Pro-bushie? stirs up politics...again

[revrew]

This is a lazy man's way of saying "I don't have time to read all the other political threads, and I want to say my 2 cents." I know this breaks the unspoken rules--flog me.

In the upcoming election I plan to vote for Bush. For 2 reasons:

1. I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt. Typically, I lean Republican. I believe strongly in orginal intent and smaller federal govt.; I'm typically a conservative capitalist; and I'm a definite social/moral conservative. Admittedly, Bush has failed me miserably in the smaller federal govt. department. I am livid at his approved spending increases and growth of governmental power. I am particularly upset that he has meddled with education, an arena I believe the fed. govt. has no constitutional basis to even look at. As per economics, I find no fault with his policies. I think we would be delusional to expect the kind of economic prosperity we had in the 80s and 90s to continue without market correction. The "recession" to me has been overdue in coming and unpreventable. So I find no fault with him there. I count 3 primary promises from Bush: 1. I will cut taxes, 2. I will maintain conservative social mores and agenda, and 3. I will use strength of US to fight terror and topple Saddam. He's kept those 3 promises. As for his failings (and I do count several), I see Bush not so unlike Carter. A good guy trying to swim, and therefore getting burned, in politics. Some will say he's a liar. Others will say he just trusted certain people way too much. Is he a deceitful slime? Or gullible and naive? Given what I've seen of him in interviews, etc., I think the latter is far more likely.

2. I view Kerry as a deplorable option. If I was disappointed in Bush increasing governmental size, power, and debt...Kerry frightens me. His politics appear nothing more than, "I will say whatever you want, pay whatever you want, spend whatever will buy me your vote." A new Democrat might have got my attention, but Kerry has shown nothing more than a desire to trash Bush, get power, and spend more money on making the government bigger and more socialist. Aaaargh! His voting record and flopping of opinion makes him seem like a Clinton-like, lick-my-finger-stick-it-in-the-wind, what do the polls say I should support today? kind of politician. Dammit, stand for something, man! So far, all I've heard him really say he believes in is govt. health care (guess how I feel about that), and stopping Bush's "special interests" (like you aren't in bed with your own! Why would I prefer labor unions, constitution-twisting legal groups, the NEA, and environmental groups to business and banking special interests?)

The choice for me isn't between a white knight and an evil one. The choice is between a knight that has been toppled and soiled and proven fallible--and a politician. A liberal politician. A tax-and-spend politician. Shoot, I'd rather have white knight. But since none are available this fall, I'll vote Bush.

[Huckleberry]

The choice for me isn't between a white knight and an evil one. The choice is between a knight that has been toppled and soiled and proven fallible--and a politician. A liberal politician. A tax-and-spend politician. Shoot, I'd rather have white knight. But since none are available this fall, I'll vote Bush.

So you prefer don't-tax-and-still-spend-even-more and therefore create massive budget deficits to tax-and-spend where you actually have a government that generates income to back their expenditures?

[druez]

wow I agree with you on this. Other then the fact about Republicans mean smaller government. That is actually a myth all the Republicans over the years have actually increased government size. Though Bush should stay away from the anti gay marriage constituion thing, thats a waste of time.

[Cuckoo]

Once again, I'd say nice post to you revrew. I tend to agree with you often, and you articulated my feelings almost exactly.

[Chief Rum]

Yes, thank you, revrew. That sums up my feelings right now, too. I don't like Bush being re-elected. But I hate the thought of Kerry in the White House. Fear of Kerry drives me to Bush.

CR

[albionmoonlight]

I am almost certain that I am not going to vote for Bush because I disagree with the social policies that he has implemented (primarially the erosion of civil rights in the name of "protecting" America--though the laxing of environmental standards is not far behind in my book). I also believe that he is a very poor leader who surrounds himself with yes men and does not grasp the implications of the policy decisions that he makes. For example, he took an action as large as invading Iraq without really understanding what that decision would entail.

That said, I wholeheartedly agree that Kerry is a piss poor alternative for the reasons that you stated.

[albionmoonlight]

Dola--assuming that North Carolina is not "in play" in the presidental election (which it may be if Edwards is the running mate), I will probably vote liberterian--just to send whatever little message that may send to the world.

