# Why I won't vote for Bush - An Essay from a Republican **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 21, 2004, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-wont-vote-for-bush-an-essay-from-a-republican/256166 "2004-07-21T12:20:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-wont-vote-for-bush-an-essay-from-a-republican/256166/81 "2004-07-23T22:22:01Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The flaw in your argument is that there is a well defined process to amend the constitution-- to bring it up to date as needed. Were that not so, I’d agree with you. To the extent that you go beyond the intent of the law, you undermine the concept of the rule of law. And the real hole in the argument of the “original intent” crew is that they don’t mean it. Whenever an outcome doesn’t agree with their interpretation “original intenters” want to pass a federal law overriding that outcome, as in the case of Oregon’s Death With Dignity or Massachusetts gay marriage. Strong advocates of states rights, an “original intent,” think that Oregon voters shouldn’t be allowed to do as they please as long as they don’t bother other states. The idea that every difference of opinion regarding “original intent” must be settled by a constitutional amendment is outlandish in my opinion. This isn’t on topic so I’ll end here. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-wont-vote-for-bush-an-essay-from-a-republican/256166/82 "2004-07-23T22:23:10Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Disagreement is more than necessary, it is sacred, it is holy, it’s sanctity is preserved by men who realise the corruption and venality of _other_ men, and protect against it. The Constitution is the wonder of its age _precisely_ because Hamilton knew what an utter creep Jefferson was, Jefferson knew what evil plots lurked in the mind of Hamilton, and they both agreed that Paine was, well, a pain. Which, of course, makes the whole “Criticizing our government is unAmerican!” claim fall like the flimsy house of cards it’s always been. 😛😃 ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-wont-vote-for-bush-an-essay-from-a-republican/256166/83 "2004-07-23T22:26:24Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > No doubt friend **David** is breathlessly awaiting my concurrence, it would be wrong to forestall such reassurance. One more thing. If you’re not wholeheartedly with me, you’re against me. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2004, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-wont-vote-for-bush-an-essay-from-a-republican/256166/84 "2004-07-24T00:09:44Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > The Constitution is the wonder of its age _precisely_ because Hamilton knew what an utter creep Jefferson was, Jefferson knew what evil plots lurked in the mind of Hamilton, and they both agreed that Paine was, well, a pain. [nitpick] Neither Jefferson nor Paine was at the Constitutional Convention. Hamilton was, but his influence on the final product was minimal – he left early, as soon as it was clear that his proposal for a centralized national state wasn’t going to fly. [/nitpick] ---
**Author:** ![rexnervous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e9c0ed/32.png) [@rexnervous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rexnervous)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2004, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-wont-vote-for-bush-an-essay-from-a-republican/256166/85 "2004-07-24T01:57:09Z")
\ Regardless of ideology, this is an incredibly well-presented and well-written OP. And judging from the enormous amount of views it’s received in just three days, my guess is the link to this thread has been sent out in many emails. I know I just did. \ ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2004, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-wont-vote-for-bush-an-essay-from-a-republican/256166/86 "2004-07-24T03:30:38Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The flaw in your argument is that there is a well defined process to amend the constitution-- to bring it up to date as needed. Were that not so, I’d agree with you. To the extent that you go beyond the intent of the law, you undermine the concept of the rule of law. I disagree, John. We _may_ amend the constitution, but we don’t _have_ to amend it. The fact that another avenue exists does not invalidate _this_ avenue. I _can_ take the bus to work, but that doesn’t mean I _can’t_ drive my car. The problem with ultra-strict adherence to original intent is that it assumes those who write laws can predict the future, which they can’t. Look at the First Amendment - nobody could have predicted internet message boards (which technically are neither “speech” nor “press”), yet it is quite logical and natural to extend the protection of speech to such forums, and quite unneccessary to further amend the Constitution. And I notice that right-wingers are quite content to abandon the notion when it favors their views. After all, one could argue that the Second Amendment only protects the right to bear 18th-Century arms, since more modern weapons hadn’t been invented yet. They _couldn’t_ have intended to protect revolvers, and most certainly not automatic or semi-automatic weapons; they didn’t exist. But of course the same right-wingers are generally quite happy to apply a more modern interpretation in _that_ case. ---
