Conservatives having second thoughts -- Kerry "not so bad"

[beachmom]

I just read this on www.andrewsullivan.com, and nearly fell over. It's an e-mail from no doubt one of Andrew's conservative readers who voted for Bush, and who is obviously anti-abortion, for "limited government", et al. The thing is, there's been a lot of whining from conservatives all summer, but they usually end it with "well, Kerry would have been worse". But something's changed. Bush has broken their trust with the Meiers nomination, and now the results are this:

EMAIL OF THE DAY: "Harriet Miers is the hair that broke the camel's back. Despite the flaws I always expected things to eventually work out, and that everything was part of a master plan. Now I sit with egg on my face, and disarray that there is no plan: this is how it is supposed to be. Bush is a liberal who knows how to appeal to the churchy types. John Kerry doesn't seem so bad now , because gridlock would have slowed things down and congressional Republicans would get their spines back, having to no longer bow to the Commander in Chief. David Brooks summed it up perfectly with his Manchurian Candidate comment. You were right I was wrong. Hopefully McCain in 2008?"

Okay, ignore the "because" statement afterwards for a minute. This is a Republican, who we had no hope in hell of getting a vote from in '04. This person was no doubt in that 40% approval rating up until now. This is no swing voter. Although we lost, the way I look at it now, we have finally "won". I think if the election were held today, Kerry would have won. Easily. The Meiers nomination is now the moment where conservatives realize that they have been duped. This is like a Moveon.org type or Kossak saying "Bush doesn't seem so bad now". This is big. Now the Democrats need to step in. And be the "grown up" party. Oh, and I'm 100% with Obama and what he said on dailykos.com. The Dean/Moveon.org/Michael Moore crowd need to put suits and ties on, speak with restraint, and help ALL Democrats get elected. The Center is 100% up for grabs.

[WildEyedLiberal]

1. I don't think that guy is saying he'd support Kerry

Note that his criticism of Bush is that he's a "liberal." WTF? :rofl: I wouldn't call this guy "center" by a long shot. Anyone who criticizes Bush from the RIGHT is never, ever going to vote for a Democrat. I DO think the center is up for grabs, and I think our task is to gently remind all of them how much better Kerry would've handled everything, and how right he was about it all, using clips from his speeches from last year. But this guy is just another wingnut disappointed that Bush didn't nominate a wacko judge like Owens.

[beachmom]

2. Sorry, I don't think I was clear

This guy is a conservative, NOT a swing voter or a centrist, but he is for sure demoralized. The reason why Kerry lost in November (if he did lose) was that Rove turned out the Republican base in great numbers. Kerry won the Independent vote. But a demoralized base just might decide not to vote now. What's the point? Roe v. Wade (in their view) will NEVER be overturned. They had all their faith in Bush, supposedly one of their own, and he didn't deliver the goods.

One point on liberal. The word is overused and means different things in different contexts. When he referred to Bush as a "liberal", he meant a big government spender. Sorry, but in that context both Kerry and Clinton are more "conservative" than Bush. The Democrats have a proven record in the last decade or more of showing fiscal restraint. Bush has spent at a rate not seen since LBJ. If you take the word "liberal" in that strict meaning, the e-mailer is correct. For me, that's why Bush is the worst president in my lifetime -- because he spends like an old time big government liberal -- for conservative causes -- like corporate welfare, unbelievable pork barrel spending, and, of course, war. Saying you'll spend "whatever it takes" to rebuild the gulf coast is just plain irresponsible (I mean even the U.S. government has its limits), and conjures up the worst stereotype of a "liberal" that the right wing noise machine has been screaming about for 40 years. You know -- "tax and spend, tax and spend". Now the only difference is that Bush doesn't pay for it so it's now "spend and borrow, spend and borrow". This guy was finally acknowledging that a Democratic president (Kerry) would have done a better job than Bush to control spending. From a "wingnut", this is one hell of an acknowledgement.

Maybe I am annoying some of you with these musings, but I know that if Kerry were president, his #1 priority economically speaking, would be to get the government's financial house in order. The Republicans TALK about doing this, the Democrats actually DO this.

