Democrats for Bush/Cheney 2004:
Democrats for Bush
Democrats for Bush (Bush's official website):


Topics For Debate:
What are the motives of Democrats that support Pres. Bush for reelection?
Have they persuaded you in anyway, and why?

What are the motives of Democrats that support Pres. Bush for reelection?
Have they persuaded you in anyway, and why?

Maybe they just genuinely like Bush I can't really say for my self, but maybe the Democrats are leaning too left for some Democrats. I've always thought the Democrats were conservatives, moderates and slightly liberal group of people with a few exceptions. With Bush taking such a hard right stance and the primaries forcing Democrats to the left, maybe some conservative Democrats feel alienated. Maybe there is something more going on behind the scenes who can tell??

Naaah it wouldn't change my opinion and I doubt it would change many. People hate Bush, for all they say "I don't hate him I just disagree with his policies" that's just sugar coating and PC language for "I hate him!!" Take myself, I don't hate Bush I just disagree with some decisions he has made. See how that works. John Kerry hasn't really done enough to define himself for too many people to like him. Either your voting your part line or you just can't stand Bush. I don't see it turning many from that stance.

They figure that in order for the terrorists not to be encouraged, there should be continuity in the White House. They think it is in the best interests of the country.


There's not a chance in hell that they are going to persuade me. Concerning the situation our country is in, I think of the cartoon where a guy is saying, "Where am I going, and why am I in this handbasket?"

I believe the President is incompetent and has been secretive about his and his administration's mistakes. Why else would he stonewall the 9/11 Commission's inception and its efforts to interview all those public figures involved in the time up to and during the attacks on the WTC, Pentagon, and possibly the White House if the one flight had continued?

If the terrorists are encouraged by America's change in leadership this November, so what? It might make them think that they can come a little more out into the open to commit their nefarious deeds. It might make it easier for them to be caught.

I don't consider Bush being replaced by Kerry a bad thing at all.

It's from Zell Miller who is featured on Sean Hannity's radio show all the time. Mr. Miller is a betrayer of the Democratic ticket. Kerry may not be the best choice for a President, but he is the lesser of two evils. In this time of great need, we need less evil. I do admit that Kerry does not instill in me a great passion for politics--he doesn't explain his positions, leaving it to others (such as Janeane Garofalo) to do so. He could easily explain why he voted for the $87 billion before voting against it, but he fails to do so.

I'm not a registered Democrat myself, but I do know that President Bush's domestic policies are an utter travesty. Going to war does not preclude one from his duties here at home. However, that said, Bush is apparently thinking of doing away with the IRS, which I am definitely for.

QUANDARY! Hmm... what's a quandary?

What are the motives of Democrats that support Pres. Bush for reelection?

Oh, only to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids (I hope someone got that reference ) . It is more than likely because they actually think that he can do better than an "ultra-liberal from Taxachusetts". Zell Miller was on Meet the Press Sunday; here are some reasons he's for Dubya:



I'm sure there are myriad reasons for these Dems shift to the Bush camp, and I think Zell outlines many of them.

Have they persuaded you in anyway, and why?

You're kidding me, right? I make a point to mock Zell Miller when possible; I highly doubt that he's changed my mind in any way. Zell simply regurgitates most of the right-wing talking points that I lend no credibility to. Perhaps if he offered some reason that I actually believed, I might consider his case. However, Sen. Miller offers only as much as all his other pro-Bush pals, and I simply see too many reasons not to vote for Bush.

What are the motives of Democrats that support Pres. Bush for reelection?

It seems an excess of anti-Bush rhetoric is resonating poorly with middle-of-the-road voters in both parties, and even led to Kerry's team asking for a curtailing of such rhetoric at the DNC (see here). It appears Senator Miller's contentions are vague at best; whether the Bush administration is truly "...promoting prosperity and equal opportunity; helping Americans most in need; and defending America's security and promoting freedom..." is very debatable and in some cases there are strong arguments to the negative.

Have they persuaded you in anyway, and why?

