Republican Senator Won't Vote for Bush

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » October 4, 2004, 8:01 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/04/polit ... hafee.html

For Mr. Chafee, who was a prep school buddy of the president's brother Jeb and whose father, the late Senator John Chafee, was close to the first President Bush, that day was the beginning of an estrangement with the president, whom he had worked to elect. In the months since, he has opposed Mr. Bush on everything from tax cuts to gay marriage and the war in Iraq. Now, this life-long Republican has concluded that he cannot cast his ballot for the leader of his party.

...

Yet the Rhode Island senator said he was angry himself- at what he regards as broken campaign promises by the current occupant of the White House. He said Mr. Bush's promise to be "a uniter, not a divider" resonated with him, as did Mr. Bush's remark in a 2000 debate that the United States would have to be humble, not arrogant, to be respected in the world.

"As soon as victory was achieved came people with a completely different agenda than being humble," he said. Asked if he regretted supporting the president, he said, "I regret that some of the answers to important questions weren't more forthright and that there wasn't more adherence to campaign rhetoric."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Poor George.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 4, 2004, 8:05 pm

Big deal! There's always a few crazy democrats and republicans...Zell Miller anyone?

"They can't all be winners now can they!"
-Bad Santa

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » October 4, 2004, 8:12 pm

You're right, Winnow. His points aren't valid, he's crazy, let's write him off as "out there" or "not in touch" (textbook political manuevering).

I apologize. I guess he's nuts and I should have seen that.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 4, 2004, 8:16 pm

As people - even politicians - grow and mature, it is perfectly reasonable that they may grow apart from the political party that matched their values in previous years. It is also perfectly reasonable to agree with one man over another regardless of which party that person is in.

Democrats can and do vote for a Republican, and Republicans can and do vote for a Democrat. Why is this a big deal?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 4, 2004, 8:33 pm

Growing apart doesn't really have anything to do with this. His comment is pretty cleared: "Bush lied". That is what it comes down to.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 4, 2004, 9:01 pm

A lot of Bush's lies come down to things that were out of his control, it's very hard to be humble in the US when 95+% of the country is crying out for bloody vengance after 9/11.

The fact that his administration took that ball and ran as fast and far as they could with it, in a cynical attempt to broker themselves extraordinary powers before public sentiment cooled however, was fairly reprehensible.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 5, 2004, 11:47 am

A lot of Bush's lies come down to things that were out of his control, it's very hard to be humble in the US when 95+% of the country is crying out for bloody vengance after 9/11.

The attacks of 9/11 united the US.
It strengthened your allies.
You had unanimous backing for removing the Taliban in Afghanistan and ferreting out Al Qaeda.

Where Bush blew it was when he lined up his crosshairs on Saddam.
He was not humble, he was arrogant. He did not care about being "respected in the world" when turning his back on historical allies.

You cannot pin his failures on 9/11.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 5, 2004, 1:55 pm

After 9/11 Bush had the opportunity to secure an easy place in history as a great president. All he really needed to do was to focus on the war on terror. If we would have finished up in Afganistan, caught Bin Laden and not opened a second front on Iraq I don't think this would even be a race...

Marb

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » October 5, 2004, 3:41 pm

Toshira wrote:You're right, Winnow. His points aren't valid, he's crazy, let's write him off as "out there" or "not in touch" (textbook political manuevering).

I apologize. I guess he's nuts and I should have seen that.

Winnow is right. Why didn't you post your interest and curiosity about Zel Miller? When someone form the left questions the right it is inteelectual curiosity form the deep thinkers. When someone from the right does the same, it's just a bunch of racist bigots! Man when will you wake up to your two faced bullshit?

miir · Post by **miir** » October 5, 2004, 3:47 pm

When someone from the right does the same, it's just a bunch of racist bigots!

Zell Miller's past actions and words have shown him as a racist, segregationist and a bigot.

Can you say the same about John Chafee?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » October 5, 2004, 4:15 pm

miir wrote:racist, segregationist and a bigot......BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

miir · Post by **miir** » October 5, 2004, 4:27 pm

I'll take that as a no.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » October 5, 2004, 4:54 pm

miir wrote:I'll take that as a no.

