OK seriously if I were a hard-core old-style Repub right now

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

I'd be SO PISSED OFF THEY NOMINATED BUSH FOUR YEARS AGO!!!!!

Seriously, I'd be spitting nails and asking why my party nominated such a fucking IDIOT.

Wouldn't you???

I mean, think about it, as much as none of us have any love lost for McCain around here, I honestly think if they had nominated McCain instead of bush, they'd be looking at a better chance of re-election right now.

So in a way, I'm happy they didn't, but I'm not happy about everything we've had to live through.

And if the Dems ever get anyone that stupid in office, I will be seriously pissed. But the media doesn't roll over for us, so we HAVE to have smart, sharp candidates.

Hmmmmmmmm......

[Gyre]

1. "And if the Dems ever get anyone that stupid in office"

Joe Lieberman almost was VEEP. Stupid in a different way. Nowhere near as damaging world-wide; doesn't have that much energy.

Gyre

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

2. True

but I was never wowed by him. Less so this time (I kept hoping he wouldn't get the nom this time!!!)

[Barney Rocks]

3. OK I have a question--

how do you define a "hard-core old-style Repub"? I am just trying to get this straight in my mind.

I know that most Republicans favor (or at least pretend to favor) small government, however I don't know a single one that advocates cutting government in a time of war (even though the war was their own fault). (Have you ever heard one criticize the great Raygun for running up a huge deficit? No--he was fighting the cold war. Can't criticize Bush--he is fighting the war on terror. That is what I hear every day--and it tees me off!!!). It is very rare for me to hear any criticisim of Bush at all on this score--and if people do grudgingly admit that Bush is less than perfect--they always quickly yip at me that Kerry would be much much worse.

I know that a while back (before WW2) the republicans were isolationists (a la Pat Buchanan) but I have never personally met a current day Republican isolationist. When Pat ran how many votes did he get? I believe that his isolationist, protectionalist rhetoric netted him less than 1% of the vote? He seems to represent a very small and isolated fringe of the repubs.

Social conservativism--this seems to be the bulk of the party to me. RW fundy religious wack jobs. And they seem to loooove what Bush is doing. Unfortunately, I think that most of the people I come across have "conservative social values" and they think Bush is just wonderful.

What other conservative values are you seeing people claim to have--and how else is Bush against conservative values? I would seriously like to know--it would be good ammo for me to use in arguments.

[LittleClarkie]

5. The Conservative Case Against George W Bush

Here, read this:

http://www.amconmag.com/12_1_03/cover.html

[Barney Rocks]

7. I read it--

but it is the things I already mentioned

1) the imperiousness and pre-emption stuff (which the Republicans that I know actually support--so it does no good in an arguement)

2) increasing the size of government (I use that arguement all the time--and have gotten very poor results--once again see my post above--Republicans just say--time of war--blah blah blah and yadda yadda).

I see nothing new in this argument that I can use to convince the social conservatives (which most of the Republicans that I come across are). If anyone has some good ammunition that I can use on the social conservatives--or even some new arguments rather than the same old tired stuff taht has not been working very well--I would really appreciate it. We only have a month to go until the election--and every argument that I can win between then and now may make a difference.

[LittleClarkie]

9. Ask them what he has ACTUALLY done

and not just given lip service to.

Is he pledging to repeal Roe vs. Wade?

How many partial birth abortions are actually performed in this country? That's a question I don't have the answer to, but the answer might reveal why this issue is such a red herring.

Is Iraqi Freedom a declared, legal war? I don't quite understand the process. If it is not, then how bogus is it to say you are fighting a war on terror and then call yourself a wartime president. How do you fight a war on terror? When does a war on terror end? How do you fight an idea?

In order to get re-elected, all a president would have to do is invade someone every four years, or declare himself at war with something. Reagan and Nancy were fighting a war on drugs. Did that make Reagan a wartime president?

John Kerry is pro-life. That is his choice.

One of my repub friends suggested that if gays would keep their unions out of the church, he would accept that compromise. Civil unions are okay with him as long as the church is not involved. As Edwards said last night, that's where he and Kerry stand too.