Not at all. As far as the aforementioned contentions by Senator Miller go, it may be best to take them one by one:



I would find it hard to believe any president did not work, and would not work, to "promote prosperity," regardless of whether or not they met with results. The Bush administration, thus far, has had a higher unemployment rate and lower economic growth than the previous administration (see here). As far as equal opportunity goes, the Bush tax cuts overwhelmingly benefitted Americans with earnings in the top 2%. Although Bush would argue this created more jobs and caused the recent economic upturn (national unemployment had dropped for 8 consecutive months as of May), historical data shows that this theory of trickle-down economics does not work, and thus it is highly unlikely that these tax cuts are the reason for any economic recovery America may be experiencing. For more information on why trickle-down economics does not work, read here.
And this only accounts for equal economic opportunity. What about in social issues, such as equal opportunity to marriage rights for homosexuals, which Bush has vehemently opposed? It would appear Sen. Miller's state rings false on these grounds.



I believe the aforementioned tax cut data dispels this myth. Furthermore, the new Medicare system is, in many cases, leaving senior citizens out in the lurch. It cuts cancer drug coverage and saves seniors little, causing apathy.



The defense of America's security is an issue that is hard to touch. No doubt, measures have been taken to increase "homeland security," which I believe any president would have done. However, the issue of war in Iraq... was it beneficial to America's defense? It is always good to see a dictator torturing his people ousted from power, but America did not go into this war under that pretense, and the proclaimed WMD's did not exist. I will admit that much international intelligence, including a direct warning from Vladimir Putin and the King of Jordan, pointed to their existence. So, at best for George W., that issue is a wash. The idea that he promoted freedom, however, is completely undercut by the USA PATRIOT ACT.

Summing this all together, it seems Senator Miller is basing his support of President Bush on absolutely nothing. It is easy to hide behind platitudes and vaguely defined values since few take the time to actually check out the substance underneath them, and the substance thoroughly refutes these. So, in a brief return to the first question, perhaps Sen. Miller is simply trying to rabble-rouse within the Democratic Party, and tear apart the sore need for unity it has lacked?

Self-interest, the same stuff that created the Reagan Democrat. It's probably more convenient for these Demos, the numbers of which I wonder go past double digits, to vocalize support than to change party affiliation.

Where were they during the Demo convention? Off in the free speech zones?

I'll even give the benefit of the doubt and say these Demos are trying to do the right thing. I imagine some handful of Repubs will vote Demo this time around, and possibly have done so before. Ideologies aren't universal for either party.



I've considered the arguing points. I can understand where these people are coming from; however, I don't accept the arguments. I don't think President Bush has been a strong leader. He has been a bull-headed leader incapable of admitting to error or mistake, a one-way focused person who, like many of his CEO buddies, has run the organization (USA) into the ground.

It's just hard to fire US citizens.

And we can still vote.

So watch this stroke (pen marks Kerry for Prez).

The appeal to not change horses midstream only sounds good. It was this horse that got us midstream in the first place, but it turns out that it isn't a stream at all. More like a box canyon. So it's a dead horse. Stop beating it and get a new one.

Or to use other imagery, the first thing to do when we find ourselves in a hole is to stop digging. Then we need to figure out how to climb upwards.

Some Demos might think the economy is doing well. That's fine. They obviously don't work for EDS, which has just announced the layoff of thousands of employees. This might effect me directly, as I'm subcontracted to EDS. My personal economy is still on very shaky ground, as are the personal economies of many other US citizens.

Who can still vote.

And you can't fire us from being US citizens.

Although I would not be surprised if this administration attempts to do so. There's some history of this from Florida, where people were wrongly listed as felons and thus disenfranchised from voting. Just a simple corporate SNAFU?

Or something done on purpose, cynically planned in secret meetings?

I guess some Demos are okay with running the country like a present-day corporation. Most of us are not. The vast majority of us are not.

It's easy to dismiss us offhand as hating Bush. That's fine if it makes for easier feelings, but the facts remain:

They can't fire us from being US citizens (not easily). We can still vote (at this point in time).

What are the motives of Democrats that support Pres. Bush for reelection?

I think they are ideological in nature. President Bush is closer ideologically to Conservative Democrats than John Kerry is. Zell Miller sees John Kerry as a throwback. An old-school New England tax and spend liberal, weak on defense issues and unsympathetic to rural America's needs. I think Zell is trying to save some semblance of the Democratic Party in the south from loose cannons like Howard Dean running around out there.


Have they persuaded you in anyway, and why?

It has convinced me that the President is going to run very strong in the South. You can't win there as a Republican in a national election without a significant cross-over vote from Conservative Democrats. He got it last time and I think he'll get it this time as well.