**Author:** ![Vladamir\_Putain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/e19b73/32.png) [@Vladamir\_Putain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vladamir_Putain)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2004, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-wont-vote-for-bush-an-essay-from-a-republican/256166/87 "2004-07-24T03:33:45Z")
> [@Blackclaw](#): > > **Why I won’t be voting for Bush - Part 1** > As a Republican, this is not an easy thing to write, but I want my fellow Republicans to understand my position. It’s not about Kerry. It’s not about the Democrats. They could nominate a two headed Rhesus monkey and it wouldn’t affect my decision. This is about Bush and my grave concerns for the direction in which this country is being lead. > > For the following reasons, I will not vote for Bush. > > **National Security** > > • Afghanistan to Iraq > The US should have launched its war in Afghanistan on October 13th, 2000, the day after the bombing of the USS Cole. Or perhaps on August 8th, 1998, the day after Al Qaeda attacked two US embassies on the same day. The US certainly should not have waited until 9-11. I blame the Clinton Administration in limited fashion. The already eroding state of our intelligence services continued under their watch. But I cannot hold Clinton entirely responsible for the US’s lack of response. The political will was not there. The US was unwilling to defend itself from blatant attack. The lack of such a will can only be blamed on the US government as a whole. > > Yet after 9-11, the will was there and our initial response was sound. We went into Afghanistan and drove Al Qaeda out. We accomplished the easy part of the war. Where we have run into trouble, isn’t in the fighting, but in the building. > > The US is very good at blowing things up. No adversary of the United States can hold onto any piece of territory that the US has decided it shall claim. No fighter can hope to stand and fight in a protracted battle with US forces. The US is good at winning battles. It isn’t so good at winning peace. The biggest flaw the US has is its short attention span. The US likes its conflicts to be short and simple. But Afghanistan is not a simple place and building it into a nation that can stand on its own is going to take a long time. If the US fails to aid Afghanistan now, it will return to a chaotic region ruled by warlords. If the US fails Afghanistan, many of its people will have no future save that of wielding a gun and that is the type of environment in which the Taliban and Al Qaieda thrive. If we do not rebuild Afghanistan, we will have stepped on the serpent but failed to have killed it. If we fail in Afghanistan, we will have to return there in force one day to resume our skills in destruction and this will come after another horrid attack on ourselves. Victory in the war on terror is at stake in Afghanistan, so when the Bush administration runs off and starts another, totally unrelated war, they are undermining the very effort they proclaim to support. > > But let’s take a moment to do something that the Bush administration has never done adequately. Define what we mean when we say “war on terror.” Do we mean all terror? Perhaps that is what the Bush administration had originally hoped for, but it has become clear that if we are to make any progress in our lifetimes on this war, it must be defined more narrowly. The real terrorist threat to the United States is the terrorist threat from Jihadis. These are radically violent Muslims whose association with Islam is as tenuous as the relationship that the racially motivated Christian Identity movement has with mainstream Christianity. The Jihadis have embraced a belief that to die for their cause is to gain entrance to heaven. The cause itself gets pretty blurred. I strongly suspect that the cause morphs itself as need to ensure that there always is a cause. For hardcore Jihadis, there is no negotiation, no means by which to placate them. Their martyrdom is their cause and they will always find an excuse to seek it. There are those who hope that, if nothing else, the Jihadis could at least be denied new recruits if the situation in which they found themselves could be improved. Indeed, for much of the Muslim world, the outlook is pretty bleak. Most Muslims live in nations ruled by corrupt leaders with poor economies and no real hope of advancement. > > There is a link between Afghanistan and Iraq, but only