I just heard someone on Rush say they were dem voting for Bush...

[Cannikin]

I didnt hear his entire call. But his main issue was tax increases..

I knew we were having trouble picking a candidate, but what motivates a Democrat to vote for Bush? And how do we win these people back?

The Rush substitute thanked him for his vote and said 'Thanks. We need you.' And called him a JFK Democrat. That gave me pause..glad to see they dont truly think they've got the election won already.

[phillybri]

1. I love how Repukes are now saying JFK would be a Republican now....

Wasn't it JFK that said the US as we know it would never START a war????

[SharonAnn]

27. It has to do with their meme that JFK believed in tax cuts

Right, he lowered the maximum marginal rate to something close to 70%.

So, using that logic, we should recommend changing the top marginal rate to close to 70%. I don't know, it's just such a nightmare that the public is so uneducated that they believe all this shit.

[eileen_d]

2. What motivates a Democrat to listen to Rush?

Personally I think the odds are 50/50 this was someone pretending to be a Democrat. But I think any Democrat who listens to Rush for anything other than opposition research or entertainment would be pretty hard to reach... with a 10-foot pole...

[Serenades]

16. Because

We need to know how the ENEMY thinks. That is why I watch Fox News (or Faux News as some say).

[Cheswick2.0]

47. but they don't think

turn them off, they will invade your brain!

[Liberal Veteran]

3. I wouldn't trust anyone calling that show claiming to be a dem...

...that would vote for Bush.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

33. This is a trick they're using

"I voted for Gore, but I'm going to vote for Bush because of his strong leadership, tax cuts, etc." It shows up in some form or another in every newspaper letters to the editor or call-in shows. It's standard propaganda practice.

[pnziii]

4. Republicans may vote Democrat

I've run into more than a couple Republicans that say they won't vote for Bush.
This is going to be a wild election.

[MR. ELECTABLE]

5. Probably another Lying Liar

No democrat in their right mind would vote for Bush. Probably some FReeper stooge whose friends put him up to it.

[Sagan]

6. Oh, I am too!

Hi, Rush! I'm a lifelong Democrat, but I just can't see myself voting for anyone other than George W. Bush in 2004. He has shown such terrific leadership and is really a God-given gift to this country.

The tax and spend liberal Democrats who love abortion could never catch Osama or take out Saddam. And since they all want to take my guns away too, I just can't support the Democrats in 2004.

Remember.. I'm a lifelong Democrat. Calling the Rush Limbaugh show. Talking about how much I hate Democrats.

Mega dittos!

[Robbien]

7. There was a newspaper article that said Bush is paying

a large number of people to go on conservative talk shows and talk up Bush and talk down the democratic party.

I guess they have reported for duty.

[TrueAmerican]

10. link please

I would like to see the article. What newspaper?

[Robbien]

18. Thom Hartman was talking about this just this afternoon

I cannot find the original article, but this CNN article refers to this campaign strategy:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/31/elec04.prez.b... /

From a nondescript high-rise looking down on the capital's monuments, Bush's re-election effort has already spent more than $15 million preparing for next year. That includes, among other things, paying a staff that now numbers about 140 and rent for the two floors of office space in Arlington, Virginia.

The staff represents the public voice and face of Bush's re-election effort at a time when he doesn't want to be visibly pulled into the campaign. Campaign officials talk to journalists and talk-show hosts around the country, while Bush sometimes recruits relatives for other political chores.

[arcane1]

25. on that subject, there is this that I posted months ago

and should probably post it once a week


http://www.technomania.com/onlinemarketing.asp


New Media Communications conceptualizes, builds, and implements INternet strategies & solutions.

Our political practice group consults for Republican party campaigns and party organizations in the United States and center and center-right parties around the world, continuing to pioneer new initiatives online

An online marketing campaign employs several tactics simultaneously. Our Online Services Department develops and implements online marketing programs using:

Advertising - Online branding, banner ad creation, placement & analysis, strategic link placement, channel advertising, directory placement

Promotional Marketing - Electronic Direct Marketing (EDM), direct opt-in e-mail and viral communications, search engine submission, bulletin board posting, newsgroup and chat room posting, guerilla marketing, permission marketing, online newsletters

-snip-

[Robbien]

29. So in addition to the 140 paid staffers

he could have an outside consulting firm paid to call in to radio stations. $200 million can buy a lot of callers and bulletin board posters.

