T Nation

Democrats for Bush


#1

I have already indicated that in my small group of 10-12 all four of the moderates are going to vote for George W. Here is an early inkling of what might begin to happen nationally.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-03-24-democrats-for-bush_x.htm

It appears that, in addition to myself and my moderate friends, there are non-partisans that find the following very dangerous:

  1. John Kerry voted against the First Gulf War.

A. I would like to ask, when was aggression more clearly worthy of a response than when Hussein invaded Kuwait?

B. I heard John Kerry recently slam the George W. Bush Administration "for not building a broad coalition."

How much broader could the First Gulf War's coalition have been? There were Arabs, Europeans, Americans, Australians, South Americans, and Asians. Kerry still voted against it.

  1. Kerry voted to authorize President George W. Bush's use of military force for the Second Gulf War?

A. Please explain that to me? Against the First Gulf War, now he is for the Second Gulf War. Same Saddam Hussein. Same brutual dictator. Same methods and aims.

  1. Kerry said in West Virginia recently, "I actually voted for the 87 Billion Dollar reconstruction package before I voted against it."

A. First of all, OH MY GOD!!!
B. Isn't one of the international criticisms of the United States that we bomb without rebuilding?

In summary, this sort of record is extremely troubling. What are our allies to think about our resolve? How could they risk their political, economic, or military necks for this sort of President? The most frightening thought becomes: What would the terrorists and our other enemies think? If they could topple a Spanish Government, imagine what they would try to do to a Kerry Presidency?


#2

As an Englishman, I take issue with you lumping us together with the Europeans. As the most staunch ally of the US in recent times I think we have a lot more in common with the US than with (as Ted Nugent would say) the Euro-wienies.

I also have a problem with Kerry interfering with British politics, as last week he and a bunch of other democrat Senators wrote a letter to PM Blair bemoaning the security services actions in northern Ireland - a soverign British province.


#3

Indeed, I think the majority of Americans are quite proud to call the British our closest friend. Thanks.


#4

Moisture,

I call into question the reasoning behind each one of your points. You are terribly narrowly focused and have grossly oversimplified the issues you raise. I don't buy for a minute you are a moderate. Call yourself what you will, however.

RSU


#5

democrats for bush? impossible. i would believe it if kucinich or sharpton won the nomination... that's clearly not the case...


#6

SENATOR ZELL MILLER OF GEORGIA, the nation's most prominent conservative Democrat, said today he will endorse President Bush for re-election in 2004 and campaign for him if Bush wishes him to. Miller said Bush is "the right man at the right time" to govern the country.

The next five years "will determine the kind of world my children and grandchildren will live in," Miller said in an interview. And he wouldn't "trust" any of the nine Democratic presidential candidates with governing during "that crucial period," he said. "This Democrat will vote for President Bush in 2004."


#7

RightSideUp,

Thanks for responding. Did you read the link that I sent? If so I would love to hear your commentary.

You wrote: "I call into question the reasoning behind each one of your points. You are terribly narrowly focused and have grossly oversimplified the issues you raise. I don't buy for a minute you are a moderate. Call yourself what you will, however."

Ok, now please give specifics. Make an argument. Unfortunately for you, facts are facts. If you doubt any of the statements I have made please review the record. If you can't refute my facts, or make a counter argument (with some factual backup) don't feel too bad. The four hardcore Democrats in my discussion group could not explain away this voting record, either. They tried to change the subject.

Again, you make statements without any supporting evidence. Does that bother you that you rely on "feelings?" If it does, then we could have a relevant discussion. If your family/friends always vote Democratic and you are following suit, then you and I will not be able to have a reasonable discussion.

I've read all your posts. You made a passing reference to being young. If you are just starting out in the world, I suggest that you look seriously at these candidates. If you blindly follow Democrats, no matter who they put up, they will have no incentive to put forth a better candidate in four years. If I was a Democrat, I would be spitting mad that Kerry was chosen over a very good man, Joe Lieberman. I would seriously consider voting for George W. Bush if I were you. If for no other relevant reason, you would be voting FOR something.

Doesn't it speak volumes to you that the hardcore Democrats on this site (Kuri, tme, danh...) have been unable to give any reasons to vote for Kerry beyond the idiotic "anybody but Bush" mantra? They refuse to debate point by point. Is that the sort of blind ideology that you follow?


