Democrats & Liberals: Archives

I think you need to dig a little deeper; you’ll find most ‘true’ conservatives are voting for Badnarik, at least in the safe states.

A vote for Bush/Kerry in a safe state is a wasted vote.

Iacocca??
Isn’t he the guy that almost bankrupted Chrysler and needed the government to bail it out?
I’m sure he knows all there is to know.

I cannot imagine any conservative voting for someone as left-wing as Kerry. There are many reasons to oppose Bush- but that is a reason to abstain or vote for Badnarik (like I am doing). But to vote for someone with such a long record of wanting bigger government involved in our lives, raising tax, supporting abortion (even partial birth), opposing the death penalty in every case (well until he changed his mind recently) is something that most conservatives are VERY much against. Bush has betrayed small-government conservatives, but there is no reason to vote for someone who has never been on their side and has spent most of his life fighting for what they believe in, in almost every area.

I meant to say “fighting against what they believe in”

kerry is the candidate for the right now?
This is great news for me. I am not on the right or the left but have been leaning towards Bush lately.
Its good to hear that kerry is now for personal responsibility, not raising taxes and is now going to lower taxes, not for universal socialized healthcare, pro-Constititution and now supports the 2nd Amendment. This is awesome.
As soon as I confirm these things, I will be changing my mind and voting for kerry.
Thanks for the update.

KCIM- you missed the point! Bush is wrong on all issue for all people- Kerry is going against Bush. Therefore Kerry is right on all grounds for all people.

This is laughable Lawnboy.

I don’t know anyone who is voting for Kerry who is registered Republican.

It’s both easy and misleading to point out a handful of conservatives supporting Kerry and then say this equals “a lot of Republicans.”

Every poll out there puts Republican support for Bush in the high eighties; contrast that to Democratic support for Kerry in the high seventies or low eighties (with as many as 18% of African Africans supporting Bush) and then tell me which candidate is actually having trouble securing his base.

Oh, ok. Thanks Misha.
I guess if kerry is right on everything and Bush is wrong on everything, I should vote for kerry then.
The heck with facts. I’ll just adjust them to mean kerry is right and Bush is wrong.
According to kerry, EVERYBODY will have FREE healthcare, lower taxes and paralyzed people will walk. Terrorists will stop attacking and will be considered a nuisance only because of those on the right. Our troops will come home from Iraq and the UN will make sure Iraq is taken care of. Oh yeah, and the whole world will love us.
I’d have to be crazy not to vote for kerry.
He may just be the second coming.

The American Conservative article is way interesting. They don’t advocate voting for Kerry because they support his policies - but they still want him to win because

Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy.

Since this seems to be the sarcasm column —

Everybody knows the American Conservative has been nothing but a mouthpiece for the liberal left since 1962. Nobody believes any of the tripe they publish.

This is laughable Lawnboy.

I don’t know anyone who is voting for Kerry who is registered Republican.

Yes, anecdotal evidence is a sure fire way to counter anecdotal evidence.

LawnBoy, you forgot Poland, er, Noam Scheiber of The New Republic.

> I don’t know anyone who is voting for
> Kerry who is registered Republican.

Eric: My grandfather, a lifelong Republican and an Iwo Jima Marine veteran, and some of his Marine buddies and fellow old-Texan businessman friends, are voting Kerry. My career-CIA, Kennebunkport-vacationing, Reagan Administration serving, Colin Powell speed-dialing, Republicans-since-Lincoln in-laws are voting Kerry. All of them say, without hesitation, that Bush is the worst President they have ever seen in their long lives.

I do agree that it’s crazy to say a “lot of Republicans are voting for Kerry”. It’s more accurate to say that “A lot of people who stand for old-school Republican values are not voting for Bush because they detest him”. Many of that group are going so far as to vote for Kerry, but many others will probably sit it out or, as Lincoln Chafee intends, will write in someone else in protest.

But, all told, these enlightened people aren’t making a huge dent on Bush’s overall numbers. Remember, most of Bush’s support comes from people who have no idea what most of his policies actually are and from people who are some new kind of conservatives, people who love Bush for reasons having more to do with illusory swagger and toughness than to do with actual fiscal responsibility (deficit?) or even social programs(states rights? unfunded mandates?). Most Bush supporters think that he’s lowered the deficit!

Misha wrote:
> But to vote for someone with such a long
> record of wanting bigger government involved
> in our lives,

You just gave an example that could just as easily apply to Bush. Where has Bush reduced government? Where has he reduced government involvement in our lives? He’s only expanded both.

> raising tax

You mean like Reagan did when he realized that we needed it? Or like Nixon did when he realized that we needed it?

