Do you support a PRINCIPLE or a PERSON?

[academic punk]

I'm an NYC resident, so I have to admit, I JUST DON'T GET IT: what is the love affair that so many americans have towards w?

Do you support what the best intentions of the Republican Party, or - to me - it's just follow the leader, even if there have been some obvious, glaring prolems and discrepancies with the PERSON?

I honestly don't recall during Clinton's years the blind devotion that W. receives and enjoys. Many Democrats - including joe Lieberman and Al Gore - took Clinton to task during his impeachment process.

It's pretty amazing the unity that W brings on in his own ranks.
(and the dissonance he brings everyone else)

[FORD]

I don't see how the question of principle vs person applies to Junior, because as a person, he's a complete piece of shit, and he has no principles whatsoever.

Republicans who voted for the Chimp out of party loyalty are only deluding themselves. Junior doesn't adhere to ONE principle of traditional conservatism.

[Big Train]

I'm not sure exactly what's being fished for here.

I voted for him because he was clearly the better choice of the two candidates. If the Dems put up a better candidate, one who wasn't going to run on "i'm NOT GW", then perhaps more votes would have happened for him.

As far as principles go, we vote according to our own ideals and priorities, as you do. Do I think GW is ideal? No, but I dont think that of ANY politician. He was a lot closer to where I was philosphically and in terms of how I interpret events and where we need to go.

As an aside, I'm curious why you bring up that your from NYC...

[academic punk]

that's the thing though - for many people, "I'm not W" was sufficient reason to vote for him!

BTW - Kerry had a lot more to offer than he communicated. So why did he keep so mum? Because focus groups and advisors said that there was enough sentiment against Bush that - literally - if people had a choice voting "For Bush" and "Not for Bush", the majority would choose the latter. So Kerry was advised to take a position to lie low, say as little as possible, and let the other guy make mistakes.

This plan obviously backfired - BADLY - in regards to the swiftboat vets, in terms of bush "daring" kerry to say he supported the war, and in many other regards.

In terms of what you had to say, Big Train, you're not quite the person I guess I was looking to hear from. It seems that a large portion of voters just have this blind adoration of the guy. You seem to be more analytical and less knee-jerk in your reasons for supporting for Bush (just as there are plenty of people that have a blind, knee-jerk hatred towards him).

anyone else out there?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Big Train
. Do I think GW is ideal? No, but I dont think that of ANY politician. He was a lot closer to where I was philosphically and in terms of how I interpret events and where we need to go.



An example PLease?

Foreign Policy?

Domestic?

[Big Train]

Originally posted by academic punk


BTW - Kerry had a lot more to offer than he communicated. So why did he keep so mum?


In terms of what you had to say, Big Train, you're not quite the person I guess I was looking to hear from. It seems that a large portion of voters just have this blind adoration of the guy. You seem to be more analytical and less knee-jerk in your reasons for supporting for Bush (just as there are plenty of people that have a blind, knee-jerk hatred towards him).

anyone else out there?


John Kerry had NOTHING more to offer. I grew up in Mass. for the 20 years he was in office and BELIEVE ME, that man had nothing..

I guess you knew what you were fishing for. You wanted to lower end of the republican party for their "knee jerk" reaction. They all feel as I do, whether or not they articulate it well.

[Big Train]

Foriegn and Domestic policy Lounge.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
John Kerry had NOTHING more to offer. I grew up in Mass. for the 20 years he was in office and BELIEVE ME, that man had nothing.

I liked Kerry personally, I thought he was dignified and capable of restoring actual bipartisan solidarity unlike Dubya.

Having said that, my sister-in-law lives in Mass. and is an avowed 'Kennedy' Democrat. She once waited on Kerry as a bank teller years ago and said he came in late vone night and was kind of a dick. He actually said, "don't you know who I am?" A big turn off! She considered voting against him but she ended up voting for him anyway.



I guess you knew what you were fishing for. You wanted to lower end of the republican party for their "knee jerk" reaction. They all feel as I do, whether or not they articulate it well.

BigT, you probably pull down a lot of scratch and will actually get some tax relief (I love how they spin that one--relief, like we pay anything near what the Europeans pay). Those poor saps have little or nothing to gain and a lot to lose with Dubya's economic mismanagement.

