As I reflect now on the debates, there seem to be some legitimate differences in the candidates that are predictable based on their party allegiances.

Economy:  Kerry leaning toward higher taxes, more government spending to solve issues, and "pro-worker" policies.  Bush looking toward lower spending, private sector solutions and "pro-business" policies.

Foreign Policy: Bush taking more hawkish "go it alone if we have to" approach, Kerry suggesting more patience with alliances, less aggressive approach.

Social Issues: Bush aligning toward religious right, Kerry aligning toward urban liberals.  Both candidates covering their asses liberally.

I tend to have my feelings on each of these areas but take alot of time to understand and respect the counterarguments.  I'm pro-choice but appreciate why others believe abortion is murder.  I sympathesize with american workers but firmly believe we win in the long term with globalization - and outsourcing.

OK, here's my question...

I read post after post here claiming at least one of the following points about the majority of republicans.

1) Republicans are uninformed, simple-minded or even stupid.
2) Republicans are greedy, selfish people who only care about themselves and don't believe in the common good.
3) Republicans don't want an open, diverse society.

Do the Kerry supporters really believe this?

-- Modified on 10/14/2004 12:05:16 PM

Dude- you have actually hit apon a good point.  The old real centrist right republicans are for strong defence, a relativley limited government but with some safety nets, and an entrepreeurial friendly government.  The new wacko christians and their business first brethren have sort of hijacked the party and taken it way to the right.

All the perjoritives you asked about DO seem to apply to this new leadership.  But not to the vast rank and file.  I mean how many real conservatives beleive that the Bible is totally factual?  But this President and a lot of his staunchest supporters are PROUD of being so.

This is why the real radical in this election is Bush!  He's the equivelenat of Jerry Rubin (did I get the name of the Steal this Book writer right?)or Tim Leary in their day.  Wants to take us back to the dark ages of illegal abortions and Robber barons in industry, the raping of the ecology etc.

Of course the avarage GOPer is less wacko, it would be impossible to live in a country where there were so many nut jobs!  

This does help explain why the lefties and their more centrist rank and file are so engaged!  For us, it's hard to see  our centrist counterparts who used to be just across the aisle from us support one of their wackiest "leaders".  We wonder what is driving them to it or if they have gone nuts.

They seem to think we are like the Centrist Russian democrats who got bamboozled into the soviet takeover. We liken them to the centrist German conservatives who got conned into welcoming Hitler!

That's what made Clinton so smart- he was centrist from ther start.  Let's all hope that the wackos on both sides get ignored in the future or that the centrists can generate their own powerful candidates- although if that happened, the defining differences would be hard to campaign on.

Euros think of Bush as way radical and Kerry as slighly left of center, if that is any help.

On the question of intelligence, I can't really respond to the "majority of Republicans."  I have been dismayed by many of Bush’s supporters’ posts on this forum, but that’s just here and you can’t extrapolate to the rest of the world – and I know I have given a pass to equally lame-brained Kerry-supporting logic because of my own bias - but the Bush arguements on this board have dismayed me more often than the Kerry ones, for whatever reason.

I do believe that George Bush is not a very smart man and that his approach to leading the country appeals to very black and white evaluations and reasoning, and that isn’t a hallmark of intelligence.  Now people like Rice, Powell and Chaney are clearly very, very bright people - but they aren't the President and candidate.  I guess I think both candidates have their fair share of pretty uninformed, unsophisticated supporters who don’t have much to base their vote upon.  

I don't believe your second question is true for most Republicans.  I think most human beings are caring and generous – some more than others, but I don’t think it breaks on party affiliation.  Clearly Republicans talk a “personal responsibility” line more than Democrats, but I hold to that value myself.  

However, there is enough evidence to make me wonder if the administration is being forthright in communicating its intentions about much of its economic policy, and it makes me, someone who doesn't usually see conspiracies and corruption lurking in the shadows, wonder how much is really focus is on the common economic good and how much on a very small but powerful segment of the country.  In other words, are Bush supporters being duped?  Maybe not - but then again, maybe so.

As to the diverse and open society, at the “base” of the Republican party are fundamentalist Christians whose values drive conformity.  I know these people intimately, having grown up in the South, where Bush is very strong, and they absolutely do not value a diverse and open society. As the 21st century becomes more chaotic and challenging, the move to conformity from this base will become more strident, because that’s what people do under stress.  

Too broad a brush to just say Republicans.

Just as any group has its blind faith followers that are unwilling or afraid to open their eyes the group you are referring to are in my opinion ignorant.

One thing that truly has me stumped though...

Why, after all the facts that have come out to contradict the things Bush & Co. have been telling US, do these people still support him?

Didn't you get my point: They don't support Bush because they're uninformed, stupid people, or they're in love with him, its that they still believe in the general Republican platform.

But he does not represent the Republican platform. He has made Gov't bigger and he spends like a liberal.

Great post too, amigo (W ain't the only Rep to speak spanish!).

