Republicans. Reading his mention of Eisenhower, I remembered that Eisenhower's son wrote a wonderful endorsement of John Kerry in 2004. The parts relevant to your dad deals with many areas where he is uncomfortable with the Republican party. Unfortunately the Manchester Union Leader, where it was printed has taken it off their site. Using google I found it at Truthout.
"The fact is that today’s "Republican" Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word "Republican" has always been synonymous with the word "responsibility," which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today’s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.
Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.
<snip>
Today many people are rightly concerned about our precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the basis of our democracy. Of course we must fight terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so? I wonder. In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, "If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both." I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.
<snip>
The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today’s Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/093004U.shtmlThat said, I would make sure not to jeopordize your relationship, which in reality is more important than politics. Listen to what he has to say and identify what fears or reasons keep him in favor of Bush. Hearing where he
thinks he disagrees with the Democrats, you may be able to find a non-confontational positive Democratic speech/interview/op-ed on the topic - showing that just because talk radio (or cable TV) say the Democratic position is soemthing, it may NOT be the case. (Although it may sound a strange analogy - Back when I was a kid, I played Beatles songs like
Yesterday for my mom, who I wanted to convince the Beatles were great, NOT
Why can't we do it in the road . )
I seriously doubt that F911 reached many people who respected Bush. This is in spite of the fact that I agree it was, by and large factual. The tone and the fast paced guilt by association part that showed the connects of the Bush family and the Bin Ladens. The sad thing is that those connections do exist and are troublesome for more basic reasons - that the BCCI investigation, at minimum, showed that a foreign nationals connected to drug money launderers and terrorists were able to buy some of our politicians (in both parties). In some ways the snarky Michael Moore way of handling this may have made it seem LESS believable. (In fairness, among the left it made the idea more well known, but without the factual backup or the fact that the 2004 nominee was the one man in either party with both the courage and moral/ethical values to stand against the entire Senate and GHWB to force this out in the open.)