Why You Should Vote for Bush

This should more-properly be titled “Why I should vote for Bush,” it being my good-faith effort to convince myself that I should do just that.

Why am I doing such a thing? I guess because I want to make sure I’m considering the question as objectively as I can, divorced as much as possible from my preconceptions. Also, I’m interested in how the arguments I would make to myself differ from the arguments that are made to those actually likely to vote for him.

Anyway, in thinking about this, I’ve come up with two broad, and in some ways mutually exclusive, arguments. Here’s the first one:

Argument the First: Personal Integrity

Character matters. As a person, Bush is lame, but so is Kerry. In fact, Kerry’s personal lameness actually exceeds Bush’s. Therefore, I should vote for Bush.

I apologize to those in the audience who share my hatred of Bush for having just said that. But in fact, having tried really, really hard to be objective, I think I actually believe the foregoing statement to be true, at least from a certain point of view.

I’ve talked a lot (I mean, a lot) here about how much I dislike Bush’s character. But I have to give him credit for internal consistency. On some level, he’s his own man, not pretending to be something other than he is. He’s direct, decisive, and, within the limits of his personal world view, honest. In that sense he’s a real person, not just an empty shell designed to appeal to voters. If Bush were my neighbor (and I didn’t already despise him), I think I’d actually enjoy hanging out with the guy.

Kerry, on the other hand, appears to be very much a politician, crafting his position based on how it will be received rather than standing for anything. For example, he (and his running mate) voted for the Iraq war resolution, and have never offered an adequate explanation for why they did so. In Edwards’ case, I get the impression he actually still thinks in his heart of hearts that the war was a good idea. In Kerry’s case, I think it’s clear that he was just taking the politically expedient choice, rather than risking public disapproval for opposing what was clearly a trumped-up case for war. But if he’s willing to compromise his principles in the name of political expediency in that case, it pretty much proves that there’s no evil he’d be willing to oppose if it was going to cost him politically.

I mean, Kerry’s formative political experience was as a leader in the anti-Vietnam-war movement. For someone who did that to be willing to vote in favor of reproducing the exact conditions that led to Vietnam is pretty mind-boggling. It could be argued that all politicians are unprincipled opportunists in the same way I’ve described Kerry, but Kerry does seem a particularly striking example of it.

Bush’s character is different. His internal sense of who he is shows through in the form of personal charisma, which is an important factor in being an effective leader. I may not always agree with the direction he chooses to go, but he possesses a demonstrated ability to communicate in a way that effectively speaks to large masses of people, and, potentially, to lead them.

In the months after 9/11, Bush’s response to that event struck a chord with Americans, helping to take a shocked and grieving people and infuse them with a sense of strength, courage, and shared purpose. It seems possible that in a similar situation, Kerry, with his appreciation of nuance and his balanced approach and his desire for global cooperation (and his hollow political opportunism), would have lacked the ability to adopt and communicate a strong response. He might have been paralyzed in a Jimmy Carter-esque paroxysm of national hand-wringing, leaving the country adrift when what it needed was for him to pick a direction and start moving resolutely forward. Which, in all honesty, is what Bush did.

In a memorable scene from Full Metal Jacket, Gunnery Sergeant Hartman (played by Lee Ermey) says, “Private Joker is silly and ignorant, but he’s got guts. And guts is enough.”

Bush is sillly and ignorant, but he’s got guts.

I know; I know. Thirty-five years ago Kerry was earning a Silver Star by being a hero in the Mekong River delta, while Bush was coasting through an entitled life avoiding any serious responsibility. But we’re not choosing between the Bush and Kerry of 35 years ago. We’re choosing between the Bush and Kerry of today. And today, for all his failings, Bush has many personal qualities that are important in a leader, and that Kerry, at least based on the evidence I’ve seen so far, seems to lack.

As long as we’re talking about their 1960s selves, there’s also this issue: Kerry chose to go to Vietnam, while Bush (sensibly) avoided the conflict. What does that say about Kerry’s intelligence and personality? I’m grateful to him for being willing to risk his life in service to his country, but that war was wrong. In that sense, his evolving views on Iraq seem eerily reminiscent of his evolving views on Vietnam. I’m not sure that a track-record of being repeatedly wrong on that particular question, only to realize his error after the fact, is a particularly strong qualification for the presidency.

