Republicans for Kerry?

Great Debates
21

True enough, it is the old “lesser of two evils” situation. Unfortunately, in this particular instance even though Kerry stands for most of the things I am against, Bush still comes out as the lesser of the two IMHO. As I mentioned, I am trying to evaluate my vote on a per case basis. Bush has proven he does not deserve my vote so he is out. Of what I have left to choose from, definitely the lesser of the two evils decision I guess.

A couple thoughts on this:

1.) Yes, people do that on both sides of the political spectrum. Not just in the U.S. but I’m sure world-wide. A classic example of this is President Clinton. Although I probably disagreed with him more than agreed, one thing almost everyone but the most bitter partisan will admit - he had one heck of a personality. His “likability” factor is off the hook and don’t be foolish to assume he didn’t use it to grab swing-voters, i.e. swooning soccer moms.

Hell, even though I disagree with the guy politically I would love to hang out and have a beer while watching a ball game with the guy. Better yet, I’d love to go out on the town with the guy, hitting all the appropriate strip-clubs! :smiley:

2.) Calling attention to Kerry’s deficit in the personality department does not equate to complimenting Bush for having a great personality. Kerry’s faults stand on their own, as do Bush’s faults.

In a mini-rant here, this whole tactic is used way too much and just pisses me off to no end.

X: Clinton lied to the American people and under oath!
Y: At least his lie didn’t result in the deaths of XXX people in Iraq!

X: Kerry took more in special interest money than any other senator in Congress.
Y: Bush is beholden to big business and oil!

Although Y may or may not be true, it has NOTHING to do with X. Dems and Repubs are equally guilty of this and although I expect it in sound-bite media clips, I am growing very weary of this tactic here on the SDMB where “Fighting Ignornace” is the supposed goal.

I’m sure someone will come along and point out the Republicans or Democrats did it first… :rolleyes:

22

I don’t think McCain is a moderate - only that he has moved a bit to the left of late. I think the numbers I saw (in terms of the ratings scales that the conservative and liberal groups use to rate the senators and congressmen) are a move from the mid-90s or so to about 80. Still pretty conservative.

But he is perceived as being a lot more moderate than he actually is, which is reflected in persistent speculation that he will switch parties or run with Kerry. Such ideas are not compatible with his conservative ideology, as he himself has repeatedly noted, but the constant speculation about such scenarios (on the SDMB and elsewhere) suggests that many people don’t see this correctly.

I can’t point to anything specific that makes me think he less principled than most politicians. It’s an impression I have from following his career. I don’t see him taking a stand for what he believes in at the risk of damage to his own career - most of the things that he is lionized for have helped him out personally. (I believe he was also one of the Keating Five). (A liberal example of a principled politician would be Russ Feingold. And you can see how prominent he is - which goes to show you how far principles will take you.)

I think the reason many people think he is so principled is because he took on the Republican party over campaign finance reform and said nasty things about fundamentalists etc. For people who think these groups are Big Bad Bogeymen, anyone who takes them on gets a fearless and righteous image.

I misunderstood your question. I can’t fathom anyone being “furious” ant any other private citizen for voting however they want, and I don’t see how the professed party membership of that person makes any difference. So I assumed your question was about public officials.

23

FWIW, I intentionally included him as an example of a conservative politician I respect for his principles; I know well that he’s not moderate, but I can still respect him.

Believe me, some Democrats were about ready to draw and quarter any Democrat who cast a vote for Ralph Nader four years ago; I was wondering whether pro-Bush Republicans would have a similar reaction to pro-Kerry Republicans if they were influential in getting Kerry elected.

Daniel

24

I don’t know if they were furious at those voters. I remember it more as frustration that people professing to want someone more liberal were causing the election of someone more conservative. I don’t think the Republicans for Kerry are worried that Bush isn’t conservative enough for them.

Speaking of Nadar, what do you think of the latest poll showing Nadar having no impact at all on the race? It’s Bush by 4, with or without Nadar. Strange.

25

Polls are fun but totally meaningless now. When one comes up that says Kerry’s ahead, I think, “Woohoo!” but try to remember that it’s insignificant at this point i the race. Strangely, it’s a lot easier to remember when a poll says Bush is ahead.

But I do expect Nader to have close to zero effect on the election, unless something bizarre happens.

Daniel

26

Most recent polls show Bush ahead by a few points. I agree that polls at this point are not all that significant in terms of their actual results. But I think they are significant in terms of judging which direction things are likely to go. I think if jobs production picks up Kerry has no hope, because Bush can only go up from here. If there is continued malaise on the economy and Iraq then Kerry has a chance with the election this close at this point.

I’m not talking about the fact that Nader isn’t drawing enough votes to impact the outcome. It’s the fact that he doesn’t even change the margin. This implies that he is drawing votes evenly from Bush and Kerry. Which is strange.

27

One WAG: I think a lot more Republicans are disgusted with their candidate this time around than Democrats, and a lot more Democrats are desperate to regain some power than Republicans. Therefore I think you’ll probably find more Republicans this time around willing to cast protest votes than you’ll find Democrats willing to do so; these protest votes, having nowhere else to go right now, will go to Nader. They could equally go to the Libertarian party candidate, if they were included in the polling.

Daniel

28

You certainly get that impression from reading posts to this board but it is apparently not true of the public at large, according to a recent CBS News/New York Times poll.

29

Winston Churchill, definitely the greatest English languag orator, probably the greatest statesman and possibly the greatest leader of the 20th century crossed the aisle. Never forget that. There comes a time when a political party betrays all its principles in amoral pursuit of power.

Right now, the Republican party is raising the National Debt and Deficit faster than a billion Democrats on steroids and crank could. They have repudiated and are tearing apart the fundamental decentralizing/states rights principle of Federalism. They are insisting upon building a larger, larger, ever larger and more intrusive centralized government. They have become the most anti-Republican party in the USA. Thus, those who adhere to the true conservative principles of fiscal responsibility, local government, and individual liberty no longer will be able to find a home within the Republican party.

30

When did I say anything about a partiot act? If you’re implying that’s another thing (being against it) that appeals to moderates, I’m not sure why you’d think that. Democrats, sure, but Republicans? Maybe those neo-cons we hear about now and again…

31

From your cite:

32

Haven’t read the whole thread, here is another one that does show up … Bush Dems.

33

This makes a lot of sense to me!

34

I chose my words carefully. I did not imply “pleasant” or likable". I’ve dealt with people like Senator Kerry before. His demeanor is not professional. It has nothing to do with being a “nice guy”. I think there are better candidates for the ticket. That’s my opinion.

President Bush is doing what I think needs to be done. This is different than approving of a candidate after the fact. He is exactly what I voted for.

35

You really think so? Bush has governed exactly as if he had set out to alienate all moderate Republicans, all Libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives, all fiscal conservatives, all isolationist conservatives, all anti-immigration nativist conservatives . . . what’s left for him? Only the big-business interests, the social-religious conservatives (and some of them are isolationists), and the neoconservative warhawks – the latter being purely an elite grouping of academics and think-tankers and bureaucrats, with no mass following. No, sir, Republicans for Kerry is going to attract a lot more votes this year than Democrats for Bush!