politics, but not mine.

[staxxy]

So I *wasn't* going to post anything political but then a friend of mine posted the reasons why she voted for Bush. I know a lot of you have been baffled on this issue so I got permission to link to it here. No flaming or anything kids. I just thought that those of you that went looking for answers to the question "why??" who never got them, might appreciate seeing hers.

While I am never going to be a Bush supporter (unless we are talking about *planting things*), I do understand a lot better now. She has a lot of valid points. I have some pretty awesome friends. Even the ones I do not agree with completely.

And I am totally okay with the fact that I don't agree with all of my friends completely. Really, I don't think I agree with *anyone* completely (not even sirriamnis, although we tend to agree more than not). Do you?

(apologies to those I promised no politics to, I really had to link to this one)

Comments

[themercymachine.livejournal.com]

I find it to fairly ignorant justifications and fail to find any of her answers valid, but for the sake of avoiding net drama I'll avoid getting into it. Back in my teens, I might of agreed with her. I believed in the system.

(I didn't vote for either of the two pro-war candidates, by the way.)

[staxxy.livejournal.com]

fair enough.

[themercymachine.livejournal.com]

But yeah, I have nothing against having friends with opposing viewpoints. (I just tend not to have them on my friends' list, it'd just turn into a long continuos pointless conflict if I did so.)

[visioninblack.livejournal.com]

I don't want friends that have ALL the same beliefs and ideas as me.. yes, we need to have some common ground, but... if they do not have their own thoughts and feelings then life would be boring. It keeps me learning and my mind OPEN...

[staxxy.livejournal.com]

*indeed*. :D

[staxxy.livejournal.com]

*giggle* I believe that this information would be irrelevant for the vast majority of people who read this, but a little anal play can indeed be quite stimulating. :D

[mrda.livejournal.com]

Glad you posted this, Stax! I'm getting sick of my Democrat-voting friends declaring: "OMG! All Bushie supporters are idiots - if you voted for him FUCK YOU!!" etc....

The Bush supporters on my friends list have very good reasons for voting for him, despite his flaws; just as Kerry/ Anti-Bush voters have their reasons I agree with. Under the tyranny of your two-party system (and this is what it comes down to, despite alternatives, because people seem too settled and content to consider alternatives) to proclaim one candidate a messiah and the other the Great Satan is to take a rather blinkered and ignorant view of things...

[staxxy.livejournal.com]

indeed. Personally I find that neither of these men walks on water. Nor in water, without polluting it. :(

Pleas check my response...

[bitobear.livejournal.com]

Howdy,

Please return to this thread and check my response elsewere in this discussion. I agree that the pure invective that has been floating around is unwarrented and unhelpful. I would be interested your rebuttal to my citations.

The response I posted in her blog...(in case it gets deleted)

[bitobear.livejournal.com]

I didn't watch More's movie until after the election, I actually did extensive research on my own. My disagreement with you is thus:

There were plenty of reasons to oust Saddam Husien. Bush used *none* of the valid reasons. He essentially "framed him" for 9/11 by lying to the American public.

Clinton had an excellent record against terrorism, Bush did nothing before 9/11, that nothing included allowing the Clinton anti-terror programs to fall completely into disarray.

Bush essentially _allowed_ 9/11 to take place by inaction and then _finally_ did what the Clinton era task force came up with just in the last months of Clinton's administration.

But you don't just vote for a man, you vote for his administration. Bush's administration did thus:

The Bush administration supplanted the US constitution by instituting "free speech zones". During the campaign they (for example) arrested three teachers for "criminal trespass" for showing up at a Bush event wearing T-Shirts that read "protect our civil rights" and not otherwise saying a word or engaging in any disruptive behavior what so ever. Several such events took place and got essentially no coverage.

Rumsfeld and Cheny were intimately involved with _WATERGATE_ and Nixon. They have each written or spoken several times about the importance of offensive action and offensive speach in the suppression of free discourse.

