# Why I'm Voting For Bush **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 22, 2004, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-im-voting-for-bush/265404 "2004-09-22T01:03:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-im-voting-for-bush/265404/41 "2004-09-22T21:34:20Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Let me get this straight: If Bush loses, he and his political allies get stronger politically, but if they win they get weaker. Do you realise just how silly that sounds? Hmm…it does sound silly when you put it like that. I’ll clarify if we can. The OP is presuming that Bush’s policies and ideologies are inherintly harmful for the country. If this is true, then Bush and his allies didn’t come to power over both the Dems and the “good Repubs” because of the proven effectiveness of thier ideas, but just because their ideas sold better to the electorate. The more the “evil repubs” are able to avoid being front and center when the inevidable fallout from their 2000-2004 decisons comes through, the less damage they’ll take in their ability to win future elections. Whats more, they won’t have to either continue to put their policies in action, doing more damage, or publicly turn away from them by doing things like raising taxes. Thus, if we assume that the neo-cons have “bad policies”, then they are in fact given more creditbiliy, and thus more political power, if they are blocked from being able to freely implement these policies. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-im-voting-for-bush/265404/42 "2004-09-22T22:17:08Z")
I think the intra-party schism is the more tenable strategic rationale for letting the Pubs die by the sword. Unless we cut and run, we’re stuck in the Iraq quagmire for years; maybe even a decade. Given our progress so far, it’s not implausible that it will turn into a Vietnam-scale debacle no matter who is in office. It’s civil war if we leave soon, and…well, civil war if we stay, quite possibly. Kerry’s only advantage and distiguishing characteristic, as far as I can see, is he could possibly persuade dissenting UN members to join the fray. Now the heat is really off the neocons, who could blame the inevitable Iraqi implosion not only on Kerry, but (even more gleefully) on other nations, like France and the Germany. Boy, wouldn’t that be a Wolfowitzian wet dream. If Bush stays in power, the neocons own it. It’s still “you-broke-it-you-fix-it” as far as most other nations are concerned. As the integrity of the Iraqi federation continues to degrade, elections are indefinitely postponed, and the UN refuses to get involved due to security concerns, the Bush Doctrine is revealed in its full glory: One of the most costly, destructive boondoggles in American history. The taint the necons bring to the Republican party rivals that of Nixon. Congenital xenophobes and isolationists sympathetic to Buchanan’s paleoconservatism are emboldened and challenge the neoconservatives for the heart of the GOP, not only on foreign policy, but also on social spending and deficits. Maybe popular figures like McCain jump ship to become Independents, dismayed by not one, but two ultra-right factions duking it out within the “Big Tent” for the votes of conservative radicals, whilst ignoring the Republican centrists. In the 2008 elections, the fractious and self-besmirched Republican party is routed, and the Democratic candidate has a true mandate to bring about a speedy resolution of American involvement in Iraq, as well as a complete realignment of American foreign policy along the lines of multilateralism and UN involvement in the War on Terror. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-im-voting-for-bush/265404/43 "2004-09-22T22:33:43Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > I think that some of the dire consequences of Team Bush’s foreign policy ventures that have yet to become **utterly** undeniable will become so during the next presidential term. I disagree. I think the machine in power right now has long been preparing for the consequences of these investigations and failure in their transformation efforts. Witness the continuing rhetoric about how the Iraqi people are failing in doing their part to stabilize the country. Witness Bush’s speech before the UN this week stressing the responsibilities of the international community in rebuilding and stabilizing Iraq. My prediction is that if Iraq continues to deteriorate we’ll see stronger condemnation of the UN as not doing enough(although their hands have been tied in so many ways it isn’t even funny, this is not common knowledge). I think we’ll see the UN and Iraqi people become scapegoats much as the intelligence community has been blamed by the man on the street for the pre-war intelligence failures. We who have researched the issue know the intelligence issues to be the work of the OSP and Chalabi’s cabal. I think if Iraq goes into a state of bloody civil war we would find the UN and the Iraqi people at large becoming scapegoats for this failure to capitalize on the golden opportunity provided by the US removing Saddam. First the UN didn’t care enough to remove him in the first place(humanitarian reasons and “spreading of