#8

Bonzo,

I sincerely apologize if I have caused you offense. The English are our brothers. They have responded in our time of need. You have my respect and my thanks.


#9

"Again, you make statements without any supporting evidence. Does that bother you that you rely on "feelings?" If it does, then we could have a relevant discussion. If your family/friends always vote Democratic and you are following suit, then you and I will not be able to have a reasonable discussion.

I've read all your posts."

-->Something tells me you and I have had the discussion before, but you went by a different name...a bit further down the alphabet...perhaps I'm wrong though.

If you've read all my posts then you know how I've gotten so into these arguments on this board in particular. I was called out for not factually backing up every thing I said on here (despite not saying anything that necessarily needed "factual reenforcement"), so I began posting links to things that I found interesting and that supported my general thinking. I've gotten a lot less attention since then. Now tell me, what "feelings" have I "relied" on?

I looked over your link, it was an okay article. Have you looked over all of the links I've posted? I'm by no means a BB or a BS regarding links, but I've posted a bunch. Read 'em.

I am also sick of this attitude that everyone else needs to post a freaking research paper when they post their views, but you guys can spout all of the garbage you want. Fortunately for you, the White House does the spinning for you, so you can just regurgitate (?) their nonsense.

"B. I heard John Kerry recently slam the George W. Bush Administration "for not building a broad coalition."

How much broader could the First Gulf War's coalition have been? There were Arabs, Europeans, Americans, Australians, South Americans, and Asians. Kerry still voted against it."

-->And, why are you comparing the Gulf War to the current war (which is NOT the "Second Gulf War")?

Sorry if this post is on the attack, but your statements about me relying on my feelings and being unable to have a reasonable discussion because of it, and the references to me being young, etc. are so redundant and, quite simply, unfair, presumptuous, and actually...weird! I'm losing interest and steam in what's become a battle against sophistry.


#10

"The English are our brothers. They have responded in our time of need. You have my respect and my thanks."

Oh my.


#11

RightSideUp,

Thanks for responding. Thank you for reading the link that I posted. First of all, let's keep it civil. I have not read your links but will make an attempt to do so. I have been posting for about three weeks now and admit that I haven't read all of your posts.

I wrote: "I heard John Kerry recently slam the George W. Bush Administration "for not building a broad coalition."

"How much broader could the First Gulf War's coalition have been? There were Arabs, Europeans, Americans, Australians, South Americans, and Asians. Kerry still voted against it."

You responded: "-->And, why are you comparing the Gulf War to the current war (which is NOT the "Second Gulf War")?"

The answer to your question is above. I'll explain it in another way. His recent attack on Bush about the current coalition needs to be viewed in the context of him voting against the First Gulf War. Doesn't it strike you as odd that Kerry would vote against the First Gulf War, then vote for the Second Gulf War and then have the gall to make comments about the diversity of the current coalition? If the coalition's diversity was a primary issue to Kerry, wouldn't you think that his 1991 vote would have reflected that?

You wrote: "Sorry if this post is on the attack, but your statements about me relying on my feelings and being unable to have a reasonable discussion because of it, and the references to me being young, etc. are so redundant and, quite simply, unfair, presumptuous, and actually...weird! I'm losing interest and steam in what's become a battle against sophistry."

Again, let's keep this civil. The reference to your age was meant as no offense at all. I was just encouraging you to gain more experience and perspective than you MAY enjoy now. I am interested in your opinion, or I would not be spending my time discussing this with you. It is your right to say, "I'm voting Democratic because I feel like it." However, I am interested to see if your reasons go beyond feelings of personal animosity against George W. Bush. I tend to find that there are a segment of Democrats that just "feel anybody but Bush." Personally, I think that is a dangerous and irresponsible position. It seem most of these people are very short on specific criticisms. Worse, they either don't know, or don't care to learn about John Kerry. Again, that is your right.


#12

I was taking the p*ss a bit, but then again...France...Germany...

Joe.


#13

RSU

It seems you lack the cognative skills to comprehend complex (or somewhat complex) correlations.

Here Follow along, Moisture's biggest problem with John Kerry as stated was his flip flopping. As an example showing his flip flopping, He showed how Kerry voted against the first gulf war, which had a broader coalition, and more international support. And then voted for to give the president the authority to use force against Iraq. He can say he didn't ecpect him to use it but lets be honest, that excuse doesn't hold much water.

