Give me an excuse for voting for Bush in 2004

[Patrick Degan]

Basically there were and are only three motivations to have voted for Bush and today's GOP (and by extension, The Gimp in '08 ): Greed, Stupidity, or Fear. All three were no doubt present to one degree or another, since the Greedy would have to have been Stupid enough to ignore the long-term consequences of a Bush presidency, and certainly Feared a Democratic administration over the prospect of taxation to one degree or another, but that's part-and-parcel with the Greed, of course. The Fearful, who find themselves easily cowed by shadows, are decidedly Stupid enough to not even see they're being bullshitted into voting against their own interests.

And then there are the truly Stupid, who can't even offer up anything more than the lamest excuse for casting a vote for a man who shouldn't be put in charge of a pay-toilet much less a nation of 300 million people and it's arsenal and either are dumb enough to believe that the GOP will make them rich too (Greed) or that if Rosie O'Donnel is allowed to marry her lesbian lover they too will be forced into gay marriage or that Osama binHussein's Vast Phantom Terrorist Army with its Vast Phantom WMD Arsenal is waiting to follow us home to conquer America and force us all to pray towards Mecca five times a day (Fear). This apart from those who simply voted because they didn't like Kerry's style or that he "looked French" or that Chimpy would be a good guy to go bowling with, or Rush said to and that's good enough (Rock-Stupid —please try walking fully upright for a few minutes, you might actually like it).

[Tsyroc]

I've known quite a few people who are essentially middle to upper middle class who almost always vote Republican because they feel that they get to keep more of their money with Republican's in office.

In the past I might have thought the same way but it was obvious that while we were paying less in taxes under Bush it wasn't because he was spending less money. He was just borrowing more of it to spend so we'll all be taking that hit sometime in the future.

So the people I know who voted for Bush in 2004, were worried about their own money and were stupid about it. Pretty much exactly what Degan said.

I don't know anyone who said they were voting for Bush because they felt safter with him in office at the time but I'm betting that was at least a secondary reason for some of the people I know who voted for him.

[Elfdart]

McSheppard is a perfect example of what I said. His motives may be misguided and abhorrent to the rest of us, but that doesn't mean they're not intelligent.

In point of fact, they are 100% fucktarded.

The only pro-Bush reasoning I ever read that wasn't the ravings of bigots, lemmings, semen-crusted war whores or other morons was from far-left writer Alexander Cockburn, who pointed out that between the Iraq War and Dubya's domestic policy bankrupting the country, it will be a good long time before America -Fuck Yeah! tries to sack another country. The loss in Vietnam bought 16 years of relative peace for Uncle Sam, and our standard of living was MUCH higher back then. The loss in Iraq and the foundering economy might get us twenty years of minding our own fucking business for a change.

If John Kerry had won in 2004, maybe we could have left Iraq in a halfway dignified manner, doubled down on killing Bin Laden and people might have believed that imperialism is OK, as long someone who knows something about war is in charge -or at least isn't a complete imbecile- and knows what he's doing.

[The Yosemite Bear]

As to "Chongo" he's a thief, a sociopath, and and asshole, so yeah his reasoning is fairly sound, and he's written very good papers on Heisenburg, Einstine and other bits of physics. He also has a ID website just so he can laugh at how stupid the american prols are.

[K. A. Pital]

Yea, I would believe that people who actually wanted for America to end up in a crisis, to boost their own political goals, might have intelligently wanted Bush to be elected.

[Knife]

Meh, I voted for neither of the assholes. However, if you really believed in the neocon thought process or were one of the Christian right fucktards, you very well would have made the 'intelligent' choice to vote for Bush.

[Darth Wong]

Thats one I think about a lot, honestly. If Stuart is a case study on what people are like in Strategic level Policy, then the Bush Admin cant possibly be retarded as they appear.

Yes they can. Stuart is an expert. The Bush Administration is composed of politicians who have a long history of ignoring and/or cherry-picking the ideas of experts who don't tell them what they want to hear.

So, what is their justification for their polices? The one I prefer is Peak Oil, which makes everything connect.

This makes Bush looking prescient, which Im not sure how I feel about.

Peak Oil was a concern long before 2000; it just didn't hit the public consciousness until recently. No prescience is required. But this whole hypothesis rests upon an assumption of expertise in the Bush Administration which is simply not justifiable in light of their astounding incompetence in Iraq.

[The Yosemite Bear]

well what do you expect?

We've been brought up to ridiqule jimmy carter and his peak oil concerns since 1980...

[Gandalf]

Ah yes, that's a good reminder: I remember that now. But that's stupid too, because the underlying reasoning is that a change in administration will harm the war effort, but it presumes that the current administration is doing a reasonable job, otherwise logic would suggest that retaining the current administration will also harm the war effort. And there was incontrovertible evidence at the time that the administration had been incompetent in its conduct of this war.

It also assumes that the war effort is worth continuing.

In addition to that, how can that excuse fly when the WoT is supposed to take decades and have so little idea as to who the enemy is and how the hell they'll be defeated?