[shawn703]

8. Ask Zell Miller

He already said he's a Democrat who's going to vote for Bush. Unfortunately, if you go out of your way to "win these people back", you're going to alienate the true progressives in the party.

[spanone]

11. Zell Miller is not a democrat, Policy and ideology make parties

not words.

[Blitz]

32. Or ask Ed Koch

A liberal Democrat his whole life:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1203/koch.html

And there will be more. You can count on it. For example, who do you think Andrew Cuomo will ultimately endorse?

Evidence of Democrats supporting Bush is everywhere. One blog which is much discussed here on DU is Charles Johnson's Little Green Footballs. Well, here's a fact: Johnson voted for Gore in 2000. Moreover, up until 9/11/2001, Johnson attacked Bush with regularity.

Take a look at these:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=291

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=506

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=565

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=939

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=1095 (on 9/12/2001)

Johnson is supporting Bush.

Oscar nominated screenwriter Roger L. Simon is a life-long liberal. He's supporting Bush in '04:

http://rogerlsimon.com/archives/00000469.htm

Cara Remal has always been a liberal. She is likely supporting Bush because she believes that the next President must be serious about the WoT (and is supporting Democrats in congressional races, since she is liberal on domestic policy):

http://whoknew.typepad.com/whoknew/2003/10/the_savage_l...

The list goes no and on and on. I know MANY Gore voters who will be voting for Bush the next time around (unless the Democrats nominate someone like Lieberman or, possibly, Edwards) because the WoT is a BIG deal to them. San Francisco radio talk show host Ron Owens, who is the most popular radio personality in the Bay Area is a good example of the mindset of many centrists (he is the very definition of a centrist - supported the war, liberal on domestic issues; his new book is "Voice of Reason : Why the Left and Right are Wrong"
http://www.kgoam810.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.ronn.com ). He is undecided but two things are clear. If Lieberman gets the nomination, he's voting for Lieberman and if Dean gets it, he's voting for Bush.

The Democratic party is walking off of a cliff. I don't care how many "new" voters you think you'll bring in. If a candidate loses virtually all of the other side's voters (and energizes their base as well) and ALSO loses 10-30% of traditionally Democratic voters because they support the war effort and are told that there is no room for them in the new Democratic party, he's going to lose in a landslide that will make people forget about McGovern, Dukakis and Mondale forever.

[West Coast Democrat]

49. I'm sure there are just as many Bush*-Voters who won't repeat

that mistake. A few people on a website claiming to be "life-long liberals" voting for Bush? Big deal!

I personally don't know one Gore-voter who would vote for Bush* in 2004.

[Blitz]

59. Do you really think

that there are a lot of Republicans who will vote for an anti-war candidate? Look at the polling numbers re: Republican/Democratic support for the war.

As for not knowing Gore voters who will vote for Bush, I know many and I named a few for you. However, individual voters aren't the issue. Categories of voters are. Koch speaks for many democrats. Ron Owens speaks for many, many swing voters. Believe it or not, Miller's endorsement will carry significant weight with many voters who traditionally vote Democratic. The only "conservative" votes that now look like they may not go to Bush are Buchanan conservatives and, as 2000 showed us, there just aren't all that many of them (and what there are will probably either stay home or vote 3rd party rather than voting for the Democratic candidate).

[ButterflyBlood]

72. wrong

what about small "l" libertarians?

[ButterflyBlood]

71. then why these numbers?

Note that the gap is actually smallest with Dean.

also, I know of no Dems who would vote for Bush, but of one Republican (or at least someone who voted for him before) who will vote against him. My grandmother voted for Bush in 2000 and during my Thanksgiving visit, she was constantly complaining about how badly he screwed up the situation in Iraq and thinks he has no clue what he's doing.

[Blitz]

73. Let me introduce you to (another) Democrat for Bush

I take it you've heard of Orson Scott Card?

Here is what he had to say recently:

. . .