freedom” having totally eclipsed WMD as the rationale for war in the minds of most Americans already), and then the UN and Iraqi leaders failed to do enough to build a viable state. They failed to grasp the fruit of freedom which was being offered. See the “this is what freedom looks like” trial balloons that have already been floated. Basically I think the weasels in office are skilled enough in weaseling that the crap coming their way won’t stick. And in the meantime they’ll continue to wield power and the changes that desperately need to happen(at very least the opening of the coffers already earmarked for Iraqi reconstruction) will not happen. The US military presence in Iraq will prevent any ultra-fast breakdown of society and unless the meltdown occurs very fast then the cabal will have time to engineer ways to spin the news and redirect the righteous anger. My hope is that Bush is alienating enough of his party on economic issues and foreign policy issues that he can no longer treat Congress as a rubber stamp and we may see some of the Republicans who are dismayed at the way intelligence has been manipulated and finances mangled start to push back. When this happens he’ll have to learn to compromise and that will mitigate the harm he could do if he is elected again. My fear is that Kerry will win the presidency but the Republicans will gain a larger share of congress and then we’ll end up in partisan gridlock which will continue the current policies with effectively no one at the wheel. Enjoy, Steven ---
**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:** [September 22, 2004, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-im-voting-for-bush/265404/44 "2004-09-22T22:40:53Z")
Maybe I’m just a simple minded guy, but I think that each voter should vote for whichever candidate (s)he thinks will best run the country the way (s)he wants it to be run. I guess I’m just not the Machiavellian type… ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-im-voting-for-bush/265404/45 "2004-09-22T22:42:27Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > My hope is that Bush is alienating enough of his party on economic issues and foreign policy issues that he can no longer treat Congress as a rubber stamp and we may see some of the Republicans who are dismayed at the way intelligence has been manipulated and finances mangled start to push back. When this happens he’ll have to learn to compromise and that will mitigate the harm he could do if he is elected again. It should be noted that this is a rather slim hope. Bush may be driving away the fiscally responsible Republicans, but with the campaign focus on social issues such as health care, the “runaway judiciary”, and same-sex marriage, he is forcing them into choosing between their fiscal priorities and their social ones. At the moment I think even some who believe the financial and international policies of the admin are disastrous are holding their nose and supporting him anyway because of these social issues. After all, international relations and fiscal issues can be straightened out over time, giving gays the right marry would be much harder to undo later and judiciary appointments are for life(the important ones anyway). Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-im-voting-for-bush/265404/46 "2004-09-22T23:48:51Z")
I sympathize **SimonX**. I’m a Democrat but I have fantasized about voting for Bush. I want him standing straight in front of the fan when the shit finally hits. I want him and his gang of naive imperialists, fiscally irresponsible piggies, and pompous pecksniffs publicly humiliated and discredited for the damage they’ve done to my country. I want zip-ties and perp walks and jail sentences. I want all of his supporters to have the consequences of their actions rammed down their throats until they choke on them. I want to witness the Republican party gnawing out its own guts like a box of starving rats. I’m a grown up. I’ll do my civic duty and vote for the man I think can best salvage this sorry situation. But in my darkest heart, I want Bush to win. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-im-voting-for-bush/265404/47 "2004-09-22T23:56:13Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Maybe I’m just a simple minded guy, but I think that each voter should vote for whichever candidate (s)he thinks will best run the country the way (s)he wants it to be run. I guess I’m just not the Machiavellian type… Bullshit. You want Democrats to vote for Kerry because even if he wins, he loses. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-im-voting-for-bush/265404/48 "2004-09-22T23:58:02Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > So, the hypothesis, then, is that, with four more years of Bush, the paleocons eventually turn on the neocons, while the Democrats sit by and watch the Republican Party implode. If they could do it without taking the rest of the country with them, I’d support it. > [@mack](#): > > If Kerry gets elected, anything that happens after inauguration is his call. “I didn’t get us into this mess, so it’s not my fault” is not an option. True. That only works if you’re a Republican. It’d be interesting to see if the Bush Administration still sticks to their “Blame Bill Clinton” strategy to cover up their messes if they win a second term… ---