> Bush has betrayed small-government
> conservatives, but there is no reason
> to vote for someone who has never been
> on their side

The Republicans who are voting for Kerry are people for whom issues like abortion and absolutist tax reduction aren’t the most important issues in the world. They want a President with a track record of taking responsibility for his actions, with making difficult but informed decisions, and for thinking about the country’s long term prosperity, not just looking to score short-term political points. It’s no accident that you’ll find that many of these rebelling Republicans are older, people who harken back to the Rockefeller Republican strain instead of the Goldwater Republican strain. People more like George H. W. Bush than like Tom DeLay. Like me, they see these visionary leadership qualities in John Kerry: his wisdom, his sense of personal responsibility, his deep committment to his country’s future, his respect for his country’s history, diversity, and values, and his passion for doing good in America and in the world.

Bush’s current “base” consists of (1) right-wing religious conservatives, (2) Republicans-till-death, (3) Iraq hawks, (4) people peeing their pants in fear of terrorism, (5) people who have no idea what Bush’s policies actually are and have projected whatever the heck they want to beleive on him, and (6) people who think that anyone who is remotely liberal is completely repulsive. It’s a motley coalition indeed. As far as I can tell, there isn’t anyone who actually agrees with Bush on more than 50-75% of his policies, including most WatchBloggers.

-Cf

Eric you say:
“I don’t know anyone who is voting for Kerry who is registered Republican.”

I know several. But …

To those who are making the horserace arguments:
Did you actually read the Bandow article? Sure there are always plenty of stories in a country of 250 million people of those who switch sides in both directions. The salient point isn’t that these few Republicans & conservatives are supporting Kerry, rather it is the strength of their arguments on conservative grounds for doing so.

CF- its like you did not read my post. I agree that “You just gave an example that could just as easily apply to Bush”, which is why i said that they should vote for Badnarik! A person who wants to push fiscal conservative policy, or almost any other value conservatives beleive in, have no business voting for someone who has spent his entire career in teh senate fighting against those values.

I guess someone who values the more nebulous things you like about Kerry coudl go for him- but if they look at actual policy position, Kerry’s record offers them little to nothing. I listed the key issue many conservatives care about. Looking at Kerry’s record, the only thing that he has in his record that a conservative coudl get behind is his support for free trade. And even THAT has gone int hte trash when he has implement his economically illiterate “outsourcing” rhetoric to win cheap political points. Notice I said NOTHING here defending Bush, but Kerry is against everything conservatives stand for in terms of policy positions, and has been for 20-25 years as far as i know.

Christopher said:

But, all told, these enlightened people aren’t making a huge dent on Bush’s overall numbers. Remember, most of Bush’s support comes from people who have no idea what most of his policies actually are and from people who are some new kind of conservatives, people who love Bush for reasons having more to do with illusory swagger and toughness than to do with actual fiscal responsibility (deficit?) or even social programs(states rights? unfunded mandates?). Most Bush supporters think that he’s lowered the deficit!

That certainly does appear to be true. Could I get a response from someone on the Red Team about the study on Bush supporters? I’m sure none of the bloggers I’ve read fall into this category, but the statistics are pretty damning for the rest of the Bushies.

Alejo
(1) It can be worded to say whatever a person wants it to say:
But, all told, these enlightened people aren’t making a huge dent on kerry’s overall numbers. Remember, most of kerry’s support comes from people who have no idea what most of his policies actually are and from people who are some new kind of liberal, people who love kerry for reasons having more to do with false promises and overblown, fake patriotism than to do with actually caring about the peoples fiscal problems(tax raises?) or even Constitutional issues(states rights? gay marriage? gun rights?). Most kerry supporters think that he will actually try to lower the deficit!

(2)It all depends who takes the poll and who is in office.
If gore would have won, the left would be defending all his actions and the right would be whining about them. Even if everything would have turned out the exact same way, with gore going into Iraq, you wouldnt have seen the mass demostrations or anything like that. The only difference would be that the blues would be saying what the reds are now saying and the reds would be saying what the blues are now saying.
Any conservative or liberal who says different is not being honest.

kctim —

“The only difference would be that the blues would be saying what the reds are now saying and the reds would be saying what the blues are now saying.”

You would be right, except it’s based on the faulty premise that Gore would have gone into Iraq.

kctim —

Anyone who oversimplifies or overgeneralizes is making a mistake, but you keep saying there’s no difference whatsoever between the parties, and I don’t agree.

The point I was trying to make isn’t that one side is any smarter than the other, but that Bush and his spin team have done a spectacular job of snowing the voters. Did you read the link? It’s scary stuff, what the public believes.

CER
Why is it a faulty premise? Are you saying gore would have ignored intel reports that are used to protect the US? Even I give gore more credit than that.