I too am dismayed at many of the "America: Love it or leave it" as well as the "Republicans are greedy people who want to take your money and give it to: ________ (take your pick: corporate america, Rx companies, HMOs, rich people, lobbyists, themselves/Haliburton) posts.  In some ways, we're just as guilty as the candidates of oversimplifying the issues.

On this board and in the press, however, it does seem like over-emotional lefties are more numerous than their right counterparts.  And, while the right wingers just say "go fuck off" in their own aloof way, the Kerry supporters seem to not even grasp what and why the opposition feels the way it does (see the post below in this thread) and thus conclude they're ignorant or selfish.  Maybe you're right that Bush is the cause, but I see as much anti-Cheney rhetoric here as anti-Bush.

BTW: I tend to think Bush is smarter than most people give him credit for (still no genius, mind you), but I think the truth is that none of us will really ever know.

Wow, never in a million years did I expect that a debate speech writer specializing in convenient slogans and data misinterpretation would grace our board with his presence.  Welcome!

If you take out military spending, which has always been a hallmark Republican ideal, can you, with a straight face (keyboard?), tell me that Bush is a big spender relative to Kerry?

Don't you get it ? the Bush administration is NOT giving you the typical "Republican platform"

he's saying one thing to you and completely giving you the opposite at times.

Do you REALLY think Bush is a Fiscal Conservative?
Do you REALLY think he's for LESS Government?
Do you REALLY think he's made the country SAFER?

If you can say YES, then I guess go vote for him, I doubt I'll get you to see it differently, but why do you think there are actually MANY typical conservative republicans that are speaking out against the way the Bush administration has handled several issues ? Why do you think most typical conservative republicans, even IF they support BUSH, say they think the country is heading in the wrong direction and hope Bush will change and do things differently IF he gets elected to his FIRST term ?

My question, sort of related to all this, what brought about the mean-spirited nature of political discourse today?

I remember shortly after finishing high school in the late 1980's, there was this popular conservative TV show on WWOR called the "Morton Downey Jr. Show".....He would really get mean w/the guests, w/his in your face style, then the audience would go wild....I mean, I never saw anything like that(at the time)& was shocked....Were there any shows whether radio/TV before M.D. Jr. that was so in-your-face; did shows like that exist in the 70's?.......

When did civility (and it applies to both parties) leave & the mean-spirited, f-you attitude took over??....

My guess is that the Reps will say its the Dems, Michael Moore, et. al. who are angry and started all the "hate Bush" rhetoric while the Dems will say it is Bush who polarized them.

I remember the same lefty spin when Reagan was running, hes stupid not in tough with reality. All the same lines they're running this year.The only difference was Reagan was a great debater.

Most of the anti-Bush republicans you speak of are against W's implementation in Iraq, not domestic issues.  And yes, I do believe Bush is more fiscally conservative than Kerry.  

Case in point: Health Care.

Bush's Policy: Enable private sector purchasing coops, enact tort reform, create tax advantages to keep employers in the game, use patient incentives to reduce use of expensive services like Rx, hospitals.

Kerry's Policy: Expand Medicaid/Medicare eligibility, cover more services.  Pay for it via tax revenues (although unclear who will pay when uninsured buy into FEHBP) and regulating Rx prices like we do with hospitals and physicians.

BTW: Neither will likely work, IMHO, but it clearly shows a difference in economic policy and the role of government.

How about a well reasoned, fact based, non-slogan response rather than more rhetoric laced banter?

You can't possibly claim the prescription drug bill recently passed is a conservative program.  The Bush Administration hid the true cost knowing full well that if the actual cost were known it stood no chance of passage.  

Part of Kerry's plan also includes tax advantages for employers to insure their workers.  He also would allow anyone to buy into the same plan that the members of congress have.  I believe he also has a tort reform (although I can't find any specifics right now) which would require experts to review a medical claim before a lawsuit could be initiated.  Minnesota has a plan like this and it works.

2 examples; the $375 Billion Omnibus appropriations bill & my post on "Corporate Tax Reform Bill"

OK, some fact's for you, the Bush administration has increased government spending by 13% in 2002, another 12% increase in 2003, and yet another at least another 9% increase this year, as of the first half of the year.

You can read what's in the Corporate TAX reform bill in my above post, but here are some things in the $375 Billion Omnibus appropriations bill;

- $ 1.8 million for Exotic pet disease research
- $ 50 million for an indoor rain forest in IOWA
- $ 7.3 million for Hawaiian Sea turtles
- $ 6 million for Sea Lions in Alaska
- $ 1 million for Utah to fight Mormon-cricket infestation
- $ 90,000 for Fruit-Fly research in Montpellier, FRANCE
- $ 2 million for FIRST TEE Program (to teach young people to play golf)
- $ 40 million for construction of a cargo terminal in Port of Philadelphia designed to support "high-speed military sea lift, etc." vessels that, as Sen. John McCain notes, "Do not even exist, nor are they being championed by the military"
- ADD to that and many other absurdities $278 million in "economic development initiatives" contained in the HUD portion of the bill, which according to Sen. McCain, "every single dime of that was served up as pork."