Having such strong feelings (as I do) on Bush and Kerry’s personal integrity, I felt like I really needed to look at that side of the equation, and do my best to neutralize my anti-Bush bias. But the fact is, having done that, I don’t think it’s really the issue I should be focusing on. Hence my second argument:

Argument the Second: Outcomes

While character may matter somewhat as a predictor of how a president will behave in unforseen circumstances, character per se doesn’t actually matter much at all. All that matters is what results the candidate would bring about if elected. Who he is and how he thinks and whether he’s a hypocrite or not are all irrelevant issues in and of themselves. What matters are the outcomes that a given president’s being elected would lead to. Bush (or Kerry) could be the world’s biggest asshole, and still be the right choice for president if I believed his election would produce better results than electing the other guy.

My crystal ball capabilities are limited, but there is a definite possibility that a second Bush presidency, in the long run, would turn out to be better for me, my family, my country, and/or my world than a Kerry presidency. If I think that that is likely to be the case, I should vote for Bush, regardless of how I feel about him as a person. So, do I think the outcomes of a second Bush term are likely to be better than those for Kerry? Well, let me try to think of some scenarios in which that might be the case.

Greedy personal reasons:

Here’s one reason: Bush’s tax policies are probably better for me personally, and that will certainly be the case should my level of income rise by much. I operate my own business, and have plans to try to grow that business. A pretty strong case can be made that Bush’s business-friendly policies would be more favorable for those activities than Kerry’s. My chances of getting a tax break based on the private-school tuition payments I make for my daughter, and will probably at some point be making for my son, are better under Bush than under Kerry.

Here’s another reason: Bush might withdraw from Iraq sooner than Kerry would. Bush’s short attention-span and emotional inclination to walk away from and deny the existence of failures might bring about a quicker resolution than Kerry’s plodding, minimize-political-risks decision-making. That earlier withdrawal could help avoid a Vietnam-style quagmire, with beneficial effects for my country. Note that in five years I will have a child of draft age. (But note also that Bush’s greater militarism probably increases, rather than decreases, the chances that one of my kids will end up being drafted.)

Idealistic large-scale reasons

In bringing about large-scale social change, things sometimes must get worse before they can get better. Through his evident dangerousness to the world, Bush could give impetus to a global movement aimed at making war obsolete. The dangers represented by Bush are symptoms of a broken geopolitical system that persists in acting as if international conflicts can be resolved by war, when in fact scientific progress as applied to killing large numbers of people means that we must either develop an alternative to war or exterminate each other. Bush’s ill-considered belligerance makes those risks more clear to the people of the world. This might result in a backlash that helps pave the way for a new, more peaceful order. Kerry’s more thoughtful, engaged approach to the world could actually, paradoxically, serve to mask those symptoms, allowing the old, broken system to continue in place, rather than being recognized as a failure and replaced with something better.

Pragmatic large-scale reasons

Wisdom requires balance. It is unwise to grow cynical and believe that things can never change. It is similarly unwise to be so idealistic as to believe that an oncoming train 50 feet away going 50 mph can be stopped or diverted. One has to know when to act based on an idealistic faith that by doing the morally right thing, even when it seems risky in the here and now, one can build a better future, versus when to act based on a pragmatic recognition that one must sometimes compromise in order to address an immediate danger. Bush’s blunt, direct response to the terrorist threat this country faces is not so hot from a long-term, idealistic perspective, but it may in fact be appropriate given a realistic evaluation of the threat.

It’s not very much in keeping with Sun Tzu, but the fact is that Bush is probably going to be more willing than Kerry to use US military power as a tool to oppose global terrorism. In an era when it is a demonstrated fact that radical Islamic terrorists would like to do things like detonate nuclear weapons in US cities, the willingness of Bush to use force could make the difference in preventing a major domestic tragedy. (Note, though, that Bush’s go-it-alone reliance on the military is harmful to the international cooperation that could also make a difference in that area.)