**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:** [September 22, 2004, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-im-voting-for-bush/265404/49 "2004-09-22T23:58:56Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > Bullshit. You want Democrats to vote for Kerry because even if he wins, he loses. Ah… my anit-Machiavellian, Machiavellian plot is unravelling before my eyes!! ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-im-voting-for-bush/265404/50 "2004-09-23T00:00:25Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Ah… my anit-Machiavellian, Machiavellian plot is unravelling before my eyes!! Inconthievable! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-im-voting-for-bush/265404/51 "2004-09-23T00:56:49Z")
Theres a lot to be said for the point that whomsoever wins the election is in for a world of shit. For partisan reasons, I agree that if one narrows one’s view to just political advantage, letting the other Party catch that shit makes a lot of sense. But given GeeDubya’s proven capacity for “catastrophic sucess”, that’s too much of a risk. I am entirely persuaded that GeeDubya is a firm and unyielding leader. That’s the problem in a nutshell. I’ve had quite enough of firm and unyielding leaders, thank you very much. Geopolitics-wise, Kerry is a better choice for another reason: any reasonable hope we may have for peaceful security is inextricably bound with international cooperation and trust. Allies are useful in conventional wars, but we are going to need friends more than allies. Dumping Bush give us more options, we can repudiate foolish and antagonizing policies. He goes and clears some brush, and we can mend fences. Works for me. Lastly, there couldn’t be better propaganda. Its says that when _we_ have foolishly belligerant leaders, we chuck 'em out. An example we hope to be admired, and then emulated. In America, we can do that. If you can’t do that where you live, you should give that some serious thought. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-im-voting-for-bush/265404/52 "2004-09-23T01:30:36Z")
I promise that I’ll be back with responses for (most) all of you. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-im-voting-for-bush/265404/53 "2004-09-23T01:59:27Z")
I just want to chime in along with other who have pointed out the problems with your strategy, **SimonX**. I see where you’re coming from, and I have to say: I agree to an extent. I _really_ do. But I am afraid that there will just be too much damage done in the next 4 years, if Bush carries through a second term. “Too much damage” meaning it would take 8+(16+) years to undo that which was done in 4(8) years. And, IMNSHO, this is a best-case scenario; one in which most people are actually convinced that Bush et. al screwed up. In the more probable scenario, in which BushCo. can evade the blame yet some more, I would question whether or not we would _ever_ be able to fully recover from the damage. I am fully confident that Kerry will do a better job than Bush, as PotUS. Hell, a bologna sandwich would give the man a run for his money. LilShieste ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-im-voting-for-bush/265404/54 "2004-09-23T04:50:20Z")
What Mtgman and jshore said and in particular I agree with this: > [@jshore](#): > > … you may want to consider how Reagan and Bush I weathered the whole Iran-Contra Scandal and the savings & loan debacle. To be doomed, you have to pretty much do something that the great unwashed can understand, that takes one headline to say, and is undeniable. “Clinton received blowjob from intern”. Anything more complicated than that and Bush and his machine are just going to spin it in their favour, or at least muddy the waters sufficient to stay in office. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-im-voting-for-bush/265404/55 "2004-09-23T17:13:26Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > We had to destroy the village in order to save it. > It was a shitty argument in 1969, and it’s a shitty argument today. Have some freakin’ responsibility, **Simon**. Some of us have to live in this world. > [@John Mace](#): > > Hmmmmm. I came back into this thread wondering if anyone picked up on my post about destroying the village in order to save it. Obviously, YMV, but I don’t see the analogy as fitting. I’m not advocating destroying the US to save it. I’m just saying it’s better to let things run their course for the moment so that there aren’t future (worse) recurrences. > [@pervert](#): > > If I must, I must. I remember many callers on Rush Limbaugh back in 96 (or was it 92, I’m not entirely sure) suggesting that a good strategy for the Republican party to allow Clinton to get into office. There was similar talk about impending doom. How that would allow the Republicans to sweep into office. They would be able to revitalize the party by selecting someone more vibrant than Dole. Kinda like what’s happened? > [@sevastopol](#): > > I think it unlikely that with the GOP in command of all branches of govt. there could ever be a removal of a sitting GOP president. What was the