The Democrats have as many ex-KKK members in the past 30 years as the Republicans have. It was a Republican present who freed the slaves. Be a uniter not a divider.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » October 5, 2004, 4:55 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
miir wrote:I'll take that as a no.
The Democrats have as many ex-KKK members in the past 30 years as the Republicans have. It was a Republican present who freed the slaves. Be a uniter not a divider.

Actually Lincoln was a whig, he just ran as the republican candidate.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » October 5, 2004, 5:03 pm

Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Movement: A little known
fact of history involves the heavy opposition to the civil rights
movement by several prominent Democrats. Similar historical neglect is
given to the important role Republicans played in supporting the civil
rights movement. A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933
through the 1960's civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil
rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed
them in 80% of the votes! These facts are often intentionally overlooked
by the left wing Democrats for obvious reasons. In some cases, the
Democrats have told flat out lies about their shameful record during the
civil rights movement. Democrat Senators organized the record Senate
filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the
organizers were several prominent and well known liberal Democrat
standard bearers including:

- Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia

- J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill
Clinton

- Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al
Gore. Gore Jr. has been known to lie about his father's opposition to
the Civil Rights Act.

- Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame

- Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore
The complete list of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 includes Senators:

- Hill and Sparkman of Alabama

- Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas

- Holland and Smathers of Florida

- Russell and Talmadge of Georgia

- Ellender and Long of Louisiana

- Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi

- Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina

- Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina

- Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee

- H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia

- R. Byrd of West Virginia

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » October 5, 2004, 8:20 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:The Democrats have as many ex-KKK members in the past 30 years as the Republicans have. It was a Republican present who freed the slaves. Be a uniter not a divider.

Todays Republican party is nothing like what it was back then. Now, since you (as usual) stupidly uttered an absurd statement of fact, I'd like a list of Democrats and Republicans who were at one point members of the KKK to back up your "as many" statement on my desk by noon tomorrow.

Xzion- · Post by **Xzion-** » October 5, 2004, 8:58 pm

partys dont mean jack shit to me, although most senators are nothing more then party cocksuckers, blindly supporting the president or anyone else.
Say Al Gore won the last election and he started the Iraq war in the same failed manner as bush (he really wouldnt) most dems would support him and most reps would bash him
The way i see it, as a member of a 3rd party
Kerry>>Bush
Ah-nuld>>>Leiberman
Guliani>Gore
McCain>Zell
Edwards>Cheney

Xzion- · Post by **Xzion-** » October 5, 2004, 9:03 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Movement: A little known
fact of history involves the heavy opposition to the civil rights
movement by several prominent Democrats. Similar historical neglect is
given to the important role Republicans played in supporting the civil
rights movement. A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933
through the 1960's civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil
rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed
them in 80% of the votes! These facts are often intentionally overlooked
by the left wing Democrats for obvious reasons. In some cases, the
Democrats have told flat out lies about their shameful record during the
civil rights movement. Democrat Senators organized the record Senate
filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the
organizers were several prominent and well known liberal Democrat
standard bearers including:

- Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia

- J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill
Clinton

- Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al
Gore. Gore Jr. has been known to lie about his father's opposition to
the Civil Rights Act.

- Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame

- Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore
The complete list of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 includes Senators:

- Hill and Sparkman of Alabama

- Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas

- Holland and Smathers of Florida

- Russell and Talmadge of Georgia

- Ellender and Long of Louisiana

- Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi

- Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina

- Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina

- Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee

- H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia

- R. Byrd of West Virginia

In the Nixon era most republicans were liberal (lincoln/Nixon/Roosavelt/rockafeller) it was essentially americas "liberal party" the party that my parents joined and many other modern republicans
Dems were the conservative party (Zell/Gore sr. McCarthy, all ex:KKK members)
In the Regan and Carter era that roll was reversed

I potentially see the same thing happening in the future with several of the "rising star" republicans being liberal, such as ah-nuld

In an ideal world both parys would be socially liberal, and maybe wel see something of the sort happening soon, 4 years from now a Kerry vs Ah-nuld (constitutional amendment) race would kick ass!