Alejo
Yes, I read the link. Its all a matter perception. kerry and his spin team have also done a spectacular job of snowing the voters. I think its scary that people think he would be any different than Bush.
While their views may differ slightly on some issues, both will continue with eroding our rights. If a person takes an unbiased look at today and the late 90’s, there really is no difference in our way or quality of life. In fact, many of Bush’s numbers are the same as the numbers clinton had when he was re-elected.

Bush and gore had different so-called agendas and promises but yet things are almost identical.

It all depends on which rights a person is willing to give up when deciding who they will support.
I am not willing to give up any of my rights.

Sure, there are equivalent hypocricies on both sides of the fence, but where the issue breaks on is the following:

If Kerry is so extremist, how come he is always accused of “nuanced” positions?

The idea that Kerry is the “most liberal” of the liberals comes from a national journal article, that, when read, actually paints Kerry’s life history as a moderate Democrat. (Out of 50, he’s around 25 on the scale)

http://mostliberalsenator.blogspot.com/

Kerry has never been a softy on foreign policy. In fact, his stance has jived most closely with Colin Powell’s stance. War as a last resort, and when necesarry, go in with overwhelming force and a clear exit strategy.

His military stance has jived most closely with Rumsfeld’s military stance: it’s time to get rid of out-dated weapons, and upgrade our military to an effective, modern fighting force.

His tax stance is not one of tax-and-spend. He HAS voted for tax cuts, and he HAS voted for reductions in spending. He has broken with his party many times to support Republican measures that he has believed in (such as Welfare Reform).

Kerry, as his stances revealed, was not against the Vietnam War because he thought we couldn’t kill all the Cong, he was against it because he didn’t think we could win the “real” war, the war for the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese. How do you “liberate” people who you’ve used napalm and w.p., and agent orange on?

Bush’s war cabinet is extreme. It is not good for our soldiers. I was born in Mississippi. A kid from my high school was killed in Iraq. I know people who are over there right now. I am beside myself over the decisions this war cabinet has made with their lives. The CIA gave the Bush administration a list of 500 sites, in order of danger, that needed to be secured when we went into Iraq. The vast majority of them weren’t secured. These sites all had the materials necesarry to kill my friends. And in fact, this is what happened. The kid from my high school died from a bomb that was built from material from a site that was unsecured.

Sure, all administration’s make mistakes. No matter whether a Democratic one or a Republican one. But these jokers, unlike Kerry, haven’t lived with the consequences of killing and death.

These guys love the ideas of weapons systems, and shock and awe, and big, bad fighter jets that they can fly around in, and dressing up in fancy uniforms. They love the idea of kicking the crap out of anyone who hurts an American soldier.

But they’re bored with the methods that it takes to protect an American soldier. They’re bored by soldiers with disabilities, and bored with providing enough support so Abu Ghraib doesn’t happen. They don’t have the political muscle to up the troop levels in Iraq, instead they extend the tours of duties of soldiers, and the soldiers children are now failing 4th grade (as is what’s happening with the people I know).

Army wives band together to provide support to one another. Army children are being raised in what amounts to single-parent households, national guardsmen who signed up to protect their communities, find themselves sent to Iraq.

I am sick to death of seeing these hard-working people jerked around like this. I admire them for being loyal to their leaders. It’s part of what makes them beautiful. But their leaders are kicking the crap out of them. They spend billions of dollars on new bombs, while the wives of these soldiers struggle at home, trying to keep the family business from going under.

It’s not right.

And I know for a fact, that it’s precisely this type of situation that gets John Kerry madder than hell.

Julia

CER Why is it a faulty premise? Are you saying gore would have ignored intel reports that are used to protect the US? Even I give gore more credit than that.

Probably he wouldn’t have ignored them - that would have been stupid. Gore probably would have gone the same route Kerry advocated - inspections, multilateral pressure, etc - rather than pushing the country headlong into war which was not only unnecessary, but detrimental to security (look at today’s headlines about al qaaqaa if there’s any doubt in your mind).

Alejo Yes, I read the link. Its all a matter perception.

I disagree. The study was not based on values or opinions - it was based on perceptions of facts. Let’s take one example question:

Q16. Please select what you think is the best description of the relationship between the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein and the terrorist group al-Qaeda: (a) There was no connection at all (b) A few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials but Iraq did not provide substantial support to al-Qaeda (c) Iraq gave substantial support to al-Qaeda, but was not involved in the September 11th attacks (d) Iraq was directly involved in carrying out the September 11th attacks.

As readers here certainly know, the correct answer, according to the 9/11 commission, is (b). If you want to get technical, (b) is almost certain, (a) and (c) are both extremely unlikely, and (d) is right out.

