Bush bashing vs Kerry supporting

Kerry is the transitional guy between Bill and Hillary.

 

Kerry is the transition guy between an un-American radical interregnum and a return to the values and ideas that this country should represent to ourselves and to the world.

 

I'll be back; I'm going to Dictionary.com.

 

Okay, I'm back. I suppose this is the meaning you were taking: "A period of temporary suspension of the usual functions of government or control."

I guess it's only 12:30 AM in New Mexico. We have an un-neutered male cat next door who keeps breeching our cat door and seeking to stake out our kitchen as his territory. Now that's a sound to be awakened by...

You know, if 9/11 had not happened and we did not have heightened awareness of the horrible capabilities of these sleeper cells in the US and around the world and if these compromises in our liberties were foisted upon us for no good reason, I'd probably be as concerned as you are about some of this stuff.

Since that's not the case, I'm not.

 

I'm not really sure it's a new phenomenon. When you're the challenger, or a supporter of a challenger, there's normally a reason you are. It's because you feel that the person you're challenging hasn't done that good a job and you feel the need to point out those mistakes. It's natural and I'm sure it's been going on for a long time.

 

I have the impression that most people who support Kerry support him because he's not Bush, and not because he's Kerry.

Not that I consider voting Bush out of office an insignificant goal. If there were a better choice, I'd take it.

I don't like Kerry at all, and think it might be risky voting him into office at the current time. But, 4 more years of Bush is almost guaranteed to be disastrous to the future children of most non-billionaires in the U.S.. Empire doesn't work. It's never worked for more than a short (relatively) period of time. And when it crashes, everyone crashes with it. Ask Rome, or Spain, or Great Britain.

Just playing the percentages. I truly wish there were a better, reasonable option. The U.S. political system needs to change voluntarily soon, or change will become a forced inevitable within our lifetimes. And while I don't see Kerry changing anything for the better, I see Bush making things worse.

That may be the reason why Bush criticism is so common, in comparison to Kerry touting. But it's the same routine on both sides. Bush and Kerry have far more in common with each other than they have in common with anyone on this board. It's funny how we forget that.

 

If there's nothing wrong with the current president and their policies, there is no reason whatsoever that any reasonable person would switch from a known acceptable quantity to any unknown one.

The natural process, therefore, is a.) convince the public that the incumbent has flaws that can't be ignored, and then b.) convince the public that the opposition is worthy of being president. If you don't establish A, then B doesn't make a difference.

Last cycle it was the Bill Clinton charater issue. If you don't accept first that Bubba's character is lacking, then Dubbya can't claim (supposed) moral superiority.

There is some evidence that the indroduction of TV into the campaigning process has cause a shift towards this sort of thing. Debates and ads on TV tend to be guided by emotional responses in a way that straight positions outlined in newspaper colums couldn't. Bush's Willie Horton ads, for instance, wouldn't have been effective without the pictures of the prison bars and the guy with the stern sounding voice to back it up.

On a side note,

I was listening to MSNBC today which included a delightful debate between some seperation of church and state guy and Jerry Faldwell, and Jerry has to be the single most offensive American alive today. He basically stated that any good Christian was a Republican, that god was a Republican, and that every good Christian correctly understood that they had to use their churches as a political recruting tool to thwart the party of gays and athiests.

On a purely intelectual basis, many of the philosophical positions of the Republican party tend to appeal to me, and when I'm thinking to myself in a void I contemplate voting for the GOP. Then along comes someone like Rev. Faldwell, who shocks me back to reality and reminds me that the GOP is the result of a forced aggrigation of several disperate groups, and is not the party that I want to believe it is.

Listening to Faldwell spew his bitter bile for 10 minutes genuinely disabused me of any notion of voting Republican in the forseable future.

I think I'm the only liberal Republican left on the planet.