because the Bush administration created it. By transforming Iraq from a despotic trouble spot into a shinning jewel of democracy in the Middle East, Bush hoped to establish a seed from which democracy and strong economy would grow and spread throughout the Mid-East. The problem is that there are long standing ethnic and cultural reasons why such democracies do not exist in the Middle-East in the first place. That is not to say that democracies are not possible there, but they do face difficult hurdles. And those hurdles are impossible to overcome when one doesn’t even know what they are. The Bush administration does not understand Arab culture and so its attempt at transforming that culture has been flawed from the beginning. Arab culture is older than the US government and transforming it in a real and meaningful way will take a lot of attention and time. The US doesn’t really have either, and even if it did, Arab culture is ultimately determined by Arabs, not outsiders. > > I despise Saddam Hussein. I have no qualms with his overthrow and arguments that the US illegally invaded a sovereign country have no weight with me. Iraq was no more sovereign than a mafia held neighborhood can be sovereign. The problem I have with US actions in Iraq is that they have distracted us from the real threats we face in Afghanistan. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. As much as I loved to overthrow every vile dictator on the planet, we don’t have the resources to do so and even worse, we don’t have the ability to magically create stable nations out of the aftermath of war. Rebuilding Afghanistan requires the full attention and resources of the US. Starting another incredibly difficult reconstruction process may fatally harm our chances of success in Afghanistan. > > The US has around 17,900 troops in Afghanistan. We do not have enough troops to provide security for Afghanistan very far beyond Kabul, the nation’s capital. Most of the country is once again controlled by the same Afghan warlords that gave the Taliban the popular support they needed to gain control. We have over 140,000 troops in Iraq. We have over 7 times the number of troops in a nation that has never attacked the US directly. Iraq has pulled valuable US resources away from Afghanistan. We’ve captured Saddam Hussein, but after nearly 3 years we still don’t know where the man who initiated our war on terror is. If you look at the resources expended, there is only one conclusion; we’re not really serious about Afghanistan or Bin Laden. > > • Continued lack of collaboration among intelligence services > In the aftermath of 9-11 much finger pointing ensued among the members of our esteemed government. One of the critical failings we were told, was that our intelligence services did not adequately communicate with one another. The FBI, NSA, CIA, and half a dozen other intelligence services didn’t share information with another. There was a constant failing in adequately passing on critical information to our border guards and Coast Guard. What was obviously needed was to combine these services into one seamless organization that could react quickly on intelligence. > > What we got was Tom Ridge and the Department of Homeland Security. The CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the Coast Guard, and half a dozen other intelligence and security forces are all still separate agencies. The FBI and CIA supposedly pass information to the Department of Homeland Security. I suppose a bureaucratic bottleneck is better for sharing information than no sharing at all, but it is hardly an adequate solution. The CIA and FBI are still competing agencies that have no real incentive for sharing hard won intelligence sources. As the absence of WMD’s in Iraq has shown, our intelligence assets are still limited and cautionary discretion about the intelligence we do have is dismissed by the Bush administration if the intelligence is deemed to serve a political purpose. Intelligence should not be filtered by political concerns. Intelligence should only be filtered by relevance and reality. > > Despite the pretty colored warnings that we Americans get every month or so, despite the nifty TSA logos that our bag checkers at the airport now wear, the Department of Homeland Security has done little more than move furniture around. Another layer of bureaucracy was not the solution to America’s intelligence gathering problems, but that’s what we got. > > • Transformation of the US Military > Donald Rumsfeld has an unenviable, difficult job. After every war, a nation’s military tends to prepare itself to fight the last war instead of the next one. In that aspect, Rumsfeld is right, the US military needs to look ahead. But that does not mean one should toss out every battlefield lesson every learned. > > Rumsfeld’s goal is to recreate the US military into a light, faster deployable military force. It does not seem to have occurred to him that arriving