Republicans for Kerry

[highnote]

At first I was surprised when I stumbled upon the website http://www.republicansforkerry04.org. I thought it was funny idea, because if you reversed the idea, you'd be hard pressed to find many Democrats for Bush.

Anyway, I read some of the material on the website and it started making sense. Kerry is probably more Republican than George Bush. That is, he probably embraces more traditional Republican values than Bush. Kerry can appeal to moderate Republicans and Democrats as well as far left liberal Democrats. Bush probably appeals to the radical far right and some moderate Republicans. There are probably some Democrats that will vote for Bush, but I don't how you would classify them.

I hope you find it as interesting as I did.

Regards,
John Swetye

[so.cal.fan]

Interestingly, I know more than a half a dozen Democrats that are voting for Bush.......they don't like Bush all that well, but they don't trust/like/whatever Kerry.
They feel the country will be safer from terrorist attacks with GWB.
I live in California, which is pretty much a Democratic stronghold.
Three of the Democrats I know who will not be voting for Kerry are very strong Hillary Clinton supporters......they feel that if Kerry wins, it will destroy her chances to be elected President.
My point is, these folks are certainly not conservatives.....they just don't like John Kerry.

[highnote]

SoCal,
It's probably a lot more complex than I have tried to explain.

I grew up in Ohio. It tends to be pretty conservative and mostly Republican. Most of my relatives there are Republicans. During the most recent family reunion, I was surprised how many of them had anti-Bush sentiments. They truly felt like they were led to believe certain things about why we were going to war in Iraq. This is very unlike them. I don't know if that will translate into votes for Kerry. For all I know they will vote for their local boy, Dennis Kucinich. :)

This is an interesting election in that it seems like both parties have more members whose positions are more diverse on various issues than in the past.
(It could be that I'm just paying more attention now than I did in the past.)

It seems like members of both parties have a broad spectrum of beliefs - on the left they range from conservative Democrats to far left liberals and on the right they range from moderate Republicans to far right extremists.

I guess I'm kind of in the middle. Conservative on some issues and liberal on others. I do my best to understand the issues and then vote for what I think makes the most sense.

I know there are those who only vote Democrat or only vote Republican and that is fine to support a party. Personally, I try to support something bigger than the parties -- the United States.

I don't like all the "hitting below the belt" dirty politics that goes on. But this is the big league and they play hardball.

I thought Gore was a little too soft last time and didn't play tough enough. It may have cost him the election. Well, actually, the supreme court cost him the election, but that's an argument for another thread - plus it's water under the bridge. Plus, the fact that Republicans were in the white house on 9/11 gives the Dems something to complain about. If Gore would have been in the white house on 9/11 the Republicans would be doing the criticising now.

Which is why I look at the issues and not necessarily the agenda of the party.

js

[schweitz]

Originally posted by swetyejohn
Well, actually, the supreme court cost him the election, but that's an argument for another thread - plus it's water under the bridge.

Not true--and if you are interested I will prove it to you.

[highnote]

I figured that remark would elicite (require?) a reply. I'd love to learn more about it. What can you tell me? Thanks.

[schweitz]

Originally posted by swetyejohn
I figured that remark would elicite (require?) a reply. I'd love to learn more about it. What can you tell me? Thanks.


http://www.cnn.com/specials/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

[PaceAdvantage]

It's so convenient that the anti-Bush folks to this DAY still deny the reality of this study! And it's not like this study was conducted by a bunch of Bush supporters!!

The New York Times and CNN aren't exactly pro-Bush territory, if you know what I mean.

Thus, the study has to be one of the most FAIR and BALANCED looks at the 2000 election, but you STILL have these clowns claiming the Supreme Court elected George W. Bush......

Ignorant.

[highnote]

Thanks. It's good to see it in writing.

[schweitz]

Originally posted by swetyejohn
Thanks. It's good to see it in writing.

Something else you might find interesting about the 2000 election in Florida.

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2000/12/18/faircomment/fairness.was.not.gores.objective.in.florida-213404.shtml

[schweitz]

More on the 2000 Florida election.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kirsanow200407120824.asp

[highnote]

schweitz,
The CNN article's sub-headline was:

"Study reveals flaws in ballots, voter errors may have cost Gore victory"

That's supposition. The fact is, according to the CNN article, Bush got more votes than Gore in Florida.

It really is water under the bridge -- it's kind of like arguing the Civil War. But what it does show is that in close elections every vote counts. We really need the best voting mechanisms possible. Given budget constraints and judging from what worked in the past, Florida's voting machines where probably good enough. In the future, hopefully, the election won't be so close as to cause any problems.

Also, Gore won by a decisive 500,000 votes country-wide. So he must have won in the big cities. But Bush won more states. If you look at the map of the states Bush won, it is clear that Bush won based on the electoral college. So even if Gore won Florida, Bush still won a majority of states. If Gore would have won Florida I don't know how many votes he would have won in the elecoral college. Anybody know the answer to that?

Also, even if Gore wins Florida, Bush still wins the majority of states. (I don't mean electoral votes. I simply mean number of states.) Bush won something like 40 or 45 states if I remember correctly. I don't how many electoral votes that translates into.

It's always an interesting debate about whether or not to use the electoral college.

How many president's won the electoral college but lost the popular vote?

[JustRalph]

If Gore wins Florida he would be President.

He didn't thank goodness. Perfect example of how great our founding fathers were. The system worked perfectly.

[kenwoodallpromos]

If they are Kerry followers, they will change their minds- often.

[schweitz]

Originally posted by swetyejohn
But what it does show is that in close elections every vote counts. We really need the best voting mechanisms possible. Given budget constraints and judging from what worked in the past, Florida's voting machines where probably good enough. In the future, hopefully, the election won't be so close as to cause any problems.


It wasn't a problem in 2000 until Gore made it one---and I also hope we don't go through it again.

[Tom]

Originally posted by kenwoodallpromos
If they are Kerry followers, they will change their minds- often.

The new FLor-i-duh balots are miniature white-boards that use those dry erase markers.....for flip flop voting.

[highnote]

Originally posted by JustRalph
If Perfect example of how great our founding fathers were. The system worked perfectly.

If Gore would have won, would the Electors have to give him their votes, or could they have split and voted for Bush?

I agree our founding fathers were great. The electoral college they devised resolved a lot of concerns of the rural states. It gave the rural states some control over the outcome of the election.

The founding fathers were also great because they "believed that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil".

Check out http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf for a good history of the electoral college. That's also were I got the quote from the line above.

They also felt that gentlemen should not campaign for office, but that the office should seek the man. That would sure solve the problem of campaign finance.

I kind of like the idea of not campaigning. It reminds me of the old days when lawyers and doctors weren't allowed to advertise for their services (or at least the practice was looked down upon). I think it was better then.