[Ksyrup]

Fear of Kerry drives me to Bush.This is begging to be "fritz'ed."

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum
Fear of Kerry drives me to Bush.

This is begging to be "fritz'ed."

Yeah would not that be a reason to vote Kerry?

[sachmo71]

Kerry scares me too, but Bush scares me even more. The last straw was the constitutional ban on gay marriage thing.

Lesser of two evils = Kerry. It's going to hurt to do it, but I don't see a choice.

[ISiddiqui]

Kerry scares me too, but Bush scares me even more. The last straw was the constitutional ban on gay marriage thing.

Indeed! I mean, I thought Bush was just throwing that out there to placate the wacko Christian Right. Turns out he was serious :::scared:::.

I'll take Kerry anyday over someone who wants to put discrimination in the Constitution (among other things he's done :D).

[Samdari]

flog me

What are you wearing?

[Cuckoo]

Indeed! I mean, I thought Bush was just throwing that out there to placate the wacko Christian Right.

Although I'm sure it did placate the wacko Christian Right, I suspect he was doing it, in part, to placate the non-wacko Christian Right. Oh wait, you must have meant that the entire Christian Right is wacko. I forgot that everyone you don't agree with is wacko.

[Arles]

Well spoken post. I think that, as time goes on, everyone but the most adament partisans is looking at the election as a lesser of two evils. IMO, the only real issue is the Iraq war when you look at the matchup. All of Kerry's "plans" for economic and social policy will probably never make it out of the house, let alone the senate. His presidency would be much like Clinton's in which he is dragged kicking and screaming by the opposition owning the congress (ie, balanced budget, welfare reform...). And, his only real role would be vetoing certain spending bills championed by Reps. And, this combination is probably better for the country from a fiscal sanity stanpoint. So, in the end, you may have less domestic spending with Kerry as president because of the gridlock.

So, if there is no war on terror, I (as a conservative) *might* consider voting for the democrat for the reasons above. But, considering Kerry's inability to stick his feet in the sand on this war on terror, I'm a little frightened of him bowing out if the polls start going against him.

The next four years are probably going to involve some unpopular decisions that need to be made for the good of the country. You can't win a war on terrorism by apologizing 10 times a week and not showing a willingness to take serious steps. I think that fact that Bush is looked by the world as a "loose cannon" actually helps us in the war on terror as his threats actually mean something (even if that may sometime hurt the country).

So, when it comes down to it, I would rather go with a guy in his final term that has shown some internal resolve (regardless of the polls) than a career politician to handle this.

All that said, I think both sides have will have a little "buyer's remorse" about their candidate coming into November and I don't see much hope for a good turnout if the campaign is extra nasty (as it appears). If you don't have a dog in this race, I certainly can understand how some people would vote for Nadar or simply stay home. So, it wouldn't surprise me if Nadar got close to 10%.

[John Galt]

All that said, I think both sides have will have a little "buyer's remorse" about their candidate coming into November and I don't see much hope for a good turnout is if the campaign is extra nasty (as it appears). If you don't have a dog in this race, I certainly can understand how some people would vote for Nadar or simply stay home. So, it wouldn't surprise me if Nadar got close to 10%.

I just wanted to comment on this last part. I think the exact opposite when it comes to turnout. I think the Bush presidency has angered enough people that turnout will reach record levels. Bush may still win, but the Democratic primaries showed a lot of turnout (which was incorrectly attributed to Dean) and I expect that anger will carryover to the election. I for one am abandoning my pledge not to vote again and am voting for Kerry. The social agenda of Bush (anti-gay Amendment), civil liberty threats (to Americans and others), and poorly constructed endless wars on terror frighten me too much. I have no real interest in Kerry and find him to pretty much suck, but Bush and Cheney scare the crap out of me.

[Cuckoo]

I agree with Arles, and think you're actually in the minority John. People who are passionate about social policy, regardless of how jaded they may be over modern politics, can be angered into voting. For the most part though, a great many people, while certainly disappointed in Bush, don't see anything positive enough in Kerry to actually vote. Now, time may change that as Kerry may be able to garner some optimism among the Democrats, but I actually see this as a low turnout election as well, despite the tremendous animosity on both sides.