Nearly half of Kerry supporters picked option (b), and about 20% picked options (a) or (c). Only 1 in 10 picked (d).

For citizens of the Red Planet, more than half picked (c), with about 20% picking options (b) and (d). Only 2% picked (a).

There is clearly a systematic error on the part of Bush supporters, and this is reflected over and over again on different questions.

Saying that Kerry’s spinning just as hard is missing the point - the point is, that people that listen to him are in better touch with reality.

kctim,

(1) It can be worded to say whatever a person wants it to say: …

I suppose it could (as you show), there just wouldn’t be any evidence to support it. Give me a break.

Dan

Lawnboy:

Its really pretty easy to show prominent Democrats who are voting for Bush. Look no further than Zell Miller, though of course the “left” will simply disparage Miller, rather than see his disillusionment with his own party.

So lets move on to former NYC mayor Ed Koch. There can be relatively few people who fit the Democratic mold and mindset more than Mr. Koch. In fact, he still believes in the ideals of the Democratic Party. Though he says he disagrees on much of Bush’s platform, he is nonetheless going to vote for Bush, and has campaigned on Bush’s behalf. Why???? Because in his viewpoint, Kerry is weak on terrorism, and Koch feels that Bush is the right choice for our country.

So, we can all easily see that there are those on either side of the aisle who are voting across the aisle.

But what really matters is what the American people as a whole want, though of course in the context of the Electoral College. I’ve predicted for the past 18 months that Bush will win, though I’ve thought the victory would be by a wider margin that currently appears likely. I’ll stick with that prediction, and regardless of the Ed Koch’s who are voting Republican, or the Lee Iacocca’s who are voting Democratic, we will find out on November 2nd how the actual election looks.

Julia,

Good post! so much of the Red rhetoric is attacking someone that is just not Kerry.

WC
Your post is nice and well thought out, but you are missing my point. I’m not questioning the way the question was asked or what the correct answer really is.
I am saying that if gore was president(ugh) then the left would be supporting his every decision and the right would be whining about his every decision. People no longer care about the facts.
The left defended EVERYTHING clinton did and the right hammered him for everything. Now, the right defends EVERYTHING Bush does and the left hammers him. Nothing to do with what is right or wrong, its all for the party.

Dan
Your right. The only supporting evidence is that which is against Bush. ANYTHING that goes against kerry and what he is is wrong. No matter what. Sorry bout that, forgot I was in the blue column.

Julia
I sympathize with your lose, I have lost 6 friends over in Iraq. War is hell.
You have posted a great “I love kerry no matter what” letter and you should vote for him. But I cannot vote based on a party’s talking points.
However, I do have one question for you, if you’d be so kind.

You said:
“But these jokers, unlike Kerry, haven’t lived with the consequences of killing and death.”
That tells me you believe kerry would be better because he has been there, knows what it is like.
I was just wondering this then:
If we should abandon our Constitution and trust kerry because he has been there and is more qualified, then why shouldn’t we trust the troops who are there now and that say progress is being made and that things aren’t as bad as the media and Dems are saying?

As a conservative, I despise a lot of what GWB has done: expanded medicare, certain elements of the Pat. Act, etc.

But to suggest that voting for Kerry is some sort of tonic for these things is awfully foolish. There are a few conservatives in government who would rather go four years out of power than see GWB’s ‘conservatism’ become the norm. I think that’s throwing the bath water out with the baby.

kctim,

If Clinton had been running in 2000 against Colin Powell, I would have voted for Powell. Clinton’s history was too divisive for him to have been an effective president. I would have also struggled with a Clinton vs. Bush ticket. Again, because Clinton was so divisive. In fact, I’m supporting some Republicans in some local races out here because they seem smarter then their Democratic counterparts. I vote for the person.

When you say that I support Kerry because he has been there, that’s only partially the truth. I support Kerry because he’s been there, and the result of that experience made him deeply think about the choices we make in war. Kerry has always been an over-analyzer, and this period of his life made him spend a lot of time thinking over the issue. It’s really because of the time and effort he’s put into the analysis that I support him. I know other people who have gone “through the fire” but would make terrible presidents. For instance, I would suggest Curtis LeMay would have made a horrible president.

As for the troops question, I believe most of the troops are saying that they believe the Iraq war was handled poorly, and many mistakes have been made, but we have the strength to kill everyone that needs killing. I don’t believe the question has been posed: “Can Iraq be made a democracy?” I wonder what they think about that question. But yes, the majority of soldiers do support their leaders. For them it’s about loyalty. But when the soldiers that were serving in Fallouja passed up the chain of the command that they wanted to wait a little bit for tensions to calm down, before launching a counter-attack, their wishes were ignored.

