How do we reach the republicans who hate Bush yet can't vote for a dem?

[ringmastery]

Abbie Carlin, 51, who says she has never voted for a Democrat, can't bring herself to vote for the Republican this year. On opening day of the Clayton farmers market, she shopped for organic produce and rued the violence in Iraq.

Persuaded that deposed dictator Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) harbored weapons of mass destruction that could be turned against the United States, Carlin said, she initially believed that invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

Then she was appalled, she said, when Bush declared the war was over, only to see U.S. casualties escalate amid no discoveries of Iraqi nuclear weapons. Now, she says she feels betrayed — by the war, by the way the administration has handled its aftermath, by the Iraqi prisoner scandal. "A huge, horrible mess" is how she described it.

But she still cannot bring herself to vote for Bush's rival. Kerry, Carlin said, is a politician she just can't trust, although she's beginning to think "you can't trust any of them."

Her default is to sit this election out: "I don't know what I'm going to do. I might not vote. They're both extremely distasteful to me."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=2&u=/latimests/20040529/ts_latimes/campaignsboilingdowntoadwindlingswingvote

[boobooday]

1. Let 'em stay home -- that's great!

We're frickin' mobilized!!!!!



http://www.wgoeshome.com

[trumad]

2. .

[Leprechan29]

3. If they stay home

That does mean one less vote for Bush, but if they vote for Kerry, thats one less vote for Bush and a vote for Kerry, essentially meaning Bush loses the equivalent of two votes.

[Bandit]

14. Remember there are more on the ballot than just President and vice-preside

If they stay home they won't be voting for a republican for Congress. It makes our chances much much better of regaining Congress if they just sit this one out. Don't even try to convince them to vote.

[Leprechan29]

16. Another good point

People always forget that there are more than just the presidential candidates on the ballot, and I have to admit that for a moment there, I forgot/disregarded that part too. Just because they are angry at bush doesn't mean that they wont vote for Republican congress(wo)men

[JayS]

23. They can also vote for Nader for President and then choose...

...Republicans for Congress. That is a popular thing going on around here.

[calimary]

31. AND HOW, let 'em stay home! If they don't vote, we have a better chance

of winning back the House and the Senate ALSO! Maybe even a governorship or two. A chance to really get some progressive work done, not to mention LOTS of repairs! With less interference from republi-CONS, the way will be more clear for Kerry and company to start cleaning up the mess, with fewer people objecting or holding up roadblocks. PLUS - if we have to indict somebody, or hold hearings, it's much more likely we'll get to some of the truth. Not only will the lonely brave ones be committee chairpeople, but those other lemmings in the party who only start to feel their backbones when there's LOTS of other people to prop them up - will step up and add their voices to the chorus.

Maybe we CAN hope for justice for bushie, cheney, rummy, wolfie, doug feith, steve campbone, contradicta, "scooter" libby, cute little alberto gonzales, and everybody's darling little karl. They should ALL get the frog march treatment. They've certainly earned it. They're felons, and traitors. They should all roast in the Devil's rotisserie with their dear, dear friend, Ahmed Chalabi.

[RapidCreek]

44. So the answer is? What to be more like Bush? Maybe lie allot?

If someone is so fucking stupid that they can't look back at Nixon BushI, Reagan and BushII and recognize which party has consistantly demonstrated a proclivity to lie, cheat, steal, sell arms to terrorists, sell weapons of mass destruction to tin pot dictators, and commit treason,

Then then they best stay home.

RC

[Nlighten1]

13. That is what my parents are doing.

There is no way to reach some of the far-right ideologues. My parents are disgusted with Bush and have said they won't vote for him again but they won't vote for a Democrat. However, them staying home and not voting is basically the same thing.

[w13rd0]

4. If you know a Republican...

...that can't bring themselves to vote for Bush or Kerry, offer to take them to a movie after you vote. Keep them out of the voting booth. They are making the right decision, for themselves...

We don't have to get them to vote Kerry, just get them not to vote Bush.

[Solidarity]

11. They Can Vote For Nader!

If they can't vote for Bush and won't vote for Kerry they can vote for Nader!

