Reasons to vote against the Republicans

I was speaking to a friend of mine back in Ohio who was telling me he’s still undecided about I started to consider the reasons why it’s so obvious to me that the Republican rule of the country has been disastrous. It took me only a few minutes to come up with a rather long outline. Does anyone want to help me fill this out with the details in essay form? I figure that a lot of people doing little bits would make the job light.

  1. Weakening Democracy
    a. 2004 Election
    b. Redistricting in Texas and Colorado
    c. Secrecy
    i. Cheney
    ii. General Secrecy Policy
    iii. Exceptions for Political Expediency
    (a) Valerie Plame
    (b) Jamie Gorelick
    d. Abuse of Legislative Process
    i. Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage
    ii. Media Consolidation Issue
    e. Propaganda
    i. Hypocrisy of criticizing blocking of Court Appointments
    ii. Denouncing of Critics as traitors
    iii. Periodic Announcements of Vague Warnings
    iv. General dishonesty of the conservative “echo chamber” – shamelessly repeated lies
    v. General dishonesty of announcing support for a policy then failing to fund it or actually enacting the opposite policy
    f. Media Consolidation and the Federal Communications Commission
  2. Failure to Address Terrorist Threat
    a. Afghanistan
    b. Homeland Security Department
    c. First Responders
    d. Investigation of Sept. 11 Attacks
    e. Saudi Arabia
    f. Pakistan
    g. Iraq Actions Result in Increased Threat
  3. Mishandling of Iraq War
    a. Mishandling Diplomacy
    b. Mishandling Planning
    c. Mishandling Follow-Through
  4. Deception Surrounding Going to War
  5. Tax Cuts for the Rich
  6. Education
  7. Association with Religious Right
    a. Science
    b. Gays
  8. Attack on Liberty
    a. Detentions
    b. Patriot Act
    c. Patriot II
    d. Attacks on Free Speech
    e. F.C.C. Indecency Policy
  9. Future Supreme Court Appointments
  10. Environment
    a. Appointment of industry insiders to regulatory posts
    b. Changing of regulations
  11. Foreign Policy
    a. Arrogant, confontational attitude
  12. Giveaways to Corporate and Political Allies
    a. Halliburton
    b. “Faith-based” organizations
    b. Tax Cuts

An excellent list! One thing I would add is their intention to empower the CIA to arrest Americans.

On further inspection, I would cut out “tax cuts for the rich”. Many people are suspicious of plans that punish success. There is no prudent ethical principle that entitles one person to the wealth of another. I would add in its place that Republicans have out-spent all other administrations in history.

Where’s GWB on the list?

I guess the whole list could be due to GWB, but his name has got to be on there somewhere.

Granting the FCC the ability to regulate violence in the media.

>>>2. Failure to Address Terrorist Threat, a. Afghanistan

I would change that. Invading Afghanistan was correct as far as dealing with terrorists go. You could put post-invasion abandoning of Afghanistan as a point though.

Include Stem Cell being made into a religious topic…

Read my other thread about “converting a Bush voter”. There as some good points. Just remember not to sound to combative and extreme.

I wouldn’t lean too heavily on the religion thing. People of faith can be Democrats. If you simply must mention religion, then use a phrase like “self-righteous” or “hypocritical right-wing cultists” or best of all “modern day Pharisees”. That will strike the right chord.

Those are good terms, Lib. Especially “modern-day Pharisees.” It nails the Falwells of the world right on the head.

acsenray list does and excellent job of explaining why people are still undecided. While a lot of folks, including me, are not exactly thrilled with GW, its hard to take people serious who come up with lists like this…and there seems to me to be a heavy weighting of these types on the ‘anyone but Bush’ side. Its one of those cry wolf situation…the yammering has been going on so long (even before the election) that eventually it gets drowned out in the background noise. And then when REAL issues come up against Bush its hard to differentiate the facts from the yammering (for some of the less informed of our fellow citizens).

C’est la vie I suppose…but I think that the ‘anyone but Bush’’ side, with uninformed lists like these have managed not to divert folks from Bush but simply muddy the waters and in the end shoot themselves in the…er, foot.


So none of these things are “real issues,” just background yammering?

I would definitely add excessive spending, but also add job losses during the past four years.

The reason that tax cuts for the rich should stay is because they demonstrably have not done the job of getting the economy moving again while minimizing the impact to the deficit.

But a pretty good list.

And what exactly about this list is uninformed? Every item on there is the result of something specific that I know that the Bush administration or the Republican leadership or the conservative media has actually done. I haven’t actually taken the time to fill out the details becase, well, I was being lazy and was hoping someone would help me.

Part of the propaganda problem is that when someone starts explaining what’s wrong with Bush, the “independents” tag you as a complainer. It’s almost the case that if you do enough bad things then you’re off the hook because then your critics can tag you as a “yammerer.”

And what about all the yammering that goes on in the conservative media, the dishonest yammering?


Wasn’t it Newt Gingrich who said “Refusing to reward someone is not the same as punishing them.”?