at a conflict quickly is worthless if upon your arrival you simply get slaughtered. Rumsfeld has continually pushed for the cancellation of what he deems as cold war relics while forgetting just what purpose these relics serve. He cancelled the Crusader Mobile Artillery unit, seemingly believing that the need for the US to be able to direct sustained heavy fire is over. Rumsfeld envisions a lightening quick mobile force that gets in and out quickly. While such a force can be useful, it cannot serve in the role that was easy to see coming, that of long term peacekeeping operations. In the peacekeeping role, by its very nature, troops have to stick around. If you want fewer casualties, you put those troops in heavily armored units and you make sure they have access to massive firepower if they need it. Rumsfeld is denying US troops the equipment they need to survive such operations. Instead of heavily armored units, he is pushing on them the Striker wheeled infantry vehicle. This vehicle in its default state is too lightly armored to sustain a hit from an RPG. It’s too large to easily maneuver through urban areas. In short, it provides nothing useful to troops engaged in peacekeeping operations. > > Rumsfeld’s philosophy of smaller is better has lead to near disaster. He pressed the US military to use far less forces than initially requested for the invasion of Iraq. This meant that once Turkey denied US forces the right to cross their border, the US invaded Iraq with less than half of the forces planned. That the US military pulled it off anyway is a tribute to the courage and training of our armed forces. But such victories do not come cheaply. And having proven themselves far too often in the last decade, the US military has come to be expected to pull off the impossible on a regular basis. We have 140,000 troops trying to provide security for a population of 26 million. The post-war Iraq planning for Iraq has not been merely inadequate, it’s been almost non-existent. The Bush administration assumed that after Saddam’s fall, the Iraqi population would put aside the tremendous difficulties and disputes that exist between them, do a happy bunny hug, and form a new government that the US would approve of. That hasn’t happened and no real planning was ever done to handle that possibility. We’re down to “Hope it all works out” because that’s the only option we have left. > > • Lack of Leadership > A lack of adequate planning is the result of a lack of leadership. A lack of leadership can lead directly to a breakdown in every aspect of US operations. > > If the US is going to transform Iraq into a shining beacon of democracy than the US needs to provide an example of just how a good and just nation conducts itself. Obviously with so much at stake being dependent on the good conduct of its soldiers in difficult times, one would expect that strict supervision would be held in areas that most easily lend themselves to abuse, things such as the treatment of POWs for example. The worst possible thing the US could do is to take over Iraq and behave in any manner even vaguely reminiscent of Saddam. Yet that is just what happened in Abu Ghraib. It doesn’t matter that the torture in question pales in comparison to the inventive cruelty of Saddam. What matters is that it happened. What matters is that it was severe enough to leave at least one POW dead from a beating. What matters is that the horrible reputation of Saddam has been transferred and fixed upon the United States. > > We have lost our credibility in Iraq. > > And despite this tremendous setback, Bush has failed to hold any high level member of his administration responsible for this catastrophe. Leadership flows from the top. Leaders are responsible for the actions of those they lead. Donald Rumsfeld should be out of a job. While he remains in his position, it is clear that this administration’s leadership is ineffective and irresponsible. > > • Loss of International Influence > It has never been my concern if the US is loved by other nations. But the interests of other nations often coincide, and it is in these times that a nation’s ability to influence other nations is vital in determining the course of history. > > Our ability to influence other nations has been diminished under the Bush administration. By crying “wolf” over the nonexistent WMDs in Iraq, we have greatly lessened the chance that other nations will heed our warnings in the future. Now, as the US faces real nuclear threats in Iran and North Korea, our ability to bring attention to these threats has waned. Our military forces cannot do everything alone. We have expended too much political capital on Iraq for far too little gain. We have squandered out military might and influence in Iraq and now we are unable to properly respond to real threats. > > The Bush Administration has made the US much less secure. It’s funny how you obviously spent a lot of time on this, but the same idea could have been expressed in one sentence: “Bush is a fucking idiot.” Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2004, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-wont-vote-for-bush-an-essay-from-a-republican/256166/88 "2004-07-24T03:42:31Z")