In fact, I imagine Nader will receive the votes of many Republicans who oppose the war but won't vote for any Democratic presidential candidate.

In fact, there are many progessive anti-war independent people who just will not vote for any Republican or Democratic presidential candidate under any conditions. They will also have the option of voting for Nader, a socialist candidate or some other candidate who is not a right-winger.

[RapidCreek]

45. Are you nuts?

Republican voting for Nader? Yea right.... More power too em', thing is it's about as likely as monkeys flying out your ass.

RC

[Blue_Roses]

46. Voting for Nader is the same as voting for Bush

a wasted vote

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Who is the Libertarian candidate?

If the Libertarians or other third parties have a conservative candidate, people like the lady described can vote for them.

[Leprechan29]

8. Just googled it

The Libertarian candidate for the 2004 presidential election is a man by the name of Michael Badnarik

[Bluebear]

6. Sponsor All-day Monster Truck Rallies in key states

Free Skoal visors, .99 Beers, Toby Keith soundalike contests....it will hold their attention all day and they won't vote. :)

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

7. If it's a choice between abstaining and voting for bush

I say let 'em abstain. I know LOADS of people who are sitting out this election because they cannot bring themselves to vote for bush (again) but they just can't quite commit to voting Dem.

So let 'em stay home.

[Leprechan29]

9. This is true

[Media_Lies_Daily]

10. Tell'em to quit whining and stay home. If they can't vote for a REAL...

...candidate in a REAL election, they don't need to vote anyway.

[Senior citizen]

12. Kerry is doing a great job reaching them--so is Gore

I wouldn't worry.

[sallyseven]

15. By the time November comes along

they will be stampeding to vote for Kerry. There is a lot more scandal coming. Plame, Judge gate, etc. The budget cuts, the messed up intelegence, the lies and the deficited.

[indepat]

17. All rethugs who refuse to vote for GWB should vote for Nader: all Dems

who won't vote for Kerry should stay at home on election day searching their sanity.

[Paradise]

18. "it's a shame

because kerry is a truly good man." without being overbearing, just let them know that very thing, word for word, and that will be enough said. in this case, less is more. they may not let on, but it will work because it's true, they'll remember those words, and they'll come to know it. let's face it, kerry is only distasteful to them because of the misleading and false propaganda that scores of millions have been spent spewing. whenever i hear complaints about kerry, it's word for word repetitions of the slander that's been out there for months now. think about it, what did any of us know about kerry before the onslaught? the dirty * campaign succeeded in defining kerry, now kerry has to redefine himself, and he will. :thumbsup:

[JayS]

25. "misleading and false propaganda"

Unfortunately, I am seeing him getting ripped down here on his own voting record and support from various groups. It is a little hard to defend him when his own actions support their claims. If you try and discuss these issues with his own supporters you are treated like a pariah.

[Paradise]

39. i respect your feelings and opinion

but mine are that he'd make a great president;
certainly a huge improvement over who we've got now.
and he is, after all, the presumed democratic nominee. :shrug:

[JayS]

41. I respect yours also but if things don't change I don't see how...

...he is going to make it, even against a mental midget like Bush. If just a couple of factors change, Kerry will get "gored" down here.

[johncoby2]

19. You DON"T!!!!

Spend your time making sure your BASE comes out and votes and let the others follow.

Don't spend your time trying to lead a horse to water, when you are dealing with a jackass.

[TankLV]

20. Hope they stay home.

I'd forget about all repukes - energize the base - it's a better energy expenditure with more likely favorable results.

The country is extremely divided - between those that would believe all the lies and democrats.

All we can do is present the truth and facts, and if they refuse to eat and drink from our table, let them starve to death, a merciful death they richly deserve.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. Find out WHY they won't vote Dem

If they're anti-choice single issue voters, there's probably not much you can do with them, but if they're believing some lies, then you can at least try to tell them truth.

e.g. "The Democrats want to take everyone's guns away."

"The Democrats want to take away your right to choose your own doctor."

"The Democrats want to raise my taxes." (Assuming that the speaker makes less than $200,000 a year.)

You may not convince them, but if they've overdosed on FAUX and Rush, they may not even be aware that there's another point of view.