Also, as Jenny pointed out in the comments to my earlier item on this topic, by pursuing military hegemony in the middle east, Bush could position the US to better withstand the shock of the world running out of oil. With US military control of Iraqi oil reserves, the social and economic disruptions that will be the inevitable result of the oil crash will be lessened, at least for me and my family. As morally reprehensible as it may be to contemplate, if the world in 2050 is going to be like a post-iceberg Titanic, I want my children to have a place in the lifeboats. (Note, though, that Bush’s pro-big-oil policies, including his hostility toward conservation, seem likely to undercut the benefits of our controlling mideast oil with our military.)

So that’s it. Those are all the reasons I’ve been able to think of that seem like good reasons to me to vote for George Bush. I’ve done my best to present them fairly and honestly. They’re not strawmen (though Bush opponents are welcome to knock them down, should they wish to). After considering all those reasons as objectively as I can, am I willing to vote for Bush?

I don’t know. Probably not. But I’m going to do my best to keep an open mind going foward. I probably won’t make my final decision until election day.

In the meantime, if anyone else would like to play this game, I encourage you to do so. I would be particularly interested in seeing a similarly constructed case-for-Kerry from one or more of the Bush supporters around here. Thanks.

29 Responses to “Why You Should Vote for Bush”

  1. Adam Says:

    “I probably won’t make my final decision until election day.” Whoa there, John – you’re scaring me. I hope that’s just your Devil’s Advocate talking.

    I could take issue with a lot of what you’ve written here, but I don’t know if that’s the point of this exercise. I certainly couldn’t write something similar about Bush.

  2. rick pietz Says:

    Oh, one more element to the positive, if something were to happen to Baby Bush, then we could have Cheney. I’m sure he’s all about sizing the middle east oil, and keeping us at war for profit, and cheap gas to peddle to the SUV drivers.

    Oh, and just think how much better local communities will be in four more years of Baby Bush’ environmental policies. I hope your kids don’t have asthma.

    Oh, and under this administration, you won’t have to worry about maintaining any personal privacy.

    If arrested you won’t have to worry about ever paying a lawyer, as you probaly will never see one. But that will save court costs, and surely the savings will be spent on something worthwhile like a missile defense shield and nuclear bunker busters.

    Americans won’t have to worry about using their first amendment rights, since the zones are so far away, no one ever sees them, you can stay home, and save on sign making.

    Oh, and we can have more torture and child molestation, which will engender us to pass, er, nothing, I guess.

    I’m w/ you! I didn’t ever want to work again ever to worry about finding a job.

  3. rick pietz Says:

    Don’t know what happened to that last point.

    Should read: Iím w/ you! I didnít ever want to work again anyway, and w/ four more years of Bush, I won’t ever have to worry about finding a job.

  4. a_stupid_box Says:

    Wow, John, I’m impressed. Adam and Rick obviously haven’t read your previous article on how you’d be seeing what cases for Bush you could make. I’m glad to see that you’re at least able to see the other side of things. Your seemingly blind partisanship had all but scared me away.

    Hopefully you’ve done some research into Bush’s “master plans”. If you haven’t, really, I hope you do. Trying to understand his motives in order to make a case FOR Bush will most likely lead you to have a stronger case AGAINST him.

    True, his long-term plans may benefit the U.S. and its people, but I for one am not willing to live high on the hog at the cost of other peoples’ lives.

    As for you, Adam,

    “I certainly couldnít write something similar about Bush.”

    If you’re talking about writing a “case for Bush” then I’m not surprised. The ability to play devil’s advocate and understand the opposition is the mark of an educated man and a fair critic.

    “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” — Aristotle

  5. Scott Forbes Says:

    I might suggest that your depiction of John Kerry as an unprincipled opportunist is more than slightly influenced by the GOP: Just as Al Gore was transformed from a political boy-scout in 1998 to a pathological liar in 2000, the Right has been working overtime this season to tar John Kerry with the flip-flopping brush. (Bush, meanwhile, opposed the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, then supported it; opposed the 9/11 commission, then supported it; opposed protectionist tariffs, then enacted some, then opposed them again; and so on.)

    If I had been in Kerry’s shoes, I would have voted for the Iraq war — not because of Bush’s trumped-up case for war, but in spite of it. I would have voted to use force against Saddam because Saddam was a genocidal maniac: The alleged WMDs and purported Al Qaeda ties were all red herrings, a smokescreen that hid the legitimate case against a ruler who used chemical weapons and man-made ecological disasters to kill his own subjects. Granted, I personally would like to hear Kerry share my views more loudly… but I also recognize that my views are out of sync with the anti-war crowd. If this year’s election is about energizing your base, then Kerry has nothing to gain by discussing his war vote.

