Where I see Bush losing votes from otherwise conservatives is in places like California where his views on silly shit like whether gay marry, an abysmal environmental policy, outrageous deficits and this need to project American military supremacy across the globe at the expense of the American middle class.
When are these parties going to learn that most American's want a fiscally conservative socially responsible gov't.
Kerry was the beneficiary of the implosion of Dean under the weight of his own lunacy, maybe just a thorugh examination of what a pablum puking lefty Kerry is will be all Bush needs. My problem is I dislike Bush intensely on many fronts, with the exception of his stand on taxe cuts, regardless of what a "good guy" he may be personally.
-- Modified on 4/2/2004 7:29:57 PM
even the most left leaning Republicans won't jump ship. Maybe if the leftist hadn't hijacked the Democratic party, say the dems nominated Liberman, it might have happened, but not Kerry. Kerry has to camouflage his true self in order to garner any swing voters (Reagan Democrats), and he is doing a very poor job of it.
"I actually did vote for it before I voted against it!" His inability to take a stand on anything is not going to play well as the race matures (look for more and more ads highlighted this enormous Kerry personality flaw). Add to that the jobs report released yesterday and the rumors flying around that a Indian scientist has coordinates of Hussein's WMD buried in Iraq (if that pans out the Dems are toast).
Republican's are not unilaterally happy with Bush, either am I, but in this case, the lesser of two evils is a no 'brainer' for Republicans and I believe the swing vote. On National Security issues Kerry gets an "F" from all but the most rabid Democrats, an those don't care about National Security anyway as demonstrated by the past administration. However, since 9/11 those swing voters who elected Clinton are more accutely interested in National Security.
I'll be generous and assume that you simply are unaware of the context of this tired sound bite.
The whole statement was to the effect that Kerry voted for the $87 billion apropriation when it included levying taxes to pay for it. He voted against it when it went straight to the deficit.
He was being fiscally responsible.
I'll be genrous and assume you didn't see the TV interview Kerry gave during the debate about the $87 bliion funding vote where when asked if his tax hike amendment to the resolution failed to pass, would he then vote against the bill. His reply was something to the effect of that would be reckless and irresponsible. The only problem for Kerry with this stance is that he then went out and voted against. In his own words, that vote was reckless and irresponsible. I can't wait until the GOP puts out a commercial with the video of the interview in it. I saw a stream of it on the GOP website.
And the reason behind the reversal of vote.
Announcer: And what does Kerry say now?
Kerry: I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it
Kerry was referring to a measure he co-sponsored that would have provided the $87 billion while also temporarily reversing Bush's tax cuts for those making $400,000 a year or more. That measure was rejected 57-42.
The Bush campaign named the revised ad "Troops-Fog" and issued a news release saying Kerry's stance is part of a pattern of equivocation. Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan called the ad misleading and said: "John Kerry opposed a red inked, blank check on Bush’s failed Iraq policy."