If you don't think there is a mounting rebellion taking place in the GOP, think again. Today there are not just one but two opinion pieces from Republicans who are voting for Kerry.
The first one is from my homestate of Michigan from former governor William Milliken who was governor of the Great Lake State from 1969-83. He lists many reasons as how the GOP of the past has been replaced by a leaner, meaner party.Here is his money quote:
"The truth is that Bush does not speak for me or for many other moderate Republicans on a very broad cross-section of issues.
Sen. John Kerry, on the other hand, has put forth a coherent, responsible platform of progressive initiatives that I believe would serve this country well. He wants to balance the budget, step up environmental protection efforts, rebuild our international relationships, support stem-cell research, protect choice and pursue a number of other progressive initiatives that moderates from both parties can support. "
The former governor nails it there. Bush doesn't speak for moderates in the party, let alone more traditional conservatives.
Then, listen to Marlow Cook a former US Senator from Kentucky during the 70s. His quote:
"I have been, and will continue to be, a Republican. But when we as a party send the wrong person to the White House, then it is our responsibility to send him home if our nation suffers as a result of his actions."
Hear, hear. Let no one tell you that you are being disloyal because you put country ahead of party.
Is it me, or are the ranks of defectors growing?
Posted by Dennis at October 21, 2004 12:23 AMYou want the link to the congressional record? I am not sure what you are asking.
Yes, that was a voice vote I believe. He would have had the floor when he voted and an opportunity to speak.
Votes reduce complex issues to a single yea or nea and the majority crafting the bill usually plays games - like with the $87 billion which included reconstruction funds, troop supply funds and no revenues for both Afganistan and Iraq.
Donna, I dont see how his asking his wife to help him with his career is chauvinistic. I think it would be just smart. If he didnt ask, he should be blamed for being incompetent. If he asked and she refused then he apparently is not worth much in her estimation.
If my wife has a nasty habit of insulting people and I am inviting my boss over to dinner, Id be stupid not to ask her to please watch what she said. If I did ask and she was just as insulting as ever to him/her what would that say for her opinion of me and my career.
I dont think its a chauvinistic view. My wife has asked me to modify my behavior around people, such as my sister-in-law, because it impacts her relationship. I honor that request because to do otherwise would show a complete lack of respect to her.
My view has nothing to do with him being male and her being female. If Bill is saying stupid things that impact Hillary's candidacy, 4 years from now, I would say the same thing about him.
Dorsano, he voted to authorize war. If he was not prepared to see our troops deployed, he should not have voted. You want the link to the congressional record? I am not sure what you are asking.
Posted by: mike at October 23, 2004 06:59 AMMike, I've been trying to locate the speech Kerry gave two years when he voted to give the president the authority to be reckless.
Can you point me to a link?
Posted by: dorsano at October 22, 2004 11:30 PM"A man that either doesnt ask his wife to tone down or asks but whos wife doesnt respect him enough to do so is worse than incompetent. He is not deserving of respect from anyone."
Oh wow, Mike, I just really have to address that, because it was just so breathtakingly chauvenistic. I admire Kerry for the very fact that he does not attempt to muzzle his wife. Yes, she says controversial things, and sometimes perhaps she should think twice about what she says - but that's what is so refreshing about her. There is no pretense! And I think that is the very thing he loves about her - and the fact that he doesn't ask her to be something other than she is just for the sake of his candidacy makes me respect him all the more. Shame on you for expecting a trophy political wife - she is NOT the candidate!
Posted by: Donna at October 22, 2004 11:21 PMI am all for a split in one of the major parties but I think there is a 50/50 chance it would go either way. The democrats will also lose a considerable amount of their less liberal brethren to a moderate party.
I think this would even be hastened by a Kerry victory for a couple of reasons.
1. He will have a major problem getting Congress to work with him. Its not just potential allies that wont back him after his myriad statements of negativity about the war. Congress wont be very willing to give him the support either.
2. They have not produced for their base. They are pretty much powerless in Congress except to filibuster. A Kerry victory would not change Congress. I dont think he has coat tails.