We have enemies that have earned our hatred, and whom we should fear. They are fanatical terrorists who seek opportunities to kill American civilians here and Israeli civilians in Israel.

But right now, our national media and the Democratic Party are trying to get us to believe that the people we should hate and fear are George W. Bush and the Republicans.

I can think of many, many reasons why the Republicans should not control both houses of Congress and the White House.

But right now, if the alternative is the Democratic Party as led in Congress and as exemplified by the current candidates for the Democratic nomination, then I can't be the only Democrat who will, with great reluctance, vote not just for George W. Bush, but also for every other candidate of the only party that seems committed to fighting abroad to destroy the enemies that seek to kill us and our friends at home.

. . .

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-11-16-1.html

Now, how many people read your grandma's column?

[spanone]

9. A person who votes for Bush is not a democrat no way no how

[arcane1]

15. nor are they conservative

no true ideological conservative would approve of their growing government, increased spending, fiscal irresponsibility, PATRIOT Act intrusiveness, etc etc etc


the Bush Admin is about as conservative as I am

no, actually, they are LESS

[Capn Sunshine]

12. It's starting in earnest

Rush routinely has folks on who say the latest spin and purport to be democrats. The reality is these folks are operatives from the dark side. Remembering that republican party loyalists have learned their craft from the actual documented Nazi party members brought here to work for the reich wing in the 40's, the propaganda from the 21st century Goebbels has begun in earnest.

Tax increase , my ass. This will blow up in their faces, particularly the dems that try to use this.

[Redneck Socialist]

13. 70% of Democrats disapprove of the job bushie is doing...

...according to some polls. What the hell is up with the other 30% I want to know? How you can call yourself a Democrat if you support bushCo. is beyond me.

[Yupster]

40. Just for a benchmark, in 2000

Gore beat Bush among voters who said they were Democrats by 86-11.

Bush beat Gore among voters who said they were Republicans by 91-8.

The blocs appear pretty monolithic. Will either of them change this year? It wouldn't take much of a change to make a big difference.

[ellie]

14. Right

The whole country is going to hell in a handbasket. Mad Cow, preemptive war, devaluation of the dollar, the rise of religious fundamentalism, and this stupid prick is worried about his taxes going up! Well he can pound sand, the Democratic Party doesn't need him. When the repubics get scared, they trot out the handy dandy "Democrats raise taxes!" cry to distract and disorient.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

17. "JFK Democrat"

Unfortunately, that's true. I'd take an LBJ or Truman Democrat over "give rich people tax cuts" JFK anyday.

[zorkpolitics]

19. They're out there

Even a Democrat in MA claims to be voting for Bush.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1230/p09s02-coop.html?ent...

[Timefortruth]

23. Anecdotal reports are meaningless.

I can tell you of 10 Republicans I know or know of who no longer support the Chimp. What does that prove?

[drdigi420]

20. those calls are set up

just more BS from the GOP propaganda machine

[Cannikin]

21. I think, as difficult as it is, everyone should listen. ..

occasionally to conservative propaganda. I think it helps to see how we are perceived from an objective view, so that we can combat it.

And I'm sure the caller was given a free subscription to the website or something to reward him for his 'correct' answer.

[Pathwalker]

24. We should listen to conservative propaganda....

because it helps to see how we're perceived by an OBJECTIVE view? Surely, you don't mean that conservative propaganda is OBJECTIVE? Objectionable, yes. I will not pollute my mind by listening to such ilk.

[Cannikin]

50. FROM and objective view...as in, outside your own..

[Skittles]

42. Canniken, believe me, living in Texas

I cannot stomach anymore coservative propaganda.

[Timefortruth]

22. Democrats just don’t support Bush.

He is no Reagan and there is no such thing as a Bush Democrat. The call you heard was nonsense propaganda promulgated by the GOP to energize the base, consider the source.

As for your comment that we are having difficulty picking a nominee. The Democrats are all ABB, and quite united in that opinion. When we talk the about the primary the conversations all end with the same mantra “It doesn’t matter in the long run, I will support the nominee.” The indecision on the part of Democrats is another fabrication, not a single vote has been cast. When we have a nominee there will be a tidal wave of support.