Finally, while I appreciate that the Rush Limbaugh crowd doesn't like Hillary (and I don't particularly either), I think the way many people absolutely obsess in their hatred of her is some kind of pathology, like some sort of general male insecurity about strong women and the disolution of the traditional role of men in society, as many people have suggested is behind the particular obsessions of the Talaban's philosophy. I'm not trying to insult the people who crack on her, just suggesting that the Hillary fetish looks pretty bizare from the outside, as there are plenty male senators who are more liberal than she.


Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security
-Benjamin Franklin

 

You're not the only one. I am either a VERY liberal conservative or an EXTREMELY conservative liberal.

 

Faos-
I agree with you. I have asked in 3 different threads how kerry planned on raising taxes (wheter it was repealing Bush's tax cuts which I am guessing or if he really only plans on taxing the top 1% and slapping a new tax bracket for people making over a million a year). To this point I have heard no explanation.

So my guess is most people don't know/understand what Kerry is promising or all they really care is he isn't Bush so he could promise anything and no one would question it.

 

I think there's a significant amount of people (and growing) that believes that anybody but Bush should win. While I think Bush is a little slow, I'd still be fairly comfortable with him if he had his father's cabinet/helps. Instead he took the members of the Rep party that his father seemed to dislike.

(just look at the ppl that was in power when Regan was in office, then the ppl that was in power when his father took office, then the ppl are now in power now that he's in office).

 

Faos I don't have an ignore list, and there are so many conservatives on these boards these days that if I put any of them on it, there would be nobody to debate with.

It's a fair question.

I believe the reason is that because what Kerry stands for or wants isn't as important as removing GW Bush. IMO he has done more damage to our nation, it's principles, and it's values than any president in recent memory.

For those that see our nations values, honor, and principles they way I do, the most important factor is to remove the leader that has deteriorated those aspects of our country. Second most important is that we have someone we like who's ideas we love in the office.

I once had a strong like and support of Kerry back in the '80's even before I could vote. I now have a mild like for Kerry but nothing exeptional. I like many of his ideas. I'm not convinced how dedicated and passionately he holds those positions on issues. I am certain that he holds our nation's constitution, honor, and values more dearly than does our current President.

I believe he has better ideas how to fight the war on terror. I believe he is more capable as a leader and will be able to better build support for the war on terror among our allies.

I guess it comes down to the first step being that we must do damage control and stop the bleeding(Bush). The second step is finding the right person to make the repairs. That may be Kerry or perhaps not, but at least he will stop the damage being done currently.

 

It's a weekend and a holiday weekend at that. I don't know what response you will or won't get, but don't take it personally either way.

 

Why? He doesn't speak for the party, at least not in my eyes.

I'm a Republican and I couldn't give a sweet rats ass what he or his ilk has to say about anything. I'm sure I'm not alone in that thinking. I would even argue that the average GOP voter feels the same way about him. The only reason he and his ilk get any airtime is because he is so divisive and it makes for good TV. He doesn't speak for the average GOP voter even though people on the "other side" will argue that he does.

As far as Hilary goes, I don't disagree with her because Rush Limbaugh tells me to or because of my "general male insecurity about strong women and the disolution of the traditional role of men in society." Yet another misconception about the average GOP voter.

There are plenty of strong women on the right side of the isle as well. How do you explain that? The whole "if you disagree with Hilary, it's because you're afraid of a strong woman" argument is intellectually hollow and frankly...it's a little boring.

I admit it. Rightly or wrongly, I vote on political philosophy as opposed to the strengths/weaknesses of a particular candidate. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that every Republican is an ideal Republican. Far from it. The majority probably are not. But what's the alternative? Voting for someone who I KNOW doesn't share the same political philosophy?

It's the whole "lesser of 2 evils" argument and I would venture to say that it's the way the majority of voters on both sides vote.

 

I think ima just answered your question Faos.

 

But you do understand that many people don't agree with you, correct?

I'm not sure why this is such a hard thing to understand.

 

Why do you need others' opinions to make your vote for Bush stronger?

Maybe you're only voting for him to spite people who don't want to vote for him. That sounds much worse than voting for what you believe is the lesser of two evils.