I do however agree with most of the premise of this blog. The far right has gone too far and will suffer a major backlash, just not during this election. That doesnt mean that I actually believe that most of the people who have posted here are really republicans. Kerry is as much an anti-moderate as Bush and most "real" moderate republicans should cringe at the thought of him behind the wheel.
Frankly, Id love to see both parties self-destruct, not just at the federal party level but at the state level in my state (NY). Between Silver and Bruno we have two major egotists that have nelected their fiscal responsibilities in several major ways for years. I think we just saw an example in California.
Posted by: mike at October 22, 2004 09:18 PMThe Republican Party is in serious trouble. The Big Split is only a matter of time and the evidence is plain for everyone to see.
Three people who oppose the war in Iraq: The Pope, Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson. No one doubts these men hold a degree of moral authority in this country. All criticize, explicitly or implicitly, the war and/or Bush's handling of said war.
If Bush loses this election, about a 50/50 shot at this point, expect to see the Grand Old Party splinter: moderates and realists on one side, Bush and the "hopeful" on the other.
Posted by: Robert Blumberg at October 22, 2004 06:02 PM"I noticed the big rant against Kerry is, again, focusing on his 'betrayal' of the troops in Vietnam and how this means he will 'betray' our troops once again in Iraq and Afghanistan."
That is not my argument. I dont think he would betray our troops if elected. I think he has hurt our troops when they were in Vietnam and I think he is hurting our troops now. Let me be very clear - if he is elected commander in chief I will not be questioning his decisions in regard to a war that has troops deployed from this country. Politics should never trump the blood of our soldiers.
"But what is the worse act for our troops, questioning a series of unjustified actions that can lead to their meaningless deaths, or actively planning those unjustified actions that DO lead to their meaningless deaths...?"
Calling the deaths meaningless is nonsense. These people were asked to go to war by their country and they served and died honorably. If the actions were unjustified then Kerry and the rest of Congress had a duty to vote against them. Hiding behind semantics for political reasons is not an excuse for the vote.
I still have to be convinced that what we have accomplished has been worthless/meaningless. I can clearly see why wee want a base of intelligence operations in the middle east. I can clearly see why we need a base of military operations in the middle east. I CANT see the logic behind the argument that says we did not need these things. If your ego is hurt because you feel you were "midled" I am sorry for you. I dont think that means you ignore the benefits.
Quite honestly the casualty rate in this war is historically low compared to other operations of similar magnitude. This is not Grenada. Our military has executed brilliantly.
"Bush, to me, is the greater threat to our troops and to our national security because he cannot follow through on the things he HAS to do, because he is focused on the things he WANTS to do (which are different things). He's had roughly two years to get a Homeland Security dept. up and running but it remains perilously understaffed and mismanaged, with survey and report of our security needs showing again and again that we are still monstrously vulnerable to a terror attack at key locations. He's had all the time he's wanted to go after Osama, but...whoops, let him slip through our fingers, didn't he?"
I wasnt in Afghanistan when Tora Bora was under siege. Unless you have some special knowledge, beyond Kerry saying so, I dont see how you can say we let Osama slip through our fingers. In the greater scale of things, Iraq is far more important (reasons stated above) in the war on terrorism. Kerry knows this, said this, and changed his tune for political reasons.
"And his boys at the Defense dept. did a piss poor job of properly funding, staffing and supplying for the Iraq invasion, even as people in the know (who were derided and ignored) warned them they needed more troops, more allies, more supplies."
It is hard to imagine the scope of such an operation, the amount of intelligence and data that is being processed in a short period of time. You have the advantage of hindsight. I would never argue against funding our military better, paying our troops more or providing them with the tools they need. Somehow I doubt the president would either. If you say Kerry would have done better, consider his actions as they may have been without the advanatage of hindsight.
"We've now got troops performing duties with broken-down trucks that are so hazardous they're refusing to do them."
I am bothered by this. I think transfer of the officer and armor plating the vehicles was a good, quick fix.