In case you didn't know, yes the Senate, the House, AND the SHRUB passed this bill at the beginning of this year.

IF, G.W. is truly concerned about being such a "good steward" of taxpayer dollars, and is a "Fiscal Conservative" as you say, he might have considered dusting off that unused VETO pen that has been collecting dust and taking up space on his Oval Office desk these past three and a half years.

OH, and they have NOT all been attempts to bolster the military or improve homeland security, that should show you that Bush is not in fact a fiscal conservative.

The truth be told I think you and I more agree about at least the need for fiscal conservation, just not on a) who's going to do a better job of it, and b) how and where the money SHOULD be spent and / or cut from to accomplish this.

In my opinion, what Bush has done, is in effect paid for his plans and his war using the USA Deficit Credit Card, and that's NOT fiscally smart, as a) there are no frequent flyer miles or cash back rewards, and b) the interest payment on that size of a debt is a killer, and the rate sucks.


-- Modified on 10/14/2004 8:40:45 PM

Politics has ALWAYS been vile. Lincoln's opponents compared him to a gorilla.

I think that when the Dems lost the House in 1994 and then later the Senate is when they started going off the deep end. They didn't know HOW to act in the minority (neither did the Republicans know how to govern as the majority). Remember when so many Dems retired back then?

The Democrats had controlled the House for over FOURTY YEARS. It had been over SIXTY YEARS since the Right controlled both.

I recommend you study Andrew Sullivan. He's a lib, strong supporter of Gay rights and writer/columnist.

I caught him on Bill Maher's show recently. He REALLY let the other libs on the show have it with both barrels. He tried to tell them how too many Democrats today had become intellectually vacant of honest criticisms. He pounded Moore's movie as lies and propoganda. He was urging Dems to straighten up and get real or their party might just disappear.

I think he was right on (no pun intended).

The Rx bill was a fiasco for both parties and I can't defend it.  Any objective 3rd party would have cut benefits for Part A and Part B to pay for Part C and anything short of that is fiscally irresponsible.  Medicare is gonna go broke not b/c of Dems or Repubs but because per capita costs and the number of eligibles are both increasing.

However, when you compare the Dem and Repub bills, the latter is unquestionably more conservative.  The Democrats supported price controls and richer coverage.  Bush supported privatization and free market.  While I resent the shenanigals regarding costs of the program and its one of the many reasons I long for a viable democratic candidate, its still cheaper than what Kerry wanted to do.

"He also would allow anyone to buy into the same plan that the members of congress have."  Yes, but WHO IS GONNA PAY FOR THIS?  Kerry doesn't have the balls to tell voters that their taxes pay for Congressmen's premiums but the same policy will cost them upwards of $500 per month.  Or, of course, higher taxes.  Plus, if you add the high utilizing uninsured to federal rolls, expect FEHBP premiums to rise overall.

For the record, I think tort reform is relatively meaningless in the big picture.  Malpractice insurance is high because doctors and hospitals practice anecdotal, unscientific, and poorly documented medicine.  But I'll leave that to another post.

Don't make me do a google search on stupid federal appropriations under Clinton.  Every president/congress has 'em.  To use them as evidence is desperate and makes you just as guilty of misleading the public as those zealot websites and news channels you criticize.

Funny, the only place you don't use statistics is breaking down military vs. non-military spending.  I betcha a Sherman Tank that if you take out the rise in military spending that Bush's overall spending levels have been reasonable.  Please don't try to turn this into a debate on Iraq - we're debating whether Bush is a traditional fiscal conservative and part of that philosophy is military spending, not whether the Iraq war was a good idea.

-- Modified on 10/14/2004 10:31:41 PM

Actually twas ever thus.  Father Coughlin, joe McC- et all were all rabble rousers.  Read some civil war discourse!  Hey, wasn't there a fight between congress men in the 1850s-ON THE FLOOR OF the house!

so how is comparing Clinton to Bush as to who is more fiscally responsible prudent to a discussion on "IF G.W. Bush IS a typical fiscally responsible REPULICAN or NOT" ???????????

You change your argument and alter your premise and dismiss fact when it's presented to you, so you're obviously not worth spending much more time with debating this issue.

My examples show you HOW Bush is NOT a typical fiscal conservative Republican, a better comparison might be for you to compare Bush's spending to the likes of Ronald Reagan or Bush Sr. than Kerry or/ Clinton (note: Clinton never claimed to be a typical fiscally responsible Republican now did he ?)  

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

see table #7 in particular

I find it oddly ironic your fisaclly irresponsible Clinton was the ONLY president to ever create a Budget SURPLUS worth a damn.

and for more info and data you can search
http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=US&cat=US_Budget

and/or

http://www.cbo.gov/Index.cfm

----------------------------------------------

PS. MY appoligies to Bitches w/ Black AMX cards

serriously, sorry to any ladies, I only used the term bitch for effect, and it applied to G. W. Shrub more than ANY Ladies