situation in the early seventies? > [@sevastopol](#): > > Moreover, I believe you are not considering the important ‘circuit breaker’ role a new presidency would bring to many of the problems in which the US is currently mired. Would you please elaborate on this ‘circuit breaker’ thing? > [@Atticus Finch](#): > > Hey **Simon** , I’m confused. Are you seriously advocating voting for Bush for the reasons in your OP, or have I been whooshed by a bit of deadpan sarcasm? I can see why one would wonder. But no, I’m not advocating that other people do the same as me; however, I’m growing to consider this as my course of action. > [@edwino](#): > > It also reflects a naivity IMHO: the OP basically assumes that no matter how bad things get in this country, we will be able to repair them. This is not how history works – when nation/states get into these foreign policy fuckups, it usually ends up costing them dearly. It destabilizes economies and alliances and all of a sudden, everyone is in a bad situation and there is no easy fix. Suddenly, you are dealing with collapses of empire and world wars. I’ve had these thoughts in mind when I reached my conlusion. I’m postulating that less damage will be done to the country in the long term. > [@edwino](#): > > It smacks of defeatism because it assumes that Kerry won’t be able to do better. You are jaded to assume that Kerry will be as incompetent. Actually, I make no such assumption. All that I’m assuming is that Kerry will be competent but not spectacular. > [@edwino](#): > > We are at a crucial juncture. Iraq is not a hemorrhage yet, it is a tamponaded arterial bleed. We have two choices: tourniqet it off and begin stitching it up now, or let it explode into a three foot spray of blood. Bush with his “we are making progress” line shows no recognition of the fact that this is a Real Bad Situation, and that leads me to believe that he has no major strategic changes up his sleeve. Think how bad Iraq can get if the inept handling that we have had to date continues. Iraq has the potential to quickly spiral out of control into a regional conflagration. The Shiites of Iran and Saudi Arabia and the Kurds of Turkey can easily get sucked in. That can in turn further destabilize Afghanistan, drag Pakistan into it, who knows about Syria and all the others. Then what are we going to do, with our tenuous cling to stability? All the reports say that the situation in Iraq is setting up an al Qaeda _victory_. The bastards will have won – we will be out of the Middle East, they will have Muslim theocracy from the Mediterranean to Pakistan. Thes kinds of thoughts are part and parcel of my considerations. > [@lavenderlemon](#): > > The electorate hasn’t held Bush and Republicans responsible for the lousy state of the economy. What makes you think they’ll hold them responsible for anything else? I’m assuming that will be a point where the fucktupedness of things will become utterly undeniable. So far we haven’t reached that point. > [@Stoid](#): > > I have two words for you, Simon, two critical, vastly more important words than this horrible folly in Iraq, two words that will reverberate on us, on our children, and on our children’s children: SUPREME COURT. Excellent point. One that I have not fully weighed yet. > [@Stoid](#): > > Please… please… if you are in a battleground state, PLEASE vote for Kerry. The damage bush will do will not be mere egg on the face, it will be catastrophic. PLEASE. I’ll be voting in AR. Last I checked it was slated ‘somewhat Bush’ > [@SentientMeat](#): > > Sad as this is, it gives me some hope about what will happen to America in the next four years. My fervent prayer is that the electorate sees that Emperor Bush’s brand of ultra-rightist authoritarianism has no clothes at all and emerges, blinking, into the 21st Century sunlight. I don’t believe in sheeple. I think much of the electorate may be poorly informed, but not stupid. Certainly, there is a point at which even those singers with fingers in their ears will realize that all is very far from well. > [@SentientMeat](#): > > Unfortunately, there is a nightmare mirror image. **Simon** ’s chickens come home to roost, Bush is shown to be an outright liar and a fraudulent plutocrat, and…_nobody cares_. Yes, this is the very grave risk. > [@SentientMeat](#): > > As you write you name next to that of George W. Bush, the **candidate you are voting for** , in a manner which distinguishes you from a rabid Bush supporter **not one bit** , you might experience a strange, irritating tingling in your prefrontal cortex. That is the same **cognitive dissonance** that those rabid supporters have experienced but ignored for two years. Are you, like them, going to ignore it? Well, since I’m engaged in a conscious choice aware of what I’m doing, I don’t thinnk that CD is an accurate description of what’s going on. > [@annaplurabelle](#): > > Bottom line: Not gonna do it. Wouldn’t be prudent. I can see why one wouldn’t. It is a risky gambit (not that my one vote will make or break the election). > [@annaplurabelle](#): > > Like him or not, John Kerry is the last hope for democracy. The electorate s the _only_ hope for democracy in the US. There’re prob’ly hundreds, if