website, where he wants to increase jobs by raising taxes on corporations or something. The Bush campaign pointed out that he wants to spend some $900 billion, which Kerry says he is not going to raise taxes to cover, so I guess he expects to get the money from the usual Democratic Revenue Fairy.
Kerry has been in the Senate for nineteen years, and not accomplished much, so I don’t really expect a President Kerry to be able to bring off anything of what he claims. Most of my projections are extrapolations based on the notion that Kerry would be able to bring something off - a stretch, I grant you.
But that is Kerry’s problem. He is a weak character - go along to get along. These are not “go along” times. Like Jimmy Carter - a nice person, quite smart, and completely over his head. Senator Kerry is a fuzzy-headed liberal boob. President Kerry is likely to be no better.
So… you’re saying that Kerry won’t be able to spend big on the big ticket Dem crowd pleasers? Sounds like the perfect candidate for small government conservative to me. Program gridlock = less pork spending.
Shrug. So you say, but then I can’t see you ever seeing anything but the absolute worst of any Democrat’s character, so that ain’t worth spit.
And the fact is, worse could have been said about Bush in 2000: less experience, basically an empty suit who’d been carried around by big friends his entire life… and you mostly liked how his administration turned out, no? So are shallow partisan characterizations of character really good things to go on?
I suppose this is the kind of bullshit that passes for intelligent thought in RNC circles since I have heard it so freakin’ much. The fact is that the $87 billion Iraq funding bill was rammed through Congress with little intelligent thought. A vote against the bill didn’t mean that one opposed paying for the war but rather that one opposed certain aspects of the bill and wanted it improved…or at least discussed before it was voted on for heaven’s sake!
I wouldn’t think this would be such a difficult concept to understand but it sure as hell seems to be for some people.
Well, if the Bush campaign says it then it must be true. After all, Bush has hardly ever lied to us…I can’t remember a single lie I heard him tell during that year he was holed up in Alabama (but not many other people seem to remember much that he did or said that year either).
And, as proof of this idea that the Dems are such irresponsible spendshrifts, we have the fact that Republican Presidents like Reagan and both Bushes haven’t run big deficits while Democrats like Clinton have just expanded the deficit like mad. :rolleyes: Facts are such ugly things when you are a Republican partisan.
I don’t expect to convince someone like you otherwise. But, for intelligent people who are willing to base their views on actual facts and information, here is a recent article in The Nation describing Kerry:
I must say, the contrast with George W. is indeed dramatic!
I forgot to mention also that Kerry is in favor of repealing the tax cuts for the richest Americans. You know, like the top 1% who had seen their after-tax incomes go up by a factor of 3 in real terms between 1979 and 2000 (while those near the median…i.e., in the middle quintile, saw only a 15% rise) but who Bush still thought badly needed tax relief. And, in fact, for the 6-year period from 2005 through 2010, Citizen for Tax Justice calculates that the tax cuts for just those in the top 1% will total $876 billion assuming the sunset provisions are repealed (as Bush has repeatedly demanded); it’s $622 billion if all the sunsets remain in place.
Yeah, I started to feel the nudges in '72 but they turned into hearty shoves in '80. “Adios! Nice knowing ya. We can run this party just fine without your kind.”
)