[John Galt]

I agree with Arles, and think you're actually in the minority John. People who are passionate about social policy, regardless of how jaded they may be over modern politics, can be angered into voting. For the most part though, a great many people, while certainly disappointed in Bush, don't see anything positive enough in Kerry to actually vote. Now, time may change that as Kerry may be able to garner some optimism among the Democrats, but I actually see this as a low turnout election as well, despite the tremendous animosity on both sides.

I think the Democratic primaries provide good evidence that you are two are wrong on this one. A great many of the "apathetic" in this country have been mobilized by the war in Iraq. I also think a lot of the right-wing will be mobilized because of the ideological divide in this country. I think a lot of people feel this election actually "matters" even if they don't like the candidates.

[Desnudo]

I agree with Arles, and think you're actually in the minority John. People who are passionate about social policy, regardless of how jaded they may be over modern politics, can be angered into voting. For the most part though, a great many people, while certainly disappointed in Bush, don't see anything positive enough in Kerry to actually vote. Now, time may change that as Kerry may be able to garner some optimism among the Democrats, but I actually see this as a low turnout election as well, despite the tremendous animosity on both sides.

There are people angered enough that they will vote with the objective of getting Bush out of office, regardless of who takes his place. If all that anger is centered in SF, Seattle, LA, Boston, NY, etc., then it doesn't really matter since those are typical liberal strongholds. However, if it's more widespread than that, it could impact the election.

[Arles]

John,

The voter turnout wasn't as high as was reported. They were often compared against 2000 when there was little doubt that Al Gore was going to be the Dem nominee and 1992 when Clinton only got 43% of the popular vote, so it makes sense that voter turnout would be less in those instances. Also, many states had high republican turnout in their primaries. Wisconsin had an estimated 80,000 Republicans in their primary. Plus, the increased population level was never taken account in these numbers. One guy on CNN stated that if you factor in the number of people in these states, that the democrats had a higher turnout in 1988 for most states.

My point is that I think the turnout will be at record levels for the partisans, but that many people in the middle will be turned off by the level of disdain in a campaign between what many will classify as two very flawed candidates.

[Ryche]

I'm voting for Bush for one simple reason. Republicans keep employing me. Makes for an easy decision :)

[Cuckoo]

Here's (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/27/elec04.prez.democratic.turnout.ap/) an article that talks about the Democratic Primary turnout numbers. I don't know if this has been posted before or not, but it says a few interesting things that could support both sides of the argument.

A couple things that caught my eye (that support what I was saying :D):

"The Republicans are playing games with figures and the Democrats are playing games with figures," said Gans, who has spent decades studying voter turnout.

New Hampshire aside, he said turnout "is not at all a record." On numbers alone, for example, Iowa may match the 1988 total, but when population growth is accounted for, the turnout rate is lower than 16 years ago.

The earlier a primary or caucus occurs the more candidates are likely to be in the race, and the more voters feel they can influence the party's choice of a nominee.


I can certainly see both sides of the argument. I just think that by the time election day rolls around, a large number of people will need something more than just hatred for Bush to get off their lazy butts and get to the polls.

[digamma]

If you don't have a dog in this race, I certainly can understand how some people would vote for Nadar or simply stay home. So, it wouldn't surprise me if Nadar got close to 10%.
Nader is having ballot issues. He may run well in national polls and he did get on some ballots through the Reform Party nomination, but I don't think he will be on enough ballots to make a significant impact.

[timmynausea]

I don't know if anyone has seen this.

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

I'm voting for Kerry just cause I hate Bush.

[Telle]

I can certainly see both sides of the argument. I just think that by the time election day rolls around, a large number of people will need something more than just hatred for Bush to get off their lazy butts and get to the polls.


Well, that's exactly what's gonna get me off my lazy butt and to the polls. Unfortunately, seeing as how I'm in Massachusetts it's probably not going to make much of a difference.

[Dutch]

All I hope for is that people do a little research and check their facts at multiple sources before rushing off to vote one way or the other.