[Timefortruth]

26. Only 20% of Democrats would vote for Bush.

http://pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm
"If the 2004 presidential election were being held today, and the candidates were George W. Bush, the Republican, and Howard Dean, the Democrat, do you think you would vote for George W. Bush or Howard Dean?"


ALL 55 35
Republicans 91 3
Democrats 20 70
Independents 57 28

And that's before there has been a campaign.

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. A rigged call, maybe?

When it comes to RW talk radio, I often wonder if the other person on the phone isn't just someone from Rush's staff, ya know?

[Cannikin]

30. I've been trying to study Rush's 'formula'

Its obvious his calls are on hold for hours to get on. And he knows why they are calling before hand. If I'm not mistaken, all his calls are on a screen in front of him, categorized by their topic and party affiliation. That way he is able to pick and choose (or ignore) calls that suit his agenda or to forward a point. And when he see's that he's got some irate democrat on his list, he'll put them on to make us all sound crazy...

I'm sure there is a little more to it than that, but that seems to fit what I observe.

[liberalpress]

31. As a person who works in radio...

..I can assure you that all callers are completely spontaneous and truly believe what they say. There is absolutely no way a talk-show host, or any other kind of host or screener, would "suggest" to a caller that he or she say something dishonest or spout a philosophy they truly do not believe. So if the caller states they are a Democrat for Bush then they are. Really. Truly. Honestly. I swear. They are as real a wrestling or Dolly Parton's boobs. Or O'Reilly's Peabody. No kidding.

[West Coast Democrat]

51. That's like saying.....

it would be impossible for a Freeper to come to DU claiming to be Democrat. Care to rethink your post?

[SoCalDem]

34. Anyone can say they are anything..

I can call and say .."I am a republican, and I love "......"..

These are phony calls

[PaDUer]

35. Don't forget something...

the R's are desperate, and don't be surprised if anyone from FR would call and say they're D and yadda, yadda, yadda...

[Blitz]

38. What makes you think that

the Republicans are desperate?

[Yavin4]

36. To Hell With The Centrists

If the "centrists" believe that Bush is a centrist, then they're either not paying attention or they're not really a centrist. Bush's policies are leading us into disaster. The bill will come due on his massive deficits which will wreck the "recovery". Also, if these "centrists" are so in love with the idea of pre-emptive wars, then they won't have any problem with letting their kid go to Bush's next war in Iran or Syria.

Centrists are nothing more than people who have life good at the moment. They don't pay close attention to politics nor do they analyze things. They sit back and believe the lies told to them by the corporate run media.

Ron Owens is a perfect example. He gets paid a lot of money to give out his opinons. He's not going to lose his job to outsourcing. He's not going to have to face a military draft. He doesn't have to face a war. He's safe and sound in his comfortable little world, far, far, far away from the harsh realities of every day life in the U.S. His opinion carries little weight with me.


We need to nominate someone that clearly and effectively articulates our ideals, and if that person loses, so be it. We won't be held responsible when Bush's policies blow up in his face.

[Blitz]

37. That's the spirit!!

So what if the Democratic party disintegrates after the nominee who "clearly and effectively articulates (y)our ideals" loses all fifty states? At least you "won't be held responsible," and that's the important thing.

[Yavin4]

39. A Waffling Centrist Has No Chance Against Bush

Your post assumes that a centrist will have a better chance against Bush. Hogwash! Want proof? Try Max Cleland's senate run in 2002. Cleland voted for Bush's tax cuts, voted for the Patriot Act, and voted for the Iraq War resolution.

What happened to Cleland's senate run? Bush campaigned hard for his opponent who painted Cleland, a Vietnam Veteran war hero who was a multiple amputee, as "unpatriotic" and "soft on terrorism" simply because Cleland wanted the government employees under the DHS act to have employment protection. Cleland lost big on election night.

A centrist has no better chance against Bush than a hard left winger. I'd rather lose all 50 states by being on record as dead set against pre-emptive wars than lose 45 states and be on record as having supported pre-emptive wars.

When the neocons have us invading Iran and Syria, I want my party to look into the eyes of America and say, "We did everything that we could to prevent this from happening."

I'd rather lose than have the guilt that the Germans have because of Hitler.