Do I blame Congress for lack of funding, the military for not using the funding better, the defense department for poor oversight or the administration for perhaps not micro-managing something like welding metal plates on vehicles. I dont know. Sometimes bad decisions are made during war. Are you so sure that Kerry would have handled it better? He has been in the Senate long enough to have an influence on the investments made by the military, the structure of the defense department and their oversight responsibilities. Maybe he will apologize for his poor decisions in this regard. It would make almost as much sense as blaming Bush directly.
"Kerry's level of competence, from his track record as a politician, compared to Bush's track record, places Kerry far above Bush."
What has Kerry done that has been so memorable, notable or wonderful?
"Better still, Kerry doesn't surround himself with yes-men who perpetuate the aura of infallibility and hubris that Bush does, which has created an administration of ignorance, viciousness, and arrogance. And this is what we want leading the Republican Party, or even the nation? And they want four more years of this crap?!?! NEVER."
You dont know the inner workings of Bushes management style any more than I do. Dont pretend to even comprehend the scope of the job.
"I have never voted for Bush (McCain was, is, and will have been better!), I will never vote for Bush. NEVER."
I can think of many reasons not to vote for Bush. I cant think of a single reason to vote for Kerry though. If the war is your best argument, at least take the time to do some analysis that is not depending on data from the Kerry camp and considers all sides of an issue.
I would love to have someone explain why it is a bad strategy to have intel and military bases in the middle east, after 9/11. Is it not possible or even very likely that some bit of intelligence has prevented another attack against our citizens? I would bet money that it has been far more than one.
Just found this site today, Dennis.
Republican Switchers. I think you'll enjoy it.
Posted by: Jazz Shaw at October 22, 2004 01:09 PMI noticed the big rant against Kerry is, again, focusing on his 'betrayal' of the troops in Vietnam and how this means he will 'betray' our troops once again in Iraq and Afghanistan. But what is the worse act for our troops, questioning a series of unjustified actions that can lead to their meaningless deaths, or actively planning those unjustified actions that DO lead to their meaningless deaths...? Bush, to me, is the greater threat to our troops and to our national security because he cannot follow through on the things he HAS to do, because he is focused on the things he WANTS to do (which are different things). He's had roughly two years to get a Homeland Security dept. up and running but it remains perilously understaffed and mismanaged, with survey and report of our security needs showing again and again that we are still monstrously vulnerable to a terror attack at key locations. He's had all the time he's wanted to go after Osama, but...whoops, let him slip through our fingers, didn't he? And his boys at the Defense dept. did a piss poor job of properly funding, staffing and supplying for the Iraq invasion, even as people in the know (who were derided and ignored) warned them they needed more troops, more allies, more supplies. We've now got troops performing duties with broken-down trucks that are so hazardous they're refusing to do them.
Kerry's level of competence, from his track record as a politician, compared to Bush's track record, places Kerry far above Bush. Better still, Kerry doesn't surround himself with yes-men who perpetuate the aura of infallibility and hubris that Bush does, which has created an administration of ignorance, viciousness, and arrogance. And this is what we want leading the Republican Party, or even the nation? And they want four more years of this crap?!?! NEVER.
I have never voted for Bush (McCain was, is, and will have been better!), I will never vote for Bush. NEVER.
some mornings i wish i could spell
Posted by: mike at October 22, 2004 06:09 AM"honest dissent" being key. not disengenius, politically guided BS.
Posted by: mike at October 22, 2004 06:08 AMHere in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.Dwight Eisenhower (R)
it was "de" followed by a space and "be". im not sure what language that is but does anyone know what it means?
Whatever it is it got me too.
Posted by: dorsano at October 21, 2004 10:57 PMit was "de" followed by a space and "be". im not sure what language that is but does anyone know what it means? ;)
Posted by: mike at October 21, 2004 09:04 PM"So to call him incompetent leads me to believe you are listening to the right wing media mud"
Im not right wing so its all just mud. If you think Kerry is somehow on your side because he is a "normal" guy, you have really bought into a load of propaganda.