Cheny has been quoted as saying "Ronald Regan proved that [national] deficits don't matter." On November third, Bush called for a lame-duck session of congress to be convened to _raise_ the national debit ceiling _another_ 51 BILLION dollars because under his administration the US Government had reached the current limit for the national Deficit.

Ashcroft _actively_ solicited his staff to produce plans and justifications for SUSPENDING U.S. ELECTIONS to be couched and phrased in terms of "preventing terrorists from disrupting the elections". That is simply rampantly un-american, and not an acceptable thing for the _Attorney_ _General_ of the United States to plan to do to the people.

Ashcroft went around the country telling the people that the USA PATRIOT Act "could only be used to fight terrorism" but was simultaneously using it in domestic criminal investigations of things like growing pot, which is a domestic act that cannot even remotely be tied to terrorism.

The past performance of Republicans as an abstract set is not a basis of decision. The _documented_ fact that Cheny influenced the Pentagon to pre-award no-compete contracts to Hallaburton, a company in which he holds stock, _is_ a basis for analysis.

The _blatant_ use of the "terror alert level" as a shiny object to distract the electorate was unacceptable. On several occasions, while major news critical of the administration was being reported, the department of homeland security came out with "credible threat announcements" and raised the "alert color" to orange. In at least three of these cases, the "urgent news" was based on information that was more than six months old and had already been discredited internally. No targets were ever announce, no suspects were ever named, and no evidence was ever produced for any of these announcements.

The New York Times Sunday magazine, about two weeks ago, did a several page article about Bush's tendency to contradict the facts brought to him by his advisers because of "his gut", which it turns out means "things revealed to him in prayer."

The Bush administration represents one of the only administrations since the beginning of the depression where the net job numbers were an indisputable loss.

There is _lots_ more, but I am running long.

I would suggest you start your research with the ACLU site, or, if you distrust them as a mater of principle, try http://yro.slashdot.org as a starting point. I'd also suggest foreign news services like the BBC.

I would agree that if you only watched the network and cable news there was no reason to think Bush was under-performing, but (in my humble opinion 8-) there were plenty of credible sources available that documented repeated abuses of position and status.

Bush won because Carl Rove is a master of misdirection.

Re: The response I posted in her blog...(in case it gets deleted)

[staxxy.livejournal.com]

not flamey. definitely educational and different from her point of view.

I would be surprised if it did get deleted, to be honest. She does not strike me as the sort who would do so. :)

Re: The response I posted in her blog...(in case it gets deleted)

[synabetic.livejournal.com]

I love you...
I was writing my own rant while you were doing yours...heheh

(nice, btw)

Re: The response I posted in her blog...(in case it gets deleted)

[aaminahlefae.livejournal.com]

I love it when people research the facts! I've never met you but you rock in this facet. Thank you! Keep telling people about available info resources, ok?? Evolution takes time and I for one plan to live past many more elections. We and later generations would greatly benefit from more informed voters!

I would never delete an honest discussion, hon.

[diana-gossford.livejournal.com]

