What's wrong with "Anybody but Bush"?

[Darth Wong]

I keep hearing people deride the ABB platform as stupid, vacuous, etc. Could someone explain precisely why it's so stupid?

Suppose you're a factory owner, and your old plant manager retires so you hire a new one. In short order, the plant starts losing money, employee complaints and labour problems skyrocket, and product quality goes down the toilet. Do you:

1. Keep him on because you want to "stay the course"?
2. Keep him on indefinitely until you can find someone who has a plan that's guaranteed to solve all of the plant's problems?
3. Fire the incompetent shitstain and hire someone who's got decent qualifications in the hopes that he'll do a better job?

Virtually anyone in his right mind would choose option #3: fire the incompetent shitstain and go get somebody else, even if he doesn't come with a guarantee of solving all of his predecessor's problems.

Yet when this same basic approach is applied to the presidential race, we are told that it's stupid, vacuous, and not a real reason to dump the incompetent shitstain. I'm going to echo a line from Ross Perot, back when he ran for office: if I ran a business this way, I'd be out of business.

[Wicked Pilot]

I'm probably not the person to answer this since I haven't been harping on the ABB campaign, but for me, I don't really like the idea of telling the Democrats that they can select what ever puppet they want as their candidtate because ABB guarantees them a vote. Of course Bush has fucked the country so thoroughly that it's hard to imagine the Democrats picking somebody worse, but they probably could if they digged hard enough.

[Knife]

Short answer; you voted like Bush, but aren't Bush.

Basicly what ABB stands for. Kerry's answere's on most things ain't that differnet than Bushies, rather than ABB.

[The Kernel]

There's nothing really wrong with this mentality except that there is a certain expectation for a Presidential candidate that seeks to replace an incumbent to establish a platform that is inherently superior to that of the current administration. Also of concern to Bush advocates is tthat voting Bush out of office is seen as a loss of faith in the principles he has towards his foreign policy (War on Terror) and as such voters want to make sure a Bush replacement wouldn't be seen as soft on terrorism.

[Stormbringer]

I keep hearing people deride the ABB platform as stupid, vacuous, etc. Could someone explain precisely why it's so stupid?

Becuase it's essentially replacing a proven incompetent without any attempt to get some one more qualified. Most people would not fire a incompetent manager in favor of some one less competent.

By the logic of Anyone But Bush, we'd still be better of even if we voted in the National Socialist candidate (yes, sadly there are registered Nazis). It's fine to say that replacing Bush with Kerry might be better; but to say Anyone But Bush is basically irrational in that it assumes that any candidate at all is better. The people that vote for Kerry strictly for that reason are vacous in that they have no idea the comptence of Kerry, they just hate Bush.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

It's kind of disheartening in an election when the biggest reason to vote for one candidate is not being the other guy, but I say that it's still a valid justification, since it's pretty much the same as voting for someone because they're supposedly the lesser of the two evils.

[Darth Wong]

I keep hearing people deride the ABB platform as stupid, vacuous, etc. Could someone explain precisely why it's so stupid?

Becuase it's essentially replacing a proven incompetent without any attempt to get some one more qualified. Most people would not fire a incompetent manager in favor of some one less competent.

How is this relevant to the case at hand or the analogy? You would have to work pretty hard to prove that Kerry is less competent than Bush. So far the leading argument against his competence is that he has no clear platform for accomplishing the impossible, ie- erasing the effect of 4 years of gross mismanagement.

[The Cleric]

Becuase it's essentially replacing a proven incompetent without any attempt to get some one more qualified. Most people would not fire a incompetent manager in favor of some one less competent.

How is this relevant to the case at hand or the analogy? You would have to work pretty hard to prove that Kerry is less competent than Bush. So far the leading argument against his competence is that he has no clear platform for accomplishing the impossible, ie- erasing the effect of 4 years of gross mismanagement.

Whether you approve of it or not, Bush has run a far better campaign than Kerry.

[Gil Hamilton]

Whether you approve of it or not, Bush has run a far better campaign than Kerry.

Being able to run a successful campaign is something entirely different than holding a political office. The skills used in being elected aren't the same skills that make for a good president.