Kerry has certainly been incompetent.
A senator has the flexibility to decide when and where to work. Missing votes because you can is simply negligent.
Someone that is inside but cant manage to build a team, among their peers, is not competent to lead. I have heard Kerry say this about Bush when discussing a coalition of other nations but, bluntly, the president of the US is peerless. A leader builds the team that is required to do a job or makes do with the available team he/she has and makes the most of every member.
A person that cant think a week ahead when making a public statement to millions of people, when that is his job is incompetent.
Someone that doesnt take the opportunity to even appear moderate when given the chance is incompetent, in this election cycle anyways. How hard would it have been to lightly denounce Michael Moore as "just an entertainer" or something similar. Taking the high ground would have been easy at many times during this campaign.
A man that either doesnt ask his wife to tone down or asks but whos wife doesnt respect him enough to do so is worse than incompetent. He is not deserving of respect from anyone.
Someone that cant express an idea without demeaning the person currently holding the job is not worthy of consideration. If he was he would compare himself to a better ideal.
As I have said many times, Bush is not my idea of a good president. My last post made it pretty clear that I would love a candidate that was better to vote for. Kerry is not a better choice. Hes just a different choice.
In this case, he is a different choice that has twice hurt our deployed troops with his rhetoric. Now and during Vietnam. This is not forgivable.
When we deploy troops we better be prepared to support them, which doesnt mean questioning their mission 5 times a day so it can be trumpeted world-wide.
Yes, this is America and we have a right to question. When someone uses that right to hurt our troops and our mission, they are simply on the wrong side.
Too strong? I dont think so.
Posted by: mike at October 21, 2004 09:03 PMsomeone needs to tweak the content filter a bit. its very aggressive. im not sure if the word "demeaning" or "propaganda" kicked it off but those are about the worst I used...
you missed a very logical and well worded post.
Posted by: mike at October 21, 2004 08:59 PMthree of my friends have gone from republican to democrat this year, myself included.
i just wanted to say that i read your blog often and i love it! i think it's fantastic. i also wanted to tell you about this fun dating site i found, http://datingdemocrats.com. the pics and polls are outrageous. + i've met some seriously smart and funny people who think like us.
keep up the gret work
Posted by: marion at October 21, 2004 03:10 PM"Vote for a incompetent like Kerry..."
are you serious? When Bush and Gore were going at it, I said the same thing about Bush. The only difference is Bush has proved it, whereas John Kerry hasn't had a chance to. So to call him incompetent leads me to believe you are listening to the right wing media mud.
He might not be the best choice, but if you can give Bush the chance to prove himself (he did nothing for his first 40 years of life) then we can give this guy a chance. But I must say Bush had it easy, and he still screwed up. Kerry will have to deal with the vast right wing corporate world that owns the information. They are going to shred him and give him a hard time.
Posted by: Ceeze at October 21, 2004 01:45 PMI dont blame the republicans for pushing their agenda. I blame the democrats for gross incompetence and stupidity. They lost the house, senate, presidency and are about to hand the republicans a seriously conservative supreme court because they could nominate someone that was a decent candidate. They dug into their bag of wackos and pull out Kerry.
Those of us that are independent have been put in a very bad spot. Vote for a incompetent like Kerry, during a very serious time in our history, or allow the conservatives to get a trifecta+. I wont easily forgive the democrats for this.
Is it me, or are the ranks of defectors growing?
No Dennis, it's not you (alone). The question is, what happens after this election?
In two more weeks, they'll be plenty of time to discuss that :)
Are Republicans going to fight to keep the status quo and continue to try and hold together the anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-civil rights coalition forged by Weyrich during the 70's -- or are they going to try something different? - Perhaps return to their progressive roots?
If the question isn't called this election, it will be called in the next -- because the market fundamentalism espoused by Heritage and the like is not sustainable and the further we go down this path, the greater the backlash will be.
Posted by: dorsano at October 21, 2004 01:28 AM