[JayS]

27. "The Democrats want to take everyone's guns away."

Kerry does not need the right wing to spread this message. He is doing an excellent job all by himself.

[emulatorloo]

38. Whose going to take Kerry's gun away?

Do you really need a semi-automatic assault rifle to go hunting?
Would it really hurt to secure your guns a little better so the kids don;t get their hands on 'em?

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2003_1101.html

snip

In duck boots from L. L. Bean, blue jeans, two flannel shirts and an orange safety vest, Mr. Kerry tramped through the brush of an old cornfield with a local farmer's 9-year-old English pointer, Buck, trailing. Less than five minutes into his expedition, before journalists could get out of their cars and hurdle a barbed-wire fence to record the moment, Buck rousted a bird, Mr. Kerry took aim and fired, and the first blood of the Democratic presidential campaign was spilled.

Mr. Kerry proved quite the shot. Moments later, he leveled his gun suddenly and squeezed his trigger once more, and another pheasant fell to the ground, this time with an appreciative pack of journalists witnessing the kill.

Bizarre as the juxtaposition seemed, Mr. Kerry said his gun control stance and his marksmanship were quite compatible.

"It's not a mixed message," he said. "I'm just being where I've been all my life."

"I believe in the Second Amendment in this country," Mr. Kerry continued. "But I don't believe that assault weapons ought to be sold in the streets of America. Never believed it, don't believe it now."

snip

[JayS]

42. No one is going to take Kerry's gun away. He is a...

...politician and a rich man, thus he is exempt from the laws that apply to you and me.

QUOTE:
Do you really need a semi-automatic assault rifle to go hunting?
QUOTE:

This is one of the more dangerous statements that you can make. First of all, who said anything about hunting? Hunting is not a Second Amendment issue. Secondly, Kerry is accused of wanting to expand this "assault weapons" nonsense to include all semi-automatics. There is plenty of evidence that he leans this way. He has also aligned himself with the worst people he possible could if he wants to attract gun owners or those who see a candidate's stance on gun issues as a litmus test. Right now he is looking weak on crime and weak on gun violence issues in my neck of the woods.

Here is some of his voting record if you want to see what I mean.


SOURCE: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0421103#Crime+Issues

Animal Rights and Wildlife Issues


2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Fund for Animals considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Humane Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Animal Protection Institute considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Society for Animal Protective Legislation considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Doris Day Animal League considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Fund for Animals considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Humane Association considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Doris Day Animal League considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Animal Protection Institute considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Society for Animal Protective Legislation considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Society for Animal Protective Legislation considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.






Gun Issues


2003 On the votes that the The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered to be the most important as of 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time. These scores are cumulative for each representative's time in their current office. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered votes from 1988-2003 in the House and 1991-2003 in the Senate when determining these scores.

2003 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Kerry a 10

2002 On the votes that the The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered to be the most important as of 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time. These scores are cumulative for each representative's time in their current office. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered votes from 1988-2002 in the House and 1991-2002 in the Senate when determining these scores.

2002 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2002, the National Rifle Association assigned Senator Kerry a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).

2001-2002 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Kerry a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

1999-2000 On the votes that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence considered to be the most important in 1999-2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Kerry a grade of F- (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

[Career Prole]

43. I live in your neck of the woods...

...pretty close to the middle of Texas. Texas isn't going to go blue this year or any year soon. I wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard someone say "I like/voted for bush* because he's from Texas".
He's not from Texas any more than I am. They think bush* will take care of them because he's one of their own...bulls**T! He takes care of his own, alright...rich crooked SOB's. The only Texans bush* has taken care of are the ones on his "Pioneers" or "Rangers" lists, and that includes his time as governor. He hasn't done squat for Texas except give it a lousy reputation.
You say "No one is going to take Kerry's gun away. He is a politician and a rich man, thus he is exempt from the laws that apply to you and me." What...like bush* is living paycheck-to-paycheck?
Maybe your statement would be a bit more credible if you had included specific examples of when Kerry has dodged any laws, or has not been prosecuted for (or has been acquitted of) any crime because of his wealth, ya think?

