Frustrating encounter with a Bush supporter.

[BlueIris]

Ack. Frustrating isn't the word.

"I knew Bush. I knew what he was capable of, in terms of his questionable domestic policies. Of course I know, I'm still in the military for God's sake. But when it came to the question of the war and what he would have done differently had he been in charge, Kerry said: 'I don't know; I wasn't in charge.'" I didn't like that answer; I voted for Bush."

At this point, Iris walks away from the offender, to return to the conversation across the room that he interrupted with those statements (unsolicited by Iris mind you). BS's response: "See that? What a closeminded attitude."

#@*&%#$#$#$#!!!!!

[whometense]

1. Closeminded attitude. Yeah, right.

They're so good at projecting their own faults onto anyone opposing them.

Nevermind. It's clear he was just looking for any excuse to not vote for Kerry. If it wasn't that statement, he would have found something else.

[FreedomAngel82]

6. That's the Karl Rove strategy

If you haven't watch the film "The Architect" on Karl Rove at pbs.org It shows how he takes someone's strengths and turns them against them. So whatever they say about a person turn it backwards.

[karynnj]

2. But Kerry actually answered the question

in September in his NYU speech, by saying that he couldn't say what he would do in January because he didn't know what the situation would be in January - so he layed out what he would do if he was President at that moment.

There were many times he gave a laundry list of all the things that were done that were bad and he did say he would have gone to war only as a last resort. He also did urge the President in February 2003 to give the inspections more time and not to go to war.

I don't recall him ever saying - "I don't know; I wasn't in charge"

[whometense]

3. But still,

someone who talks the way that guy did can't be argued with. He has a closed mind.

[karynnj]

5. I agree - I was just surprised by the purported quote

[BlueIris]

7. 'S far as I can tell, Kerry never said that in quite those words.

I'm pretty sure that was just BS's paraphrase. Or lie. Or #$%&@*$($!!!!
Just his excuse for doing the wrong thing. Yes, I know it can be very, VERY hard for someone who has made a commitment to the military to vote against his or her CIC--everything in that person's training and conditioning tells him that is not acceptable. But lots of members of the military chose not to vote for Bush. Lots of other people also made the right and obvious choice last year. And that was LAST year. Where we are now, after everything we've seen, without the heat of the campaigns blaring in the media 24-7, how someone could STILL think that way? I just. Don't. Get. It.

[ginnyinWI]

8. I never heard that quote, either. n't

[Noisy Democrat]

12. Kerry never said it

I speak as someone who had/has an absolute obsession with tracking down every last thing Kerry has said about Iraq -- I made the site KerryOnIraqWar.com, after all, and Kerry talked about how he would've left the inspectors in, he would've gotten a real coalition together first if military force was required, etc.

[karynnj]

15. Thanks for confirming this

It neither sounded like Kerry nor was it something I remembered hearing. The idea of ANY candidate saying they didn't know what they would do on the main issue of the day seems unlikely, and even less likely for Kerry, who articulated carefully crafted solutions on a daily basis. The OP was anbiguous as to the veracity of the quote -

[BlueIris]

4. Mainly I just posted this to complain. But also...

it BOGGLES my MIND to know that there are people out there who STILL don't GET why voting for Bush, even if you don't like Kerry, is a terrible idea for every reason. People in the MILITARY. I want Kerry to continue to develop a base of support for '08. I am very optimistic about his chances for doing so--except when I meet people like this. THAT is the kind of blindness we're STILL up against.

[ginnyinWI]

9. my frustration is

with those habitual repub voters who just have not checked lately just what sort of party it has become, but just vote repub reflexively because everyone in their family votes repub and always has. They don't feel that they need to pay much attention: everyone knows that the worse repub is better than any Dem any day of the week!! :sarcasm:

There are so many people like this. It will take something as big as Nixon's resignation to shake them out of their Koolaid-induced comas. That's why I'm hoping that this CIA leak scandal will reach all the way into the Oval Office.

[karynnj]

10. The CIA thing in some ways may be more obvious than Watergate

That they would intentionally destroy the covers of all the people using the same cover as Plame and lose some intelligence on WMD hits directly on security and if it is not treason - it's certainly close. The question may be how much of the Republican party it will tar.

My concern is that they will go with someone like Hagel (who was honest on Iraq) or McCain - and dissassociate themselves from this.
McCain has defended Rove's involvement but he can flip flop at will - and later be described as a straight shooter. Also, he seems to get a pass on torture, gitmo, Bush's lies etc. The one question I have for McCain and his supporters is WHERE IS PART 2 of the WMD report that the commmittee he is on is supposed to prepare.

[CBHagman]

11. The problem with McCain.

Many of us have a soft spot for McCain because he's a maverick and will address uncomfortable truths. Moreover, he's capable of real bipartisanship.

That said, McCain knows precisely how low Bush and the current GOP leadership can go, because he's been the brunt of it. The 2000 primary attacks on McCain were extremely vicious, and yet the press gave Bush a pass on it and even describes him as "likeable" and "compassionate." :eyes: No one ever asks why Bush campaigns are invariably vicious.

But then McCain goes out and campaigns for Bush, even as, according to Mark Leibovich of The Washington Post, carefully screened Bush supporters are hurling abuse AT MCCAIN for being too friendly with Kerry. :eyes:

So McCain knows precisely what Bush and his ilk are capable of, and yet he'll back them. Yeah, I know McCain is a conservative Republican and all that, but surely he sees the price the country and the world are paying for Bush's policies. And yet he still went out and campaigned for Bush. I can only speculate as to why McCain is gritting his teeth and doing this, and the most probable answer is that he's biding his time until the next presidential race and figures he can undo some of the damage. That's the charitable (and non-paranoid) answer. The others are far darker.