    If you accept the GOP’s template for George W. Bush (a down-to-earth Texas outsider with guts and integrity) and you accept the GOP’s template for John Kerry (a wishy-washy East Coast establishment liberal with no principles of his own), then you’ve certainly given Bush the most favorable terms possible. That may have been the point of this exercise, but it’s about as fair and balanced as Fox News.

  6. David Callender Says:

    John – that is an outstanding piece. I wish that I had written it and my hat is off to you for writing it.

    I had told some of my friends (who dislike Bush), that if Bush can win the peace in Iraq, he will go down as a great president. At the moment, that does not look likely, but stay tuned.

    I too, do not like many of Bush’s policies nor beliefs. But the end result is what counts.

    I agree that to understand, it is necessary to consider opposing points of view. That does not mean that one accepts them. The simple version is “listing is not agreeing.”

    The major problem I have with all of politics is that I have no knowledge about the validity of the data presented to us.

    As a 70 year old, I can afford to be a drop out.

    Dad

  7. Tony D Says:

    There is much I do like about Bush on a personal level. For me however, ďthe anybody but BushĒ ideology comes down to three distinct points. The go it alone attitude, his environmental record, and wearing his religion on his sleeve but you bring up a good point on the use of force. I personally think that when he has used it Bush didnít do so very wisely. In Tora Bora we should have sent our guys in and totally routed out the Taliban instead of letting them work out deals with the Northern Alliance and return to the county side. The reason this wasnít done was because it would have resulted in mass casualties and not been very politically expedient. On this count I think Kerry will be much worse that Bush.

  8. rick pietz Says:

    David Callender,

    Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head. I’ve been thinking about the issue for thast few years, and I can not think of a consistent method of devining the ‘truth’ of what I read, hear and see.

    I was taught to check sources, but now there are so many conflicting sources cited on all sides. Many of them are paid for by industry, which doesn’t make them wrong, but it makes it hard for me to know if it’s ‘truly unbiased’. In fact, I don’t know that anything can be unbiased, but it would be nice to know what the biases are, while I’m reading.

    I don’t know which scholar is paid by whom. I don’t know the agenda of the people providing information. If you just source check any decent paper, you find that there are a multitude of sources suporting just about any position.

    a_stupid_box,

    As for making the case for Bush, and it being the sign of “The ability to play devilís advocate and understand the opposition is the mark of an educated man and a fair critic”, Re-read the post and substitute Hitler each place you see Bush. For instance,

    “But I have to give him (Hitler) credit for internal consistency. On some level, heís his own man, not pretending to be something other than he is. Heís direct, decisive, and, within the limits of his personal world view, honest. In that sense heís a real person, not just an empty shell designed to appeal to voters”, or

    “Itís not very much in keeping with Sun Tzu, but the fact is that ‘Hitler’ is probably going to be more willing than Kerry to use US military power as a tool to oppose global terrorism. In an era when it is a demonstrated fact (please, where was this ‘fact’ ‘demonstrated’?) that radical Islamic terrorists would like to do things like detonate nuclear weapons in US cities, the willingness of ‘Hitler’ to use force could make the difference in preventing a major domestic tragedy. (Note, though, that ‘Hitlerís’ go-it-alone reliance on the military is harmful to the international cooperation that could also make a difference in that area)”. Feel free to put in Sharon, or Idi Amin or…

  9. a_stupid_box Says:

    Rick — Bush is not Hitler. Simple as that. If he were you’d probably be in a camp right now based solely on your last name. People who compare Bush to Hitler are completely ignorant of the attrocities which happened in WWII.

    David and Scott — The ends do not justify the means. No matter who they’re applied to. If we don’t grant our enemies the same civil rights which we grant ourselves, we’re no better than they are. Yes, Saddam was (is) a very bad man, but waging a war based on lies is terrible.

    Also, we can’t just decide to invade a country based on the fact that we don’t like their leader(s). As I’ve said before, what if another country followed suit and took out Bush based on the numerous lies he’s told to the American public and to the world? We don’t live in the U.S. — we live in the WORLD. The U.S. charging in without the support of the rest of the world has done unspeakable things to the way America is viewed by the rest of the world.