You are right, using the argument “Kerry has been there” is a poor one for explaining his position on fighting. But that’s not my position. Kerry has thought this through. Read one of the books he has written. Read the book his father wrote. Read the speeches he’s been giving for the last 20 years. They guy isn’t a charicature. He’s actually a really good guy, with strong positions backed up by strong reasoning.

Bush’s foreign policy is really Cheney’s foreign policy. If you read Cheney’s position and reasoning for the last 20 years, it’s extreme. Bush’s economic policy is the policy of Reagonomics all over again (yet even more extreme). Kerry’s policies are a hybrid. Like his answer to health care, which is a mix of privatization and social strategies.

If Kerry was a car, he’d be a Prius. He’s complex, not very attractive, a little boring on the outside, but he’s better on the environment, and in the long run, the most responsible choice.

Saying he’s a flip-flopper is like screaming at the Prius “Do you run on gas, or do you run on electricity?!”

Julia

Julia,

I love the Prius analogy!

Misha, I wasn’t contradicting you nor implying that you were supporting Bush. I was pointing out that Republicans who don’t like some of Kerry’s policies might also find fault with Bush for the same reasons.

-Cf

JFK versus JFK

Bush does not excite me. If the Democrats had nominated someone good, I could have gone the other way. But they didn’t; they nominated John F. Kerry.

I just finished reading “An Unfinished Life”, a biography of John Kennedy. Kennedy fought for tax cuts; he believed in strong defense and in facing the enemies of freedom before they got to these shores. Kerry is lately sounding like Kennedy, but that is not his persona. Kerry is a deliberative, intelligent man. I expect that he sees many sides to a problem and understand nuances. This is great for a professor and it might make him a decent legislator, maybe a good president in peaceful times. .

I have watched Kerry on television and read his statements. Whenever he is asked about his record on national defense, he mentions Vietnam He never brings up his Senate record, which is much more relevant. Maybe that is because his national defense record after Vietnam is so bad. The Democrats make fun of Republicans for bringing it up, but Kerry voted against most of the major weapons now being used in Afghanistan and Iraq. Usually the legislation in question passed by large majorities of around 80% in the Senate, so that Kerry was in the minority of his own party. I am sure his votes were courageous, in that he was running to the left of most Democrats as well as almost all Republicans. He is probably proud of this accomplishment, but he won’t talk about it anymore.

John Kerry’s consistent opposition to national defense legislation shows he is not a flip-flopper in everything. But given the Kerry record on national defense he can hardly portray himself as John Wayne and John Kerry sure is no John Kennedy.

I can’t vote for him. It is a scam, a bait and switch. We are asked to vote for a moderate, maybe even someone with conservative values that John Kerry claims to be ever since he vanquished Howard Dean. He goes out and shoots a couple of geese to prove his macho love of guns and ability to kill animals. He probably already has his pickup truck. When did this transformation take place? I am afraid when the clock strikes midnight on November 3, the tough talking, gun totin prince will again turn into a liberal pumpkin.

> I guess someone who values the more nebulous
> things you like about Kerry coudl go for
> him- but if they look at actual policy
> position, Kerry’s record offers them little
> to nothing.

What you call “nebulous things” are the foundations of a President’s policymaking. They are what make Bush’s policies distateful to some moderate Republicans. People like my grandfather, who cares more about America being respected in the world than he does about America being feared in the world, who cares more about respecting the choices of women than he does about ‘partial-birth’ abortion, who cares more about the integrity of the Constitution than he does about ‘protecting’ America from gay Americans, who cares more about long-term financial stability than he does about short-term gains for the wealthy, who cares more about private personal faith than he does about overt exploitative religiosity.

These moderate Republicans ask themselves “Why do the policies of George W. Bush, a supposedly moderate conservative who is associated with responsible, experienced, and wise people like Colin Powell and George H. W. Bush, seem to be so out of whack with what I think is truly important in America? Why does he ignore our traditional allies, who are so important to us? Why does he not care at all about our out of control deficit? Why does he not ever, ever veto pork-barrel spending bills? Why does he pass the blame to the military and to Congress and to his predecessors when the buck should stop with him? Ah, I see: Because he is a reckless, careless, shallow man who cannot take responsibility for his actions, who blames others for all of his problems, and who has shown no concern with what condition the country and the world is left after he is gone. Why should I vote for him?”