[ginnyinWI]

3. I was going to say the same thing, beachmom

about what the guy meant by "liberal". Because I think the majority of Republicans are conservative rather than neocon, and do want spending restraint, as well as conservative social values made into laws.
And * has been giving them the old one-two punch on these things all year--has failed to fight for all of those social wedge issues he trumped up (again) during the campaign, and now it is apparent to all that he just cannot restrain spending one whit. Has never vetoed a bill coming out of Congress. He's doing a great job of destroying his party; hey, it's "hard work" bein' the pres'dent. He's always talking about his "job" and his "duty"--but the fact is that he is not up to this job and is failing at it. I do agree that a lot of thinking Repubs are realizing this guy's true colors now.

I do think a little gridlock can be healthy for a presidency, and one party having control of everything can lead to extremes, something the American voters in the center do not like and tend to vote against.

[WildEyedLiberal]

4. I dunno, he seems to be distressing over the Miers nomination

Complaining about the Miers nomination, to me, says that he's disappointed more about the fact that an extreme right-wing agenda won't be forced through the courts - there's really no economic implications in his email. So I'm not sure it's accurate to say that he's speaking of Bush as an "economic" liberal.

You inadvertently brought up a really sore point with me - the Republican vilification of economic liberalism. I find absolutely nothing wrong with using tax revenue to support worthwhile government programs. The "tax and spend" canard originated with conservatives who wanted to decrease spending on government programs and decrease taxes as well. Given that we have a progressive income tax in America, such an economic model invariably benefits the upper class first - the majority of the nation's taxable income is made by upperclass wage earners, while the beneficiaries of government programs are either a) everyone (eg, schools, roads, and police departments) or b) the middle or lower classes (eg, Social Security, welfare, Medicare).

Economic liberalism enabled a real, substantial middle class to live comfortably above the poverty level and contribute - both as wage earners and consumers - to the vitality of American social, economic, and political life. I'm tired of that philosophy being scorned as "tax and spend" irresponsibility.

[sandnsea]

5. Very enlightening Beachmom

I never thought about, or didn't know, that anybody used "liberal" in the context of spending only. Liberals, us liberal folk, use it in the context of social policy so we may be misunderstanding a whole lot of the debate from the other side. Good stuff to know and mull over.

Just back from the eye doctor, healthy eyes, yeah! Now I have to go have dinner at my daughter's. Haven't had a chance to read much, but wanted to respond to this real quick.

Be back later!

[beachmom]

6. Sorry, WEL, on Andrew Sullivan's blog, he has been

going on and on about all of the out of control spending under Bush's watch, and all the Libertarian types are pissed, too. The spending keeping up with the pace of LBJ (who after all, was funding a war and his Great Society program) has been a particular sore point for them. That's why I am close to sure, that's what the e-mailer is referring to. I don't think anyone would refer to Bush as a liberal on social issues, even with the Meirers nomination (and she may be rabidly anti-abortion -- who knows). And certainly not on foreign policy, unless you think neo-conservativism is a synonymn for liberalism (they were former Democrats from the 60s, you know, right?) Sarcasm, you can hopefully infer.

Anyway, going back to the word liberal, in Europe it means for a free market system with limited government regulation AND for not interfering with people's private lives. So you have the FDP (Free Democrats) in Germany, who are a pro-business party headed up by a gay politician. Totally bizarro.

The thing is, I don't even know what liberal means anymore in American politics. The Right throws anything negative on it, and the Dems have backed away from that word. I guess I'm in the middle on government spending. Obviously, I oppose government spending for faith based programs, Halliburton, airline bailouts, and unneccessary wars. But I also don't think the government can solve every problem, and certainly don't want to see an upper tax bracket of 50%, like there was in Germany for a time. I think the tax rate in the 90s under Clinton was just right, and shouldn't have been messed with. I don't know about any of you, but inflation seems to have eaten any benefit I received from my * tax cut, so it's like we're back to 2000. AND we have a huge deficit.

[TayTay]

7. Wow, excellent posts! Good pondering stuff here!

Keynesian economics were the liberal model for years and years after FDR. This is what made all my uncles such staunch Dems. They believed in the theory that government played a part in economic recoveries and in making sure that there was a floor for poverty in the country and that people could fall only so far, before there was help for them. This model went out with Reagan.

We need a new model. I love what Kerry wrote in his competition speech at the Boston Chambe of Commerce last week. I can get behind this kind of a program. He envisioned a new Education and Science initiative that would put government funds and muscle behind an effort to beef up real education in this country with a gola of sending more kids to college and graduating more engineering and science majors. The ultimate goal of this is to increase competition and innovation in this country and make more good paying jobs and keep competitive with countries like India and China whihc are heavily subsidizing their own student's education. That is a liberal model, but one that feeds the free market system. It is a well thought out idea and has a very necessary and laudable goal.