Ok so did you follow that, he voted against what many in the country would consider a good use of force and then voted for a use of force that was somewhat less necessary to many people.

This shows a fundamental inconsistancy with his decision making. To an open minded onlooker this shows that his decisions are not made soley on the merit of the decision itself. He either must have been considering "other factors" that he has not made public. Or he is a doofis. I would like to think if he had good reasons to flip flop he would point them out since it is killing him.

Sorry for going off like that it just bothers the hell out of me when someone cannot even comprehend the topics that they are arguing. Please do us all a favor and stay out of the political debates.

Disclaimer -

This post was in reply to the question, "what does the first gulf war have to do with the current war?"
My response was to simply connect the dots as to why these discussions were relevant and how they can be used to determine the worthiness of a candidate, This post in no way shape or form depicts my personal political views or ideas.

Thanks


#14

since when am i a hardcore democrat.. it's funny.. anyone who doesn't agree with ultra conservative views is always branded a sandal wearing hippie, a hardcore democrat, looney leftist... i am nowhere near the extremes.. just because i wont vote for bush this year, i am not a hardcore democrat.

what is wrong with choosing the lesser of two evils? that is a perfectly legitimate and logical way to cast a vote! if i am convinced that bush is wrong for our country i have every right to vote for "anyone but bush."


#15

Moisture, I don't think you've said it clearly to Right Side Up:

1) Kerry voted against the Gulf War in 1991 citing a sham coalition

2) Kerry voted against the 87 Billion in 2003 citing that the current coalition was a sham compared to the genuine coalition of 1991


#16

Why am I being asked to defend Kerry?

Why is it bad to vote for a candidate because you find the other candidate to be awful? If Kerry's a 0 and Bush is a -5, then Kerry's the better candidate. Why do you need to LOVE the candidate you vote for? There are only two (three) choices.

Vegita - fuck off. I understand plenty of complex ideas and I can also spell cognitive. Do not be condescending toward me. I hate this feeling I have of fighting ignorance.

Moisture: "The answer to your question is above. I'll explain it in another way. His recent attack on Bush about the current coalition needs to be viewed in the context of him voting against the First Gulf War. Doesn't it strike you as odd that Kerry would vote against the First Gulf War, then vote for the Second Gulf War and then have the gall to make comments about the diversity of the current coalition? If the coalition's diversity was a primary issue to Kerry, wouldn't you think that his 1991 vote would have reflected that?"

-->Again, I refuse to defend Kerry. Sorry, but go find someone else. I guess my only point was that 1991 is very different from 2003-4. It is, isn't it? The wars are not the same. But I do see the contradiction you are trying to point out.

"The reference to your age was meant as no offense at all. I was just encouraging you to gain more experience and perspective than you MAY enjoy now. I am interested in your opinion, or I would not be spending my time discussing this with you. It is your right to say, "I'm voting Democratic because I feel like it." However, I am interested to see if your reasons go beyond feelings of personal animosity against George W. Bush."

-->I have always been humble and honest about my place to have opinions, and I have always left room for being wrong. Where do you get off saying that I might need more experience or perspective? Of course, as one gets older, one attains more experience to shape their views, but just because one is young does not mean they are incapable of holding rational positions.

"I tend to find that there are a segment of Democrats that just "feel anybody but Bush." Personally, I think that is a dangerous and irresponsible position. It seem most of these people are very short on specific criticisms."

-->Again, so what if it's "anybody but Bush"? Many people dislike him and his direction that much. What's worse is the people who blindly subscribe to his agenda, no matter what it holds. I think THIS is dangerous and irresponsible.
I have been anything but short on criticism - read my posts. Like I have said, I have posted plenty of links to support plenty of my perspectives.

"Again, let's keep this civil."

-->I have no problem with this. I haven't resorted to much (if any) name calling or backlashing (save for the aforementioned Vegita fuck off). Also, there is no "this." I am not currently engaged in a personal debate with you, and am not currently interested in doing so since I have spend a lot of time posting my position and trying to support it.

One last thing, the fact that Clarke's testimony, book, and allegations don't even raise your eyebrows is beyond frightening.


#17

I just reread Vegita's post, and I feel absolutely compelled to respond to them...I know this is the type of situation that momma would say "don't stoop to their level" or something similar, but...