I'll cross post this here as well. It'll be in 3 parts.
First off, unless someone is being blatantly disrespectful to others on here I won’t delete posts. I am really glad that the discussion has stayed informative and not become name calling.
As for a reply, I will address the issues one by one as I see them.
1) There were conditions under which the Gulf War ended without Saddam being disposed, captured and put on trial. Although I don’t agree with them, the UN tried sanctions and talk. In a perfect world that would work. Bush Sr didn’t want to look like the tough Texan with both holsters emptied, and he choose not to stand alone against the UN, particularly France, who by the way were the same people accepting BRIBES to get around UN sanctions. They profited heavily under this. Could this be why they were against this war? The oil for food scandal was a blatant misuse of power by the UN and its members. See http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004801 The current Bush admin went into Iraq to protect those provisions set forth BY the UN. They set forth several reasons, of which one was to end human rights violations committed by the Saddam Hussein government. Americans focused on the possible WMD, but that was NOT the only issue set forth. Don Rumsfeld had a list, as found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Events_leading_to_the_invasion
2)Clinton had one heck of a record with terrorism, but I wouldn’t say it was against.
The war on terror should have started in 1979 in Iran with the Carter Administration. See here to see how the people who were TAKEN feel. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=223814&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 Had American presented a strong front then the Carter admin would have been crucified, as we may have lost 66 hostages, but there is very little chance that we would be dealing with this now. In 1983 we had 2 terrorist events in Lebanon. In April the US Embassy was bombed, killing 50 people, and in October 241 Marines were killed by a truck bomb. Clinton took all of this information and STILL decided to CUT our intelligence officers when he came into office to nearly nothing because he felt we no longer needed a military force as we had in the cold war. True, the cold war was over, and we were now in a different war which required a different type of military (intelligence based). Since he did not fund that type of military we had to rely on intelligence from other countries. Durring Clinton’s terms we had:
Feb. 26, 1993 New York City a bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected..
Nov. 13, 1995 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia a car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing five U.S. military servicemen
Aug. 7, 1998 in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. Four men connected with al-Qaeda two of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.

Oct. 12, 2000 in Aden, Yemen the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. Seventeen sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.
(Info taken from here)http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

Bush had been in office 8 months when the *second* WTC attack came, and was still relying heavily on outside intelligence due to Clinton’s cut backs. Did Bush know about the attacks beforehand? Who knows. As sad as it is, I can see why someone would do as he has been accused of and let it happen. If we had taken out Osama Bin Laden beforehand on evidence that he would kill 3000 Americans at work America would be screaming conspiracy and war propaganda. Heck, even after the attack we refuse to take the firm stance.

[synabetic.livejournal.com]

I can see why you would post this...
On first examination, what she says seems nice, even smart.
Under further examination it seems a bit deluded.
Okay, I'm being knee-jerk nice...
its terribly deluded. Then again, she could turn around and call someone like me a cynic.

I truly wish what she said was true. But its not.
Bush is a religious advocate, and his poilicies reflect this. Maybe if I hadn't seen all those relgious talkshow interviews with him from years back, I could almost agree with the whole supporting Bush thing.
Objectively: Bush is a very religious man. It is his rhetoric. It is his way. He wants to impose it upon the world. Period.
Subjectively: The guy is a fucking lunatic, and so are the rest of those 'right-wingers' (theyre not right-wingers, btw, theyre zealots and bigots). The future scares me.
I don't believe in god/gods/santa claus/etc. I never will. Bush wants my kid to pray in class. Fuck him.
And that's only the beginning... It gets worse, but I just do want to yabble about it anymore.
(and I and the rest of my family (my parents) are independant moderate-conservatives...we all voted for Kerry)

When you think about it, there are no real good reasons to support Bush or any of those whakos that follow him. I view anti-anti-Bushdom as a knee-jerk reaction to the 'cool-kids'. We saw it in 2000. We saw it again this year.
Maybe its because I'm educated in history and look at all the facts... maybe its because I don't like obvious bullshit being forced down my throat by 'high morals types'.

In reality though, it is good Bush won. If Kerry had won he would have been ineffective with a majority House and Senate and would have been made to seem lame by rabid 'Republicans' (who aren't -really- republicans (or conservatives, for that matter), but thats another story for another day). Etc etc etc et al... Kerry would have been demonized and would have been followed by another radical nut-job far worse than Bush.
Another 4 years under the current mode of Government may sway everyone's view a little...make them take off those rose-tinted full enclosure helmets.
The next president may a Republican, but he/she (who am i kidding...he) won't be as...uh...radical. Yeah...sure...

Anyway, I have ranted enough.

That person's post was real sweet, and I'm sure she is a really nice person.

Since I'm moving to Victoia, I shouldn't really even give a fuck, so go her :)

(and I do mean it when I say her post was indeed a nice post...well done and all that)

[staxxy.livejournal.com]

fair enough. personally, i am just thrilled to see *reasons* at all.