I just wish it would carry over to California.

Dr Strangelove?

Zell Miller is a southern republican. This is why he is supporting. He refused to give Lieberman a look even.

Aside from being maybe the least intelligent and least articulate member in congress what Zell Miller represents is that southern brass whose main concern for the presidency of the US is that the nominee is a southernor. This is the way the conceited and backwards south likes to vote. Northern voters tend to be mature enough to not care where a candidate was geographically raised at. This is why a president can never win w/o a southernor on the the ticket. This is why the N.Carolina polls got closer. Do N. Carolinians like Edwards or his policies? No. Its just that he was raised there.

Zell Miller was off the ticket as soon as he heard Massachusetts.

To the south the word Yankee still means something. To vote for someone from Massachusettes is nearly as bad as electing Abraham Lincoln.

If one feels politics is important enough, one joins the party that they feel most closely aligns with their views. Being a party member does not require one, however, to walk in and vote a straight ticket.

Gerald Ford was essentially appointed President, and he made a pragmatic decision that Richard Nixon had stepped down from the Presidency and that was sufficient punishment. He issued a Presidential pardon, and went about trying to run the country. When he ran for President, I was raised in Grand Rapids, and my parents had considered him a friend of the family. I voted for him. I didn't consider it an act of treason to cross party lines.

A Democrat who supports President Bush is not going to change my mind about who I intend to vote for in November any faster than a Republican, a Green Party member, or an independent candidate would cause me to vote for Nader. Why should a person's party affiliation impact my opinion of their arguments?

The big argument that seems to be made for Bush is, "We're at war. He's a strong, effective leader. We need to stay the course." Let me make a quick rebuttal to these "Let George do it." arguments.

We're at war. George W. Bush was president when we were attacked. George asked for the war. George defined the terms of the war. One of the 9/11 commission members was quoted on television as saying essentially, "We were attacked successfully because no one was in charge, and nothing has changed since then."

He's a strong, effective leader. I heard his father make that claim, so I should accept it at face value? Effective leaders, I have been told in every management course I ever sat through, start with a plan. To ensure that the plan is working, they include methods to measure the effectiveness of the plan. Are intermediate goals being met? Does the plan need to change? Does the objective need to change? There was a time in this country when railroads were the factors that determined whether a city thrived or died. Ninety years ago, my father signed on as an apprentice saddle maker, persuaded that there would always be a need for men to ride horses. In Modern America, we have largely replaced horses and trains with cars, trucks, and airplanes. When I pass a man on the road who is driving his family home from church in a horse and buggy, I don't think "There's a man with strong family values, and the makings of a good leader." I think, "There is an anachronism." and I try hard to recall what religion he might be. The Bush administration has taken the term flip-flop, and changed it from meaning a shower or beach shoe, to being an indecisive leader. We drove home today in heavy rain and debated whether the captain of the ferry would take a chance on crossing Lake Michigan in that storm. Would Kerry's plans have to change? Perhaps. That's what leaders do; when conditions change, their plans change. A strong leader is decisive yes, but he also needs to be adaptable. I recall a day when I was sent to a building with a work order to plan, and begin demolition. The engineer I was to work with was in a meeting. When he came out of the meeting, we sat down and planned the necessary changes to double the known production capacity of the building in order to meet a ten year contract they had just signed. I'm sorry, but I didn't see it as a sign of strong leadership that a President took seven minutes to decide whether it was more important to stay on plan and read "My Pet Goat," or return to Air Force One, the famous "Flying White House" to lead the country when it was under attack. In three years since, he has flip-flopped himself in keeping the country on a level of alert that has ranged between Yellow and Orange. Yesterday, we were told that most of the country could stay at level Yellow, but a few unspecified financial districts would go to code Orange. Is that decisive, comforting leadership that makes one confident it is safe to leave one's family and go to work?

We need to stay the course. Usually this means, "You can't switch horses in mid strean." or "George is in charge, and it isn't safe to change leaders while we're at war." It has even been suggested that we shouldn't hold an election in November, because we need to keep a steady leader in office. On the other hand, I have heard it suggested that Al Qaeda is using George Bush as a recruiting tool, an enemy that the Muslim world needs to defend themselves against. Where would someone get that idea?

