NYT: Disenchanted Bush Voters Consider Crossing Over

I keep meeting Republicans who will not vote for Bush this time. For some, it's the deficit spending, for others, it's a feeling that they were mislead about the war, others are frightened by the far right tilt exemplified by Ashcroft, and there are those who feel the Bush tax cuts were aimed at his wealthiest backers and not them. But most of the people I talk to feel a mixture of those things, and it not something as specific as one issue... it's just adding up to, "I'm voting for the Democrat this time, as long as he's not completely off the wall. I can't vote for Bush again."

These quotes give a bit of the feel. What hits home, though, is when I talk to close relatives who have been loyal, conservative Republicans here in Texas for over 20 years, since Reagan, who tell me they will vote against Bush without me bringing it up. I can tell you, this has shocked the hell out of me.

And it gives me hope.

 

how interesting to compare the above quote from mr. meagher, with one from the times two weeks earlier:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/03/p...tml?ex=1077512400&en=d1f41dbeaab18901&ei=5070

so two weeks ago mr. meagher was an independent, but now he's a republican? and people wonder why the times has credibility issues.

 

so two weeks ago mr. meagher was an independent, but now he's a republican? and people wonder why the times has credibility issues.

Or perhaps he was a Republican when he founded that center and voted for Bush, and now he calls himself an independent since he doesn't like the Bush admin. That said, it's a little weird they are quoting the same random person in two articles a few weeks apart. They need more sources.

Beyond that, I have had the same experience as Deckard. I know Republicans that I would never have thought would vote for a Democrat who are considering it. This election is going to be very interesting.

 

the larger problem is it's basically the same quote, reworded to fit the slant of the current article. at best, it's sloppy journalism, at worst it's clear bias. the two stories are by the same reporter.

 

Major, it is quite possible that these Republicans who you and Deckard have talked to are just telling you what you want to hear. Seriously. I'm sure they've heard you and Deckard bemoaning our President extensively, so to avoid an in-depth argument with you, they simply say they're not sure about who they're voting for. Perhaps they simply don't want to ruffle the feathers in an inappropriate setting such as work or in mixed political company. But come election time, they will vote Republican. I discount your anecdotal evidence.

 

Major, it is quite possible that these Republicans who you and Deckard have talked to are just telling you what you want to hear.

Since these are close friends of mine, and we disagree on politics all the time, that's not the case. Since we actually discuss the issues and why we dislike certain candidates, that's also not the case. And since they are getting into arguments with other Republicans as a result, and it would have been far easier to simply support Bush, that again messes up your theory.

I'm sure they've heard you and Deckard bemoaning our President extensively, so to avoid an in-depth argument with you, they simply say they're not sure about who they're voting for.

I'm glad you're so sure about conversations you know nothing about. It clarifies the credibility of your other opinions throughout this board.

I discount your anecdotal evidence.

oh well, no big loss.

 

This would be, IMO,the smartest thing I've ever seen you post ( as individual experience case studies are the lowest form of support for an argument beyond the individual in question) were it not hard on the heels of your latest example of drawing far reaching conclusions based on limited evidence; in this case your incorrectly based conclusion that my alhohol/mj behaviour was a confirmation of your opinion of Democrats in general...

 

1) I was not being serious in the thread in which you announced you were a philosophical pothead and drunk.

2) Your intellectual arrogance sickens me and many others on this board. If you were half as smart as you think you are, you'd already have a few Nobel prizes to your credit.

 

1) I was being equally serious here...

2) Ok then. Once again, where's the beef?

 

I mentioned that I was most surprised by close relatives, that I have known for decades, by the way, who said they couldn't vote for Bush... without my asking their opinion. Of course, you may spin things in whatever way that makes you feel better.

I've also talked to long-time Republican Texas state executives who say the same thing, although they are careful where they say it and to who. The current political climate in state government here makes open dissent dangerous to one's job.

 

Home of the brave, land of the free...

 

I wish I had been exaggerating.
There are state agencies and commissions, some which work for the Legislature, that have been labeled "liberal!" by influential supporters of the leadership. This despite having Republican directors and non-partisan policies. It is that non-partisanship which is seen as damning in some circles. Some people here in high positions find themselves walking very carefully indeed.

 

Hmm...I'm getting a name...someone crossing over to the other side..it starts with a b. No wait, it starts with a t. Tecks? Texx? Someone said it's a nickname. Big? Yes, that's right...yes...you are considering what?...voting against something?

 

Kerry Republicans.

 

Heck, Orrin Hatch is being hounded by some Republicans because he dared to *not* toe the party line on "memogate" even though he's one of the most conservative guys in the Senate and usually a yes man.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2095803/

Sen. Orrin Hatch
If this conservative senator isn't safe from conservative attacks, is anyone?
By Michael Crowley
Posted Friday, Feb. 20, 2004, at 10:00 AM PT



Washington's conservative activists have found a traitor in their midst, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch. The occasion is Memogate, the internal Senate investigation into whether Republican aides unethically (and perhaps illegally) tapped into Democratic computer files containing private judicial-nomination strategy memos and leaked them to the press. The more the story balloons in the media, embarrassing Republicans and distracting them from trying to confirm more judges, the more right-wing activists savage Hatch, the man they hold responsible for it. To them, the Utah Republican has done something "acutely damaging to the struggle to get conservative judges onto the federal bench," as one National Review writer put it this week, in a column widely e-mailed among disgusted activists. Another activist ominously warned in the Washington Post of a "thermonuclear" punishment for Hatch. Also in the Post, Gary Bauer fumed over a "demoralized Republican base around the country" and sounded about ready to stage a public hanging on Capitol Hill.

No matter that Hatch has spent the past three years fighting nonstop to confirm George Bush's judicial nominees. After Hatch declared himself "mortified" by the file-stealing allegations and said he supported a formal investigation, angry GOP activists—who want to downplay down the scandal—accused him of being a weak-kneed appeaser of Democrats. The National Review's Timothy P. Carney even likened him to Neville Chamberlain.

That's madness, of course. Under Bush, Hatch has fought bitterly with Democrats over judicial nominations, to the point of shattering an emerging reputation he'd gained for moderation and spoiling some of his old bipartisan friendships. If anything, the real story of Orrin Hatch's recent career is the way the Bush administration took a senator who had been growing mellower and more independent with age and reduced him to a crude partisan attack dog. Yet even Hatch's partisanship isn't enough for the Savonarolas of the right. The right-wing bile over Hatch's Memogate burst of conscience only shows how frighteningly militant Washington's church of conservatism has become.

.
.
.

 

Well I will say that I am one of those Republicans who is absolutely disgusted with Bush and will not be voting for him this time around. However, I can't bring myself to vote for Kerry or Edwards (especially Edwards due to his protectionist beliefs) so I plan on voting for a third party candidate, whomever that may be, or a write-in.

oohh, the tragic state of American politics . . .

 

I think you'll see a lot of moderate and fiscally-conscious Republicans vote for the Dem candidate (or an independent, depending on how the Dem candidate turns out) in the next election. I know I'm not voting for Bush this time around and it's really up to the Dems to not run someone I really don't like. If I don't like the Dem guy, I'll stay home (which I hate to do) or vote for a third party. I know I'm not the only one that feels this way. Should make for an interesting November.

 

You're just saying that to appease Deckard and Major.

 

Blah, Blah, Blah...