[Blitz]

41. How did Cynthia McKinney do?

Oh, that's right. She never even made it to the General Election. A centrist has her seat in Congress.

Nobody remembers or cares about a losing candidate's positions on the issues. Well, that's not 100% true. If the candidate loses big, his party and future candidates who actually want to get elected will be sure to move away from those positions which caused him to get squished. "Your" party will not be looking America in the eye to defend a losing position. Rather, it will be so busy disassociating itself from that losing position that I very much doubt that it will be "your party" any longer.

Oh, and comparing Bush to Hitler. That didn't take long.

[Yavin4]

43. Comparing McKinney To Cleland Is Like

comparing apples to oranges. I'm not suggesting that we nominate someone like McKinney who made a ton of off-the-cuff remarks that could not be supported. But, I like how you completely dodge my argument about centrist politicians like Cleland getting steamrolled by Bush by using McKinney.

If you're right about centrist politicians being better than Bush than explain how and why Cleland lost first, then you can bring up McKinney.

Second, yes, I do compare Bush to Hitler. I also compare him to Stalin, and Mao. Why because launching pre-emptive wars against nations that have not attacked you is what Bush and these other leaders did. Where were you in 1979 when the USSR invaded Afghanistan for the same reason why we invaded Iraq? National security. Read some history one day pal.

[Blitz]

44. In 1979

I was about 2 years removed from having gotten out of the Soviet Union. I have an understanding of the difference between Stalin and Bush that is grounded in something a bit more substantial than some history book. The fact that you would make the ridiculous comparison between Bush and men who were personally responsible for the wholesale slaughter of millions tells me what I need to know about the quality of your arguments.

Cleland lost due largely to his opposition in a key DHS vote, as a result of which his opponent was able to paint him as soft on terror. That is not an argument that a Democratic candidate who wants to be successful should be someone who can be painted as soft on terror. It is an argument for just the opposite. It is also a wake-up call for those that think that Bush lacks coattails. It was largely his popularity that lead to the Republican landslide in 2002. 2004 is about more than the White House and unless Democrats face facts, the Democratic party will be an impotent minority party as on January, 2005 and for many, many years to come.

[Yavin4]

45. You Don't Think That Thousands Have Been Slaughtered

under Bush? Just because CNN doesn't report on the number of Iraqi and Afghanistan lives lost because of war, that doesn't mean that thousands didn't die. Also, if Bush does indeed win, then there will be thousands of innocent lives slaughtered. Finally, just because Bush's body count is not as high as Stalin's or Hitler's, that doesn't mean that the comparison is inapt. Stalin and Hitler pre-emptively invaded and conquered nations that did not attack them because of national security concerns. The two D.C. snipers killed far more people than Charles Manson's family did. Does that make Manson less evil?

Cleland lost due largely to his opposition in a key DHS vote, as a result of which his opponent was able to paint him as soft on terror. That is not an argument that a Democratic candidate who wants to be successful should be someone who can be painted as soft on terror. It is an argument for just the opposite.

WTF? So Cleland should have proven his "centrism" by voting FOR EVERYTHING that Bush wanted? Giving Bush 99% of what he wanted wasn't enough. Hell, why don't the Democrats just vote with Bush 100% of the time. Better yet, why don't the Dems just disband and join the Republican party whole hog. This way, we can effectuate change from within the Republican party!

2004 is about more than the White House and unless Democrats face facts, the Democratic party will be an impotent minority party as on January, 2005 and for many, many years to come.

In normal times, I would agree with you that the Dems need to be pragmatic, but these are not normal times. Whether you want to admit it or not, we are well on a path towards corporate facism in this country, and we have a moral responsibility to future Americans to do everything that we can to stop it.

[Blitz]

48. Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Saddam

slaughtered their own citizens en masse. In many cases, just gathered them up and butchered them. In others, let them starve, on purpose, in their MILLIONS. Thousands died in MILITARY CONFLICTS during the Bush presidency. Ditto for Clinton. Is Clinton like Hitler, Stalin and Mao? Is Kennedy? How about LBJ? More people died under both JFK and LBJ than did under Bush. Far more.