You quoted the whole thing? All of it? Listen very closely, if I were you. If you hear the pit-pat of tiny little hamster feet coming up behind you, in the dark… Be afraid. Be very afraid. ---
**Author:** ![rexnervous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e9c0ed/32.png) [@rexnervous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rexnervous)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2004, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-wont-vote-for-bush-an-essay-from-a-republican/256166/89 "2004-07-24T03:48:34Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You quoted the whole thing? All of it? > > Listen very closely, if I were you. If you hear the pit-pat of tiny little hamster feet coming up behind you, in the dark… > > Be afraid. Be very afraid. Wow. Has anyone ever been banned so quickly? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2004, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-wont-vote-for-bush-an-essay-from-a-republican/256166/90 "2004-07-24T04:56:57Z")
He opens the wrapping, finds within a bullet-proof vest, itself wrapped around two dead hamsters…" “What is it, Clemenza? What does it mean?” “Its a Cecilian message…” ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2004, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-wont-vote-for-bush-an-essay-from-a-republican/256166/91 "2004-07-24T05:48:42Z")
> [@Blackclaw](#): > > **Why I won’t be voting for Bush - Part 1** > As a Republican, this is not an easy thing to write, but I want my fellow Republicans to understand my position. It’s not about Kerry. It’s not about the Democrats. They could nominate a two headed Rhesus monkey and it wouldn’t affect my decision. This is about Bush and my grave concerns for the direction in which this country is being lead. As a fellow Republican I encourage you to send letters to GOP. I know I do. Attend meetings and voice your thoughts. We are not alone. I have just a couple of comments > [@Blackclaw](#): > > Yet after 9-11, the will was there and our initial response was sound. We went into Afghanistan and drove Al Qaeda out. We accomplished the easy part of the war. Where we have run into trouble, isn’t in the fighting, but in the building. IIRC, al Qaeda’s not entirely out of Afghanistan. > [@Blackclaw](#): > > Victory in the war on terror is at stake in Afghanistan, so when the Bush administration runs off and starts another, totally unrelated war, they are undermining the very effort they proclaim to support. Undermined in more than one way of course. Don’t forget that sensitive sites have been looted literally down to their foundations and the “WMD components” sold on the black market and distributed throughout the world since the US took responsibility for them. > [@Blackclaw](#): > > But let’s take a moment to do something that the Bush administration has never done adequately. Define what we mean when we say “war on terror.” Do we mean all terror? Perhaps that is what the Bush administration had originally hoped for, but it has become clear that if we are to make any progress in our lifetimes on this war, it must be defined more narrowly. The real terrorist threat to the United States is the terrorist threat from Jihadis. These are radically violent Muslims whose association with Islam is as tenuous as the relationship that the racially motivated Christian Identity movement has with mainstream Christianity. The Jihadis have embraced a belief that to die for their cause is to gain entrance to heaven. The cause itself gets pretty blurred. I strongly suspect that the cause morphs itself as need to ensure that there always is a cause. For hardcore Jihadis, there is no negotiation, no means by which to placate them. Their martyrdom is their cause and they will always find an excuse to seek it. There are those who hope that, if nothing else, the Jihadis could at least be denied new recruits if the situation in which they found themselves could be improved. Indeed, for much of the Muslim world, the outlook is pretty bleak. Most Muslims live in nations ruled by corrupt leaders with poor economies and no real hope of advancement. **Blackclaw** meet Dr. Jeffrey Record Visiting Research Professor to the US Army’s Strategic Studies Institute from the Air Force’s Air War College: **[BOUNDING THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM](http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pdffiles/00200.pdf)** [The WoT] war began as a fight against the organization that perpetrated the heinous attacks of September 11, 2001, but soon became a much more ambitious enterprise, encompassing, among other things, an invasion and occupation of Iraq. As part of the war on