    I don’t mean to sound like a cold bastard here. Saddam was a terrible man who did terrible things to his people. He was a monster. But by not letting the Iraqi people revolt and remove him themselves we’ve not only insulted them and weakened their culture, we’ve set up the prime situation for another iron fisted dictator to take hold of the country. And you can bet dollars to doughnuts that the next ruthless warlord to sieze power is going to be 10 times worse than Saddam, who was motivated by greed rather than a hatred of America.

  10. David Says:

    And you can bet dollars to doughnuts that the next ruthless warlord to sieze power is going to be 10 times worse than Saddam, who was motivated by greed rather than a hatred of America.

    I don’t think that somebody is going to come into Iraq and become a brutal dictator. I think that it has more than been demonstrated that we, the most militarily powerful nation on Earth, are more than happy to go into a nation and remove a brutal dictator in Iraq. Maybe not a poor country, but I think that only furthers the point. We went to war in this country, and letting a brutal dictator come into power would ruin all we’ve worked towards.

  11. steffen Says:

    amen to stupid box: we do live on a planet first and then in a country. What a revolutionary concept! It sounds so unpatriotic and traitorous, doesn’t it? It is precisely this “love it or leave it” mentality that discourages a more worldly type of thinking – stoked by the Bush administration and its hard-core supporters – is what makes me disinclined to vote for Bush in the end.

    As long as he wins or loses fair and square, with no dirty tricks between now and november, and if in the latter case walks off with dignity and respect for our democratic system, I will never begrudge him on a personal level or refer to him as “evil” – that would be giving him or any way too much credit. Do I sound like I smell a rat? I hate to admit it, but I do, and I wish to be proven wrong.

  12. Anonymous Says:

    sorry for the typos, folks

  13. Thom Says:

    This is a fine piece – one that makes me ashamed of my own partisan-hackdom!

  14. Hamilton Says:

    Illustrating the good side of Bush gives you credibility. Kudos!

  15. BC Says:

    The war in Iraq was NOT based on lies.

    Anyone who believes that is asinine–respectfully.

    Read this before spreading rumors.

    http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=87595&region=4

    Be that as it may,

    even IF, there was no warning like that above (which would never get any play in this country, because of the damn LIBERAL, LEFT-BIASED media prevalent in this country), any idiot (such as saddam) who sees that a power-house like the US may be coming in to dismantle any weapons of mass distruction would get rid of them! Come on. Who knows where they are, Syria, buried somewhere (where they never may be found), etc. Please, they had several months to do something about their weapons.

    And for those who are so stringent on believing there where no weapons, we went into Germany to dismantle a murderous villain (Hitler), what’s the difference? They both where mass murderers. Wake up LEFT.

  16. steffen Says:

    Rumours? Precisely. The Russian claim we can only call rumours because not a single Russian official was willing to come clean with any evidence. Zilch. Just because Putin’s government, notorious for fabricating lies to pursue its own anti-democratic agenda in Chechnya, quips glibly that Saddam was trying to attack us does not mean it’s true. And it does not match up to the facts: even if Saddam had WMD, he was not enough of a threat to America to justify a unilateral invasion.

  17. a_stupid_box Says:

    WMDs aren’t something you construct in the back of a pickup truck. Nor are they anything you can move with a pickup truck. The U.S. has sattelites which can look through the skylights in your house to catch you being tender with the Mr./Mrs. Why can’t they see the installations in which the supposed WMDs are being built, or the massive vehicles which would be moving them out of country?

    No, it’s not because they’re under ground or built into a mountain — they’d show up on infra-red. It’s because these facilities and hardware don’t exist. If they did, the U.S. would be flooding the media with sattelite images and nobody would be calling foul.

    But yeah, keep lying to yourself, BC. The U.S. didn’t go into Germany to take out Hitler, we went into Germany because Germany declared war on the U.S. after the U.S. declared war on Japan for that whole Perl Harbour thing. Up until that point we didn’t particularly give a damn (our infamously poor wolrd relations aren’t new).

    With as much of a puppet as you seem to be, why do you believe a Russian news source? Doesn’t it seem at least plausible that this is all a grand scheme to weaken the U.S’ alliances and world support?