[JayS]

47. The statement holds true if you are talking about Bush, Kerry...

...Feinstein, Kennedy, etc. There are people that live under a different set of laws. Some abuse this, some don't.

[Career Prole]

49. The statement I challenged, which you still haven't addressed

is:
"No one is going to take Kerry's gun away. He is a politician and a rich man, thus he is exempt from the laws that apply to you and me."

I asked (and am still asking) for specific examples which may support what you said about Kerry, because he is our candidate. Not Bush. Not Feinstein. Not Kennedy.
Do wealthy people enjoy an advantage not available to the poor in our legal system? No doubt.
Your contention seems to be that Kerry would use this advantage. I would like to know what you've based this opinion on.
JK's squeaky clean. If there had been something to support your statement Rove would've found it long ago.
Kerry doesn't operate above the law, he operates within it...and it drives freepers nuts.

[JayS]

50. "Kerry would use this advantage"

I doubt Kerry has done anything illegal, that will ever be made public anyway. :) What I was talking about was how he has been pushing that he is a hunter and believes in Second Amendment rights and all that. Well, looking at his voting record shows something 180 degrees to this. In my area this is being exploited by the local right-wing to bolster the idea that Kerry is just another elitist politician that knows what is better for us since we are not smart enough to know this for ourselves. When they can point to his (still undefended) record, it is an easy message to sell.



Here is a partial record that I pulled from VoteSmart:
******************************************************************
SOURCE: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0421103#Cr...

Animal Rights and Wildlife Issues


2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Fund for Animals considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Humane Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Animal Protection Institute considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Society for Animal Protective Legislation considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Doris Day Animal League considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Fund for Animals considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Humane Association considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Doris Day Animal League considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Animal Protection Institute considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Society for Animal Protective Legislation considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Society for Animal Protective Legislation considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.






Gun Issues


2003 On the votes that the The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered to be the most important as of 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time. These scores are cumulative for each representative's time in their current office. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered votes from 1988-2003 in the House and 1991-2003 in the Senate when determining these scores.

2003 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Kerry a 10

2002 On the votes that the The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered to be the most important as of 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time. These scores are cumulative for each representative's time in their current office. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered votes from 1988-2002 in the House and 1991-2002 in the Senate when determining these scores.

2002 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2002, the National Rifle Association assigned Senator Kerry a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).

2001-2002 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Kerry a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

1999-2000 On the votes that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence considered to be the most important in 1999-2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Kerry a grade of F- (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

[Career Prole]

51. Am I still at DU?

"I doubt Kerry has done anything illegal, that will ever be made public anyway."
That almost sounded like the "liberal media" card was being played.:D

On its face, that's quite the impressive list, but it's also easily misrepresented. What were the bills? What were the amendments on the bills which would influence the vote?
Rove did the same thing to JK's voting record on taxes, as you may recall. No, I don't expect you to do the research, I'll do it myself...but Votesmart gives you a list like this:

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Humane Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Animal Protection Institute considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

..and then propose you should base your vote on that list? You'd get those exact same results from Votesmart if the only relevant bill in 2003 was legislation banning government-sponsored torture of kittens for personal gain. I'm being facetious of course, but surely you see my point.

As for Votesmart's frequent references to the Gun Owners of America, I took one look at their political links list
http://www.gunowners.org/links.htm#political
and knew right off I wouldn't see eye-to-eye with these guys (as an organization) on anything, even if they bought the beer all night long.:)
I'd just as soon my candidate didn't agree with them.
As for you personally, Jay...I'll buy. :toast:

[JayS]

53. "propose you should base your vote on that list"

I never said you should base your vote on that list. It does point out that there are some discrepancies between what is being said and what is being done that needs to be explained. You will note that Kerry is getting good grades from anti-hunting groups and anti-Second Amendment groups but bad grades from pro-hunting and pro-Second Amendment groups. What is the deal.

And yes, I pulled some of the actual bills that Kerry voted on that matter to me personally. If there was something in those bills that warrented a nay/yay vote, it was left out of the record. I doubt that happened.