"Sorry for going off like that it just bothers the hell out of me when someone cannot even comprehend the topics that they are arguing. Please do us all a favor and stay out of the political debates."

-->Which topic was I arguing? I never made much of an argument. I only remember saying: "why are you comparing the Gulf War to the current war (which is NOT the "Second Gulf War")?" Now, in this statement I asked a question, because...THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT WARS FOUGHT IN TWO DIFFERENT TIMES FOR VERY DIFFERENT REASONS!!!! I understand the attempt to point out an inconsistency in Kerry's voting, which, I never attempted to argue about! Also, this war is not called the Second Gulf War. I mean, is it? If it is, then I'm sorry because I missed that news bulletin.

"Disclaimer -
This post was in reply to the question, "what does the first gulf war have to do with the current war?"
My response was to simply connect the dots as to why these discussions were relevant and how they can be used to determine the worthiness of a candidate, This post in no way shape or form depicts my personal political views or ideas."

-->First, don't put in quotes a question I did not ask. Second, you may consider yourself a great "dot connector," but you leave an awful lot to be desired. Your logic is incomplete and your articulation is, well, retarded. You wrote a bit but said little. Third, why on earth would you put a disclaimer in a post of yours?

"It seems you lack the cognative skills to comprehend complex (or somewhat complex) correlations.

Here Follow along,"

-->Um, you seem like a prick, and your inappropriately condescending and arrogant tone echo someone else 'round here.


#18

RightSideUp,

You wrote: "-->Um, you seem like a prick, and your inappropriately condescending and arrogant tone echo someone else 'round here."

Where you refering to me as the "someone else?"


#19

RightSideUp,

You wrote: "One last thing, the fact that Clarke's testimony, book, and allegations don't even raise your eyebrows is beyond frightening."

It would be nice if you asked me what I thought before you assumed anything.

You wrote: "but just because one is young does not mean they are incapable of holding rational positions."

I thought we had cleared this up. Again, read my response to you above. If you want to be counted as rational, then, think rationally. "Anybody but Bush" is totally irrational. Does the "anybody" include Saddam Hussein. How about Fidel Castro? Does my garbage-man get the nod? Are you willing to campaign for Zsa Zsa Gabor? Grey Davis? Marilyn Chambers? Shaq?

It's not enough to say you are experienced and rational. It's like those dinks that call themselves intellectuals. Give me a break. What constitutes an intellectual? It seems like the only qualifier is that you say "I am an intellectual."


#20

Moisture: <"Where you refering to me as the "someone else?"">

-->Only if your name has once or sometimes does begin with the letter Z.

Moisture: "It would be nice if you asked me what I thought before you assumed anything."

-->I started a thread on here called 60 Minutes that does and is meant to include discussion of Clarke.

Moisture: "Anybody but Bush" is totally irrational. Does the "anybody" include Saddam Hussein. How about Fidel Castro? Does my garbage-man get the nod? Are you willing to campaign for Zsa Zsa Gabor? Grey Davis? Marilyn Chambers? Shaq?"

-->Saddam? No. Fidel? No. Garbage Man? I don't know him, possibly. Zsa Zsa? Feisty and passionate, but no. Grey Davis? Before Arnold. Marilyn Chambers? Possibly. Shaq? Absolutely!

Perhaps taking this statement so literally has held you up a bit in this regard. Think a bit outside the box. Anybody but Bush means we need change, and nearly anyone will qualify. Is this so crazy? Most elections are settled by people choosing who they think is least likely to fuck things up too bad.

Moisture: "It's not enough to say you are experienced and rational. It's like those dinks that call themselves intellectuals. Give me a break. What constitutes an intellectual? It seems like the only qualifier is that you say "I am an intellectual.""

-->What I said was: "Of course, as one gets older, one attains more experience to shape their views, but just because one is young does not mean they are incapable of holding rational positions."

You seemed to convince yourself that I said I was a genius. I didn't, but I am well educated - and not in political science, international relations, history, or presidential history. My simple point was just that experience and age isn't indicitive of one's capacity to hold a rational position. Zeb seemed to place a lot of emphasis on age too, and I think this is a mistake - so much so, that it is silly to discuss it. I'm a 24 year old graduate student. I've got a level head and am perfectly justified in holding opinions...do I really need to defend that?