    While I don’t particularly think that Putin has an “anti-democratic agenda” as our paranoid friend steffen does, he is known for not having the most positive outlook on the U.S. for a variety of reasons. The next world war is that of economics and information.

  18. J'raxis Says:

    Kerry’s more thoughtful, engaged approach to the world could actually, paradoxically, serve to mask those symptoms, allowing the old, broken system to continue in place, rather than being recognized as a failure and replaced with something better.

    I’m glad someone else sees this. Only thing “better” about the Democrats is that they’re better liars, better salesmen.

  19. Patrick Says:

    I must say I am impressed, as a Bush supporter, I was shocked to see a democrat be so mature about the situation. You gave your honest opinions and I respect that.

  20. La Day Says:

    its about 5 in the morning so my spelling is gonna be a little off.

    as a republican i cannot like many others force myself to be blind to what this current administration is doing.

    what i have to say isnt just about the war, but has to do with the entire bush family.

    theres something soo strange about these peoples obbsession with being in the most highest positions of power.

    i find it pretty ironic that the bush’s old money started back when bush’s grand father worked for adolf hitler himself as his private banker. (for those that dont believe me, do your research its public knowledge) and not only that he was prosecuted and convicted for trading with the enemy…but he found a way to keep the money that has expanded greatly since that time.

    that money passed down to george bush senior,who used his authority as head of the cia to let drugs into this country and supply weapons to those that we are attacking today..with bush senior theres lots to talk about but i will leave it up to you to find out.

    and to speak of barbara bush..her companies are the number 1 leading financers of the privatizations of prisons…billions of the money coming from the US to go to iraq is being spent on building these prisons there as well…just so you know, the purpose of privatizing prisons is to obtain cheap labor,taking away good paying jobs from law abiding americans.

    now to W.bush…
    im gonna list it in simple format.
    snorted coke…
    obtained 4 million dollars in loans he did not pay back…
    drives drunk…
    has reading disabilitys (not his fault..but still)…
    insider trading (something martha stewart is going to jail for)…
    40% of his first 2 years in office was spent on vacation (most then any other president)…
    claims he was sent to do gods will/says hes a war president (look throughout history of those in power who have said such things,youll find religious radical war mongers)
    and the republican administration has made contrabutions to the company that makes the voting machines(think about that)

    w.bush’s wife…
    she killed a young man while drinking and driving(she wasnt even brought up on charges)

    his daughters…
    need i say more?

    jeb bush…
    come on people…his own brother governor in the state all this voter fruad is happening…things like that just dont happen by chance…by the way, i found it pretty ironic that the power went out in several buildings were mostly black people was going to be voting at,and was denied to vote because of the power outages.
    and several other instances that happen in that state alone.

    bush’s cousin ,i cant think of his name right now, who works for fox news ironicly was the one to claim that bush had actually won florida when in fact he did not which caused many of the other networks to change the results as well…nice to have family in the media isnt it.

    w.bush’s brother neo bush..fitting first name considering his grandfathers back ground.
    lets see,
    you got money laundaring…
    snl scandal…
    insider trading…
    contrabuting money to the manufactours that make the voting machines!
    goes to asian countries for the purposes of sleeping with under aged girls.
    analy stimulates himself by shoveing hamsters up his rectum.
    if you dont believe me then find out about his wife who is divorcing him because of his strange sex acts.
    shes also gonna be writeing a book in great detail about the bush family.

    it goes on and on…
    this is the most corropted family in all of the united states and corruption that stretches all over the globe.

    i say this to you as a republican..this family..this administration is not republican…but something else, something that has big plans for the people of this country,and it scares me.
    the patriot act for example…not one terrorist is gonna be affected by this document..only those who live in this country will feel the affect when our rights are being taken away.

    i want you all to remember..this is a very young country..we are teenagers compared to others who have gone through administrations such as this one..obbsessed with money,greed and power.
    stripping away all the resources that country has,sending thousands to die in wars,inprisoning those who oppose (read the patriot act,its against the law to protest g.w. bush,you will be arrested if you do so)during these times in other countrys when things got soo bad, the people had to stand up and in many situations with russia being an example, the people in great numbers stood outside the hall where those in control of their country laid residence and demanded that they leave or else there would be bloodshed.

