First off, obviously, I come by the “Left” in my user name fair and square; I’m not a Republican for Kerry. Let’s hope that this well won’t be poisoned from the start.
Anyway, I just read an article in Salon called “Republicans for Kerry”, about moderate Republicans who are organizing to get Kerry elected. They’re doing it not so much because they’re united in their like for Kerry–many of them have serious problems with him–but because they see no other way to regain control over their own party, and they’re feeling increasingly isolated.
Now, we all know how furious some Democrats were at people who voted for Nader, but I’m guessing that’ll be nothing compared to the fury establishment Republicans will have at RfK if Bush loses in November. But I did some digging around (okay, I typed “Republicans for Kerry” into Google), and came across this Yahoo group, “Republicans for Kerry.”
Membership is automatic, once you have a Yahoo account, and the posts in the group are very interesting reading, civilized and thoughtful. Hell, if these folks were in charge of the Republican party, they’d be tempting me to vote for them.
I’m not so much interested in what liberals think about this movement (I imagine we all think it rocks nads), but in what both moderate and conservative Republicans think about it. Conservative GOPers, will you be furious at moderates if they help spur Kerry along to victory? Moderate GOPers, do you see this group as viable?
When I was in high school I was part of their Simulated Senate. Naturally I was a democrat. Funny enough I caught myself voting for a lot of Republican bills… and was chastised by the Democratic leader in the US Senate thingy. Sucks to go against your “peers”.
Ideally we should follow what we think is best… not what our party lines are. I would hate to be in the position that many Republicans are now… too be in power and too feel betrayed by their party. Is it worth keeping power just for the sake of power ? Even if the price is more Bush time ? (Though Lula is fucking things up badly here… and I supported him. So I do know the feeling.)
Hopefully Kerry will be a moderate... and a moderate position is something the US presidency needs badly now. Will other republicans feel let down ? Probably... but in the long term I think the ultra religious and economic disaster being averted is well worthwhile to Americans. The same way if a Democratic president started playing wellfare state... a good kick out of the office with the help of moderate democrats would be well in order.
I won’t be any more angry at them doing that then if they dig up Washington and try to get him elected for another term… This attempt will be as effective as trying to put out a forest fire by pissing on it.
As I see it, the only positive thing Kerry has going for him that appeals to us moderates is that he’s not quite as much an ass as Bush over the civil unions/gay marriage business (oooooh bet you didn’t know not all Republicans are against civil unions. Wow, huh?) I don’t picture many moderates switching sides to Kerry, like we might have with a couple of the other less…Kerry nominees.
Of all the candidates running on the Democratic ticket I think the least of Senator Kerry. Beside the fact that he is left of Senator Kennedy I just don’t like his demeanor. His condescending use of negative adjectives tells me he’s probably not a pleasant person to be around. I wouldn’t want to be a subordinate in direct contact with him. It would take someone like Senator Lieberman to draw Republican votes.
Considering that Kerry is the Most Liberal Senator short of deluding the moderates by claiming that he is one, I doubt he could attract any moderate votes.
As a Bush supporter I am not at all worried about it – especially considering that there is also a Democrats for Bush (led by Senator Zell Miller (D)). I don’t think that group will have much of an effect on the election though either. I can understand that you are excited about it but it is just a bit of wishful thinking. If the group has any real support to begin with it won’t really get any bigger unless they can offer a charismatic thrid party candidate with lots of money. There are always partisans of both sides who are angry with thier own party but they usually effect the election by not showing up to vote rather than by voting for the other side. I think at this point Kerry has the bigger problem with Nader taking votes from him, especially is the media decides to baby Nader like they did in the last election.
I guess you can count me as a part of that group, although it is not a comfortable feeling for me.
I do not like Kerry.
I do not like Kerry’s position on many issues.
I do not like Kerry’s bland personality.
I do not like Kerry’s ideas.