We don’t say that one person is “entitled” to the wealth of another person. We require that everyone contribute to society as a whole according to their means. We then dole out money from that big pile according to…prudent ethical principles.


Sort of like the O.J. Simpson trial. There was so much evidence that it amounted to “yammering” and the only thing that the jurors retained was that the glove didn’t fit.

Well, I’m out of town today so I don’t have time to go through this stuff with a fine toothed comb…but I’ll take a quick and dirty shot at it:

  1. Weakening Democracy: What does this mean exactly? What are the practical and demonstratable aspects of how our Democracy has been weakend?

a. 2004 Election: Huh?

b. Redistricting in Texas and Colorado: Double huh?? Redistricting has been going on for significantly longer than GW OR the Republicans have been in power. Democrats ALSO have gotten advantages in the past through redistricting, so I fail to see how this does anything at all for your ‘point’.

c. Secrecy: Again, secrecy in the government goes back significantly longer than GW or the Republicans being in power…we have Congressional oversight to theoretically make sure we, the people, are represented. As far as I know GW hasn’t revoked that.

i. Cheney: :smack: What exactly ABOUT chaney…or is your problem with just Chaney in general?

ii. General Secrecy Policy: Care to elaborate?

(a) Valerie Plame: Definitely a fuckup by the administration. However, its not like such things have never happened before during OTHER administration. Still, like a blind squirel you have found a nut.

blah blah blah. Most of the rest are in the ‘care to elaborate and make an actual point category’. I’ll just hit the highlights from here on out…my time is limited and my connection sucks.

i. Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage: I agree. Its this kind of liberal pandering bullshit that I can’t stand about Bush. 500 BILLION dollars?? Gods. However, I seriously doubt that was YOUR point.

ii. Media Consolidation Issue: Huh?

e. Propaganda: :rolleyes: One sides ‘propaganda’ is the other sides ‘facts’…and vice versa.

ii. Denouncing of Critics as traitors: Cite for Bush doing this? Or do you count any Republican supporting nutball for this one? Who exactly denounced ‘critics’ as ‘traitors’? And why haven’t I seen any shootings for treason??

iii. Periodic Announcements of Vague Warnings: Should the government let us just be fat dumb and happy? Do you have a cite that they announced warnings where there was absolutely no evidence there might have been a threat?

  1. Failure to Address Terrorist Threat: FAILURE to address the threat? Cite that they have failed to do this, and not just that they haven’t done what YOU think they should.

a. Afghanistan: What exactly ABOUT Afghanistan?? I’d say that taking out the Taliban was a positive step. Certainly THEY are aware that we did something there.

b. Homeland Security Department: What exactly ABOUT the Homeland Security Department are you, er, talking about? The fact it exists at all? That it should be bigger? Smaller? Wear a dress? What?

c. First Responders: On 9/11? What exactly is your problem with how the government responded on 9/11 and how do you think a Gore (for example) administration would have handled it differently?

(most of the rest of these are the same answer as b…i.e. want to detail exactly what your problem is on these topics instead of giving cryptic non-sentence responses?)

  1. Mishandling of Iraq War: Well, I’ll agree and even go furture…HAVING the Iraqi war was a mistake. Thats certainly a valid criticism. A needle in the haystack.

  2. Tax Cuts for the Rich: Its a debatable point whether or not this stimulates the economy.

  3. Education: Agreed. Bush has poured money into Education, and IMHO thats pouring money down the drain. He’s increased the size of the Dept of Education and is running amok like a liberal with someone else’s money burning a whole in his pocket…but I seriously doubt that was your point.

  4. Association with Religious Right: Distasteful to me, however again what has been the PRACTICAL effect of this? Do you have any cites that said association has had any impact at all?
    a. Science: Care to elaborate?
    b. Gays: Sorry to say this is a majority position of the citizens of the US (for now). Bush’s stance is the popularist stance, and while I don’t personally agree with him, its not like he’s holding down the majority of US citizens and forcing them to this position against their collective wills.

  5. Attack on Liberty: Again, whats the PRACTICAL and demonstratable aspects of these attacks on liberty? WHat exactly is your problem with the Patriot Act (and act II), and how exactly HAS it effected every day Americans liberty? Not vague handwaving but actual point.

d. Attacks on Free Speech: Cite?

  1. Future Supreme Court Appointments: Damn, you can predict the future? Whats next weeks lottory numbers going to be in New Mexico??

  2. Environment: Care to elaborate on these? I agree that Bush has not been an environmentalist president, but I don’t see the disaster you seem to be implying either.
    a. Appointment of industry insiders to regulatory posts
    b. Changing of regulations

  3. Foreign Policy: Depends on your perspective I suppose, but the US (and all the other UNSC members) have ALWAYS acted ‘arrogant’
    a. Arrogant, confontational attitude: Again, it depends on your perspective I suppose. Bush wanted the other nations of the world to assist us in getting rid of Saddam. Now, you can agree or disagree that this was important (I don’t think it was, personally), but they DID try. When it was appearent that most other countries were going to opt out, Bush et al did what they felt they must. Just like other nations of the past (many who opposed the US on this) have done.