I’m paraphrasing, of course. :-)

The point is that “Republicanism” and “Conservatism” don’t necessarily have anything at all to do with oppressing gay people, trying to criminalize all abortions, mandating religious practice in government institutions and overt alliances with political theocrats, discarding and mocking the Geneva conventions, deliberately driving France and Germany away, cozying up to Russia for political cover even while Putin steadily unearths his inner Stalin, defending and shovelling-out no-bid contracts, give-aways to corporations, encouraging unprecedented government secrecy, cashing in on callous flag-waving jingoism, defending an unbridled rights to bear arms, or advocating throw-away-the-key criminal justice. There are many Republicans who are not “Conservatives” at all by almost all of the above standards: Schwarzenneggar, Powell, Lugar, Giuliani, etc. (I know they’re all backing Bush. They fall into the “die-hard Party loyalist” camp, I guess.

Nobody is saying that conservative Republicans will turn to Kerry because Bush isn’t conservative enough. That’s crazy. The point is that moderate Republicans, whose loyalty to an increasingly conservative party isn’t absolute, will turn away from Bush because they simply think that Bush has been a terrible leader.

-Cf

CF- for the second time you missed my entire point in this thread- or ignored it. I said “I say nothing here to defend Bush, I just think Kerry offers nothing to conservatives” and you go list a bunch of stuff that Bush has (arguably) done that would upset conservatives!!

WELL OF COURSE- that is why he lost my vote! But my point, and the point that I think you are dancing around, is that even a conservative who is upset by all of those things Bush has done has no reason to favor a guy like Kerry- who has spent his entire life fighting against the (moderate and not moderate) causes AND men that your hypothetical moderate conservative has cared about. He was an political foe on almost every major issue of Reagan, Bush Sr., Powell and basically every other person that conservatives respect. He is still the same guy today- as much as he is trying to hide it by marching around the woods with guns and making disengenous promises not to raise taxes.

Please read, once again, what I wrote:

A person who wants to push fiscal conservative policy, or almost any other value conservatives beleive in, have no business voting for someone who has spent his entire career in the senate fighting against those values.

I do think that your post is a perfect example of my suspicion of what really makes people so proud to support John Kerry- that he is NOT George W. Bush! There is nothing you can really say positive about him to a conservative (other than he will find some magic way to make countries respect again), so you give us a list of horrors of things you think that Bush has done wrong (many of which I agree with you on, by the way!). So lets stop pretending there is any real reason for any non-liberal to support John Kerry- there is not. Maybe Bush is so odiuos that a conservative is willing to hold his nose and vote for Kerry. I am sure a couple will. But I think a far greater number will hold their nose and vote for Bush (which is why he is up in the polls) or will not vote at all. (I also grant the possibility that some conservatives may be tricked by Kerry’s swing to the right to get “swing voters” and may vote for him for that reason).

> CF- for the second time you missed my entire
> point in this thread- or ignored it. I said
> “I say nothing here to defend Bush, I just
> think Kerry offers nothing to conservatives”
> and you go list a bunch of stuff that Bush
> has (arguably) done that would upset
> conservatives!!

Misha, I’m a little puzzled by your reaction. I think perhaps you are the one who maybe didn’t read my post.

> your hypothetical moderate conservative

See, that’s what I mean! I wrote “moderate Republican” not “moderate conservative.”

This is going to come out weird, but here goes: I didn’t miss your point nor did I ignore it. I was actually arguing against it. I was arguing against your presumption that I was talking about how conservatives are jumping away from Bush and voting for Kerry. That may be the gist of Lawnboy’s first post, but it’s not what I wrote.

I think both you and I would agree that very few conservatives (by any reasonable definition of the word) are voting for Kerry. I would say that that idea was as impossible as the American Conservative having a pro-Nader endorsement, hailing him as the “Old Right”, but I guess hell has frozen over.

Anyway, I wasn’t talking about the “real conservative” crowd at all. If they want to leave the GOP tent and vote for Badnarik or Buchanan or whoever they like more than Bush, that’s quite okay with me.

No, rather I was arguing that there exists a fantastic creature called a “moderate Republican”, someone who is a member of the Republican Party but who is not, by most measures, a “conservative”. Their core values are not, by today’s standards, considered especially conservative: They’re pro-gay. Pro-choice. Vehemently secular. Disdainful of overt patriotism. Respect the first Amendment. Oppose privatising the schools. Don’t think lots of people should be allowed to carry guns. Usually not all at once, mind you, although I think I just described Rudolph Giuliani and maybe even a couple of Red-column regulars. These are people who beleive all of these things and who are Republicans. In previous times, they used to look to leaders like Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and G.H.W. Bush as conservatives who had the ability to compromise with people with less conservative beleifs on this issue or that. But these people today look at George W. Bush and they don’t necessarily see that flexibility.

On the face of it, that’s not enough to bolt the party, of course. There are other issues that tie Republicans together pretty strongly, such as tax policy*.