[Illuminatus Primus]

ok here goes:

The world is running out of oil. Lets keep the worlds most powerful army in the middle east so the lions share of their oil comes to us.

That's an interesting angle: ignore the administration's vainglorious rhetoric and assume that the occupation of Iraq was intended to give the US a stranglehold on Middle East oil exports.

Unfortunately, it appears to me that OPEC is not (and was never) particularly inclined to reserve most of its oil exports for the US, with or without an occupying army in Iraq. If China wants to buy their oil, they're perfectly happy to sell it to them.

The thesis is with the U.S. army ensconced in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Qatar, Turkey, and now Iraq too, a significant amount of the oil production could be seized as a contingency should things go sideways.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Thats usually how I justify the Iraq War. If peak oil is correct, then a sound strategy would be to gain control of it.

Course, if you play that game, most of the Adminstration's actions make sense. Increased police powers and such for population control, getting ready for the Long Emergency.

Ugh, don't read Kunstler's Long Emergency, he doesn't know what he's talking about; he's just a polemicist with a fetish for apocalypse. What he gets right and sounds good about is more coincidence than a reflection of his intelligence or foresight.

[Darth Fanboy]

The only pro-Bush argument I ever heard that had any sort of logic behind it was that Bush wasn't going to raise taxes but Kerry would. Unofrtunately I don't think those middle class voters realized that Bush wasn't going to be helping them out nearly as much as his rich buddies, and I think now more than a few feel a little duped. "Party of Fiscal Responsibility" my ass.

[The Spartan]

The only pro-Bush argument I ever heard that had any sort of logic behind it was that Bush wasn't going to raise taxes but Kerry would. Unofrtunately I don't think those middle class voters realized that Bush wasn't going to be helping them out nearly as much as his rich buddies, and I think now more than a few feel a little duped. "Party of Fiscal Responsibility" my ass.

What's funny is that Bush did raise taxes: on teenager's college funds. And paid for rich people's tax cuts by doing that and raising fees on services that the middle class and poor use most. And by cutting Federal Student Loan and Aid programs.

So much for leaving no child behind. But why help the country out by educating the newest generation when you're rich friends need new ivory back scratchers?

[LadyTevar]

Don't ask me... I voted Gore.

2004, not 2000 Tev.

Uh... yah... So I hear

N: You do know you're being teased about voting for Gore right
T: What? Why?
N: He ran in 2000
T: .......... What? Wasn't it Gore in o-four? With Dean?
N: Dean ran in o-four, but Kerry was the candidate.
T: ........... It was Kerry?
N: And this is why I called him a cardboard cutout... you can't even remember he ran.

I still say that my statement stands. I voted for Gore in 00 and for the Democrats in 04. Therefore, Bush's reign of terror is not my fault, as I actively attempted to prevent it.

[Darth Fanboy]

So much for leaving no child behind. But why help the country out by educating the newest generation when you're rich friends need new ivory back scratchers?

Because those children can't vote! That and they have little hope if any of belonging to the wealthy aging caucasian male power structure.

Hopefully in the future when the US has regained their sanity we look back and say "what a fucking moron."

[Frank Hipper]

I didn't vote for Bush, but in a similar vein to some of what's been said, I did suggest voting Bush at another board because a Bush victory would eventually be a complete disaster for the Republican party and it's Neocon hardcore.

[MichaelFerrariF1]

There's no reason to vote for Bush, even if you're a conservative. I consider myself a libertarian on most issues, so I hate the guy.

[Straha]

I didn't vote for him, but the closest to an intelligent reason I heard was something like:

"Kerry has given no solid plan on what he wants to do to fix Iraq, the Economy and Foreign Policy. I would much rather stay with the man who has a half-retarded plan and policy in mind then switch horses mid-crisis to someone who has no fucking clue what the hell they're going to do besides 'make it better... somehow'."

[Anguirus]

Re: the OP. The prevailing opinion I've seen is that Presidents shouldn't be switched out during wartime. That's how many justified their vote in '04, but I'm not sure most of those messages still exist for me to show examples. I do recall reading it on Gene Simmons website as well.

This might be another stupid reason, but I think a big reason for Americans not wanting to switch out a president in wartime is less "brand loyalty" than history-class-propaganda.

The first war most Americans learn about (not counting the Revolution, in which we only had pre-Washington presidents whom no one has ever heard of, and which was so inglorious that most of us learn only vague generalities and the bit about Valley Forge) is the Civil War. One of the crises the Union found itself in during this war was a very serious, credible threat to Abraham Lincoln's reelection in the form of pro-Southern Democrats.

The only reasons that Lincoln won and continued the prosecution of the war against the Confederacy (rather than a negotiated peace by his successor) were a) his opponents never really got their act together (i.e. nominating McClellan, who was pro-slavery but still wanted to crush the Southern rebels) and b) a string of last-minute, devastating victories that got the people (notably the Army) on Lincoln's side and essentially destroying the South as a country.