terrorism, the United States has committed not only to ridding the world of terrorism as a means of violence but also to transforming Iraq into a prosperous democratic beacon for the rest of the autocratically ruled and economically stagnant Middle East to follow. [The] war on terrorism—as opposed to the campaign against al-Qaeda—lacks strategic clarity, embraces unrealistic objectives, and may not be sustainable over the long haul. He calls for down-sizing the scope of the war on terrorism to reflect concrete U.S. security interests and the limits of American military power. > [@Blackclaw](#): > > There is a link between Afghanistan and Iraq, but only because the Bush administration created it. By transforming Iraq from a despotic trouble spot into a shinning jewel of democracy in the Middle East, Bush hoped to establish a seed from which democracy and strong economy would grow and spread throughout the Mid-East. The problem is that there are long standing ethnic and cultural reasons why such democracies do not exist in the Middle-East in the first place. That is not to say that democracies are not possible there, but they do face difficult hurdles. And those hurdles are impossible to overcome when one doesn’t even know what they are. The Bush administration does not understand Arab culture and so its attempt at transforming that culture has been flawed from the beginning. Arab culture is older than the US government and transforming it in a real and meaningful way will take a lot of attention and time. The US doesn’t really have either, and even if it did, Arab culture is ultimately determined by Arabs, not outsiders. Note that these things _were_ noticeable before we got over there. Consider that this ostensibly conservative Administration has initiated a big-government, top-down, social engineering project for a foreign country. Note also that the Admin was resistant to the use of expert planning for the post-war period preferring instead to enter Iraq “without preconceived ideas”. Given that this was a situation was literally a life and death situation and there are few if any events as serious as war, it seems that the level of due diligence would be commensurate with this gravity. > [@Blackclaw](#): > > Intelligence should only be filtered by relevance and reality. One day we realists will rise. > [@Blackclaw](#): > > • Loss of International Influence > It has never been my concern if the US is loved by other nations. But the interests of other nations often coincide, and it is in these times that a nation’s ability to influence other nations is vital in determining the course of history. Consider also that a loss of international influence increases the costs of doing business in the world. Influence is important because it has practical impacts. > [@Blackclaw](#): > > Now, as the US faces real nuclear threats in Iran and North Korea, our ability to bring attention to these threats has waned. Don’t forget the nuclear threat from Pakistan’s Father of the Islamic Bomb’s efforts to spread nuclear technologies. > [@Blackclaw](#): > > It is my hope that the Republican party will come back stronger than before, less extreme, and more willing to embrace us moderates. And it is my hope that the United States will emerge from these present difficult times, stronger and more representative of its people. One Country One Party GOP ---
**Author:** ![Black\_Train\_Song](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4da419/32.png) [@Black\_Train\_Song](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Black_Train_Song)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2004, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-wont-vote-for-bush-an-essay-from-a-republican/256166/92 "2004-07-24T06:29:46Z")
I’m out of my league in here but I can say this about the OP without looking too stupid: I’m more offended by television commercials pertaining to four-hour erections than I ever will be by a “wardrobe malfunction” during a sporting event. A boob can be explained to a child, erections should not have to be. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2004, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-wont-vote-for-bush-an-essay-from-a-republican/256166/93 "2004-07-25T18:20:12Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > And the real hole in the argument of the “original intent” crew is that they don’t mean it. Whenever an outcome doesn’t agree with their interpretation “original intenters” want to pass a federal law overriding that outcome, as in the case of Oregon’s Death With Dignity or Massachusetts gay marriage. Strong advocates of states rights, an “original intent,” think that Oregon voters shouldn’t be allowed to do as they please as long as they don’t bother other states. I can’t speak for “they”, but if you can find a quote from **me** somewhere that substantiates your arguement, then I’ll be glad to discuss it. Otherwise, that’s just a strawman. > [@](#): > > This isn’t on topic so I’ll end here. On that I can agree. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2004, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-wont-vote-for-bush-an-essay-from-a-republican/256166/94 "2004-07-25T20:35:12Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I can’t speak for “they”, but if you can find a quote from **me** somewhere that substantiates your arguement, then I’ll be glad to discuss it. Otherwise, that’s just a strawman. > On that I can agree. 🙂 I doubt that I could find a cite that shows that **you** propose actions that are counter to a position of “original intent counts most.” However, you are not a national political leader as far as I know so whether or not you personally advocate something is immaterial. The “they” in my post are those people who actually have the authority to enforce laws or enact new ones and the power and influence to get others to help them in those operations. There are examples of dedicated “states rights” advocates turning around and trying to negate states’ rights as in the Oregon example or a proposed constitutional amendement foreclosing a state’s right to determine itw own laws regarding marriage. Sorry John, but you and I are not small potatos, we are miniscule potatos in national decisions as to the importance of original intent in national affairs when such original intent runs counter to the prevailing ideology of the big potatos. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2004, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-wont-vote-for-bush-an-essay-from-a-republican/256166/95 "2004-07-25T21:54:18Z")
> [@Blackclaw](#): > > A real name? No, but I do have a large number of good sounding aliases. 😉 > > Michael Burnside > [mburnside@woh.rr.com](mailto:mburnside@woh.rr.com) So, We can pass it around with that name and email? Is that correct? You might be sorry about having that email spread around so widely. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoTakarazuka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/54ee81/32.png) [@TokyoTakarazuka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoTakarazuka)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2004, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-wont-vote-for-bush-an-essay-from-a-republican/256166/96 "2004-07-26T08:10:20Z")
Many analysts believe Bush’s recent economic record will be his greatest asset going into the next election. The US economy has been expanding steadily since the beginning of 2002 and for nearly a year America has seen its economy improve at its fastest sustained rate since 1984, accompanied with only moderate inflation. The GDP increased an average of 3% each quarter in 2002, and 4.2% in 2003. This has caused healthy developments in various sectors, including stock market growth and high retail sales. Although the total number of jobs gained or lost throughout Bush’s term is highly controversial, the unemployment rate currently stands at a below-average 5.6%. This year’s economic boom has created up to 1.5 million jobs. The current strength of the American economy is impressive considering various strains the administration has been under due to the 2000 recession and concurrent accounting scandals, exacerbated by the September 11th terrorist attacks. Some attribute this success to the series of extensive tax cuts that were passed between the beginning of 2001 and mid-2003. The weak link in this is of course the deficit, currently at more than 5% of America’s total GDP. Although there are no plans for a balanced budget, the Republican Party continues to assure its detractors that it plans on _containing_ the problem. The success of that initiative depends on how many of Bush’s recent budget cuts are approved, if significant progress is made towards partially privatizing social security, and especially, if recent economic growth spurs increases in tax revenues. Irregardless, many analysts predict that if the economy remains strong up to November, then the Republicans will be difficult to defeat. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2004, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-wont-vote-for-bush-an-essay-from-a-republican/256166/97 "2004-07-26T11:00:23Z")
> [@TokyoTakarazuka](#): > > This has caused healthy developments in various sectors, including stock market growth. The Dow has lost over 8% since Bush took office, and nearly 3.5% this year alone. I don’t see how you can say the stock market is enjoying healthy growth under Bush. That it is above the lows of the 2001 recession is like the guy getting hit with a hammer; it feels good when it stops, but he’s still bruised and bloody. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2004, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-wont-vote-for-bush-an-essay-from-a-republican/256166/98 "2004-07-26T11:07:19Z")