I will keep thinking.

[Barney Rocks]

12. The ones that I know

are socially conservative--I like your idea about the abortion issue--If he was a "True Social Conservative" he would get rid of abortion. He allows it to continue--"this evil evil thing if you are a fundie" how can you support a bad man like him who says he is against it--but yet does nothing to stop it.

I like it. (It would be hard for me to say without gagging--but it would definitely upset the socially conservative people.

The war stuff doesn't work for me--most of these people claim to support the war.

If you can come up with more social issues that would be cool--but the abortion one is a pretty good one. I don't know how well it will work--I will have to try it out on a good religious one tomorrow (or today actually)!

[Cats Against Frist]

16. You have to frame your argument on "big GOP government"

through a libertarian lens. You're right -- talking about deficits isn't enough, because they do try to justify it, because of war time. But George Bush has expanded entitlements, he's directing unfunded federal mandates to the states, he's attempting to use the Constitution to settle matters that should be left up to the states. The Patriot Act is a good one -- I always say: hey, I'll give you the 2nd amendment, but George Bush wants to take away the other nine. And "patriot act" works well with militia-type conservatives.

The next thing you have to do, especially to "free marketers" is explain how corpo-fascism or corporatism has nothing to do with the free market. Why? First of all, corporations are given human status in the courts. Second, all of the following go against the idea of free market: regressive, "trickle down" and sales tax schemes, corporate and farm subsidy, tax breaks for companies that outsource -- or tax breaks for companies to move into an area, using the U.S. military as an arm of corporations, making closed-door energy policy with big oil and energy companies, stripping the consumer and the government of their purchasing power (these are both applicable to prescription drugs -- the Prescription Drug Bill strips the government of its negotiating power, and the feds have threatened to arrest people who help seniors get drugs from Canada). Further, Frist, Cheney, Bush, et. al. are all corporate shills who are making our laws in favor of corporations -- that's actually not "free market." The market should exist completely independent of government, and philosophically, there can be no overarching philosophy, as there is in the U.S., that the government must help corporations to "get us ahead" in the world.

The above things are all corporatism -- not free-market capitalism. If we had RESPONSIBLE CONSUMERS AND LABORERS, I believe we'd be far better off with a true free market, than the above things. The above things all encourage government-protected concentration of wealth.

Also -- the Christian right's insistence on limiting abortion, pornography, euthanasia, drug use, prostitution, gambling, television indecency -- ALSO goes against the idea of the free market, because supply and demand should rule, not religious constructs. This is not to say that this is absolute -- all of the above are either consentual crimes, things that people have a choice to watch or not watch, OR in the case of abortion, even though some see it as "harming a baby," free market/classical liberalism -- rationalists -- wouldn't even blink: your body, your property.

There is a HUGE case to be made about how the GOP social agenda is an affront to the Constitution, but you have to fight both historical and biblical revisionism to combat that, and it is tedious, and they usually don't listen.

There are plenty of arguments made, by people far more coherent than I, about why conservatives should not support Bush.

[Barney Rocks]

17. What I am saying it that

most of the conservatives I encounter are the "social conservative" variety. The arguments (small governmnet) that work well with other conservatives (ie fiscal conservatives) don't work well with them.

All I am asking is for additional ammo to help me take down the social conservatives. Honestly, like I said above, I can understand why a "fiscal conservative" would hate Bush--but guess what? I have never met a true "fiscal conservative" in real life. I encounter people who claim to be "fc's" on tv and the internet--but they really are not in my life. The "social conservatives" I encounter every single day--I even have some in my family. So that is what is practical to me.

The arguments are things like fiscal responsibility are fascinating--but I already know they won't work--so they really are not applicable to my problem. Hopefully they will help someone else---there are probably other DUers who may live in areas of the country where they encounter people who are true fiscal conservatives?

[LittleClarkie]

18. What about Bush's liberal illegal immigration policy

How does that fly with your average social Conservative? The average social conservative I run into is a bit of an isolationist, though not to the extent of Buchannan.