    dont think that such things cant happen here..because it can,just the way its starting here today, it started the same way in other places befor.

    i am a true patriot because i care about this country and the poeple who reside in it.
    those who follow blindly to a political party just because they hold up the title republican or democrate is a fool and has no right to call themselves patriots.

    im a republican who is going to be voting for john kerry because i love this country and i wanna see the power taken away from those who seem hell bent on destroying it.

    if you took the time to read all of this regardless of your view i just wanna say thanks..but whats been written you dont have to take my word for,all you gotta do is some research and youll find that 90% of what i talked about is common knowledge and has been addmitted to.

    this election is alot more important then you might think, hopefully youll make the right decision when its time to cast your vote.

    if bush is elected to a second term…he has no need to worry about re-election…whats happend in 4 short years will be nothing compared to what will happen in the next.

  21. T. Lozaw Says:

    I commend and understand your attempt at being open-minded. As a member of the faithful opposition, I’ve often found the Democratic Party unworthy of my support, instead finding refuge only in internet blogs and the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

    But reasons to vote for Bush? — I don’t buy it.

    True to the domain name, your evaluation of Bush administration policy relies largely on their cynical smokescreen of _lies_, not actual dogma or effect of their policies.

    I’ve often commented that I wish there were more than a sad few voices to reasonably and truthfully forward the conservative viewpoint. But reason and dialogue are drown out by the constant spin of the neo-con talking-points echo chamber that makes up “facts” as it goes along, to suit any purpose. Any outrageous “facts” the Bush team think they can get away with (and even some they can’t) are stirred repeatedly into the national consciousness (where you apparently found them).

    So, you too have fallen prey to the Bush team’s simplistic propaganda. For example, your proposition that Bush’s tax policies would, in the long run, be better for you and your family are based merely on what the Bush team has told us. But the only area of Bush’s tax policy where anything trickles down in self-aggrandizing greed.

    In our visions (fantasies?) of financial success, the middle- and even upper-class badly want to believe that we fit into the tax-break benefit group. In reality, that group includes only the corporate elite. Performing some simple arithmetic on the defict-expanding bottom line would quickly show us this — that we get a few beans to silence us while the elite get gold on a revolving credit plan that we’ll all pay for. But the White House party-line with which we’re bombarded is so much easier to digest, even when we suspect we’re being deceived.

    That’s the problem; there’s so little straight talk that none of us have enough real facts to make considered electoral decsions. And I have a feeling that’s just the way the Bush White House likes it.

  22. Marrk Says:

    It is interesting that the liberal-left respondants to the original commentary, apparently didn’t even read it. Doesn’t surprise me though, facts rarely have anything to do with their views. They are so brain-washed and look for the global test of all values, that they miss the point completely. They have allowed their biased hatred of President Bush compromise their sanity. The bottom line is what is best for us, in choosing between Bush and kerry. Bush may be all what people claim he is, but let’s look at what Kerry is, well, as best we can seeing his prinicpals, ideas and plans change weekly. John Kerry is a dangerous person. He has no character, values or morality. Bush may be weak in some areas, but when he says something, you know he believes it and will stick to it. As far as looking at things from a world perspective, and not solely in an American view, how can we, when we are now learning that the UN, France, Germany and Russia sold out to Saddam, and profited billions to look the other way on such horrific things going on in the world. They too have no values, but Kerry would side with them. Maybe he justs wants his share of the blood money. Marrying into millions probably isn’t enough for him.

    I will take someone who I believe has conviction and values, even if I don’t agree with them all the time, over someone who has none, and would sell me out in a heart beat for whatever politically expedient opportunity comes his way. If you don’t believe that, review Kerry’s record, it is plain as day. He’s a liar and a danger to democracy.

  23. David Says:

    Poverty is up.
    Job growth is pathetic and when it when it has grown it hasn’t even kept up with population growth.
    Medical costs are ridiculously high and Bush gives seniors government coupons for discounts on drugs.
    I don’t know if you have traveled much but other countries will not forgive us if we elect this fool that brought us Abu Gareib, Lies on WMD, 9/11, Deficits, bigger government, loss of constitutional rights…
    Trivial religious statements in public places, dropping requirements for search warrants, (he would be more accurate to call his party fascist).
    GET REAL!!!!
    WAKE THE FUCK UP!