[msanger]

22. support their decision..

not to vote for bush, and don't push too hard on getting them over to Kerry just yet. Let them start to hear things like "he has three purple hearts" or "he's willing to consider a pro-life judge for the supreme court" and in time they will come around.

[seabeyond]

24. i assure you she hasnt heard a single nice thing about kerry

if you have open dialogue with this person and there is respect, maybe you can ask her where her issue with kerry. and maybe you can share some positive you like about the guy. and explain to her, of course she doesnt like him, not a single media or repug has anything positive about the man. we have been conditioned. maybe you can give her enough information on character, and education, and his past record and work history that he wont be so hard for her to stomach

now people have decided they dont want bush again, we have a lot of work to do to show we as a public have been conditioned about kerry, and not a reality of who the real kerry is, but a story told by repugs and media

[scarletwoman]

26. Let them stay home -- think CONGRESS!

It's not worth it to try to talk them into voting for Kerry, because chances are they'll still be voting for the Republican candidates in other races.

Unless you think you can successfully convert a Republican voter into a Democratic voter all the way, it's not worth the risk to get them to vote for Kerry.

We're MUCH better off if Republicans decide to just sit this election out, there's more at stake in this election than just the White House.

sw

[maggrwaggr]

28. give 'em Clark as a vp. n/t

[salin]

29. To let Bush win, lets the neocons and religious right gain even

more strength in your, Republican, party.

The best way to weaken their hold, and ever regain control of the party, is for a major electoral failure. At that point all of those who have opportunistically taken that tone (because it is believed to be the "winning" tone/rhetoric) will once again moderate themselves (they want to win in the future). Those that are sincerely that far to the right will begin to lose power.

As an example of how things are moving within your, Republican party, look to the Texas Republican party, emboldened by their successes. In either 2001 or 2002 the statewide party leadership came very close to putting forward a plank for the state party - intentional purges of the party (especially for those running for office) who did not agree with ALL of the religious right and extreme right economic positins. Emboldened by their success under Tom DeLays efforts on redistricting, is likely that that wing of the party will become more, or less dominant? How soon will they begin purging others and disallowing moderate or even traditional republicans from running for office? These folks are increasingly taking power of the national party, how long before that line of discussion becomes a regular facet of selection NATIONAL candidates (eg every congressional and senate seat)?

If you (republican) are disgusted with the direction of the party - but are not sure that you can vote for Kerry - think about whether or not you want to see the Bush2 wing of the party grow stronger or weaker? This may be your turn to make the decision of whether perhaps a significant loss for republicans at the top of the ticket is the ONLY way to save the party.

[JayS]

30. "major electoral failure"

The Government here has assured us that they will keep the lights on no matter what. :)

One thing to note here in Texas, in some Republican camps and generally containing the younger politicians, the philosophy is growing more moderate as more liberal voters are brought in. Think of younger Ron Pauls and you will know what I mean.

[salin]

32. general party population

vs those in power - are two very different things. Is this growing moderation showing up in state house races? state senate races? Republicans running for state-wide office?

I will try to find the story about the attempted pushout of non extreme right republicans as republican candidates supported by the Texas GOP. Moderates may be entering - but as long as the far right keeps winning - they will not be given opportunity to exert any power.

[JayS]

33. I should have stated that better. The "old timers" are the ones...

...that get all the face time and I find them just as rigid and close-minded as some of their "old timers" Democratic couterparts can be. Rick Perry was finally pushed to help those folks in Tulia but it took a lot of pushing to get him to do that. The newer Republicans don't take as much prompting. A few of them are winning statewide races now but you don't hear all that much from them yet. That will change as the "old timers" leave office.

[salin]

35. If the current power (esp religious right) keeps gaining power in the

party (ala Tom DeLay and his boy, House speaker Tom Craddick)... the plank submitted below (forcing a loyalty pledge to ALL aspects of the (extreme) platform in order to get party funding) gets closer to passing. Ron Paul would NOT be supported in such a case - being considered a RINO due to his lack of support for issues ala Bush.