An informed voter isn't more powerful, but collectively, a smarter voter group can provide motivation for our candidates to do the best job they can in order to gain the voters trust and votes.

If John Kerry need do nothing more than say Bush is Evil, and Bush need to do nothing more than say Kerry is Evil, then we are idiots to vote based on that.

Read, read, read. TV is worthless except for trying to decide which candidates look presidential. I this case, I think they are both lacking...

And the research cannot be concluded in one evening, you have to read 30 minutes or an hour a week at least to understand the ebb and flow of politics.

[Jon]

I tend to agree with John Galt on this one. I think the election will be a battle of the bases. Except the bases are "pro-Bush" and "anti-Bush." Bush is a Republican version of Bill Clinton -- you either like him or hate him. And I think, that whatever side gets out the most voters, then Bush will win. In a way, this is the election that Karl Rove has dreamed about his entire career. It's a referendum on Bush and his policies. You think Bush was governing like he had a mandate before, wait until he gets both the popular and electoral vote! (which I don't want to happen, but I'm no so sure that it won't).

[Arles]

Just look at this forum. There are many here that pay attention and do their homework on the candidates just like Dutch suggested. Yet, the presounding opinion is "I'm voting for X because I hate/despise/am afraid of Y".

And, to quote the infinite wisdom in OfficeSpace: "That's my only real motivation is not to be hassled, that, and the fear of losing my job. But you know Bob, that'll only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired."

It seems like fear of the other candidate being president is not enough to get a big turnout. If that's people's only motivation, many may see the lines to vote and simply go home. And, if the guy they hate is losing in their state polls, many may stay home to begin with. In the end, I think people have to be passionate about their candidate in order to get the turnout.

[cthomer5000]

I will certainly vote for a third party, and almost certainly Ralph Nader. I hope that one day we will have a viable third party option, and I view my vote as an invenstment in that.

[John Galt]

I will certainly vote for a third party, and almost certainly Ralph Nader. I hope that one day we will have a viable third party option, and I view my vote as an invenstment in that.

Voting for Nader (this time) doesn't really help 3rd parties because he is running as an independent. If he was with the Greens again, it would help get them on the ballot (and potentially in the debates) next time, but running as an independent doesn't really help anything.

[timmynausea]

It's still possible that I'll vote for Nader for the same reason that cthomer stated.
I think some people here are underestimating the passion with which some people hate Bush, though. I know many people that haven't really followed politics in the past who are getting registered just to vote against Bush. I think this works the same way that having passion for your candidate does.

[timmynausea]

Voting for Nader (this time) doesn't really help 3rd parties because he is running as an independent. If he was with the Greens again, it would help get them on the ballot (and potentially in the debates) next time, but running as an independent doesn't really help anything.
This is a good point. I probably would vote for Nader if he was affiliated with the Green party this time around.

[sachmo71]

In the end, I think people have to be passionate about their candidate in order to get the turnout.


I don't know about you, but I can't get passionate about either of these douchebags. Besides, a lot of people just don't trust politicians anymore. It's more of a "Which guy is going to take care of the groups that affect me more?"

[Kodos]

I think folks are underestimating how much people really hate Bush. My best friend and his wife, who both voted for Bush last time out and who generally lean towards the Republican side, are voting for Kerry because they are worried that Bush is making the whole world hate the U.S.

Personally, I didn't like when Bush Sr. was in office, but he never inspired the level of hatred that Bush Jr. has. I think people will be VERY motivated to vote against Bush in the coming election. Like others, I have very little liking for Kerry. I wanted Edwards to win, or for Gore to run again. But we are stuck with Kerry, so I will vote for him almost entirely as a vote against Bush. It sucks having no option that I actually like, but just about anything would be better than 4 more years of Bush.

[Glengoyne]

Indeed! I mean, I thought Bush was just throwing that out there to placate the wacko Christian Right. Turns out he was serious :::scared:::.

I'll take Kerry anyday over someone who wants to put discrimination in the Constitution (among other things he's done :D).
It is ABSOLUTELY a bone thrown to shore up support of the "Religious" Right. It has a ZERO chance of actually happening.