I was talking to a religious right person today, one who has said that Bush is more moral than Kerry, and even she was coming up with some surprising questions.

Unrelated to social conservativism, it bothered her that Cheney said he'd never met Edwards when indeed he had, repeatedly. That got through to her.

The stories in today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel also bothered her. The price of oil going up means higher prices at the pump, and higher heating costs over our long Wisconsin winter. What that would mean to the average family bothered her.

Without mentioning Kerry, I gently suggested that what we need is "energy independance" so we don't have to rely on these people. "It's those damn Saudis" she exclaimed. I slid in with a comment about how close the Bush and Saudi people are, oil-wise, and a bit more about a Saudi-terrorist connection that won't be pursued as long as Bush is in office. She hadn't been aware there is a connection. I'm not that informed on it myself, frankly. I was talking out my ass a bit there. I'll have to get more info for her. But that connection bothered her.

I brought up cleaner burning coal and other ways to be energy independant, but she got hung up on drilling in Alaska, so that was a wash.

And then she brought up the "No WMD since early 1991" story in the paper. She's not willing to say Bush is wrong in Iraq yet, but this story got through to her too.

It was amazing. She was bringing up talking points herself. I just left her with "Think about who is addressing the issues you are concerned about, and who is not."

I don't know if that's helpful and how much of it is indicative of a social Conservative. All I know is that a social Conservative was asking these questions today.

[LittleClarkie]

19. Just occurred to me

What about the Homeland Security aspect? Protecting our borders, ports, nuclear facilities and the like? What about protecting and containing the nuclear stockpiles in Russia?

How does your average social Conservative feel about these issues?

[Barney Rocks]

21. very very good

suggestions. I honestly have no idea where these people stand on these issues--but they certainly are good ones! I will try tonight (there is a fundie that I see on-line) and see how it goes...

Excellent suggestions though!

[sangh0]

20. Here's what you ask the social conservatives

Why do the Repukes insist on passing abortion restriction WITHOUT any exceptions for the life of the mother? They could pass a bill that would prohibit many abortions (if they can pass the PBA bill without the exception, they can pass one with it) if only they didn't remove that exception, which SCOTUS has found is unconstitional.

It looks like they WANT their abortion bills to be overturned by the courts, and DON'T want their abortion bills to stand. This way, they can say "You see? We're on your side but those activist judges keep getting in the way"

[Barney Rocks]

23. I will definitely try this one.

Abortion is very important to these people. Another excellent suggestion.

[janx]

24. The old conservatives were not "social conservatives."

There weren't any "social conservatives" in the 1950s or 1960s, for instance, because conservatives did not believe that religion and government should mix. My mother left Republicanism with Reagan.

Someone will undoubtedly counter this with Nixon's "southern strategy," but it was not until Reagan, who was initially a Democrat, that the southern religious Democrats took over the Republican party. He appealed to them. He said that his party had left him, and he implored them to join the Republican party.

And join they did.

That may not be what people want to hear in this forum, but I saw it happen. And it alienated a lot of good people who happened to be old Republicans. Now most of those are dead or independents (or small L libertarians). Some of them are Democrats, reacting to the hell that is Chimpy.

[Cats Against Frist]

25. Count me in on that one

The GOP has driven me to small-L libertarianism, which is a vague term, but I believe libertarianism has a very logical set of core beliefs, stemming from both general political philosophy, as well as the specifics of our Constitution -- I think both small-L and big-L libertarians share some things. I agree with the actual Libertarian Party on many things, even though I see the actual party stacked with a bunch of clueless GOPPERS that don't like the religious right or just George Bush. I will never trust the LP, until they can come to a clear consensus on abortion, and take the emphasis off of Rand, Friedman and the anarchocapitalists, and further a system wherein the inherent value of the non-coersed collective is given the level of respect of the individual. That's the real problem with the LP, actually -- they're too far right. Libertarianism can also be center and left.

I suspect you know all of this, but I was just typing for any other readers' pleasure -- and I wanted to back you up on the fact that the Bush administration has driven some people to libertarianism. I'm walking, breathing proof -- a state socialist for over 10 years. When I met "Big Brother's OTHER Brother" -- GOP style, it scared me stupid. And some of the philosophical libertarian arguments are so wonderful, and such a relief from partisan politics.

