Republican Turncoats

Why are so many conservative Republicans feeling disenchanted with the current Bush administration? Why are some so frustrated that they’re planning to abandon their party in the upcoming election? Read what they themselves have to say:

I don’t usually encourage conformity, but this time I’ll make an exception.

This entry was posted in society. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.

8 Responses to Republican Turncoats

  1. Kevin says:

    Conformity, eh?
    What about Ed Koch? Zell Miller? St. Paul Mayor Randy Kelly?
    I understand the concerns about Bush. I don’t think he’s brilliant, but I think history is replete with examples of successful “dumb” Presidents. I’m serious. Reagan was the amiable dunce – a phrase coined by Democratic intellectual Clark Clifford. He went on to be convicted in a banking scandal and Reagan went on to win the Cold War. Truman, Eisenhower, etc. – all successful dimwits who accomplished significantly more than the intellectually brilliant Presidents of the last 100 years – Wilson, Hoover, etc.
    Electing Kerry will probably get a modest bounce in goodwill for the US internationally. I just listened to a BBC report detailing the fears in Berlin, Paris, etc. that Kerry would get elected and they’d have to give lip service to show their approval. World leaders – no matter who’s the President – have no intention of supporting the Iraq situation.
    At the end of the day, Bush was on duty when America was attacked. He has a fire in the belly to win the war on terror and I believe that’s what we need now. The terrorists hated the West under Clinton (first World Trade Center bombing, USS Cole, embassy bombings, etc) – why would Kerry make us any safer?
    As the only superpower, there is no way the US can avoid being a target – regardless of who sits in the oval office. Because of the imminent threat of attack on American soil, what we are forced to do in the short-term is the heavy lifting (removing a dicator like Hussein, etc.) to foster a peaceful environment that supports democracy long-term.
    I know it’s a slogan, but I do think Cheney is right – Freedom is the best antidote to terror. I’m more dove than hawk, but I am convinced that right now force is necessary to bring the freedom that creates the environment for peace and prosperity.

  2. Kevin says:

    Couldn’t resist posting this…
    Chicago Tribune Editorial Endorsement: George W. Bush for President
    “… But for his resoluteness on the defining challenge of our age–a resoluteness John Kerry has not been able to demonstrate–the Chicago Tribune urges the re-election of George W. Bush as president of the United States….”

  3. Karl says:

    Zell Miller? Really? Is that the best you can do?
    By the way, I took the liberty of linking your Chicago Tribune editorial endorsement to the full article and quoting an excerpt, rather than leaving the whole copyrighted thing in the comment. Hope you don’t mind.
    Oh, and I’ll take your one editorial endorsement and raise you 35: 36 Papers Abandon Bush for Kerry

  4. Karl says:

    You might have a case there if stupidity were Bush’s only flaw. But add to that his fiscal irresponsibility, his reckless disregard of the environment, his drive to further increase the great gulf between the rich and the poor, and his general unwillingness to accept the reality of the situation in Iraq, and we’ve got a big loser on our hands, one who really needs to go.
    Also, I don’t quite follow your logic about Bush’s ability to keep us safe. On the one hand, you say we need Bush’s “fire in the belly to win the war on terror.” On the other hand, you admit that “as the only superpower, there is no way the US can avoid being a target – regardless of who sits in the oval office.”
    If you’re trying to make a distinction between short-term and long-term goals, just how long-term are we talking here? When will this freedom transform into peace and prosperity? And whose freedom are we talking about? Do you consider Iraq free now, even with many areas under the control of insurgents? Let’s say the situation in Iraq does simmer down in the next four, five, ten years, and the Iraqi citizens begin to experience peace and prosperity. Do you believe that terrorists in other Middle East countries will lay down their arms and advocate for secular democracies? I know I can be a little dense about these things, but I just can’t see your Cheney paraphrase as anything more than a platitude.

  5. Celeste says:

    Kevin–the three Dem Switchers you mention are the only prominent ones and at least two out of the three are really no longer Democrats. A look at shows there are many more prominent people — and newspapers (42) — switching from Bush to Kerry because they believe we need Kerry’s leadership now more than ever. (And many of those remain faithful to the Repub. party.)

  6. StealthKDDazzler says:

    Thought I’d toss in a couple of articles. One hails from a fellow blogger, though with ideological leanings that make Karl shudder. The other is a Slate article from 1999 that plays with the idea that dumber might be better in a president. Of course, if you accept the argument of the former article — that objective evidence shows Bush is smarter than Kerry — and the second article — that less smart presidents are more successful — then I guess our friend Kevin is compelled to vote for Kerry. Sweet irony!
    Here they are:

  7. Karl says:

    Thanks Stealth man! Interesting articles. Appreciate the input, and the twist.

  8. Kevin says:

    Celeste,… I seem to have missed the part where they list the big name conservatives voting for Kerry – it looked like the only heavy-weight on their list was Chafee from Rhode Island – whom I would equate to Zell Miller. Besides Eisenhower’s son (who cares?) the others on the list were such notables as ‘the former republican mayor from menlo park, ca’… Not exactly scandalous.
    The newspaper editorial endorsements are troubling. But, one can always hope for a “Dewey defeats Truman” outcome.
    I was listening to the radio today and someone made a great point about the recent OBL tape. Wouldn’t it be interesting if Kerry had made himself the “I can get Osama better than Bush can” candidate – going more hawkish than the President on the terror issue. I think that could’ve changed my mind…
    On another note, any Bush voters looking for a ride tomorrow, don’t hesitate to let me know. Kerry-ites should know that it’s going to sleet and they may want to just stay home.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <s> <strike> <strong> <div align="" class="" dir="" id="" lang="" style="" xml:lang=""> <param name="" value=""> <pre style="" name="" class="" lang="" width="">