[Big Train]

I pull down a decent amount of scratch, not so much since downloading and consolidation took a HUGE bite out of it...relief is always good.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
I pull down a decent amount of scratch, not so much since downloading and consolidation took a HUGE bite out of it...relief is always good.



"THOSE PINKO BASTARDS!"

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Big Train
John Kerry had NOTHING more to offer. I grew up in Mass. for the 20 years he was in office and BELIEVE ME, that man had nothing..

I guess you knew what you were fishing for. You wanted to lower end of the republican party for their "knee jerk" reaction. They all feel as I do, whether or not they articulate it well.


You know, I feel kinda busted here...

You have a point there, BT. I may well have been, without even realizing it. But by the same token, I think you could actually articulate what it is that you feel Bush offers you (is it the taxes? is it the feeling of domestic security?) and what you mean when you say "Kerry had nothing to offer".

[tobinentinc]

Well I don't fully support any politican, because ALL of them are scum. I support the president because he upholds most of the ideals I like to see in a leader.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by academic punk
You know, I feel kinda busted here...

You have a point there, BT. I may well have been, without even realizing it. But by the same token, I think you could actually articulate what it is that you feel Bush offers you (is it the taxes? is it the feeling of domestic security?) and what you mean when you say "Kerry had nothing to offer".

Well, I pretty much agree with most of his core positions. Social Security reform ABSOLUTELY must happen, his tax policies, his stance towards foriegn policy (Mistakes aside). The only major issue I really disagree on (and I don't agree with ANY politician on) is immigration.

When I say "Kerry had nothing", I mean that in terms of his policy. When pressed about his positions, he was very non-committal, at the EXACT time he should have been committal, allowing me to evaluate them. He may have looked and sounded more presidential, but the keys to my vote aren't based on appearances. His War on Terror strategy initially was "I have a plan and in time you will hear of it". Don't jack me off before you even have the job!! He failed in explaining himself, then when he did, he didn't sound very convincing.

His track record in the Senate was troublesome. Not just the votes either. In the 20 years he has been in the Senate, the amount of major legislation he introduced is nil. He basically rode Uncle Ted's coattails and employing Boston's Big Dig kept a lock on Labors vote every time re-election came up.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Big Train
Well, I pretty much agree with most of his core positions. Social Security reform ABSOLUTELY must happen, his tax policies, his stance towards foriegn policy (Mistakes aside). The only major issue I really disagree on (and I don't agree with ANY politician on) is immigration.

When I say "Kerry had nothing", I mean that in terms of his policy. When pressed about his positions, he was very non-committal, at the EXACT time he should have been committal, allowing me to evaluate them. He may have looked and sounded more presidential, but the keys to my vote aren't based on appearances. His War on Terror strategy initially was "I have a plan and in time you will hear of it". Don't jack me off before you even have the job!! He failed in explaining himself, then when he did, he didn't sound very convincing.

His track record in the Senate was troublesome. Not just the votes either. In the 20 years he has been in the Senate, the amount of major legislation he introduced is nil. He basically rode Uncle Ted's coattails and employing Boston's Big Dig kept a lock on Labors vote every time re-election came up.


Hey, thanks BT. I actually agree with SS reform: I freelance, and I see 15% of my earnings go into this (full-time employees pay half, while their employer pays the other). I would like more control over where it goes. I don't think Bush's plan is as radical as it's being made out to be: inevitably, yes, some people will make bad cohoices in how they invest their money, but I don't think the quantity that you are able to "play" with will destroy the general public as a whole.

Kerry is a different issue: anyone in the senate for a long period is going to have a voting record that is either contradictory at points, or, seems it. There was some truth in that rhetoric, but I think Team Rove milked that one a little more than it was really worth.

BTW, if you haven't been able to figure it out yet, I'm an independent. So, as far as the last mayor's election, I voted Bloomberg (republican). BUt I think NYC republicans are a completely different breed from a great deal of the rest of the country, in what thier beliefs and their constituents.

[academic punk]

whoops - have to run - biz calling.

[Big Train]

Anytime. I am a sucker for a rational,non emotional thread...