***edit -- I'm still voting for Kerry, because even though I have less faith in any large government, I'd rather remove my spleen with an ice pick than see Bush get re-elected. And I like the two Johns a lot. They seem like good people.

[secular_warrior]

11. An "oldschool Repub" is a moderate libertarian, IMO

and Pat Buchanan doesn't represent one. He is more of a conservative populist like the old Democrats.

McCain doesn't represent one either. He is more of a Teddy Roosevelt Republican.

The old Republican party of Lincoln was moderate libertarian in nature, i.e. moderate social liberal/moderate economic conservative, isolationist on foreign policy, very responsible and educated type of people. It was actually a great political party, compared to the right wing nightmare they have become. Most northeastern Republicans are still like this.

[MajorFlaw]

4. After 9/11 I received a few, "Aren't you glad that (shrub) won now"

comments from freeper type acquaintances. I found that the most effective way to shut them up was to ask, "Aren't you sorry that shrub beat McCain now?" Perhaps not the most elegant response but it did sort of end the argument.

[KharmaTrain]

6. Would McCain Have Invaded Iraq???

How would McCain have reacted on 9/11? No doubt he wouldn't have frozen like bambi for 7 minutes and gone scampering off to Omaha. And I'm sure he would have invaded Afghanistan. But where does the story go from there?

I never really gave this question a thought until I saw this post and be curious of other thoughts.

[Barney Rocks]

8. see, the Repugs that

I know all mostly social conservative fundie types--they all hate McCain.

:shrug:

I know a lot of people who voted for him in the primaries ( including me) but they were all democrats. I voted for him because he was more moderate than Bush, I actually liked him a little bit (although I would never vote for him against a Democrat), and I thought Gore could beat him easily.

[MajorFlaw]

14. McCain would have invaded Iraq right after he invaded Canada, and for

the same reasons: Why Canada and why Iraq. Anyone who isn't capable of distinguishing between a secular thug (Saddam) and a religious nut job (bin Laden) isn't qualified to serve as president. We are entitled to expect certain minimal standards from those who profess to be our leaders. McCain is far from perfect, but don't put him in the same (remedial) class with shrub,

[KharmaTrain]

15. Throw Out Reason, When You've Got PNAC...

Let's suppose if McCain had won the GOOP nomination, it would have been done with some meeting of the minds with the RNC that would have led to accommodation with the Heritage Institute, American Enterprise Institute and the entire Repugican money/power machine...which leads up to PNAC.

If you look back on the confirmation hearings in 2001, there were many Democrats (and I won't say I wasn't one of them) who thought a Colin Powell would be a moderate in this regime and throttle in the zealots in foreign policy. Democrats underestimated the influence of the Perles and Wolfowitz and others that would drive the foreign policy agenda into the abyss it is right now. There also wasn't much of a fight against Von Rumsfeld either as they felt he was "moderate" considering he was Ford's Sec. Of Defense and didn't blow us up in those days.

Now I'm not putting McCain in Shrub's sub-classification...just doing a hypothetical here, as to how McCain could have reacted with some of the same elephants in the tent that Bunnypants has had to contend with and how he would have handled the pressures of both the military/industrial complex and the ideological zealots like those who dominate the GOOP's agenda.

Thanks for your reply.

[Fed Up]

10. They tried to say Bush is ONLY MAN in America that can fight a terrorist

And it's just not so.


It's like saying a certain fire extinguisher company is the only one that can make an extinguisher that will put out your fire.

The jig is up!

[Piperay]

13. I would be, in fact I was ...

that's why when Raygun got the nomination I became a Democrat, couldn't take being a repig anymore. :-(

[WilliamPitt]

22. My lifelong Republican grandmother in 2000

voted Nader (in Massachusetts). Just couldn't vote for Gore, but be damned if she'd vote for that Bush.

I haven't asked her what she's going to do in November. Probably she wouldn't tell me. Sly old fox. :)