[patty-puke.livejournal.com]

thanks, it is interesting to read. i am not really baffled as to why people voted for bush - this is generally what i hear said, in terms of military issues. i don't know what to say. i think there is a fundamental divide between those that take this man's words as truth, and those that don't.

[staxxy.livejournal.com]

i think you hit the nail on the head.

[balzacq.livejournal.com]

I "harped on the war" since that was the main subject of the post we're all discussing here, as well as the proximate factor in Raven's comment.

As for your short list, I see a couple of issues that I could agree with, a couple that are legitimate bases for disagreement, and several more that I think are either irrelevant, paranoid, or misattributed to this Administration. Nevertheless, I don't think any of them is really very important in the grand scheme of things.

For me, successfully turning back the tide of Islamic death-cult jihado-fascism before they get the means to destroy us outright (or they force us to destroy their entire culture) is the single most important issue of the next couple of decades. At the moment, I trust Bush and the Republican party in general to do a better job of keeping us on that track more than I trusted Kerry or the Democratic party in general.

Everything else can and will be muddled through just like we've been doing for 225 years now.

[staxxy.livejournal.com]

heh.

And, ultimately, we can *all* debate this until we turn blue, but our debating it won't actually affect the way our government handles anything. And may only succeed in making us all frothy at each other, which is silly. Namely because, aside from these issues, we all get along quite famously. :D

so, I say we chat about something else. what do you think?

[krypt-kitten.livejournal.com]

She honestly hadn't pointed out anything I hadn't already heard as to why some folks supported Bush. Can't say that I agree with her reasons still. I had some of her reasons as to why I didn't vote for him on top of others. Frankly his decisions have affected far too many of those around me to vote for him. Tax breaks to companies that export jobs and definitely on this issue of homosexual marriage! My main issue is with the homosexual marriage mainly because I have a sister that is gay and is raising kids with her partner. Your friend's views do not address my sister's concerns and issues. SMy sister could careless about the tax and property issues unless you consider kids property which I do not! If something devastating were to happen to my sister her partner has absolutely no legal rights and that is what scares me. She could not visit my sister or be entitled to any information about her condition if she were hospitalized unless she were her spouse. She would have no entitlement to the kids even though the kids adore my sister's partner and feel like she is also their mother and that she has helped raise them. I have several other issues that have not been addressed, but I definitely wanted to address this particular side of the coin because it is very close to home to me and something I have yet to hear anyone voice this type of concern about when it came to the whole homosexual marriage issue. For me it does come down to more than just a legal contract and more of a human rights issue that government has no business governing.

[staxxy.livejournal.com]

You will note that I never once said I *agree* with her. I am just saying that she actually stated reasons. She is the only one on my friends list to do so. And there were a lot of people asking for reasons on my friends list too, and not getting any.

and as for the Gay marriage issue - both my dad and Spydrman's dad are gay. So, yeah, close to home here to.

A lot of the Bush policies hit close to home for me - gay marriage, tax breaks for companies that export jobs, the "watch and report your neighbors of any weird behavior" policies (duh, goth is synonymous with evil and weird in the eyes of a vast majority of "good christians" and we know it), and women's rights (although the birthcontrol/abortion rights do not affect *me* directly, they do affect a lot of women I know and the idea that the government gets to make decisions about anything that happens to a woman's body instead of her and her doctor will affect all women - it really drives that second class citizen status home).

I could go on, but I feel like ass, so I won't.

Ugh

[saintcynr.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to flame your friend, but her arguments just don't hold water.

That's why the Bush supporters baffle me. They reach a level of understanding that's about 1/8 of the way there, and call it good.

It's not good.

Re: Ugh

[staxxy.livejournal.com]

I agree with you. and I appreciate your withholding the flaming. As I have said elsewhere, this is more for the people that were looking for reasons and not finding any at all.

No, but it was a close thing for a while

[gwywnnydd.livejournal.com]

It took burgunder and I several months to find something we weren't in perfect agreement on.

We were looking, too.