  4. Giveaways to Corporate and Political Allies
    a. Halliburton: Afaik they were the most qualified for that job, being as they are experts in the field. Certainly there were some less than legit deals going down…when exactly AREN’T there with our government. You are going to need to lay out your case a bit to SHOW that these ‘giveaways’ were any different or outside the norm, and from what I’ve read in the past its going to be a hard case for you to make.

b. “Faith-based” organizations: Practical effect? Cite for WHY such organizations are being funded…i.e. the devil is in the details on this one. Its easy to simple yammer ( :wink: ) about ‘faith-based’ organizations being funded without bringing up those pesky details.

b. Tax Cuts: You mentioned this already. I loved mine, thanks. :slight_smile:


I’m on limited time myself, so I’m going to address only one section for now (I don’t know whether you’ve intentionally or unintentionally misunderstood the outline-numbering scheme, but let that go for now:

  1. Weakening Democracy
    a. …
    b. …
    c. Secrecy: The Bush administration has reversed a 30-year trend of open government at the federal level, imposing an unprecedented regime of secrecy over government operations. At the same time, they have intentionally violated secrecy laws and policies in order to gain political points.
    i. Cheney’s energy policy committee: Cheney has refused to release the records of the meetings that took place while developing the administration’s energy policy, even to the extent of refusing to reveal who was in attendance while the policy was being discussed. It is imperative for the public to know how government policy is formulated and who has had influence in the formulation of such policy. Contrast this with what happened with Hillary Clinton’s health-care task force, when Republicans went as far as the Supreme Court to get those records opened to the public.
    ii. General Secrecy Policy: The Bush administration in general has imposed an unprecedented regime of secrecy across the federal government. The public’s right to government documents is established by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which requires government agencies to respond within a certain amount of time to requests for information, unless it can argue that the information must not be revealed for one of a listed number of reasons. However, no government agency is required to wait for an official FOIA request in order to provide information to a member of the public. If it’s just ordinary information, it can be handed over without any formal procedures. Bush administration policy is to automatically resist all requests for information and force members of the public to file a FOIA request and then fight such request using any arguments that it can come up with, regardless of whether the information needs to be kept secret.
    iii. Exceptions for Political Expediency: The Bush administration has made exceptions to its secrecy policy in order to use partial information in order to attack its critics.
    (a) Valerie Plame: In the face of criticism by former Ambassador Joe Wilson that the Bush administration knew that the Niger yellowcake story was untrue, the administration leaked information that Wilson’s wife was a “C.I.A. operative.” This leak, which was in violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, was done so that conservative columnist Robert Novak and other journalists could claim that the only reason Wilson was sent to Niger was because of nepotism. (I’m sorry, but this was not a “fuck up.” It was an intentional violation of the law in an attempt to discredit a critic.)
    (b) Jamie Gorelick: Faced with having to testify before the 9/11 Commission, Attorney General John Ashcroft began his testimony with an attack on Jamie Gorelick, one of the members of the commission. Ashcroft provided the text of a memo written by Gorelick while she was serving in the Clinton administration that described a policy of a “Chinese wall” between the F.B.I. and C.I.A. Such internal memos have otherwise been kept secret within the Justice Department, but Ashcroft chose to reveal this, in order to launch an attack on Gorelick. Ashcroft failed to note that the policy had been in place long before Gorelick’s tenure at the Justice Department and she had merely been describing it. Ashcroft did not provide the text of his testimony to the commission beforehand (as is customary) so that the commission would not have the opportunity to gather information to test Ascroft’s claims about Gorelick’s fault.
    © Several months later, when called before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify with regard to the abuses at al-Ghraib, Sen. Joseph Biden asked for copies of internal Justice Department memos that would shed light on the development of the policy regarding interrogation of prisoners. Ashcroft refused to provide copies, giving no grounds whatever justifying such refusal. When asked by Biden whether Ashcroft was invoking executive privilege in refusing to provide the information, Ashcroft replied that he was not invoking any privilege and he was not invoking any other law, regulation, or policy to justify his refusal; he was just not going to provide them.

    How’s that for ill-informed? Sure, someone who disagrees with me that these things are a reason to vote against Bush is going to characterize them differently, but that’s not the point, is it?

Pile? There is no pile until AFTER you’ve seized it from the people who earned it. And who’s this “we” shit, Kimosabe? If you think mugging is the exercise of prudent ethical principle, then you and I will never be on the same side.

Hey acsenray, you forgot that we want to pollute the air, poison the water and starve old people.

Because Bush is an unwavering and firm leader. And so was Custer.

Allow me to direct you to 10. b..

Where did this come from? (Or is it just a general “kicking puppies” comment?)

acsenray, very nice list. I hadn’t realized exactly how long a list like this was, when typed out.

Umm… why exactly is it hard for you to take people like acsenray seriously…? I would hope it isn’t because they (we) have a (long) list of worries/concerns about our nation…?