Bush losing support from moderate republicans

This is what happens when you polarize the country!

Published on July 31, 2004 By thatoneguyinslc In Democrat

I saw this on Yahoo today. I knew this months ago from my work with the Clark campaign! Every week we would have more and more of these folks come to our meetups.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=19&u=/nm/campaign_crossovers_dc

Submitted for your approval,
Brian

Comments (Page 2)

thatoneguyinslc

on Aug 01, 2004

>>I also thought it was the Republicans that impeached Clinton for perjury. Next time somebody says that it was childish to impeach Clinton a little white lie, I guess that I should remind them to focus their blame on the Democrats.>>

Ok this is just silly. The GOP led congress conducted a 70 Million dollar witch hunt with whitewater trying to impeach him on the grounds he pulled some financial hanky panky. Turns out all they could get him on is some real hanky panky. It was a moral issue. Some dems voted for impeachment, some republicans did not.

messybuu

on Aug 01, 2004

And you believe that Bush is honest?

More honest than Kerry.

Ok this is just silly. The GOP led congress conducted a 70 Million dollar witch hunt with whitewater trying to impeach him on the grounds he pulled some financial hanky panky. Turns out all they could get him on is some real hanky panky. It was a moral issue. Some dems voted for impeachment, some republicans did not.

Wasn't it you that said: "The Dems were all over Bubba during the Lewinsky thing." Are you now saying that the Republicans were also over that, disproving your statement: "We always question, the GOP NEVER does."

thatoneguyinslc

on Aug 01, 2004

What i meant was the GOP never questions their own leadership, with the exception of McCain. Last time i checked the Dems and the GOP were seperate political parties.

And Bush is the most dishonest president to come down the pike since Warren Harding and or Tricky Dick Nixon. His entire "regime" is based on lies. He said he would have a balanced cabinet. which is Lie#1 He said that he was a fiscal conservative. Lie #2. Iraq. Lie #3 He said he was a uniter. Lie #4. The economy is getting better and jobs are being created. Lie #5 Shall i go on?

And for the record, i like Hillary, but i dont think i would vote for a junior senator with one term under her belt for president. VP yes President no.

Arent we getting a tad off subject here? This thread is supposed to be about moderate repubs voting for Kerry. If you like we can start another one. I'm as much to blame on it deviating as much as anyone else...lol

Madine

on Aug 02, 2004

McCain is loyal to the GOP.

He is not. In fact, you singled him out as the "only" GOP member who questions the leadership.

Bush had lied about Iraq, the Patriot act was wayy too intrusive, (you have to take into consideration that they were once persecuted by the US government) and Bush 2.0 was not behaving like the so called "fiscal conservative" he claims to be

When did Bush claim to be a fiscal conservative? By the way, John Kerry voted for the war and the Patriot Act. Also, Kerry wants to spend even more money on new iniatives lilke health care.

And more liberal than Kerry.

Actually, according to the National Journal Kerry has the most liberal voting record in the Senate.

vincible

on Aug 02, 2004

When did Bush claim to be a fiscal conservative

During the 2000 campaign.

according to the National Journal Kerry has the most liberal voting record in the Senate

That's a common belief, but it's a distortion. It is true *only* if you look at 2003, in which Kerry missed a whole bunch of votes because he was campaigning to be president.

If you exclude that year, then Kerry tends to bounce between being tenth and twentieth most liberal. Edwards is often in the thirties.

thatoneguyinslc

on Aug 02, 2004

Thank you Vincible... i was feeling alone on this...lol

Madine

on Aug 02, 2004

I don't remember Bush campaigning on cutting spending. I do remember he campaigned on tax cuts and being a "compassionate conservative".

vincible

on Aug 02, 2004

"I want to take one-half of the surplus and dedicate it to Social Security, one-quarter of the surplus for important projects, and I want to send one-quarter of the surplus back to the people who pay the bills. I want everybody who pays taxes to have their tax rates cut."

That was during the first debate.

"dedicate it to Social Security" means keeping a surplus, paying down the national debt so that America will be better able to deal with the crunch when it comes.

A similar statement was in his stump speech which he gave everywhere in the nation. If you didn't hear about it you weren't paying attention.

He didn't talk about cutting spending, but "a quarter of the surplus" doesn't even *begin* to describe the additional spending, and tax cuts, he's responsible for. The Clinton surplus was, what, $200 billion? And we're $500 billion in deficit now?

Madine

on Aug 02, 2004

That question was about a projected 4.56 trillion dollar surplus over 10 years that never materialized.

Link

Revenue nosedived Bush's first year in office, thanks largely to the economic bubble bursting.

thatoneguyinslc

on Aug 02, 2004

WOW this thing is taking on a life of its own...gotta love Joeuser!

thatoneguyinslc

on Aug 02, 2004

Madine? Questioning your leadership does not connotate disloyalty. (referring to Big John McCain)

Sorry, after my last comment i was feeling a little like a moderator, instead of the guy who started this whole thing, figured i had better get back in the game

vincible

on Aug 02, 2004

Surely you would agree that his campaign rhetoric seemed to indicate a devotion to budget surpluses greater than his devotion to tax cuts or to spending. In other words, fiscal conservatism. If you don't buy that, then I have to ask, what kind of hypothetical quote would convince you?

Surpluses don't just "materialize." They require fiscal responsibility. We have no surplus partly due to Bush's spending increases and tax cuts. And granted, partly due to terrorism and a weak economy. But tax cuts have been *greater* than he originally claimed. Spending has been too. Look at the numbers.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03tc18fy.xls

Revenue was up in FY 2001 (half Clinton, half Bush) and down by ~$100 billion in FY2002, which is at least partly due to his tax cuts. Not sure exactly how much, but note that income tax revenue fell, and almost all other forms of revenue rose or stayed roughly constant, so income tax cuts look like they might be a major culprit. Meanwhile, the CBO has projected $400 billion deficits through 2014. Revenue loss is an inadequate explanation. Bush, by the way, is still pushing for tax cuts.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!