The Case Against George W Bush

I saw the Ron Reagan speech at the DNC and was appreciative of how he stayed on task and didn’t directly attack GWB. The cited article is a full on attack on Dubya. The central thesis is that Bush is somehow disconnected and that he and his administration lie as a force of habit, even in situations where it’s totally unexpected.

As someone who would personally prefer anyone who is “not Bush”, I am genuinely curious as to why the Democrats don’t take more of an active, attack level approach and force Bush to defend his record. Instead they seem to be playing defense in a tight game (ask British soccer fans, a sure recipe for disaster) and Kerry is constantly on his heels defending against direct and indirect attacks.

Points for discussion:

  1. Are the lies cited in the article true?
  2. Has the mainstream media in general been culpable in ignoring lies and playing up more insignificant things?
  3. To what extent, if any, have habitual Republicans chosen to denounce or disassociate with the current administration?

I don’t know that Ron Reagan was ever considered a hard core conservative. But in the same issue Tucker Carlson writes an article on why he may not be able to conscientiously vote for Bush in the coming election (although he also states he would not vote for Kerry). There are also a couple of other noted Republicans (whose exact names I don’t have handy), one is the editor of a conservative journal and states the case of why he wants to vote for Bush (thought he provided great leadership in the WoT) and why he can’t vote for him (fiscal irresponsibility and pandering to the religious right), the other a leader in the religious right who says it is urgent for Bush to win so he can stack the Supreme Court and the Senate needs to stay Republican to help confirm conservative judges. So by my count, one religious right endorsement, one fiscal conservative damning with faint praise, one conservative pundit having reservations and one (very) moderate son of a Republican icon who is firmly against.

Yes. I myself recommend The Lies of George W. Bush as a good reference, though there are certainly lots of other places where this administration’s distortions have been documented.


Just think: while the mainstream media was asleep at the wheel, Michael Moore produced Fahrenheit 9-11 using publically-available documents and facts. While the mainstream media was waffling over the “Swift Boat Veterans For Truth,” it took one nonpartisan fact-checking group little more than a week to poke holes in their claims.

Is it any surprise that more and more people are now turning to non-mainstream-media sources for news nowadays? They’re the only folks left actually investigating and reporting the facts.

I’m not aware of any surveys, but there does seem to be a schism in the Republican party, between the folks who remain faithful to the traditional GOP ideas and the folks who will support Bush simply because he’s the party’s candidate.

I think he’s considered moderate-to-slightly-liberal myself, though I don’t have a source offhand for that. However, I think Ronald Reagan’s brand of conservatism isn’t very compatable with George W. Bush’s brand of conservatism, so a Reagan/Bush schism at this point isn’t implausible.

I won’t try to vouch for all of them, but here’s one of them: He claimed, in the 2000 debates, that he had supported a Patient’s Bill of Rights as Governor of Texas. He claimed that as president, he would do the same.

That was a complete fabrication, as evidenced here…

Can’t vouch for all of them, but here’s an admission by Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. and Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, as well as Daniel Okrent of the New York Times:

Can’t vouch for all of them (obviously), but at one time I had considered posting a thread about the disparity between Republicans (and to some degree, independents) for Kerry (or ABB) and Democrats for Bush, and wondering why these Republicans who are speaking out against Bush don’t seem to be reflected in the polling numbers. Here’s some of the info I gathered (primarily anecdotal, of course)…

In this post, Phlosphr says:

In this thread, Liberal comes out for Kerry:

In this thread, Blackclaw tells us “Why [he] won’t vote for Bush - An Essay from a Republican.”

Here we have Airman Doors proclaiming:

In Ron Reagan’s scathing essay about Bush The Liar in Esquire (same link as in the OP), he says:

I have my own anectodal “Republican against Bush” story, as well. My father is an Independent-leaning Republican who voted for Bush in '00, but who is so disgusted with him that he won’t for him again this year. While not quite the same as swinging all the way to the Kerry/Edwards team, he’s decided that he’s voting for Nader if he can get on the ballot in his state (Missouri - which it looks like he will) but if not, he’s not voting for President at all. Some would say a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, but I don’t believe that to be the case here. It’s actually one fewer vote for Bush, that he otherwise would have had.