Kerry has not done anything to earn my vote…
but…
Bush has definitely done many things to ensure that I cannot vote for him to be re-elected. When I objectively evaluate Bush’s term to date, I can come up with no other position than he has been a miserable failure to “conservative values” and to my own more socially-liberal conservative values. Bush does NOT deserve my vote.
Unfortunately, that leaves a bit of a conundrum. My evaluation of Bush is based only on Bush, not on the alternatives. Not voting for Bush means that either a.) I vote for Kerry, b.) I vote for an independent, or c.) I don’t vote. This election is too important to not vote so I’m stuck between Kerry and Nader. Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-NeuroticSelfAgrandizingEgoManiac.
Since Nader has zero chance, I’ll be voting for Kerry… unhappy as hell about that but I cannot vote for Bush. Better to turn power over to “the other side”, retain control of the House/Senate and hope to ride out the 4 years and pray to God common sense and principled leadership returns to the GOP.
It’d behoove you to read the cites posted. Peruse that messageboard, and you’ll find that the moderateors are pining for the days of Reagan.
MeanJoe, I understand your uncomfortable position. It odes seem to me that the best thing moderate, principled Republicans can do now is to issue a striking repudiation of their party’s current leadership. As RfK say, there are principled Republicans – McCain, Pataki, Schwarzenegger, etc. – in the sidelines of the party. If Bush & team are reelected, it’ll be a long time before the principled Republicans get a chance at leadership. But if they’re kicked out, maybe in the soul-searching that follows, the folks with a coherent ethic can get a real seat at the table.
Welcome to Election times… you chose the LEAST worse. This is the same in every darn country.
So you chose your leader by their being "pleasant" and their "likability" ? Then you buddy sure is Bush. Another one of the guys... a shitty president... but one of the guys.
I think it’s a lot like the old saying “you dance with the one that brung you”. If you are a Republican who was elected to office, you undoubtedly were helped by the party’s fundraising & party apparatus, or at the very least by the identification with the party name (otherwise you would have run as an independent). To use the power that you got with the help of the party to turn around and stab the party in the back is not proper, IMHO.
So “principled Republicans … with a coherent ethic” means “moderates”?
Didja miss where I listed McCain as one of those principled Republicans?
That’s not at all what it means. “Principled Republicans . . . with a coherent ethic” specifically excludes Bush and most members of his administration.
Remember that Bush ran for office based on a platform of compassionate conservatism, as a uniter not a divider. He got many moderates to vote for him based on this appearance. I’m not sure what you mean by this paragraph, unless you’re explaining why moderates are furious at Bush for backstabbing them.
I can’t find the place you’re talking about, LHoD. Even if it were true, it would only show that the people there are conservatives. From what I gather, the data are recorded quite objectively.
Yeah I noticed that, but McCain has moved a bit to the left a bit, and what with his independent image he is widely percieved as being more liberal than he actually is. I actually think McCain is one one of the less principled politicians out there, FWIW.
I don’t think this is true and neither does most of the public, according to numerous polls. You may disagree with Bush’s principles and his ethic, but he is one of the most principled politicians in recent memory.
I think the election dispute doomed his uniter efforts. (His decision to invade Iraq didn’t help either).
No I was talking about a person elected to office based on Republican support turning around and endorsing Kerry. (Or someone like Zell Miller endorsing Bush).
It has no relevance to a private Republican voter supporting whoever he wants.
Interesting. I’ve never seen any suggestion either that McCain was a moderate or that he was unprincipled. Why do you believe these things?
I strongly disagree with this: he lies; he refuses to debate even other Republicans based on ideas, preffering to slander them; he makes cavalier jokes about his lies; he seems to use his power to benefit his friends at the expense of most of the nation. I absolutely don’t see him as a principled politician, much less one of the most principled politicians in recent memory. Surprise surprise.
Ah, okay, that makes sense. I misunderstood. FWIW, this group seems to be private Republicans.