[Stormbringer]

How is this relevant to the case at hand or the analogy?

Becuase that's the logic of Anybody But Bush; that any candidate at all is better than the George Bush. And if the only reason you can give to vote for Kerry is then that is a pretty good sign that he's no improvement on Bush. The Anyone But Bush arguement is far, far different from the arguement than even the Kerry is the lesser evil arguement.

You would have to work pretty hard to prove that Kerry is less competent than Bush.

Kerry would indeed have to work hard to rpove; unfortunately he's put a lot of effort into just that if his campaign is any judge. However he did well in the debate so perhaps there's some hope.

So far the leading argument against his competence is that he has no clear platform for accomplishing the impossible, ie- erasing the effect of 4 years of gross mismanagement.

I would agree. However, if he wants to argue he can fix it he ought to be arguing for what he can do to fix the situation, not making promises he can't back up. So far he's done the latter (and had it shot down).

[Knife]

I keep hearing people deride the ABB platform as stupid, vacuous, etc. Could someone explain precisely why it's so stupid?

Becuase it's essentially replacing a proven incompetent without any attempt to get some one more qualified. Most people would not fire a incompetent manager in favor of some one less competent.

How is this relevant to the case at hand or the analogy? You would have to work pretty hard to prove that Kerry is less competent than Bush. So far the leading argument against his competence is that he has no clear platform for accomplishing the impossible, ie- erasing the effect of 4 years of gross mismanagement.

Sorry Mike, but replacing an ass with an ass isn't a logical argument. Kerry's postions on the major issues don't really reject Bush's position, rather just say he'd be Bush's positions with Kerry's perspective.

[Joe]

ABB may just be enough to get Kerry elected - assuming there are enough people willing to cast an ABB vote for him. However, it will undermine him as President in the long run.

[SirNitram]

The problem with ABB only exists if you subscribe to a Golden Mean Fallacy, that because Kerry ain't great, he's just as bad as Bush. This will be danced around, but as this thread is quickly proving, that's about all there is.

[Rogue 9]

The problem with ABB only exists if you subscribe to a Golden Mean Fallacy, that because Kerry ain't great, he's just as bad as Bush. This will be danced around, but as this thread is quickly proving, that's about all there is.

No, the problem with ABB is that, if this is the only motive such people have for voting for the Democrat's candidate, then it stands to reason that they'd vote for whoever it was, even if said person is far worse than Bush (Stalin, for instance). After all, said other person isn't Bush, correct? It's a bad way to decide who you're voting for.

[SirNitram]

The problem with ABB only exists if you subscribe to a Golden Mean Fallacy, that because Kerry ain't great, he's just as bad as Bush. This will be danced around, but as this thread is quickly proving, that's about all there is.

No, the problem with ABB is that, if this is the only motive such people have for voting for the Democrat's candidate, then it stands to reason that they'd vote for whoever it was, even if said person is far worse than Bush (Stalin, for instance). After all, said other person isn't Bush, correct? It's a bad way to decide who you're voting for.

Thank you for repeating verbatim a pile of shit that was refuted some time ago. Unless there is evidence that the anybody being voted for is worse, as long Bush is gone, it's an improvement.

I realize some people in this forum are hopelessly out to lunch and naive, but sometimes you cut your losses and go for the lesser of two evils. It's called living in the real world. Try it sometime.

[Darth Wong]

Sorry Mike, but replacing an ass with an ass isn't a logical argument.

Good thing it's not my argument, then. What I'm saying is that we have a manager with a proven track record of gross incompetence and mismanagement, along with repeatedly lying to the board of directors. Any board of directors in the country would fire the guy even if the new guy doesn't have a track record yet. And as people are fond of pointing out, serving in Senate is not the same as being President.

I love the way not one person so far in this thread has deigned to even vaguely or tangentially address the analogy which was posed in the original post in order to explain the argument I'm putting forward.

[tharkûn]

The problem with ABB is not for the next four years, but for the four after that. In the short term it might yield results, though in the case of Kerry I seriously doubt it, in the long term it perpetuates this current crap where parties pick candidates like John Kerry and George Bush rather than say John McCain or Tom Vilsack. How many republicans swallowed their bile in 2000 when voting Bush? From the libertarian wing of the party to the log cabin republicans, plenty of people voted for Bush because he wasn't Clinton's veep. Voting against the other guy is how we got Bush in the first place.

