Conservative? Let Kerry Win!

[Guest Olympic Slam]

So I was listening to a radio show on the way home yesterday and this guy called in with an interesting take (from a conservative perspective) on the upcoming election. Here's what the caller said, with some of my own analysis.......

 

1. Bush is the most liberal Republican ever. He's Clinton minus the cigar. Losing Bush or Cheney woudn't be much of a loss.

 

2. The Republican party with Bush has made no effort to stay loyal to their conservative base. When was the last time you heard a prominent Republican senator make a big deal about taxes, the size of government, government waste, or our border with Mexico? All they do is pander to fence sitters and drone on and on about terrorism. If Kerry were President, the Republicans might actually start fighting for the conservative base and their conservative values. It'll be like Congress of the 1990's vs. Bill Clinton. Checks and Balances is the real key to making government work!

 

3. If Kerry wins, that pushes Hillary's bid for the presidency to 2012. If Bush wins, she could make her bid in 2008. I think we all would prefer that she stay as far away from the White House as possible.

 

4. If Bush were to get re-elected, his potential successor would most definitely be of the same administration. In essence, we'd be getting another, possibly more liberal and weaker George W. Bush (Condolezza Rice perhaps?). Four years of Kerry could flush out a more conservative candidate that would be more willing to fight for conservative and classically Republican values. The caller made an interesting point in that Ronald Reagan was only able to come about because of the disaster that was Jimmy Carter. Perhaps Kerry can force the Republicans to invest in a more conservative movement in response to Kerry's presidency in much the same way that Reagan was able to come about to combat Carter.

 

5. Kerry could do a better job at fighting the war on terror. The Dems are too smart to ignore or abandon the war on terror. The best feature of Kerry as President? The U.S and international media outlets will be behind him more-so than Bush (who they hate for reasons unknown). This will allow Kerry to fight the war more aggressively without fear from constant attacks from the media (See Clinton, Kosovo). Bush is too tentative to be fighting a war because his administration can't make a major decision without first taking into consideration the media's response. Bush of pre-election and most likely post-election is a broken down man.

 

If you're a conservative, then this case is tough to ignore. I pitched this argument to five fairly conservative friends/family members and all but one (a Hannityesque true-believer) came away thinking President Kerry didn't sound all that bad afterall. It's not like Kerry is Karl Marx or Fidel Castro. A mere four years of Kerry could mean a stronger Republican party for years to come.

 

Thoughts?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

it's reserve psych.. or cutting off the nose to spite the face. Or something of that sort.

 

but, ya know how they'll reply

 

1 - You're a leftist fool. Bush rocks.

2 - The Republicans are fine

3 - Hillary is working against Kerry

4 - Um.. Ann Coulter. Bill Owens. Um. yeah!

5 - KERRY IS AN EVIL FOOL WHO WILL SURRENDER TO TERROR AND GIVE OSAMA A HANDJOB

 

yeah..

 

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39309

 

It's one of the most under-reported but pivotal stories of this election season: Untold numbers of American Christians, conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, constitutionalists and others "on the right" are torn over how to vote in this November's election.

 

Some are so turned off by both major-party presidential candidates they are threatening to stay home on Election Day.

 

Others are abandoning, or considering abandoning, their traditional political home, the Republican Party, in favor of a third party. They regard the two major political camps as so similar – and unacceptable – that only a third-party choice seems worthwhile. After all, they say, "Voting for the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil."

 

Many others, however, plead that the "lesser of two evils" is also by definition the greater good, and that no matter what the mistakes and imperfections of George W. Bush and his administration, it's light years better than the wholesale betrayal America would experience during a Kerry administration.

[Guest Cerebus]

This contest is an awful choice for conservatives.

 

On one hand we have a guy who is too religious, who is a big-ass spender, who is a croney capitalist, and who couldn't convince an eskimo that ice is slippy.

 

On the other we have John Kerry.

 

Don't blame me. I'm voting for Kodos.

[godthedog 0]

true conservatives should vote for nader.

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

True conservatives won't vote in order to conserve the idea that most americans don't vote.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Something that Slam didn't mention, that I think would be important for him is this:

 

 

The only time we get smaller government is when the government can't get anything done. Four years of Republicans controlling every cog in the machine and we've seen a lot of "conservatives" go crazy on pork. If Kerry is immediately fighting with a Republican-controlled Congress, then less garbage will pass, and the size of the government (in influence, if not in budget) will shrink.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

3. If Kerry wins, that pushes Hillary's bid for the presidency to 2012. If Bush wins, she could make her bid in 2008. I think we all would prefer that she stay as far away from the White House as possible.