    YOU FUCKS ARE LIKE THE GOD DAMN NADER FOOLS THAT THINK THERE IS NO DIFERANCE BETWEEN THE GOP AND THE DEMOCRATS.

    GO BACK TO YOUR DELUTIONAL REAGAN DREAM LAND AND STAY THERE WHERE THE FUCK YOU BELONG.

    Cheney said to O’Neal that deficits don’t matter. How soon we forget, interest, inflation.

    God I hope we find a way to stick Bush’s debt with you rich fucks.

    Thereís a big difference.
    Bush is stupid, and the guys behind him are wrongÖ.
    For the love of god, donít vote for him.

    If it makes you feel any better, youíll make more money with higher taxes and greater revenue. Do the math.

  24. David Says:

    One more thing,

    YOU SOUND LIKE SWIFT BOAT GUYS IN DISGUISE.

    Bush breaks a few countries and you think he has talent?

    How hard is it to bomb countries?

    Has Bush really accomplished much of anything?

    He has no talent. He’s a model. His managers dress him to look like a cowboy.

    Kerry is intelligent, but he tries to tone it down because most folks get bored with the details. So Kerry must use sound bites.

    That’s not a lie; Kerry is just trying to talk to everybody.

  25. David Says:

    Another thing,

    Should we have let Saddam completely off the hook by not voting for the resolution to allow force?
    No, Kerry had to vote yes in order to threaten Saddam with force.

    So…

    Is it wrong to condemn Bush for painting a false image of Iraq when Bush ignored all the evidence that did not support what he was saying?

    Do you think any Senator thinks he or she has better access to intelligence than the President? hell no.

    Should Kerry have once again RISKED HIS ENTIRE POLITICAL CAREER like he did after Vietnam to oppose a popular war because he thought we were moving too quickly?

    You are setting unreasonable standards for Kerry, while you hold Bush to no standard.

  26. samantha baldwin Says:

    I think that this is a great web-site it has a lot of things that i think all americans should know before the vote and if i was older i would vote for Bush in the upcomeing election.

  27. Taylor Richard Says:

    I am not sure if your comments are on the level or purely sarcastic. As for Bush’s guts , just one question could it strictly mean a complete lack of intellegence or inquisitiveness. I have tried to understand the attraction of this man to anyone on any level. It is totally beyond me. He is and will always be, to me, a very small minded dim witted monkey dressed in a suit or cowboy outfit.

  28. freein06 Says:

    Bush lacks the character and intellegence needed to lead a country, espically the United States. The many mistakes he’s made such speak for themselves and solely should be enough reason to at least not give him your vote. So do yourself and your country a favor and vote for someone other than bush.

    go nadar!

  29. Shawn Mann Says:

    wow. I was looking for a conservative case agaisnt Bush (i think there is a strong one) and I found this post. I must say i’m impressed. It would have been hard for me to do that for Kerry, being the conservative that I am. I was sucked into all the pro-bush propaganda durring the election and now feel cheated. Looking back, its posible that Kerry would have been MORE conservative than bush because he would be under presure to fix bush’s problems in spending and debt, and also to gain peace in iraq (although it would have been hard for kerry to do that considering he at one time or another disrespected every single person or nation helping us in iraq). But bush continues to be the president i hoped he wouldnt. He won’t quit spending, He won’t do ANYTHING real to stop all the illegals crossing the boarder (indeed, he is encouraging them) and i hear him praising clinton as a great father and president. All the while i’m sitting here thinking…”i wanted a conservative in office. thats why i didnt vote for kerry”. So i’m sick of conservative talk show hosts who won’t say ANYTHING bad about bush. If Bush increased social program and wellfare spending, invited every mexican to “come on over ya’ll” , brought back the draft, i doubt hannity or limbaugh would say anything negative. Thats such crap. Any real conservative would be outraged. Thats why i like Michael Savage. He is as conservative as it gets (while still hating nazi’s) and is outraged when he see’s bush skrew up. If they criticized Clinton for all his liberal bumblings then they should he disapointed when bush does the same things. But Savage seems to be the only one with any consistancy. and that i suspect, is somthing you respect.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.