If the major parties don't have to actually delivery anything for your vote then they won't deliver anything for your vote. Take gay marriage, I'm reasonably sure most of the people for whom gay marriage is their top priority issue will vote Kerry, even though he has publically come out against it. Will Kerry have any incentive to move forward on gay marriage and risk pissing off some of the religious types who voted for him? Not really. If the other side opposes the issue and the people who vote upon that issue are willing to give you their vote just because the other guy is an idiot, then by and large you have nothing to gain by advocating the issue.

You basically have two ways of compelling the parties to advocate your cause: withhold funding or withhold your vote. Vote for change, vote none of the above.

[Stormbringer]

I love the way not one person so far in this thread has deigned to even vaguely or tangentially address the analogy which was posed in the original post in order to explain the argument I'm putting forward.

Actually I did. My point is that if you're going to fire him. The problem is America doesn't have the option of conducting a real job search, unlike private businesses. That abitrarly limits the feild. Of course any company will fire the offending manager. But it would be stupid of a company to replace Martha Stewart with Kenneth Lay; which is the situation we're in.

As it stands trying to apply the private industry analogy doesn't quite work.

[Darth Wong]

I love the way not one person so far in this thread has deigned to even vaguely or tangentially address the analogy which was posed in the original post in order to explain the argument I'm putting forward.

Actually I did.

Nope, you just dismissed the options given as a failure to find someone more qualified. The problem is that your rebuttal has nothing whatsoever to do with the analogy; in real-life, you would probably wind up hiring someone with similar qualifications to the previous guy because you wouldn't have hired the first guy withouy adequate qualifications in the first place.

That's how it is: you hire managers, you pay a certain amount, you expect a certain amount of education and experience, but after that it's still a bit of a crapshoot. Sometimes you'll get a moron, sometimes you'll get a good guy. On paper, before hiring, they both look the same. But once one of them has demonstrated a record of gross incompetence, mismanagement, and dishonesty, you just get another one. You don't necessarily want or need to find someone with more qualifications; if the qualifications were inadequate to do the job you wouldn't have hired the first guy with those same qualifications.

My point is that if you're going to fire him. The problem is America doesn't have the option of conducting a real job search, unlike private businesses. That abitrarly limits the feild. Of course any company will fire the offending manager. But it would be stupid of a company to replace Martha Stewart with Kenneth Lay; which is the situation we're in.

Again, you're trying to prove that both candidates have the same record of incompetence and dishonesty. That's simply a lie; Kerry has a so-so resume and no record as a president, just like Bush did 4 years ago. But Bush has now demonstrated incompetence and dishonesty in the job.

As it stands trying to apply the private industry analogy doesn't quite work.

Sure it does; you just refuse to accept the analogy as given, so you keep trying to dishonestly modify it to suit your purposes.

[Knife]

Sorry Mike, but replacing an ass with an ass isn't a logical argument.

Good thing it's not my argument, then. What I'm saying is that we have a manager with a proven track record of gross incompetence and mismanagement, along with repeatedly lying to the board of directors. Any board of directors in the country would fire the guy even if the new guy doesn't have a track record yet. And as people are fond of pointing out, serving in Senate is not the same as being President.

I love the way not one person so far in this thread has deigned to even vaguely or tangentially address the analogy which was posed in the original post in order to explain the argument I'm putting forward.

I read that as 'Kerry isn't as bad as Bush', tell me why that isn't a strawman. What is Kerry going to do about it? He's a damn 'red herring' when it comes to 'Bush sucks'. What the hell is the damn opposition actually going to do?

Keep in mind that the congress really ain't going to change too much, what the hell is Kerry actually going to do?

So far, and I might be wrong, you're trying to prove a negative. Kerry is better because?...............................

[Darth Wong]

I read that as 'Kerry isn't as bad as Bush', tell me why that isn't a strawman.