That logic doesn't follow... vote for a moron for two terms so a nutcase has to wait 4 extra years. 16 years of people you don't want instead of 4 years of a guy that doesn't match your politics EXACTLY??

 

Also, what's wrong with Dr. Rice?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

From the same pack of liars?

[Guest MikeSC]

Nothing makes more sense than voting for a man who COMPLETELY opposes your views as opposed to a man who disagrees with only some of them.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Was he listening to Michael Savage or Dick Morris: I give up...!?!

[Guest Arnold_OldSchool]

In a mass emailing to supporters, the Bush campaign on Monday sent a warning that they should expect Kerry to move out to a wide lead in national polls by the end of the month. The email -- entitled "Campaign Memo: Expected Kerry Bounce" -- was issued in the name of Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd. "An examination of Gallup polls in presidential elections since 1976 reveals that a challenger's Vice Presidential selection and nominating convention can have a dramatic (if often short-lived) effect on the head-to-head poll numbers. In fact, historical analysis suggests John Kerry should have a lead of more than 15 points coming out of his convention," wrote Dowd. The email even contained a set of charts that showed the two men tied at 47% apiece right now but projected Kerry to grab a 55% to 40% lead by the first week of August. While those numbers seen a bit exaggerated -- likely in a move to claim a victory by "surpassing expectations" -- the Bush campaign is sending a message that the race dynamics are shifting. To help blunt the impact of Kerry's short-term momentum, the Bush campaign is expected to launch a new TV spot this week featuring Senator John McCain.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Nothing makes more sense than voting for a man who COMPLETELY opposes your views as opposed to a man who disagrees with only some of them.

-=Mike

But what if he winds up being only ineffective at best?

[Guest MikeSC]

Nothing makes more sense than voting for a man who COMPLETELY opposes your views as opposed to a man who disagrees with only some of them.

                        -=Mike

But what if he winds up being only ineffective at best?

Question is --- if Kerry won't do much of anything differently than Bush, why should YOU vote for him?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Because while you can argue that the damage that Bush has done in the past four years is done, why invite four years more?

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

What damage is that, exactly?

[2GOLD 0]

My choices are Bush, Kerry, Nadar and some third party moron....Ok, if I can't write in a vote then I am not voting. I'd rather vote for Macho Man Randy Savage over these schmucks.

 

Yeah, I'm going to vote for backpedal Kerry over God be with me Bush just to push back the REAL stupid Clinton bid to 2012.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

What damage is that, exactly?

Pre-emptive doctrine, support of mini-nukes, support of marriage amendment, and John Ashcroft.

[NoCalMike 0]

What damage is that, exactly?

Pre-emptive doctrine, support of mini-nukes, support of marriage amendment, and John Ashcroft.

(for starters)

[Dr. Tom 0]

Pre-emptive doctrine, support of mini-nukes, support of marriage amendment, and John Ashcroft.

1. The policy is fine with me.

2. Shrug.

3. Shrug.

4. I have to agree wholeheartedly here. In fact, Ashcroft is one of the principal reasons I will not be voting to re-elect President Bush in November.

[C Dubya 04 0]

I think that our government works best with a Republican controlled Congress and a Democratic President, and thus Kerry makes a decent choice (not perfect, but when's the last time there was a perfect choice for Prez?). Neither Dems or Reps ever have 100% effective policies, or ideals, so having a true checks and balances system is something I'm strongly for.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

Something that Slam didn't mention, that I think would be important for him is this:

 

 

The only time we get smaller government is when the government can't get anything done. Four years of Republicans controlling every cog in the machine and we've seen a lot of "conservatives" go crazy on pork. If Kerry is immediately fighting with a Republican-controlled Congress, then less garbage will pass, and the size of the government (in influence, if not in budget) will shrink.

Yep yep yep. I sort of alluded to that with the Clinton vs. Republican Revolution Congress of the mid to late 90's. The fact of the matter is that BOTH parties are, and will always be drunk with power. Once they get a taste of "doing stuff" in Washington, they'll do whatever they can to keep power and increase their power. How do you get more power? Increase the size of government and the role of the elected official! This is why Libertarianism is a false promise: There will always be politicians from any and all sides that will want to use government to increase their power or "help" others. It doesn't matter if you elect Milton Friedman or Lenin, they will still find a way to get more power.