I realize of course that is an obscure source, something more likely to be read by persons living in the Middle East, but then again, perhaps George doesn't consider a good Christian Palestinian as someone who is likely to actively recruit terrorists.

There is an old cartoon of the devil saying to a man "Choose!" as he looks at two doors labeled "Damned if you do." and "Damned if you don't." I can choose to vote for a Senator who says I can do a better job of running the country, and take my chances that he is wrong; or I can choose to re-elect a leader who reminds me of a character in The Blues Brothers who is constantly saying, "We're on a mission from God." I have in the past contributed to missionaries who wanted to go out and spread the word of God by doing good works for the less fortunate. That doesn't mean that I will find a good reason to re-elect a "War President" so that he can continue to listen to God, unless there are elections to focus on, or a children's book to read.

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned this prominent Dem that supports Bush.
NYC 3 term Mayor (who would probably still be Mayor if he hadn't retired) ED Koch.What's he doin'? Koch backs Bush

Democrats Making 'Unforgivable Mistake'

I also find the Terrorism minimizing rhetoric route my party has chosen equally offensive and divisive. These Dems for Bush do not sway me, they mirror my feelings on what the Dems have been up to and I am equally appalled. I read the party rhetoric every day here at AD, I click the links and walk away with no desire to post as I am sick to my stomach with what I have been linked to. Yes there are Dems out there that do not subscribe to the conspiracy theories and Bush is Evil incarnate mantra. It is those people that the Dems for Bush most likely speak to.

First and foremost, I would like to point out this is not that rare or uncommon of a thing. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navc...icans+for+kerry shows Republicans for Kerry.



They believe that in order to stay hard on terrorist and to continue what was started, Bush should be President. Like said in the article, they don't necessarily agree with his politics but consider him tougher on terrorists and better on defense.



Simple answer: NO. If a Republican senator supported Bush, I would obviously not be swayed to change my vote, and that is the same if a Democrat senator (or anyone else Democratic) supported Bush.

I am not quite sure what I am supposed to find in the above supplied link, as far as I can see it is not displaying any of the isle jumping that this thread is about. Please supply links to Republican politicians that have come to the Kerry Camp with their endorsements.

The reason some of the more outspoken democrats are for Bush probably has very little to do with idealogy.

There are two rules of politics:
1) Do anything to get re-elected
2) Never break rule #1

If Zell Miller weren't for Bush, who would be paying attention to him?

For example -
My boss was the lead guitar player in a very, very huge metal band back in the 80's (they are still playing and as huge as ever).

He played with them for about a year and a half (he's even seen in an interview in VH1's Behind the Music for that band) and got literally trashed in all the reviews. The guy is a guitar God where one person should not be given all that talent. I asked how he got through a period like that where he was almost single-handedly blamed for poor sales of an album.

His answer was pretty simple. He said there is no such thing as bad publicity, but unlike others that say that, he told me why. As long as people are talking about you - either good or bad - you are relevant. If they are not talking about you, you are irrelevant. He said THAT is when you have trouble.

And the same with Zell Miller. If it weren't for generating controversy, he wouldn't be relevant. Nobody would be talking about him. If Zell Miller truly believed what he says, he'd switch parties.

But he won't. That wouldn't get him re-elected.

I agree with what you're saying, except for this last part.

Zell's retiring this year.

As I said before when Senator Miller first announced he was backing Bush, the Democrats For Bush could hold their meetings in my son's closet and they probably wouldn't need to open the door.

Bush seems to be having some problem convincing Republicans to vote for him, let alone Democrats.

Ron King, a black Vietnam Veteran, said: "I always voted Republican before but I'm against Bush ever since I found out that he doesn't love this country. His so-called military record is a sham. And the worst part is that he lies so much. He lied about weapons of mass destruction."

Ohio resident Bob Stewart says of President Bush: "He's been a world-class polarizer. I don't know if I can stomach four more years with him as president. He misled us into the war in Iraq and has mismanaged everything since."

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=5831164

Bush has got to convince disaffected Republicans to stay on board before he can go cherry-picking Democrats that don't dig Kerry.

I do think the vitriol against the President turns off undecided voters. It is not enough to claim that the President's policies are wrong. He must be branded a corrupt liar. This tactic did not work against Clinton, when employed by the Republicans. Don't think it will work against Bush either. The Democrats do have some hope as it seems like Kerry recognizes the harm from villifying all of America's President.