Why is this relevant? Well, in the simplified story most of us get in our "advanced" history classes (typical ones may not even mention the 1864 election), the narrative is presented as a pack of dirty traitors trying to oust Lincoln (master of the righteous habeas corpus suspension). While in that case it was not far off from the truth, idiots may consider it to have general applicability...traitors will try to unseat a president during wartime just before he can ensure success. Even reasonably intelligent people may have caught this brainbug (it was on my mind, though I quickly dismissed it...of course, I couldn't vote yet then anyway).

American history glorifies our military "success" even when it barely qualifies. For instance, we have canonized the wretched scumbag Woodrow Wilson for "winning" World War I. We also see Roosevelt's victories over isolationist opponents to be essential to the destruction of the Nazis and the Japanese militarists. On the other hand, Lyndon Johnson was ousted during Vietnam...and we lost that war (even the textbooks can't spin this one too far).

There is also a powerful and insidious thread of "the president is always right" in mainstream American history. Every president is mentioned and, usually, praised in every textbook. Their opponents, on the other hand, are easy to demonize, as is the Congress, because they are faceless. This can be jarring when the same source will praise Lincoln for crushing the South, then praise Johnson for surviving the "Radical" Congress' attempt to impeach him for sabotaging Reconstruction!

So why vote for Bush? Well, because he's already a president, which means he must be right (as opposed to the "other" guy, who wants to end the war despite the possibility of success). Because if we oust the president, it means we're living through a Vietnam, not a World War II.

[Illuminatus Primus]

That's way too involved a historical-based reason for almost all cases of American retard thinking on elections. How many of those people do you think even know there was major domestic opposition or even pro-slavery politicians in the Loyal States?

[Anguirus]

^ Well, we already know why fucking retards voted for Bush. This might be a factor for people who fancy themselves having brain cells. (There are any number of pseudo-intellectuals who twist historical examples into GOP propaganda.)

Frankly, I think the instant canonization of any elected or appointed president in our pathetic excuses for history textbooks is as significant as it is sickening. It's subtle, but kids get the message (even the fucking retards).

[RedImperator]

Four come to mind immediately.

Number 1: was a statement by Kerry that under his administration, the US would stop producing highly enriched uranium, which would lead to the eventual loss by attrition of the entire US nuclear arsenal. It's one of those ideas that sound nice, but is actually extremely dangerous: the smaller an arsenal gets, the more vulnerable it is to being destroyed in a first strike, and thus the pressure to launch your own first strike increases. It's a nasty paradox and one of the reasons the nuclear genie refuses to go back into its bottle.

Rebuttal: Kerry isn't an idiot, and politicians break campaign promises all the time. That idea would die quietly about ten minutes into the Kerry Administration, when the president got his first national security briefing.

Number 2: If you think the Iraq War in 2004 was still salvageable, or had reasonable cause to believe it in 2004, a vote for Bush makes sense. This is especially true if you think the war is winnable, but will take a long commitment that will carry on past the 2008 election.

Rebuttal: In part, same as above. If the war really is winnable and worth the effort, honest advisors will tell Kerry that and he will likely reverse course on the war, betting it will either be over before the 2008 election or going so well he'll get reelected anyway. Another factor: though the extent of the administration's bungling in Iraq wasn't readily apparent to the general public in 2004, the administration obviously badly screwed up and there's no indication it will magically get more competent.

Number 3: You think Kerry's proposed tax increases will be a drain on the economy.

Rebuttal: Those "increases" are just reversals of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and capital gains--taxes which were in effect during the Clinton years, when the economy was doing fine. And it's not like any of the supposed prosperity generated by the Bush tax cuts trickled down to the middle class, anyway.

Number 4: You feel John Kerry's anemic, disorganized campaign is a sign the man lacks vital leadership abilities necessary to successfully execute the office of the presidency.

Rebuttal: George W. Bush

...

I don't think any of these reasons are especially strong. Number 2 is probably strongest, and it depends on the voter not knowing the extent to which the administration was fucking everything up. Still, I think they're passable, especially considering how poorly Kerry campaigned. Even if they are easy to rebut, the Kerry campaign may well have failed to rebut them.

[Crayz9000]

For the record, after what happened in the four years leading up to 2004, I was so disgusted with Bush that I voted for Kerry, although I rather preferred the libertarian candidate (can't even remember his name now), I didn't see him having a snowball's chance in Hell of winning.

That said, I wasn't terribly fond of Kerry, but as has been said many many times now, he was head and shoulders aboe the gimp currently in office. Literally and figuratively, actually.

[Darth Wong]

I didn't vote for him, but the closest to an intelligent reason I heard was something like:

"Kerry has given no solid plan on what he wants to do to fix Iraq, the Economy and Foreign Policy. I would much rather stay with the man who has a half-retarded plan and policy in mind then switch horses mid-crisis to someone who has no fucking clue what the hell they're going to do besides 'make it better... somehow'."

People like this were blissfully unaware that Bush was actively doing things to make the economy worse for 95% of Americans.