 

Checks and Balances, I believe, are what have prevented us from moving as far or further to the left than say Canada.

 

- If I don't vote for Bush (I live in California so my vote is pretty meaningless no matter which way I go) I might write in Tom McClintock or vote for the Constituion Party guy.

[NoCalMike 0]

I am still undecided, but I am still leaning towards a third party candidate.

 

Dean vs. Nader debate on CSPAN friday. That should be hilarious.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Go Constitution Party guy. McClintock cheeses me so much that I don't want him thinking he has some great future ahead. It's not just the typical left/right things either. He was big on the side against a proposal for Californians to prepay a fee to have equipment such as computer monitors disposed of when they buy the equipment.

 

He might think that's unfair for whatever reason, but I bet he doesn't have a bunch of monitors hanging around from as far back the Mac II days that can't be disposed of because it's too expensive.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

I really like the Constitution Party. They say what I say: Bring back America's sovreignty.

 

Check out the platform - http://www.constitutionparty.org/party_platform.php

 

They may seem a little too "religious" for some, but the message that goes with it is a good one. I'm not religious, but I agree with everything they're saying because its like something out of 1776.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

A "little too religious"?

 

Ha! Thats the understatement of the year.

[Styles 0]

The problem with 3rd parties is with the exception of The Libertarian party, they're all either religious based or drug legalization based or Communism based. That's it. http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

Olympic brings up a good point about being in California and his vote not really counting, as in Maryland I feel like I'm in the same dillema (then again we did just elect our first Republican governor since the 60s in 02, so who knows, but that was more because his opponent was an incompetent, unlikeable Kennedy family elite.)

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

He might think that's unfair for whatever reason, but I bet he doesn't have a bunch of monitors hanging around from as far back the Mac II days that can't be disposed of because it's too expensive

 

What? Just throw 'em in the trash. Smash them with a rock or something first.

[AndrewTS 0]

Something that Slam didn't mention, that I think would be important for him is this:

 

 

The only time we get smaller government is when the government can't get anything done. Four years of Republicans controlling every cog in the machine and we've seen a lot of "conservatives" go crazy on pork. If Kerry is immediately fighting with a Republican-controlled Congress, then less garbage will pass, and the size of the government (in influence, if not in budget) will shrink.

You're assuming Republicans will still be controlling Congress for a while...

 

Sure, it's been that way for a long time...

 

I'm a Moderate Republican (liberal on some issues) in a Democrat state in a particularly Democrat county. My vote is worthless. *shrug*

 

Even if I liked Kerry, voting for him isn't worth the risk of jury duty.

[redbaron29 0]

I'm a Moderate Republican (liberal on some issues) in a Democrat state in a particularly Democrat county.  My vote is worthless. *shrug*

You and I are in the same boat.

 

But anyways,

 

Lets face the facts folks. This election isnt going to come down to politics. It doesn't come down to planks, or platforms. It doesn't come down to towing the party line. When people go to the polls in November and they have to punch there chad they will make a choice based on one fact.

 

-I hate George Bush

or

-I love George Bush

 

It's bullshit. People dont care to educate them selves on the issues, and vote for what direction the want this country to take. They vote on some gut reaction that fuckin desplays there own ignorance anyways. Instead the vote based upon what some jackass (who couldn't take the crispy creams out of his mouth long enough to actually check his facts) said in some gay ass propaganda film he made.

 

For me....Like the Andrew it doesnt really matter who the fuck I vote for. As an indepndent thinking conservative in the heartland of liberal 70's union mentality, it doesnt matter who I vote for cuz Kerry will win this area.

 

So of course my vote will go to Jim Traficant

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I really like the Constitution Party.  They say what I say: Bring back America's sovreignty.

 

Check out the platform - http://www.constitutionparty.org/party_platform.php

 

They may seem a little too "religious" for some, but the message that goes with it is a good one.  I'm not religious, but I agree with everything they're saying because its like something out of 1776.

Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. (...) We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states.

 

Aye carumba. It's funny though, because...

 

The federal government has no authority to mandate policies relating to state education, natural resources, transportation, private business, housing, health care, ad infinitum.

 

The Constitution Party calls for the federal government to divest itself of operations not authorized by the Constitution.

 

But hey, gambling? Sorry, gotta step in there, bud. Moral fibers, and all.

 

Oh well, a third a party I can't get enthusiastic about is better than no third party at all. 'Sides, it'd allow the Republicans to finally get the religious right off their ass once and for all.