[JayS]

36. I am hoping that Tom DeLay & Company are put out to...

...pasture in a few years. Most likely they will be gotten rid of by sending them off to Washington. :) They are hopefully the last of the Old Guard. Their draconian tactics are starting to wear thin and the sooner they do the better. Perry's voter approval ratings are getting down there with Bush's IQ so maybe it is.

[salin]

40. Back to my point - for those who don't want to vote bush

but don't think they can vote for Kerry... Best way to get the old guard out.. have them be associated with LOSING rather than winning. Have the winning GOP races, be those that are for moderate candidates - and the moderates with the extremists losing - then the moderates will take control again.

[salin]

34. links

first a Molly Ivins colum about it:

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2002/261

Texas state Republican convention
June 12, 2002

DALLAS -- The world will little note nor long remember what was said at the Republican state convention last weekend. Nevertheless, the shindig had its moments. (I first saw the Lincoln quote applied to some political event in the Boston Globe a while back, but I can no longer remember who wrote it.)

A supremely nostalgic moment occurred during the convention's recognition of Sen. Phil Gramm for Lifetime Achievement. Gramm responded graciously, as befits a retiring pol making his final appearance, thanking all and sundry, giving us his fondest memories of public service: "I had the honor to be a storm trooper in the Reagan Revolution," he declared. But then, he couldn't help himself. The old pit bull dropped the statesman pose and went for the Democrats' jugular. He started in politics as an attack dog and finished that way, too -- in its way, a glorious moment.

---snip---

Their big effort this year was the "RINO rule," an effort to extirpate candidates who are Republican In Name Only. They want the party to refuse to fund any Republican candidate who does not swear allegiance to the entire platform. I always wind up rooting for the Christian right because they're the populist insurgents of the party, as opposed to the old Establishment poopers -- but I admit no one since Josef Stalin has actually thought a party purge was a good idea. But Texas Republicans tend to be the hard-shell Baptists of political theology,the ideological equivalent of "dancing will send you straight to hell"; whereas Texas Democrats are more like the Unitarians, a pretty much "whatever" approach.

more....

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

Here, in the proposed party platform in 2002 see page five:

more... http://www.texasgop.org/library/RPTPlatform2002.pdf

Support of Platform – Any person filing as a Republican candidate for a public or Party office shall be provided a current copy of the Party platform at the time of filing. The candidate shall be asked to read and initial each page of the platform and sign a statement affirming he/she has read the entire platform. The individual accepting the signed statement shall review the initialed platform and maintain a list of those who have complied with this request. This will become effective in the 2002 election. We strongly encourage Republican candidates, officeholders, and Party officials to support the Republican Party Platform and fellow Republican candidates and officeholders. We direct the Executive Campaign Committee to strongly consider candidates’ support of the Party platform when granting financial or other support.

[calimary]

37. Somebody here posted the hope that the enemy would "get the snot beaten

out of them in November." And they'd be correct. I think that's what "major electoral failure" is about.

The BEST way to yank back our country, and return it more to the correct track again, is to work our hardest to make sure that the neocons and the fundies and the radical right - all of whom have hijacked the republican party do, indeed, get the snot beaten out of them in November.

They really can't go down to just any old defeat.

First, they MUST be beaten so decisively in the presidential race that there's no way they can steal it. We must have MANY eyes watching and openly on the alert in states like Florida (the scene of the crime, and remember what criminals tend to do...) and Ohio (where the Diebold guy stated in public that he was going to do everything he could to make sure the state of Ohio was delivered to bush). We must have the BBV issue so loud and out in the forefront that everybody's either talking about it or has heard of it, so it's in EVERYBODY's awareness. SHINE A LIGHT ON THE COCKROACHES IF YOU WANNA MAKE 'EM SCATTER.

Second, they MUST be beaten so decisively that Kerry has bigtime coattails. Doesn't much matter how he gets 'em, whether it's active (he's just won a lot of people over) or passive (those who can't stomach voting for him instead of their beloved bush - by whom they now feel betrayed - just give into their discouragement and stay home on election day). That, then, will give us the House and maybe also the Senate. With Democratic majorities, we will actually have the strength in numbers to do some long-overdue repair jobs, and justice quests - because we will have the numbers to go after these crooks and indict a few dozen of them. We will be able to launch congressional hearings that REALLY mean something and will REALLY get some serious business done, rather than just putting on a nice show and then whitewashing everything.