Sigh! Where can I get President with genuinely innovative and forward-lloking ideas like that. We really need intelligent programs that really take advantage of what government can actually do besides feed fat contracts to friends of government officials.

[TheDonkey]

8. I love how freeps and right wingers are in a melt down by this

very uncalled for because this Miers is probably a covert fundie with no record but it's good to see them doubt the savior Bush.

[ray of light]

9. wait a second

what is a dean, moveon, "liberal"?

Like....

I personally believe that now the dems should stand before Congress and say, "President Bush has had extensive blanch checks to guarentee that every soldier serving has body armor and the equipment there should be topnotch. They don't and He has failed THEM. He's taken the money and run. NOW!!! I'm standing here to say--GIVE THE MEN WHAT THEY NEED RIGHT NOW GWB and until each and every person here votes to protect our soldiers FIRST then I will be sitting on the front steps of the capital building instead of passing a blank check to halliburten."

Then...let them walk out!

So what does that make me? (I'm not blaming the dems and I'm trying to hold everyone accountable for protecting the soldiers.)

******


Ok...don't answer! You're probably thinking, "Nut-case!"

[beachmom]

10. Andrew continues to defend Kerry today about fiscal discipline

A GOLDEN OLDIE: Lots of people are now complaining about the Bush spending habit. Here's my piece from two years ago. Anyone who voted for the guy has, to my mind, somewhat tattered standing to criticize the spending now. On fiscal matters, there was one big difference between Bush and Kerry last November. Kerry backed the pay-as-you-go principle, where every new piece of spending would be offset by a spending cut. Operation Offset, anyone? And with a Republican Congress, you can bet your life government spending would be far lower under president Kerry than it now is under president George "Whatever it costs" Bush. From my Kerry endorsement last fall:

Domestically, the record is horrifying for a fiscal conservative. Ronald Reagan raised taxes in his first term when he had to; and he didn't have 9/11 to contend with. Ronald Reagan also cut domestic spending. Bush has been unable to muster the conservative courage to do either. He has spent like a drunken liberal Democrat. He has failed to grapple with entitlement reform, as he once promised. He has larded up the tax code with endless breaks for corporate special interests; pork has metastasized; and he has tainted the cause of tax relief by concentrating too much of it on the wealthy. He has made the future boomer fiscal crunch far more acute by adding a hugely expensive new Medicare prescription drug entitlement.
Would anyone care to disagree now?

[beachmom]

11. Based on the many thoughtful posts you've made here, I certainly would

NEVER think you a nutcase, Ray of Light.

It's just, I don't see a Dem winning nationally, whose platform includes "Get out of Iraq NOW", even if it sounds and feels good. And actually, Dean himself doesn't advocate this. Instead, I want to hear grown-up solutions to real problems, and I apologize right off the bat if I am offending my fellow Kerrycrats here, but I, for one, am not a pacifist. I just don't buy into the rants of Ariana Huffington who thinks the Democrats should scream about Iraq all the time, and unfairly though it may be, be seen as, yes, the dreaded "defeatist". That's my problem with the Dean/Moveon.org phenomenon. That's fine in the abstract to have a black/white position on Iraq, but in reality, even a full pullout would take time, and could very well have disasterous results on the region.

In regards to the armor, Jesus, I don't know what more we can do!!!! I mean, this isn't even a Republican/Democrat question. A lot of those soldiers in Iraq being screwed over by their government are Republican and still support the war. This, once again, is about the two themes that run through this administration: a disasterous combination of incompetence and corruption.

But in the future, I would like to be open and honest here, as a moderate (although everyone here in VB thinks I am a flaming liberal), without offending my friends who tend to lean more to the left. I guess just keep the conversation going is the best course.

In a nutshell, I want the Democrats to act AS IF they are already in charge. And although anti-war protesters serve a vital purpose in our country, I don't support their full agenda. To clarify, I opposed the invasion of Iraq, but I don't support a full withdrawal of troops now. I'm sorry, but this is just how I feel RIGHT NOW, but I may change my views as events occur.

[TayTay]

12. I'm not a pacifist.

There are times when you use force to prevent bad things from happening. The circumstances include preventing genocide, upholding the rights of a political minority against a murderous majority and so forth. Iraq didn't fulfil that for me, but I am not a pacifist.

