I don't get the "don't switch horses" argument

[Bucky]

The people who are concerned about bringing in a new president in the middle of a war (or two) probably are about the swingiest of swing votes this year. Lord help me, I just don't understand them. This is what I hear from "man in the street" interviews on the news all the time: "President Bush hasn't done a good job on the economy at all, but I just don't think this is the right time to change presidents."

So they dislike his corrupt jillionaire buddies ripping us off, they dislike his tax breaks for Loaded-Americans, they dislike his reckless disregard for the environment, and they fear losing their jobs in the stagnant economy that he's mishandled... BUUUUT... they don't think it's a good time to change the man in the White House.

If this is a real fear, then the substance-free Democratic Convention in Boston that never went 10 minutes without mentioning Kerry's war record struck exactly the right tone. These swingers need to be convinced that Kerry is the horse that can get us across this river.

But I don't remember there being any "don't switch horses" arguments in 1980 when Carter's mess in Iran was blowing up in our faces. I suspect it's only a sentiment exclusive to people who normally don't vote for Democrats.

That is, people who say this may just be rationalizing their vote for Bush. There really aren't any policy based arguments in favor of his election this year. He's fucked up at home, fucked up overseas, fucked up the war on terror, fucked up the budget, ignored rampant white collar crimes, increased street crime rates, and hindered multiple US intelligence operations that we need to keep us safe. What arguments are there left to support him?

But this, ironically, is bad news for us. If everything possible has gone wrong for this administration and precious little has gone right, then why are people making up these bogus arguments in favor of the GOP? It boggles the mind. It's counter-rational. A large portion of the electorate, to be accurately measured this November, simply has acquired the taste for voting Republican under any circumstances whatsoever. They don't need reasons to vote for Bush, which is fine since they don't have any. But they'll vote for him anyway.

In other words, these people aren't really swing voters at all. They're simply conservatives who can't bring themselves to lie about the reasons for voting Republican, so they fall back onto the only excuse they have left, regardless of how lame it sounds.

Does anybody here have any insight on why otherwise intelligent humans would act this way? I just don't get these people.

[IndianaGreen]

1. Switch horses?

We are on a runaway train about to derail!

[SpiralHawk]

11. The actual, factual "True" meme is

"Don't switch horsemen,
in the middle of an apocalypse."

Accuracy is everything.

[Vickers]

2. Somebody here had an excellent answer for that: the War on Terra

is pretty much for the rest of time (according to the current misAdministration), so eventually you will HAVE to change horses, right?

Also, our country has had a history of changing horses during times of crisis, so what is different now? It's not like a Civil War.








Right?

[IndianaGreen]

5. "War on Terror" = War on Drugs

Another pretext to subvert civil liberties at home and continue imperialism abroad.

Americans love reading "My Pet Goat" when it comes to facing the truth about what our government does in our name.

[ClassWarrior]

7. Hey, even Lincoln made sure the election was held during the Civil War...

...and he was supposed to LOSE that one. He didn't, but he did what was right for the democracy without consideration for himself.

[no_hypocrisy]

12. I agree. In 2008 the Constitution says we HAVE TO "change horses"

even if * steals/wins another election and the "war" is still in progress. So why wait 'til 2008? Let's change!

[LoisMustDie]

3. Same in the work place

Sure he is a miserable failure but he has experience.

[devinsgram]

9. Ok, I'll bite

experience in what?

[Jackpine Radical]

16. In being a miserable failure, you ninny.

[jus_the_facts]

4. they're obviously not very intelligent.....

.....and don't really think for themselves! :think:

[GCP]

6. This horse is careering over a cliff

The only thing to do now is switch before we all go over.

[MajorFlaw]

8. The "Don't switch horses" meme is inapplicable when the horse you

are riding is fucking lame. Bye bye shrub, sorry I got to know you.

[My Pet Goat]

10. Do any of them play poker?

Wanna bet they won't know when to fold them? This could be a lucrative opportunity! :evilgrin:

[lagniappe]

13. That's like saying Key Lay drove Enron into the ground, but let's

not switch CEO's in the middle of a bankruptcy.

[Kierkegaard]

14. You are right.

Anyone who claims to have the slightest bit of concern for their fellow citizens, doesn't have a financial stake in this administration and is still going to vote for * is either mentally deficient, unable to read/hear, or is 'rationalizing' a reflexive vote for the party prop du jour.

Some people:
vote the way their family members vote.
vote the way their peers vote.
vote on pure emotion or gut instinct.
will rationalize ignorance as a defense mechanism(pride?)

Other than those possibilities, I think it might have something to do with having a bad childhood. Maybe some intensive psychotherapy would help.

Made it to 200!

[baldguy]

15. We already did change horses.

The 1993 WTC bombing...

The bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Sudan in 1998...

The failed Millennium bombings...

The bombing of the USS Cole in 2000...

We've been at war with Islamic terrorists for 15yrs. Clinton did an exceptional job keeping them at bay - and if Gore would have been allowed to take office in 2000, that successful policy would have continued.

Bush chose to ignore all of Clinton's successes - even repeal them.

The world saw the result of Bush's incompetence on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001