God help us all, though. Bush's policies are very dark and dangerous, both for the country and the world.

[Noisy Democrat]

13. If McCain

campaigned for Bush so he could have a shot at the presidency, that's very dark in and of itself.

I don't think McCain is a straight shooter at all. He likes to come off as one, but he's sold his soul to the Republican machine.

[sandnsea]

14. Yeah but I'm like that

I can't think of a Republican I'd vote for over a Dem. Snowe & Collins are two that I have high regard for, but there's no Dem that is so bad that I would choose them over the Dem. So I can understand Republians like that, especially the ones who are really free market people. The ones I get frustrated with are the ones you know really well, who aren't Republicans at heart, but who have been so misguided by Rush Limbaugh that they believe all the ridiculous stuff about Democrats. Then, you have the very far left come out and say some goofy thing which validates everything. It's why I wish the far left would start identifying with Greens so people would understand the varying positions better. Maybe then the Kerry and Feingold type Democrats could get the real Democratic message out better and the DLC types could comfortably move left as well.

[ginnyinWI]

16. ok, but imagine this scenario:

A Dem gets elected president and everybody assumes he'll be true to our basic Dem principles. It's a close election and he has no real mandate. (I think you know where I'm going with this.)
He immediately moves to the far left in his policies, and that wouldn't be so bad, except that he is clearly incompetent and not up to the job. He fails. He shows himself to be doing harm to America and the American people. But rather than learn from his mistakes, he goes on to grab more and more power. Looking at a second term, he looks like he'll continue to go down that path, governing incompetently, not keeping promises, not doing what he said he'd do, and generally not being straight with the American people.

Next election comes along, and the Republican challenger points out this Dem's obvious failings and offers sensible solutions. He seems much more qualified for the job, and wins all three debates because of his superior ability to think and communicate.

I know it would seem like a hard choice, but do you choose your party over your country, or your country's best interests over the party's ? Do you vote for a bad leader who is a Dem or a good leader who is a Republican?

My 80+ year old father-in-law made this kind of choice last election: he voted for Kerry. He wanted to see some sanity back in the White House.

[sandnsea]

17. Well hmmm

Since we're supposing...

Let's pretend it's Kucinich and McCain and Kucinich isn't governing well. Would I vote McCain? Knowing what else is at stake, like the Supreme Court? Knowing there are some very core ideas McCain has that I don't share? I don't know, I really don't. And that's where some of these voters went Bush. They looked at John Kerry and saw Dennis Kucinich. Looked at George Bush and hoped, despite all evidence to the contrary, for John McCain.

[karynnj]

18. Combing both yours and Ginny's points

-Bad Democrat running the country, decent Republican - It may come down to how I value what's at stake. Last year, given the health and ages of the Supreme Court justices, there may have been voting based on philosophy of the party ignoring grave leadership problems. The court does affect the country for generations. Unfortunately, a large group of pro-life people might have voted for Bush even if he made chimp noises as answers to all the debate questions due to their perception that he would pick judges who would over turn Roe vs Wade and this might be a once in a generation oportunity to do this.

I would hope that I would show the character and open mindness that Ginny's father-in-law did - choosing the better leader partially because the other leader was so bad. He could count on a Republican Congress constraining Kerry so that may have made it easier. If that were also my theoretical situation (a Democratic Congress), I would hope I would reject a seriously flawed Democrat for a well qualified Republican - even if he was one of the 10 most conservative.

It really shouldn't come to this in that in theory, you would think there would be a primary challange to such a bad leader.

[sandnsea]

19. Carter - Reagan

That's what alot of Democrats did when they chose Reagan, opted for the well qualified Republican over the seriously flawed Democrat. I voted Carter because I don't think Republican policies are ever good for the country. It's just the way I am. In retrospect, I am so glad I did. We would all be SO SO SO much better off if Carter had won. It's sad the way the Democratic Party treats him too, he was right on so many things.

[karynnj]

20. I voted Carter, but was tempted by Anderson

I thought Reagan had been a horrible governor of California, so I never considered him. NJ is always about the last primary, so Kennedy was clearly out by then.

I thought Anderson was interesting and I had an aunt who lived in his district and was a strong supporter of his. At the end though, I decided I would rather vote between the 2 real choices. Living in the NY metropolitan area (NJ) I was shocked that Reagan won so strongly.

I agree that the country would have been better off with Carter. No Iran/Contra, no allowing the contras to freely bring in cocaine, no supporting all the murderous Central American dictators. Probably no Gulf war - which fueled Bin Laden's hatred because of the war itself and the Saudi Arabian bases. (Carter was President when the CIA started arming the mujahadim in Afganistan, but given all of Carter's believes, I would not think he would have taken to the point Reagan did.) Bush I is unlikely to have ever become a successful candidate himself. W would have had far less to trade on in terms of his father's name - may have simply remained the slacker son of a rich family.

[ginnyinWI]

22. The party who has Congress is a very important point

to consider. Because they can moderate the president if they are of the opposite party, and prevent the most extreme moves. (unlike what we have going on now).

What my father-in-law actually said was, "my party lost me when they moved so far to the right!" because he has been a traditional moderate Republican. But he is also smart and informed, reads the New Yorker, etc., and realized how the party had changed. He's a WWII combat vet(Navy--was a navigator in a bomber in the Pacific arena), so that may have had something to do with it, too.
But I don't think he'd have voted for Bush under any circumstances. Another thing he told us: "We like Jeb(they are retired in Florida), but not his brother!"

[BlueIris]

21. Woah, thanks for the pile of responses and discussion, everyone.

I really wanted this to be a useful discussion about how the Dems can get the Republican "hold outs" in '06/'08, and was lamenting after I left the computer last night that I should have included this in my original post. Good thinking, Kerrycrats!