But there’s a subset of that group who also disagrees with Bush’s decision to go to war.

So if you add the list of significant policy differences that I just described above to a deep disagreement on core foreign policy, and what do you get? My dear old father-in-law. My grandpa. You get my gist. I hope. I hope I don’t get another “No, Chris, you’re still ignoring my point” post!

Anyway, most of my post was simply about how “nebulous” ideas about character and responsibility often have a direct, causal relationship with policy.

-Cf

CF- I really really hate to say this again- but I think you missed my point again! (covers his head). Seriously, i am not trying to be difficult as you and I usually have pretty good discussions…

Let me highlight my point by repeating the key question: now why, exactly, would such a person as you described support Kerry?

Just to take a quick look at your list:
1. his overt patriotism is palpable- did you not see the democratic national convention?;
2. he is pro-choice to a point FAR to the left of most moderate republicans AND moderate democrats (see: partial birth abortion, anti-parental consent).
3. He has been invoking his faith all over this campaign.
4. He opposes gay marriage (or claims to)- so much for pro-gay rights.
5. He voted for campaign finance reform, the biggest undermining of the first amendment since the flag burning ban.

So of all the values you listed, he, at most embodies one of them (pro-choice)- and even on that issue I would venture to say that he is to the left of almost all moderates in this country.

Much more importantly, I would suggest that these moderate republicans still believe in smaller government and smaller taxes, both of which are anethama to Kerry’s record in the senate. My point is that someone like Bill Clinton, with his claims of “the era of big government being over” could pull over pro-choice, anti-jingoistic moderate republicans.

But John Kerry is a different animal all together. He is a classic left-winger with little appeal to moderate republicans outside of being against Bush. That is the real problem for the Dems by choosing John Kerry- they picked someone so far to the left of the moderates you want them to attract that they have had to have him change his positions to make him look like what he is not and never has been.

Those are good points, Misha, although I think you overestimate John Kerry’s liberalism and underestimate the liberalism of a lot of Republicans and Americans.

To the people I speak of, partial birth abortion is bad but Scalia and Thomas are worse. Gay marriage is frowned upon, but not anywhere near bad enough to push for a Constitutional Amendment. Faith is extremely important, but not as a substitute for reason or secular law. For these people, Bush simply isn’t attractive. Kerry may not be so attractive either, but I don’t think I ever really argued that Kerry was their de facto alternate choice.

But thanks for reading my post!

-Cf

John Kerry voted for missile defense in 1999. He voted for Welfare Reform. He’s on the small business committe, and has been a consistent backer for small business owners. He has a great plan for dealing with frivolous medical lawsuits. He is not a crazy liberal. His health care plan is a great blend of privatization along with the strength of government health services. His policies are good, strong moderate policies. He has a long history of effective action on foreign policy. He is one of the first nominees in decades who can talk foreign policy from a vantage of expertise. Bush and Clinton had to surround themselves by advisors to make everyone comfortable that they were up to speed on foreign issues.

Misha, you’re right. The libertarian-conservatives, and even the extreme-conservatives would be far better served by Badnarik. But for moderate-republicans, the guys who do believe in social security and medicare, and are concerned with long-term care, and care for people with disabilities, Kerry is an excellent choice. Just take a look at the AARP site, and see Kerry’s responses to their questions.

Julia

If the Democrats had nominated someone good, I could have gone the other way. But they didn’t; they nominated John F. Kerry.

Haha! Jack, no matter who the Democrats nominated, the GOP media machine would have painted him (or her) as a raving liberal. When has it ever been different? :)

I find Kerry’s record - especially through the 90s up to now - pretty centrist. Your mileage may vary, but you should at least look into it yourself. And he already has a pickup - or, rather, his wife does - at one of his houses. But I think only the staff use it. :)

Seriously, Kerry’s not going to turn into a liberal pumpkin, that’s just the GOP spin. Go look for yourself.

According to kerry, EVERYBODY will have FREE healthcare, lower taxes and paralyzed people will walk. Terrorists will stop attacking and will be considered a nuisance only because of those on the right. Our troops will come home from Iraq and the UN will make sure Iraq is taken care of. Oh yeah, and the whole world will love us.

Wow, kctim. That’s just an amazing mischaracterization of Kerry’s platform (though you got the lower taxes part right). I’m beginning to see how conservatives still believe Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks.

AP
So the kerry ticket never mentioned healthcare for all, that its a right not a priviledge?
He didn’t say he wouldnt raise taxes on the middle class, just those evil rich white guys?
Edwards didnt say that if they are elected, then people like chris reeves will rise up and be able to walk again?
He didnt say that the UN should be in Iraq and when we give up control to them, then our troops can go home?