This, in turn, will result in the stench of "LOSER" settling onto the surface of their skin and seeping into their pores. Consider what a pariah bush-the-first became, after Clinton beat him in 1992. All of a sudden, he had the stench of LOSER all over him. Nobody wanted to be seen with him. He became the very embodiment of defeat, an entitlement (to the White House and to power) denied, he became almost like an old eunuch. Because when you lose, you can't swagger around with any arrogance anymore - since you have nothing to be arrogant about. And you remind everyone else what all they lost by going along with you and being on your team. You devalue everyone around you, and therefore nobody wants to be associated with you. It's the ultimate demoralizer. How many people didn't take his calls anymore? How many people looked to steer in a different direction from the way he went, so as not to make his mistake again? Did anybody see him making all the rounds of the talk shows and the lecture circuit and keeping a high profile to try and rehabilitate himself and attempt to stay in the game and convince people he was still a player? No. Nobody wanted any part of him. By the time Bob Dole came along four years later, nobody knew nothin' 'bout any george bush. Nobody wanted to. He got sent to the cornfield because none of them wanted to be associated with a LOSER. It makes them feel like one, too.

Remember, too, that Clinton won that time, but not decisively enough to leave his enemies licking any serious wounds for any length of time. Their wounds just weren't that deep. They remained within striking distance of getting revenge two years later, which - with the rise and increasing loudness and obnoxiousness and sheer nerve of newt gingrich - is exactly what they did. THAT'S why we have to do everything we can to make sure they get the snot beaten out of them. We have to leave them as deeply and devastatingly demoralized as possible, because we want to force more than a few of them to have to rethink the way they've been doing business. As BIG A REPUDIATION AS POSSIBLE IS WHAT'S URGENTLY NEEDED. If they get the snot beaten out of them (I'm REALLY growing to love that phrase!), some of them may feel like they need to face some serious self-reexamination to determine what went wrong. It's more likely that some of them will hear the complaints from those who say the knuckledraggers and other extremists have pulled them too far to the right and thereby cost them the election. We can assist this by pointing it out, repeatedly and relentlessly ourselves, by the way.

But ALL THESE PEOPLE HAVE TO BE SOUNDLY AND DECISIVELY REPUDIATED. There needs to be such a bad taste left in the mouth toward anybody who harangues about the wonderful neocon philosophy of latter-day crusading and endless war and remaking the Middle East in our own image and likeness. These people, and their reprehensible world view, HAVE TO BE ABSOLUTELY, DECISIVELY, IRREFUTABLY REPUDIATED AND DISCREDITED. This will happen if they lose BIG. If they lose the House and/or Senate, along with the White House - they'll have had the whole ballgame and blown it, and everyone will know it. Plus, we will repeat THAT relentlessly, too, to further hammer it home.

The best way to save our country, long-term, is to make sure these people get the snot beaten out of them. Call it the stake-through-the-heart. Salting their fields so nothing will grow. Give 'em the same kind of treatment that the Romans gave Carthage. The bigger a defeat, and a repudiation there is, the better. The bigger and stronger and heavier stench of LOSER that sticks to them, the better.

These people need to be set back by at least a generation if our country is to recover to any credible or workable degree.

So, guys, now is NOT the time to become complacent. We have the nail positioned just where it needs to be. Now, we need to get the biggest big-ass hammer we can find and smack it home!

[porkrind]

48. easy.

Easy. Tell them that their party has strayed from its ideals and that it must be sent a message that it needs to reform itself. Votes and $$$ are the only language parties understand, so tell them to protest vote for a democrat. Their party will see their constituency is unhappy, and they will change.

---

Read about the Right-Wing "Master Plan": http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-contents.html

Have you read "War is a Racket"?: http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

52. BY SLAPPIN' THE SHI....... Sorry what was the question again?

[Auntie Bush]

54. Make CLARK VEEP! That ought to do it!

Remember he was a Republican! lol