Why aren't more Democrats voting for GOP candidates this election?

[ballz2wallz]

It never ceases to amaze me how Democrats choose to vote. For the last 8 yrs they have lambasted President Bush for his conservative ways. Correction: for the first 3 yrs of his presidency, they have lambasted Bush for his ultra-conservative ways. For the subsequent 5 yrs of his presidency, they have lambasted Bush for his more moderate ways. In the end, I heard endless desires to see someone 'fiscally conservative but socially liberal'.

Question: why aren't Democrats voting for a Republican candidate this election?

It seems to me the GOP candidates this year are far from conservative as a whole. Romney was governor of the most liberal state in the country. How did he do that? Not because he was conservative! Not to mention that he was 'for abortion before he was against it'.

Guiliani was governor of the second most liberal state in the country. How did he do that? Not because he was conservative! He was 'for guns before he was against guns'.

Huckabee, as religious as the guy is (can't Democrats be religious) is still soft on several social issues, including taxes and immigration, major points with the Democrats. Granted, he said he only increased taxes in Arkansas because his Democratic legislature wouldn't work with him otherwise, but isn't that what Democrats would want, someone who is willing to work with them even as a member of the opposing party?

It seems to me we have several Republican candidates who are conservative, but not socially conservative, and yet I don't hear many Democrats willing to pay them attention. Instead, I see Democrats wanting to vote for the most highly polarizing candidates of their party: Clinton, Obama, or Edwards.

What gives?

[SoFlaJDM]

do you have any figures to back up these claims?

[DosEquis]

most of the republican candidates are for maintaining our militarism and imperialist policy. The only one against such a thing is Ron Paul.

Most of the republicans are for giving tax\maintaining breaks to the wealthy, who already pay nearly 1/2 the % in taxes as their receptionist. I know, some say "but Dos they already pay X% of the total taxes in this country". However you guys always use % as the 'fair guage' so to speak. As it stands today the average person pays about 30% of their income in taxes, where the upper teir guy pays 17-20%.

etc etc

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

most of the republican candidates are for maintaining our militarism and imperialist policy. The only one against such a thing is Ron Paul.

Most of the republicans are for giving tax\maintaining breaks to the wealthy, who already pay nearly 1/2 the % in taxes as their receptionist. I know, some say "but Dos they already pay X% of the total taxes in this country". However you guys always use % as the 'fair guage' so to speak. As it stands today the average person pays about 30% of their income in taxes, where the upper teir guy pays 17-20%.

etc etc

When you have candidates in the Democratic party who want to keep families from passing money down generation after generation, how can you support such a party? It certainly isn't the government's job to take the family's money from them.

See Hillary and her statist desires:

“It’s really a tax to prevent us from having inherited wealth generation after generation, which would really undermine the kind of spirit and meritocracy that the United States stands for.”

This is her on Fast Money the other day.

Not to mention she wants to confiscate profits of companies:

YouTube Video

[DosEquis]

I am ok with the "death tax" and I am ok with reasonable taxes on profit.

I also respectfully disagree with hillary that the estate tax is merely a method for government to prevent anyone from inherting things. I consider inheritance a form of new income for the person recieving it, much along the lines of capital gains.

At the moment I do not support her and depending on who she is running against, should she win the nomination, I am not sure what I would do in the voting booth.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

do you have any figures to back up these claims?

I'm not sure what figures you could possibly be referring to, but if you question the legitimacy of the claims that Democrats in the past have touted 'fiscal responsibility' then here are a few quotes:

Hillary: "I believe we can reduce the deficit and restore fiscal responsibility ..." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Speech On Economic Policy, Manchester School For Technology, Manchester, NH, 5/29/07)

or in a recent article ( Fiscal Responsibility Proves Costly - WSJ.com )

Democrats took control of Congress this year with a pledge to be more fiscally responsible than their Republican counterparts. Trying to fulfill that promise, however, has caused strains among lawmakers, forced cutbacks in big policy goals and snagged major legislation.

The problem is, all of the Democratic candidates have big plans for big government programs, whether it be giving money to illegals, giving healthcare to all, including illegals, any number of other programs comprised of 'giving money'. Where is the fiscal responsibility in such programs? Do they even address who will pay for such programs? Certainly not, and I'd be shocked to know that anyone supported such large government involvement in our daily lives.

For a long time the Democrats on this board have complained of Bush's 'bigger government' desire for power. Do those same Democrats support candidates in their own party who have bigger and broader ambitions?