There are these guys:

There are several “Republicans For Kerry” sites,,,, and, and one pretty good “Independents for Kerry” site; They are content rich and appear to have quite a few members/participants. And they relate their experiences meeting other Republicans for Kerry, like this (bolding mine):

While there are, indeed, a couple of websites listed as “Democrats for Bush,” I found them to be pretty sparsely populated and primarily centered around the controversial Georgia Senator Zell Miller. For example, here’s one website,, with no links, no participation and one, lone, article. Here’s another guy’s 'blog, but again, not much in the way of content or participation. The only one with much in the way of content or commentary seems to be this one, where you’ll certainly find similar comments to the ones I’ve listed above, however, there seem to be far, far fewer of them than the other way around. Compare: Why Kerry vs Why Bush. And the supposed “Independents for Bush” links right back to the same democrats4bush website (and has the same exact layout and design), which leads me to believe it’s just one small group of people who rounded up a bunch of URLs so it would seem like they’re all different groups.

There do seem to be some earlier polls that indicate a fairly large percentage of Republican voters are switching sides this time around. From an above link (bolding mine):

So why doesn’t it feel like these people are being represented in the overall polls and why on earth is this race supposedly still so tight? Got me. I’ll never figure people out.

<Grumble Grumble> I thought I’d checked all my links. I obviously missed a couple. Here’s fixes:

2000 Presidential debates transcripts: article about Bush’s actual stand on the Patient’s Bill of Rights:

You forgot the funniest Republicans-voting-for-Kerry site out there:


Republicans for Kerry: Not only am I voting for Kerry this september, but my father, a republican vietnam war veteran who was in (over) Cambodia in '68, will be as well. Of his own free will and without my discussing politics with him.

Interestingly, so will his father, a 97 year old man, republican since the day he was born. This is the same grandfather that wound up arming Israel in his scrap metal days. Turns out he knew Nader as a boy, too. Nader’s parents owned a diner somewhere, I’m assuming Conneticut, but I may be wrong. My grandfather used to stop there somewhat regularly. As it happens, when it’s a mom and pop diner, the kid usually gets raised in the kitchen. My grandfather says that Nader as a kid was the most annoying and pain in the neck kid he ever knew. And this is a grown man remembering a kid. And a grown man of good will.

Not all that relevant, but an interesting story I heard today. (We went shooting as a family.)


I received an email today purporting to be a speech from former NY Mayer Koch, claiming that he was voting for Bush even though he’s been a long-time Democrat. Does anyone know whether this is true, or is just another one of the lies that have been floating about with appalling frequency?

It’s true, it’s darn true. Ed’s gone loopy since 9/11. Well. Not loopy. He flipped over, a lot of people have, to the hard right. I guess that’s really about it.

So he flipped flop in a non-Kerry way. Because Kerry flip-flops from liberal to liberal, but this guy… well, he just flipped.

In this election, there will be Republicans voting for the Democrat, and Democrats voting for the Republican.

Of the latter, you can count Zell Miller, Ed Koch, and St. Paul mayor Randy Kelly. There are, of course, many others.

Crossover voting happens in every presidential election, and happens in both directions.

Incidentally, I find it interesting that nobody is reporting that both Nancy Reagan and Michael Reagan have endorsed President Bush. Aren’t they Reagans too?

Yeah, so? This news is right up their with “Pope Found to be Catholic; Film at eleven.”

It’s when a Reagan breaks from the elephant herd that newsworthiness is found.

Keep telling yourself that, Mr. Moto. You can try crossing your fingers and praying, too. But your best hope at a “win”, and it’s no small one, horribly enough, is Diebold. Outside of that, Bush is history.

He says he is registered Independent, not Republican. Nice site, though.

He also says he doesn’t vote, as a general rule. My personal Betty Noyer is people who don’t fucking vote! Goddammit! Shitfuckpisscrap!

We are the electors! We choose the leaders of the most powerful nation in human history. Whether we chose this responsibility or had it thrust upon us by the whims of history and geography don’t mean shit to a tree! There is a ghostly chorus in the thousands, perhaps millions, of people who have given thier all in the oftimes vain hope of grasping that wondrous power, to choose! Any American who ignores that sacred gift and impelling duty is an ass-scratching shit for brains with no more good sense than God gave a goose, a sniveling, worthless, piece of…

(E. flails about and collapses in frothing rage, a la John Belushi…

Filmmaker Errol Morris (The Thin Blue Line, The Fog of War) interviewed a cross-section of Republican/conservative Americans who are not voting for Bush, for a variety of reasons. He fashioned them into an assortment of TV spots, some of which will be broadcast on TV during the Republican convention. Fascinating viewing.

Not true!

Koch has always been loopy.

It’s nice to see you care.

A year ago, I was pariah. Today I’m a demographic.

Away out here they have a name for rain and wind and fire.
The rain is Tess, the fire’s Joe and they call the windy…pariah!