Theres bad on both sides AP, I am just not so partisan that I cannot see it.
Thanks for the link though. I have read it many times in the past, sounds very expensive, but it still means as much to me as Bush’s platform.
Empty promises created to buy votes.

kctim,

Your right. The only supporting evidence is that which is against Bush. ANYTHING that goes against kerry and what he is is wrong. No matter what. Sorry bout that, forgot I was in the blue column.

I am only speaking to the survey. I am only stating that you could not write an article based on the survey that states what you wrote because there is no evidence in the survey to support it. If there is support in the survey to allow you to write that paragraph, just list the question numbers. I looked through and didn’t see anything. I did a search on deficit and it came back empty. If you have another survey that supports the claims you make, link to it, I’d be very interested to read it.

I don’t think you can just make things up and claim that they have equal weight to actual reasearch that someone has done. They are reporting their findings, you are reporting your opinion.

I think that this survey makes an important statement on the state of our political discourse and think it’s really weak for you to dismiss it just because you don’t like the results.

Dan

So the kerry ticket never mentioned healthcare for all, that its a right not a priviledge?

Not FREE healthcare, kctim. Kerry said affordable healthcare. That’s a night-and-day difference.

He didnt say that the UN should be in Iraq and when we give up control to them, then our troops can go home?

No. He never said we would bring all the troops home. Kerry’s in Iraq for the long haul. Unlike Bush. Bush seems content to hold elections in Iraq and then leave,

US President George W Bush has said he would accept an Islamic government in Iraq as the result of free elections.

Really, Mr. President? We spent blood and oil to have Iraq ruled by a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy? This is the result of rushing in without a UN mandate, and rushing Iraq to elections just to say “Mission accomplished!” This makes the war not only unnecessary, but meaningless.

“It’s very difficult for me to predict what forces will exist although I will tell you that Iraq’s leadership has made it quite clear that they can manage their own affairs at the appropriate time.”

American Pundit (and GOP insiders) predicts that, if Bush is re-elected, the “appropriate time” will be February 2005.

Dan
You are missing the point of my post.
In fact, I totally AGREE with the results of that survey. I am just saying that if there was a Dem acting as president, the left would then be supporting what is going on and the right would be against it. Polls are used to support or discredit a particular side when in an election year.

AP
What is “affordable” when you are considered poverty level? Affordable and free mean the same thing at that level.
I didn’t say “all” our troops either. kerry says he is in Iraq for the long haul, he just wants the UN to be in control of the situation with less US troops being in Iraq.

Well, kctim, you said you’ve read Kerry’s health care plan, so you know that nowhere in there does he say that every American should have free health care. He’s just trying to increase the number of Americans who can afford health care insurance by bringing the prices down.

Healthcare is a right - not a priviledge? Empty slogan that is not true, meant to buy votes.
If it is a right, then every American gets it. To do that, it will have to be free to most. Every child will have healthcare? To do that, it must be free also.
My budget does not allow me to have health insurance. Under kerry’s plan, it would have to be free or else he would have broken his promise to my family. He cannot do that. I have a nice health savings account I created on my own, I cannot afford to pay for someone else also.
Does it really save a person money if your health premiums drop by $100 a month, but your taxes increase $100 a month?

We will always disagree on this issue. We have two different opinions.

> If it is a right, then every American gets it.

Free speech is a right, but it doesn’t mean that the government is buying us all printing presses and web sites.

Gun ownership is a right, but the government doesn’t buy us all guns.

The “Healthcare is a right, not a privilige” slogan is just that: a slogan. It’s meant to draw a distinction with those who think that it’s perfectly natural for a healthy economy to have millions and millions of people with no health care.

> Does it really save a person money if your
> health premiums drop by $100 a month, but
> your taxes increase $100 a month?

If this happens and some poor person gets a fighting chance at getting a real health care program instead of dying from flu or running up a huge bill at the emergency room, then yeah, it’s a good thing.

By the way, kctim, under Kerry’s plan you don’t have to join anything. Absolutely not. If you dont want to change your current way of taking care of your family’s health care, you don’t have to. You should re-read the plan.

-Cf

Cf
I know I dont have to join, but if I chose to, it would have to be free in order for kerry to keep his promise. If it isnt free, its not affordable for me.

kctim, your logic is based around the assumption that “right” and “free” are synonyms. They are not.

-Cf

No, my logic is based on what kerry’s plan says.
“affordable healthcare for all”
The only way healthcare would be affordable to most people, would be if it is free.
In order for it to be free/affordable, most Americans will have to endure a paycut. As many doctors offer “lower rates” if you pay in cash, I cannot afford another paycut.