**TokyoTakarazuka** thanks for that encouraging speech, but I must question whether your economic snapshot is actually grounded on accurate information. The current recovery consists overwhelmingly of _corporate_ profits (50% increase), not wage growth (0.8%), and there is still no wage pressure to even things out on ether side of the corporate barrier. Less money in the hands of consumers (and higher interests/restrictions on loans) necessarily slows consumer spending, which in turns restrains growth. I don’t think the unemployment rate you quote is an absolute number, rather it is relative. The current unemployment figure of 5.6% is due to discouraged job seekers who have left the market, lowering participation rate to well below what it was in 2001. If participation rate had remained constant, as it should, the present unemployment rate would read more like 7.3% in more absolute terms – the 5.6% figure strikes me as artificial by comparison. So there aren’t very good news there (at least up until June data). > [@](#): > > - from [http://www.sharecast.com/cgi-bin/sharecast/story.cgi?story\_id=298701](http://www.sharecast.com/cgi-bin/sharecast/story.cgi?story_id=298701) \* > > LONDON (SHARECAST) - Latest figures have revealed that US employment growth slowed significantly in June, coming in far below forecasts. > > The Labor Department reported a gain of 112,000 new jobs in the US economy last month, far below May’s rise of 235,000 and well short of predictions of a 250,000 rise. > > The news marked the tenth consecutive month of job growth, however the figure shows a massive slowdown. The unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.6%. > > The news was even worse for the manufacturing industry, which lost 11,000 jobs following four months of gains, while the average working week fell to 33.6 hours in June from 33.8 the month before. Jobs in manufacturing sector fell. The average compensated work week shortened in June. The unemployment rate has not dropped. The economy has lost well over 1 million jobs since Bush took office. After the poor June data came out, analysts revised downwards the figures for April and May. Durable goods orders fell in May for the second consecutive month, by -1.8% (estimates put the June rate at 1.5%, positive but still not accounting for the previous loss). Vehicle sales in June were 15.4 million, compared to 17.8 million in May – another sharp fall. Several large chain retail stores like Wal-Mart and target warned in advance that June performance would be weak. Colossal deficits have resulted in a number of necessary interest hikes that will dampen economic growth (the question is not if, but how significantly). The growing deficits are largely the results of strategies like the highly irresponsible Bush tax cuts and international adventuring. The future of health care is not looking very bright. Oil remains expensive. Good “news” include robust consumer confidence and the weak dollar, which helps bring business to the US (Caterpillar, for example, has sold a record number of tractors), but I would say the good are outnumbered by the bad at the moment. I would question any analyst who claims that Bush’s “recent economic record will be his greatest asset going into the next election”. Maybe to the propagandaphagi it will magically register as a great asset, and I don’t deny there are a lot of propagandaphagi, but it would take a pretty uninformed analyst to make a rosy prediction based on current data, which is decidedly not rosy (though I wouldn’t say it is catastrophic either). ---
**Author:** ![Blackclaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e68b1a/32.png) [@Blackclaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackclaw)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2004, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-wont-vote-for-bush-an-essay-from-a-republican/256166/99 "2004-07-26T11:58:00Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > So, We can pass it around with that name and email? Is that correct? You might be sorry about having that email spread around so widely. Yeah I know. Perhaps I’m underestimating the number of folks that will want to contact me, but in my past experience as a webmaster I find few people are willing to actually take the time to write to someone they don’t know. I expect I’ll get a few hatemails and a few “right ons!” but the dominance of email trying to sell me Viagra will continue. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2004, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-wont-vote-for-bush-an-essay-from-a-republican/256166/100 "2004-07-26T12:50:50Z")
Then keep in mind that an erection lasting more than four hours does not necessarily require “immediate medical attention”. In some circles, its considered passing the audition. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-wont-vote-for-bush-an-essay-from-a-republican/256166.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-wont-vote-for-bush-an-essay-from-a-republican/256166.md?page=6)