No, you said "replacing an ass with an ass", thus arguing that they have exactly identical records. That has nothing to do with my argument. Both have qualifications but one of them has been driving the business into bankruptcy, while the other one is an unknown quantity. In business, given that choice, anyone would choose option B.

What is Kerry going to do about it? He's a damn 'red herring' when it comes to 'Bush sucks'. What the hell is the damn opposition actually going to do?

Again, totally ignoring the analogy and hence the argument.

Keep in mind that the congress really ain't going to change too much, what the hell is Kerry actually going to do?

Again, totally ignoring the analogy and hence the argument.

So far, and I might be wrong, you're trying to prove a negative. Kerry is better because?...............................

Again, totally ignoring the analogy and hence the argument.

[Agrajag]

So in other words, if you're in a car, driving towards the cliff and the driver tells you he's not going to turn no matter what, instead of kicking him out from behind the wheel, you just sit there and go over the cliff with him?

WAKE UP! We are going in the wrong direction on this thing. It's time for a change and, at this point your choice is a) continue towards the cliff or b) role the dice with a guy who didn't just fall off a hobo train and who actually has been a success in life (yeah, like anyone here wouldn't change places with Kerry, Puuuuuhhhhleeeeez) and see if the new direction gets us away from the cliff. If it does, great! If it doesn't how can anyone sit there with a straight face and say that someone with this level of experience (again, we're not talking about LITERALLY ANYONE here) is LIKELY to have things turn out worse.

Suddenly the terrorists will have free reign? Right.... Suddenly the economy will go from crap to 1930? Give me a break.

If you're only argument against ABB is the LITERAL phrasing of it, then you've already lost the argument.

[Agrajag]

BTW, my new answer to anyone who has ANY problem in the world is going to be, "Call Poland."

[Knife]

I read that as 'Kerry isn't as bad as Bush', tell me why that isn't a strawman.

No, you said "replacing an ass with an ass", thus arguing that they have exactly identical records. That has nothing to do with my argument. Both have qualifications but one of them has been driving the business into bankruptcy, while the other one is an unknown quantity. In business, given that choice, anyone would choose option B.

But Kerry isn't a unknown qualification. He has a solid voting record over the last decade *if not longer in Mass*. He is NOT an unknown. You can't compare him as such. So far, if you follow his campaign, he is Bush with a bit of the UN.

[Stormbringer]

Nope, you just dismissed the options given as a failure to find someone more qualified. The problem is that your rebuttal has nothing whatsoever to do with the analogy; in real-life, you would probably wind up hiring someone with similar qualifications to the previous guy because you wouldn't have hired the first guy withouy adequate qualifications in the first place.

The problem is Kerry's qualifications are actually below those Bush brought to the table in 2000. He's never held anything but legislative office, and as you yourself said the Senate isn't the Presidency. Right now you've got a guy that's far less qualified than the guy you hired before, but hasn't lied too much on the job (He is a Senator and he campaign hasn't been squeeky clean) and hasn't fucked up too often.

Trying to pretend they have identical 'resumes' is just preposterous.

Again, you're trying to prove that both candidates have the same record of incompetence and dishonesty. That's simply a lie; Kerry has a so-so resume and no record as a president, just like Bush did 4 years ago. But Bush has now demonstrated incompetence and dishonesty in the job.

I would argue that their qualifications are different. Bush has had a very different track in getting to the White House than Kerry has had so far. Kerry's got a so-so record as a Senator, but it's not necessarily one that suits him to executive office. Right now Kerry's Employee of the Month but never held a management job.

As for the lying yes Bush has, but how does that improve Kerry's qualifications any? Right now Kerry's basically the guy that came into the interveiw already out to lunch; he's phoned in the interveiw. He's blown chance after chance; and his learning curve doesn't seem that great either.

Sure it does; you just refuse to accept the analogy as given, so you keep trying to dishonestly modify it to suit your purposes

No, I'm saying it doesn't work because it's a forced fit. The candidates aren't equally qualified but in all reality there's only the two choices. Right now we're basically stuck with either the creep manager or the Employee of the Month, who's only experience has been watching management from the job floor. I don't know of any job at all that you can only pick from on possible applicants.