Posted on 08/17/2004 11:55:44 AM PDT by rface
Daryl Renschler said he's going to do something he has not done since 1976 - vote for the Democratic candidate for president.
In the era of Watergate and Vietnam, the lifelong Republican gave his support to Jimmy Carter. Today, nearly three decades later, Renschler finds himself again mistrusting the government and hating what he contends has become a quagmire of a war.
Come November, he'll vote for John Kerry.
"We were misled during the Vietnam War ... and they're misleading us now," said Renschler. "Normally, a war unites a country. This one split it.
"I don't know what we're doing in Iraq. Someone gets you in a mess; you need someone else to clean it up," he said. "Kerry has a better approach to extract us from this mess we're in."
The Solebury resident is part of the recently formed Bucks Republicans for Kerry, which hopes to get people to vote - particularly younger constituents - against George Bush.
"I'm ashamed to be associated with [the Republican Party]," Renschler said.
Across the country, groups are popping up in support of the opposition. And it's not only Republicans for Kerry. There are Democrats for George Bush, too, though that group has not manifested locally. Experts say issues like the war in Iraq and the economy drive voters to Kerry, and gay marriage and abortion push them to Bush.
"It's [one thing] to quietly say, 'I can't do it this time.' To do it more publicly is unusual," said Joan Hulse Thompson, an associate professor of political science at Arcadia University. "People are not just satisfied to vote against [George Bush] but to organize against him. That's a step beyond."
Sue Tinsman is taking that step. The 82-year-old lifelong Republican ticks off her beefs with Bush like clockwork. The war. The loss of international support. The economy. The environment. Education.
"I could go on and on. This is the most important election in our history," said the Solebury resident, who says her choice this year could even strain relations with longtime friends. "I'm a moderate Republican, but I don't think our administration is currently moderate. It's extremely conservative. Kerry is a moderate Democrat. There's not much difference between them and moderate Republicans."
In every election, voters cross party lines. There were Democrats for Richard Nixon and Republicans for George McGovern in 1972 - many of them split over the Vietnam War.
Election 2004 is no exception. According to Clay Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll Institute, the crossover vote this year is about average, between 7 percent to 10 percent for each side. That's based on polls the institute has taken in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey and New York.
"There are not any large numbers yet. It's not heavily organized," Richards said. "It's not as much as the Reagan Democrats [who tended to be blue-collar union members]."
Some experts reason that Democrats will support Bush because they may support the war and they don't want to change the commander-in-chief at a time of continual fighting. But the real catalyst could be gay marriage.
"People are cross-pressured. They want to vote [on] certain issues but can't get it all with one candidate," said Hulse Thompson.
Same-sex marriage could push conservative Democrats, including Catholics and religious black men, to Bush's side, she said. Bush favors a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, while Kerry opposes same-sex marriage, but supports civil unions.
"People get confused on it," said Frank Colon, a political science professor at Lehigh University. Some, said Colon, think Kerry favors gay marriage, partially because his home state is Massachusetts, the first to issue licenses to gay couples.
Ted Morgan, also a professor of political science at Lehigh, says he's not surprised a Republican group for Kerry would crop up in Bucks County.
"It's exactly where I expect it to come from. It's an affluent area. There are old-money Republicans, and most are alienated by Bush. Kerry doesn't freak them out. He's one of them," he said. "Bucks is kind of interesting. It's kind of progressive. The religious right being in politics scares them. They're more libertarian."
Bucks County has always been a stronghold of Republicans. As of Aug. 7, there were 201,870 registered Republicans and 164,551 registered Democrats in the county. But the Democratic candidates at the top of the ticket in major elections in recent years have carried Bucks. Both Bill Clinton and Al Gore did it, as did Ed Rendell in his gubernatorial bid in 2002.
"Republicans, too, rallied around Rendell, and maybe that's being tapped to some degree [now]," said Colon. "Rendell is not a great coattail, but he may have given [Republican voters] pause to think, 'Maybe I'm going to continue in this direction.' In Bucks, there's a stronger independent group than people think."
Joseph Duffy, a Republican from Solebury, said he intends to vote Democrat in November.
"Kerry is a mixed-up fellow," he said. "But he's a far better choice than Bush."
Hilary Bentman can be reached at 215-538-6380 or hbentman@phillyBurbs.com
And that would be..?
Looks like Moby's goon squad isn't wasting any time...and the "unbiased" (sic) Leftist media is naturally gobbling up these turds like they were Belgian chocolates...
"Sue Tinsman is taking that step. The 82-year-old lifelong Republican ticks off her beefs with Bush like clockwork. The war. The loss of international support. The economy. The environment. Education. "
Poor dear old Sue. Gets her news from the lamestream media and actually believes it!!
4.8% economic growth last year - how awful!
"education" meaning what? No Child Left Behind and large increases in Fed govt spending, standards for reading - not enough? too much?
"The war" killing or captured 2/3rds of al qaeda and liberating 50 million people is not enough for her?
dos she really think we'd be better off with the taliban still in afghanistan and saddam in Iraq?
etc.
It's the same reason a poll recently has Oakland County at 60% for Kerry and Macomb 60% for Bush. Oakland is more stereotypical GOP and Macomb stereotypical Democrat.
That's funny...as a Republican I'd be ashamed to be associated with Renschler. Anyway, Zell Miller trumps Renschler every time!
His secret plan; people love secrets!
And people wonder how we get stuck with the Arlen Spectres, Linc Chaffee's and Olympia Snow's of the world.
This will just get rid of another baby boomer hippie trying to relive the late 60's and early 70's from the GOP. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Oh...and STAY OUT!
ForK erry Republicans!!!
Feeling's mutual, jackass.
Dan
None of the current Republican leadership can rightly be considered fiscally conservative. Upsetting? Sure. Enough to make me withold/change my vote? H*ll no! The perfect candidate for whatever office is always oneself, and thats the truth of it. So I will gladly vote Bush/Cheney, and be confident that I made the right decision.
This might be the work of a "seminar" letter writer, but, taken at face value, it's not at all surprising. It reflects the realignment of American politics that has been occurring since the late 1970's. For the past 20 years or so, many former Democrat consituencies - Southern whites, Midwestern Catholics, suburban refugees - have all moved toward the Republican Party. Some other groups, though, have trended toward the Democrats - Northeastern "moderate" Republicans (RINO's), upper Midwestern industrial workers, and big-city residents. States like New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are becoming more Democratic-friendly, while most Southern and Western states are still trending Republican. The key here is population growth - Republican are adding to their numbers by moving South & West, and Democrats to theirs largely through illegal immigration.
thanks
"Kerry is a moderate Democrat."
The Senator with the absolutely most leftist voting record in the Senate is a moderate. I guess Stalin was a slightly progressive Republican. The moral- if you ask enough people a question you will eventually get the answer you want to put out to the gullible. If, that is, the whole thing isn't a set-up.
I have heard a few conservative Republicans, perhaps influenced through M. Savage say they will either vote for Nader or not vote as a "signal" to the Republican Party to stay on the Conservative track...but isn't that a bit politically self-serving since the end result could be a Kerry presidency...knowing full well the danger such a presidency would place our country in. People died to give us our right to vote, yet many view it in such a trivial manner. Has everyone still forgotten that our next President will no doubt be appointing at least two Supreme Court Justices? Can our country survive two more Ruth Vader Ginsberg type justices...let alone the one who currently serves a life term? Please, Presidential voting is not for narrow minded interests!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.