An independent voter and Catholic school teacher, Grunklee complains that President Bush "lied to get us into Iraq," that he is "allowing too much corruption," that he is "taking care of the top one or two percent" of rich people at the expense of everyone else, that his tax cuts have not stoked the economy, and that his attorney general, John Ashcroft, is "crushing the Constitution."

The complex national mood was on full display the other night when 12 citizens representing a cross-section of political opinion met as a focus group in an Exton, Chester County, office park under the guidance of Democratic pollster Peter Hart. By the time they finished two hours later, it was clear that even though Bush hasn't closed the sale for a second term, his Democratic rivals have barely mustered a decent pitch of their own.

These were not the kind of people who inhale politics and subsist on C-Span. These were homemakers and engineers, sales reps and investment advisers, people who get their political news on the fly - as the majority of the electorate does - and they live in a bellwether congressional district where Al Gore beat Bush three years ago by less than one percentage point.

Their sentiments closely tracked the national polls. They are restive about the economy and Iraq, and spooked about another terrorist attack at home. They lament the loss of American jobs, and they are contemptuous about the Department of Homeland Security's color codes. They see Bush as life-size and fallible, but they question the credentials of those who want to replace him - particularly the Washington insiders who serve on Capitol Hill.

Major candidates often conduct focus groups to gauge reaction to their nascent messages (as candidate Bush's strategists did in 1999), but Exton was not a partisan exercise. Hart has teamed with Republican pollster Robert Teeter to measure public opinion for the Annenberg Public Policy Center, and after the Exton citizens went home, Hart offered his assessment: "President Bush came out of this in relatively good shape, in terms of his personal stature."

However, many in attendance had serious qualms about Bush's policymaking, and Hart said those qualms could create opportunities for the Democrats.

Jeanne Pohanish, a registered Republican who does medical billing, said Bush had rushed the country into the Iraqi war, "and I'd rather not be a lone cowboy out there, because we will lose a lot of our soldiers." With Bush in charge, she complained, the Republicans "have been too hasty [about waging war and enacting big tax cuts]. I'd like them to think a little more before they do things."

Gail Stanton, a homemaker who voted for Bush in 2000, faulted the President for "short-sightedness" for failing to fully finance his federal education law. She said that his law, which is designed to financially reward good schools, "isn't worth the paper it was written on," that Republicans in general "don't have a care in the world about our kids," and that Bush's regime is too secretive ("How do we really know what they're doing?").

Marco Moto, an independent and an investment adviser, agreed about the secrecy, saying: "I don't think the public has been given enough information about Iraq." Even Sue Pullen, a Bush supporter who sells real estate, said: "I'm concerned about the soldiers dying every day."

John Fernandes, a retired mechanic who backed Gore in 2000, said Bush's tax reductions had not swayed him a bit. "I got $600 from the first cut," he said. "We spent it all on carpeting in the house. We stimulated the economy by putting rugs in, but that was it."

And Joanne Bierzynski, another homemaker who supported Bush in 2000, said that, besides all the reservations about policy, she hadn't warmed to Bush as a communicator: "I don't think he speaks well when he's put on the spot. The things that come out of his mouth sometimes..."

But there was no consensus that any of the Democratic candidates are saviors. In fact, the two Democrats who got the highest marks for toughness, charm and eloquence aren't even on the ballot in 2004: Bill and Hillary Clinton.

The focus-group voters were most scornful of the Democratic candidates who serve in Congress. Anissa Mitchell, a Democrat who works as a human-resources officer, said Washington insiders were "spoiled." Grunklee said the insiders were already corrupted, and Fernandes said "new blood" would help the party. That way, "maybe there would be less lying," he said.

They strongly assailed two veteran insiders, Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and Missouri Rep. Richard A. Gephardt. They summarily dismissed Gephardt as a "typical politician." And they don't see Lieberman as a strong figure. Moto said Lieberman seemed "fragile in his demeanor and his face. He looks like he's breakable." (The worst moment for Gephardt came after Hart posted his picture on the wall. One voter thought it was a photo of an astronaut.)

The grumbling about insiders would seem to be good news for Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has surged since the spring by trumpeting his outsider credentials. But, as evidenced the other night, having Dean as the party nominee might alienate swing voters who dislike the Vermont law that legalized gay civil unions.

Grunklee said he was 70 percent committed to Bush. But he said Dean's record "would be a concern for me. The liberalness, the moral issues, the homosexual issues - that turns me right off." (Grunklee is the kind of voter who is highly prized by the Bush campaign, a populist who can be persuaded on social conservative issues.)

Even some of the die-hard Democrats were tepid about Dean, for pragmatic reasons. William Caldwell, a retail manager, said Dean simply wasn't electable, and Mitchell, the HR officer, assumes Dean would be tarred at some point. "What will they find from his past that someone thinks is so important that the world needs to know?" she wondered.

They want to know more about Dean, as well as about retired Gen. Wesley Clark and North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, but they're still drawn to Bush personally. Grunklee said it was OK that Bush lied about Iraq, because he said the goal was worthy. Pohanish, who rebuked Bush on the war, said: "He presents himself as a good family man," someone who has enabled people "to look up to the presidency."

After the voters went home, Hart concluded that "the President is not home free... . The question marks from 2000 have not been erased... . The same jokes that worked in 2000 could work in 2004." But if Democrats fail to harness anti-Bush sentiment and craft an alternative agenda, the President could have the last laugh.

Arghh!

Grunklee said it was OK that Bush lied about Iraq, because he said the goal was worthy.

And his vote counts just as much as mine does. [sigh]

Grunklee complains that President Bush "lied to get us into Iraq,"

Lied, huh? Give me ONE example. Just ONE.

4 posted on 10/23/2003 5:15:28 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I will defend to your death my right to say it)

People like the ones mentioned in this article are the primary reason why shysters and demagogues like Bill Clinton get elected. They know nothing about politics, economics, history, human nature or current events, yet their swollen sense of self-importance leads them to believe otherwise. The kind of people Scott Peterson would like to have on his jury, no doubt.

Lied, huh? Give me ONE example. Just ONE.

I know he lied! I saw it on the NYT's front page when I was walking down the road. In big print it said

Bush Lied

. What more proof do you want? I didn't read the story or anything. Someone mentioned the next day that there might have been a retraction on page C-26 but I don't remember really.

Ramblings of an average voter.../sarcasm

Although much of this is a reflection of the liberal lies and spin, the people here have not totally bought into it. They may have been sucked in by some aspects of the media propoganda, but they have not fallen for it altogether.

All in all, I think it is very good news.

There is a principle of behavioral science that goes like this: When the stimulus is constant, it disappears.
We are still more than a year away from the election and the rats are very busy teaching themselves this principle although they have no idea that they are.
In common use we know this axiom as: crying woolf. When there is no woolf,- Enron, 16 words, joe wilson, Rumsfeld memo - the lemmings learn not to believe the rats, even when they do have something - which isn't going to happen anyway.

11 posted on 10/23/2003 6:13:47 AM PDT by jmaroneps37 (Jersey GOP needs your help we can win back the Assembly two weeks to go, step forward)

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.