Reasonable people can differ as to whether or not the Iraq war was wise or called for. An intelligent, civilized discussion on that question is entirely possible. However, comparing Bush to Hitler (or Stalin or Mao) is intellectually vapid. The mere fact that you can sit in the United States and make such an argument shows that it is false on its face. The comparison suffers from a lack of basis in fact. It shows a complete lack of intellectual rigor or, in the alternative, intellectual honesty on the part of the proponent of such a comparison.

As for Cleland, he didn't have to "prove" anything. He simply lost to a man that the voters of his state liked better, in no small part due to the fact that he was strongly supported by a very popular war-time President. That happens.

[Yavin4]

54. Please Read My Post and Think About It

Bush may not have done everything that Hitler, Mao, and Stalin did, BUT he did pre-emptively attack another nation that has never attacked us, which is where HE DOES SHARE A COMPARISON WITH HITLER, MAO, AND STALIN.

Also, what Clinton did in Bosnia is also not the same. We did not invade and conquer Bosnia. At the request of the Muslims and the international community, we protected a group of people who were being slaughtered. No such request was in existence in Iraq, nor is there such a request in Iran and Syria.

As for Cleland, he didn't have to "prove" anything. He simply lost to a man that the voters of his state liked better, in no small part due to the fact that he was strongly supported by a very popular war-time President. That happens.

So, in other words, being a centrist does not mean that you'll win against Bush. Well, thank you for agreeing with me!

[Cheswick2.0]

46. Yikes, people are getting pause again!

What motivates a democrat to listen to right wing talk radio? I have never had pause before, but were I to get pause it would probably be over why people torture themselves listening to right wing idiots on AM radio.

[Cannikin]

52. Hahaha...

If I didnt, I would have never found DU! Isnt that reason enough?!?!?
Does THAT give you pause? lol

[takebackthewh]

53. See?

This is why we gotta lay off the tax increase shit.

This is why we gotta sound like we're serious about keeping America safe.

This is why we gotta stop looking like a bunch of kooks who have their posts spread all over the Internet for other people to laugh at.

Cmon, people. If we want to win the election, we need to clean up our frigging act already.

People in small towns in places like Nebraska think we're a bunch of loonies. We need those votes. We gotta start acting like adults.

[Individualist]

55. "We"?

Define the "we" you're talking about.

[takebackthewh]

60. We is

any Democrat who wants to get Bush out of the WH.

[Individualist]

61. Your tactics

of "gotta lay off the tax increase, gotta stop looking like a bunch of kooks who have their posts spread all over the Internet for other people to laugh at, etc." have been tried so many times they've become boring. Need I add that such attempts always fail?

[takebackthewh]

63. Well

what's your secret plan to win?

[Individualist]

64. Don't you wish you knew

[Blitz]

65. It's so secret

that you're not going to hear about it until 2005 ... when it'll be broadcast all over the place and entitled "What the Democrats Should Have Done to Avoid the '04 Disaster."

[Individualist]

66. Wishful thinking on your part?

If so, you're in for a big disappointment.

[Blitz]

67. A widely held belief

that the path that the Democrats are currently on will lead to a massive loss in the Presidential race and further loss of seats in both the House and the Senate. What do you think might happen if Bush has a filibuster-proof Republican Congress to work with?

[Individualist]

68. Time will tell

as to whether your allegation "the path that the Democrats are currently on will lead to a massive loss" has any credibility. As for me, I don't follow the path of defeatism that you're promoting and won't waste any more time with your pessimistic speculations. As to a filibuster-proof Republican Congress, he already more or less has that in place.

[Blitz]

70. Really?

Tell that to Miguel Estrada.

[LuminousX]

56. Someone calls themselves a Dem to get on Rush and it is believed?

[arewethereyet]

57. OK you can never be sure about things like this but look beyond that

Dr Dean'd proposal to roll back the tax cuts is going to turn a lot of people off. You don't have to listen to Limbaugh to figure that out.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fridays Child]

62. And was his last name Shill?

[Deja Q]

69. The jerk was never a Dem...

Anyone with a grain of common sense knows we must raise taxes to get out of this $hithole the repukes have put this entire Godforsaken country into.

Especially for those who take the most, they in turn must give the most. Seems fair to me. They get the most protections in return anyway.