I agree with a lot of what Sen. Obama said on DKos recently:

http://obama.senate.gov/blog/050930-tone_truth_and_the_democratic_party/index.html#more

"The same principle holds with respect to issues other than judicial nominations. My colleague from Illinois, Dick Durbin, spoke out forcefully - and voted against - the Iraqi invasion. He isn't somehow transformed into a "war supporter" - as I've heard some anti-war activists suggest - just because he hasn't called for an immediate withdrawal of American troops. He may be simply trying to figure out, as I am, how to ensure that U.S. troop withdrawals occur in such a way that we avoid all-out Iraqi civil war, chaos in the Middle East, and much more costly and deadly interventions down the road."

What I want is a sensible plan that will bring home the troops if there is no reason to believe that they can accomplish their mission. (This would be the fault of the President and his planners who have botched every part of the Iraq War.) I was against this war from the very beginning because Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11. However, we are there and we have to figure out how to extract ourselves from a possible quagmire. I am open to seeing if the next two months, with a vote on the Constitution and the general elections do any good. But if not, I want to withdraw. Sometimes you can't fix the things you broke. (Can you read how conflicted I am between the lines?)

[beachmom]

13. Iraqi Constitution: Did you hear about how the Iraqi gov. is trying

to "fix" a positive result, by reducing the impact of no votes on the Constitution while increasing the impact of yes votes? The U.N. has condemned this as undemocratic. This is very troubling -- I'm not sure if the * administration had anything to do with this or not. But is THIS what nearly 2000 American soldiers have given their lives for? Chaos and a rigged "democratic" system!!!!

So, yes, I am mad as hell about Iraq, but with * at the helm, it's just like banging your head against the wall. Should we stay or should we go is not even a consideration to that guy!!! We're going to stay there forever . . . or at least until 2009 when he's out of office.

But there has been NO progress on training Iraqis (go peruse through "Tour of Duty" and substitute the words South Vietnamese with Iraqi and it's like the same bloody story!!). So if we leave, the insurgency is going to capture more towns, and impose their Taliban-like rule on the already suffering Iraqi population. Are we willing to live with that? Replay in your mind 1975 when the last helicoptor took off out of Saigan, and people were screaming, were left behind, and put in camps for as long as 20 years. Thankfully, Vietnam has become a peaceful, and although not democratic, at least a more prosperous country. But Iraq has oil and the seeds of the Islamic extremist ideology have now been planted. People need to understand the consequences of a full withdrawal. I totally agree with you that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and there was NO danger of Saddam Hussein giving WMD to terrorists. Yet now * has actually TURNED Iraq into a terrorist haven so now it IS relevant to the War on Terror. If that ain't irony, I don't know what is.

[ginnyinWI]

14. I'm not a strict pacifist either.

I think there is such a thing as a justified war. But after reading Howard Zinn, I realize the extent to which our government has gotten us into many wars for economic reasons, and has sold it to the public using other terms, like Liberty, Freedom, Justice, etc. The business and politcal powers that be decide they want some territory and just go for it, and it's the middle and lower classes that go and fight and die. So someone will really have to convince me that a war is necessary--and there are lots better ways to go about solving problems. Use intelligence, diplomacy, and only going to war when you have to.

[TayTay]

15. I hate to sound like a broken record, but please read this little book

Chris Hedges, War is a Force that Gives us Meaning. We are not the only nation to go through this. This is how war manifests. It has a flow and rythm and it's own insane logic that propels it forward. Most wars are started in order to gain power and money. This was true in Bosnia, true in Rwanda, true in Nicaragua, true in Argentina and it was true in the US in 2003.

War always ensures that dissent is silenced. Dissenters are viewed as unpatriotic and are relegatd to second-class citizenship. The war will go on, people will die and then, eventually, when enough suffering has occurred, the ruling parties will compromise and lands that were bitterly fought over will be bargained away. The dead wil be buried, the wounded will be shunted away out of sight and eveyrone will pretend that the whole ugly afair didn't happen the way it did. The lesson that it is wrong to wage war without a damn good reason will sit until the next time. That's the way human beings are, not just in the USA, but globally.

It's very sad after a war. Those who dissented are never really welcomed back in all the way. The act of dissent is not seen as a saving grace, but as a reminder of a war that never should have started. The dissenters never get any credit for being right, they are usually viewed with suspicion because they didn't succumb to war fever, like everyone else. That's the global story, throughout human history. We are not immune to this. We only think we are.