Re: No, but it was a close thing for a while

[staxxy.livejournal.com]

heh. for her and me it is the clutter vs austere thing - I am a clutter person, and she is an unclutter person.

dunno if you saw my latest post, but I am too sick to come tomorrow. :( I love you both, and I will be thinking of you and looking forward to pics. YAY, BILLIAM!!!

[aaminahlefae.livejournal.com]

Yeah; I'm finding that hearing some respectable reasons for votes the other way dulls the disappointment a bit. Not that I couldn't debate most of those points with them but it at least shows they thought about their decision -which is honestly what I hoped for the most. -So your post was a good idea, me thinks. Thanks!

[staxxy.livejournal.com]

yeah. it certainly made me feel a bit better. All I have gotten from anyone else has been "I don't want to fight about it, I have the right to vote for who I want to". Which does not make me feel any better at all. It makes me feel like I am talking to a petulant child, which is ridiculous considering that most of these people are extrememly intelligent and thoughtful people and not children at all. It's just the feeling I get. :(

[aaminahlefae.livejournal.com]

You know.. after I actually read her post, I have to agree that this particular person's reasons were the easiest to debate down. Honestly, a lot of her points seemed pretty shallowly researched. Especially once answered, some actually make a point against Bush rather than for in my opinion, and seem like kind of a 'duh' to me. -But to be fair; I have spoken with people that had some pretty interesting points agains Kerry or more against Edwards, really, and I do kind of understand some people's sentiment of wanting to appear solid and supportive to uh... "our enemies".

[staxxy.livejournal.com]

my favorite anti-Kerry statement is "Kerry flip-flops". Namely because all they are saying is that the man learns more and changes his mind. God forbid we have a president capable of *learning*.

*rolls eyes*

Personally, I did not really care for *either* of these men. I can not be called a supporter by any of them. Our state representatives and senators, well that is a totally different matter. ;) I do support Patty, Maria, and Jay. And I will continue to do so for as long as their record remains faithful to the things I value at least 65% of the time (I am not foolish enough to belive that *any* politician will be faithful to things I value anything more than that {except maybe Adam Smith, but I have voiced my support for him on many occassions, I just wish I could vote for him, but alas he is not in my area}).

It is a coincidence to me that all of these people happen to be democrats. I consider myself non-partison. I vote for people of all parties. Namely because I vote for *people*, instead of parties.

okay, I'm sick and it is making me all babbly. I will stop. ;)

A PS to my above in the other thread, in response to some commentary.

[bitobear.livejournal.com]

P.S. you are right that I did swap some names around. I tend to do that.

For instance it was Cheny touring the country making the false clames about the limits of the USA PATRIOT Act. He was repeating the information _from_ Ashcroft while Ashcroft was invoking the (non-terrorist) "money laundering" provisions against the pot growers and the small-time tavern owners.

It was DeForest B. Soaries, the election commission head, who was putting together the plan to cancel this most recent election. It was much more concrete than you presented. A good clearing house page of credible reports can be found here: http://www.wewantdean.com/presidents/2004-cancel-election-presidential.html but I _did_ get the name wrong.

The Nixon, Rumsfeld, Cheny connection wasn't about "free discourse" it was about "government transparency" [see http://reason.com/0408/co.mw.watergate.shtml as a first-google-hit].

The "classified" and "trustworthy" cerdible were never manipulatory...

"WASHINGTON -- "The Bush administration has discovered no evidence of imminent plans by terrorists to attack U.S. financial buildings, nearly two weeks after the government issued startling warnings about such possible threats, a White House official said." -- Associated Press, August 12, 2004.

An admittedly biased site has a nice summary of these abuses here: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=17495
or you can just google for examples of terror alert electioneering and damage control:
http://www.google.com/search?q=terror+alert+level+distraction+bush

I wasn't typing from my notes, so I was not as precise as I should have been. Pardon the mistakes, there were probably more.

My response was not intended to be exhaustive, just demonstrative.

Re: A PS to my above in the other thread, in response to some commentary.

[staxxy.livejournal.com]

:)