[SoFlaJDM]

i didn't ask for soundbytes or out of context quotes... you reached your conclusions somehow... i hope it was according to some kind of facts, that's all

Question: why aren't Democrats voting for a Republican candidate this election?

link?

what's the problem with voting for someone polarizing... if that's something bad, you should be the first to admit wrongdoing

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

what's the problem with voting for someone polarizing...

It creates a separation in our country.

if that's something bad, you should be the first to admit wrongdoing

Why? Bush is more moderate than conservative.

[SoFlaJDM]

again, i would like too see a link to your assertions in this question:

Question: why aren't Democrats voting for a Republican candidate this election?

LINK?

that was my only concern there really... i'm guessing you pulled that one out of your ass until i see a link

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

again, i would like too see a link to your assertions in this question:

Question: why aren't Democrats voting for a Republican candidate this election?

LINK?

that was my only concern there really... i'm guessing you pulled that one out of your ass until i see a link

Democrats lead in the polls

They're not voting for Republicans.

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Democrats lead in the polls

They're not voting for Republicans.

nice link i'm out of here

[bheld]

Fiscal responsibility isn't the same as conservatism. Democrats still want a return on their tax dollars while Republicans are still content with handing it over to defense contractors and back to the wealthy.

And Bush is not a moderate. Trying to push him away from conservatism isn't going to work. You're not fooling anybody.

[RMNIXON]

You know what bothered me about Bush in 2000? That Compassionate Conservative stuff. Now recall this was pre-9/11 and the whole debate was domestic policy. So he was doing the soft sell on more government. But it rubbed me the wrong way. Compassion is for family, friends, and good neighbors. Not bureaucracy! He could outspend every Democrat before him (I think he has?) and would still be the evil selfish Republican who does not care about the children and just wants to give tax breaks to the rich. It was the wrong direction. And now we have handed the Democrats the idea that "they" are more responsible! That is nonsense, but Republicans gave them the hand to play.

[motivez]

Why would they vote for candidates that they disagree with on so many issues when they have a number of candidates they disagree with less?

Democrats generally disagree with the Republican position on a lot of issues, and see the Republican candidates as being willing to continue Bush's failed policies.. Along with that, the new issues that have come up exclude most of the Republican candidates.. immigration, illegal and warrantless spying, torture, etc.

The exception is Ron Paul. I know many Democrats who are giving him a serious look and are even registering as Republicans to vote for him in their primaries.. and who are willing to vote for him in the general election if he's running over the Democrats, so I think it just takes a certain type of Republican.

Ron Paul is more of a return to classic conservatism, where the government stays out of your pockets and your personal lives.. whereas the rest of the candidates talk a good game about staying out of your pockets, while still trying to shove their morality down the country's throat on things like drugs, gay marriage, etc.

Also, as a side note.. Giuliani was Mayor of New York City, not Governor of the state of New York.

[RMNIXON]

And are Democrats really going to back Paul and his domestic small government agenda? Or will they run to Hillary, and more programs than she can pay for, while they root for Paul's independent drain on Republican party votes? I have little doubt what the answer will be. After all, the last Democrat in the Whitehouse had well under the majority popular vote in two elections. That is the only way the Democrats have won since Jimmy Carter in 1976!

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

And are Democrats really going to back Paul and his domestic small government agenda? Or will they run to Hillary, and more programs than she can pay for, while they root for Paul's independent drain on Republican party votes? I have little doubt what the answer will be. After all, the last Democrat in the Whitehouse had well under the majority popular vote in two elections. That is the only way the Democrats have won since Jimmy Carter in 1976!

If the GOP is intelligent enough to nominate Paul, I will vote for him over Hillary. There is absolutely no way I will vote for Hillary, as I have said before.

I won't say I'd vote for Paul over ALL of the Democratic nominees, though.

[motivez]

I'd vote for Hillary over some of the bigot Republican candidates who'll continue Bush's harmful policies.

[lew]

Originally Posted by bheld

Fiscal responsibility isn't the same as conservatism. Democrats still want a return on their tax dollars while Republicans are still content with handing it over to defense contractors and back to the wealthy.

And Bush is not a moderate. Trying to push him away from conservatism isn't going to work. You're not fooling anybody.

Bush is no conservative and hasn't been one the entire time he's been in office.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by lew

Bush is no conservative and hasn't been one the entire time he's been in office.

He's the epitome of what conservatism has become.