not thousands of Kerry’s, but only one US electorate. If the electorate can’t be trusted to choose wisely enough, then American democracy’s already doomed. > [@Voyager](#): > > First, Rove and company are attempting to hardwire congressional districts to be Republican forever. I’m a bit nervous about the voting machines also. They seem to have learned that no one of importance objects very much when Republican campaign leaders are also in charge of making elections fair. One, two, many Floridas. Can the Rovists be expelled in 2008? The answer to this is simple- everybody join the GOP. > [@Voyager](#): > > Second, and most importantly, I believe there is a good chance of a nuclear incident if Bush is re-elected. We know they have tunnel vision, and the slap on the wrist to Pakistan for distributing nuclear technology, and the lack of support for the the dismantling of the nuclear capability of the former Soviet Union makes me think that nothing will happen until it is too late. Then they will say, again, that nothing could be done because there was no clear actionable intelligence. > I’m not saying that this won’t happen if Kerry gets in, but I think the odds are reduced. I don’t think that Kerry’ll be able to reduce them _enough_. Kerry may well be able to exercise more influence internationally amongst moderate Muslims etc. but I dobt if he’ll have any further impact ono those who’ve already been radicalized by recent US foreign policies. > [@Malodorous](#): > > **SimonX** just curious, whats the origin of the South Park Republicans. Do they take their name from the TV show. AFAICT, the name is derived from this piece [South Park Republicans](http://www.techcentralstation.com/100702A.html) > [@Loopydude](#): > > There was an interesting discussion on “On Point” last night where Pat Buchanan, of all fucking people, said that the neocons are Wilsonian, utopian, “democratic imperialists”, and the most anti-republican people to hold power in Washington in the past 40 years, at least. His criticism of BushCo was so scathing I was quite taken aback. No surprise to me. Beside Pat’s various bits of wackiness, he’s certainly pegged these fellas from the start. IIRC, he’s had professional experience working w/ some of these goons. > [@Loopydude](#): > > So, the hypothesis, then, is that, with four more years of Bush, the paleocons eventually turn on the neocons, while the Democrats sit by and watch the Republican Party implode. Not really the paleocons, but us, your future political overlords, the South Park Republicans. Paleocons have some funky ideas about trade, immigration etc. that just don’t seem realistic, IMHO. > [@Loopydude](#): > > There is another option: Rather than handing Bush a false mandate, cast your vote for a third-party candidate (boy, I sound like Jackie Chiles). Yeah, you cost Kerry the election, but you deny Bush a majority vote. Bush wins in the Electoral College, but is supported by less than half of the voting electorate, and hence the US might retain some respect in the eyes of the wider world. This is a thought I’ll also consider. > [@Mtgman](#): > > I disagree. I think the machine in power right now has long been preparing for the consequences of these investigations and failure in their transformation efforts. > Basically I think the weasels in office are skilled enough in weaseling that the crap coming their way won’t stick. I agree that this is a serious and real possibility. My strategy _does_ count on the American electorate deciding that it is no longer rational to remain ignorant about the goings on in DC. > [@Mtgman](#): > > My hope is that Bush is alienating enough of his party on economic issues and foreign policy issues that he can no longer treat Congress as a rubber stamp and we may see some of the Republicans who are dismayed at the way intelligence has been manipulated and finances mangled start to push back. When this happens he’ll have to learn to compromise and that will mitigate the harm he could do if he is elected again. It’s this pushing back that I hope will make some of the consequences of the grand jury investigations stick. > [@Mtgman](#): > > My fear is that Kerry will win the presidency but the Republicans will gain a larger share of congress and then we’ll end up in partisan gridlock which will continue the current policies with effectively no one at the wheel. While things continue to deteriorate. Kerry’s holding the bag. And neocon scions take an even more solidified control of the reins of power. > [@Pochacco](#): > > I sympathize **SimonX**. I’m a Democrat but I have fantasized about voting for Bush. I want him standing straight in front of the fan when the shit finally hits. I want him and his gang of naive imperialists, fiscally irresponsible piggies, and pompous pecksniffs publicly humiliated and discredited for the damage they’ve done to my country. I want zip-ties and perp walks and jail sentences. I want all of his supporters to have the consequences of their actions rammed down their throats until they choke on them. I want to witness the Republican party gnawing out its own guts like a box of starving rats. This may be the best way to prevent future mishaps of from the same crowd. The damage that’s benn/being done is not the worst it can get. If the electorate becomes even further endeared with the neocon vision thing then things will get much worse. > [@Pochacco](#): > > I’m a grown up. I’ll do my civic duty and vote for the man I think can best salvage this sorry situation. I didn’t come to this decision with the intent of seeing them suffer for it’s own sake. I’m thinking that it may be best for the country that familiarity with neocons breed contempt. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-im-voting-for-bush/265404/56 "2004-09-23T17:39:55Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > Kinda like what’s happened? Except that they didn’t so much sweep last election as they squeeked. And the doom and disaster never happened either. Interesting thread, BTW. Well done. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-im-voting-for-bush/265404/57 "2004-09-23T20:23:44Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > I agree that this is a serious and real possibility. My strategy **does** count on the American electorate deciding that it is no longer rational to remain ignorant about the goings on in DC. I think this is a bad bet. I think the electorate cares very little about foreign policy unless it is related to exporting jobs. > [@SimonX](#): > > It’s this pushing back that I hope will make some of the consequences of the grand jury investigations stick. Two factors standing in the way of that. Firstly my addendum to my original post about the party insiders being forced to choose between their disgust at how foreign and fiscal policies are being handled and their fears of how a Democrat executive would handle social policy. Secondly, it is hard to bring accusations against the leader of your own party without it spilling out over the party in general. Were there blowbacks against the Republican party in general after Watergate? I found a study done on the issue(surveyed ~2,000 people across political lines in 1972, 1974, and 1976 to compare the impact of various issues on them) but the data is in some statistical analysis program format and I can’t access it. I think significant portions of the GOP are going to be extremely reluctant to take him down for fear of taking themselves down with him. Pretty hard to rubber stamp all the horrid shit he’s been doing and then not be implicated when it comes to light. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-im-voting-for-bush/265404/58 "2004-09-23T20:45:08Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > I think this is a bad bet. I think the electorate cares very little about foreign policy unless it is related to exporting jobs. I agree. I just expect things will get so bad that they’re no longer ignorable. > [@Mtgman](#): > > Two factors standing in the way of that. Firstly my addendum to my original post about the party insiders being forced to choose between their disgust at how foreign and fiscal policies are being handled and their fears of how a Democrat executive would handle social policy. Secondly… Pretty hard to rubber stamp all the horrid shit he’s been doing and then not be implicated when it comes to light. Here, I think _you_’re the one misunderestimating the ability of these politicos to shift blame. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-im-voting-for-bush/265404/59 "2004-09-23T20:55:18Z")
> [@LilShieste](#): > > But I am afraid that there will just be too much damage done in the next 4 years, if Bush carries through a second term. “Too much damage” meaning it would take 8+(16+) years to undo that which was done in 4(8) years. And, IMNSHO, this is a best-case scenario; one in which most people are actually convinced that Bush et. al screwed up. As bad as another four years of Bush et al would be, I think that the likely 8+ years of the neocon scions that come after Kerry presides over the coming shitstorms will be even worse. That’s the part that I’m trying to avoid. As bad as the next four years’ll be if Bush wins, I expect that what comes after Kerry shoulders the burdens for what comes on his watch will be even worse than the four years of Bush. > [@LilShieste](#): > > In the more probable scenario, in which BushCo. can evade the blame yet some more, I would question whether or not we would _ever_ be able to fully recover from the damage. Whether it’s more probable or not depends on exactly how bad things get. I expect things’ll become un-ignorably and undeniably bad (that’s really bad). Further, I think that things have already happenned that we won’t ever be able to recover from in my lifetime anyway. Who can say what the centuries ahead hold? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-im-voting-for-bush/265404/60 "2004-09-23T20:58:17Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > To be doomed, you have to pretty much do something that the great unwashed can understand, that takes one headline to say, and is undeniable. These is the kind of things I’m anticipating (not the blowjob part- though that might actually do some good). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-im-voting-for-bush/265404.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-im-voting-for-bush/265404.md?page=4)