Posted on 02/21/2004 5:07:32 PM PST by ambrose
Disenchanted Bush Voters Consider Crossing Over By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: February 22, 2004
BEACHWOOD, Ohio - In the 2000 presidential election, Bill Flanagan a semiretired newspaper worker, happily voted for George W. Bush. But now, shaking his head, he vows, "Never again."
"The combination of lies and boys coming home in body bags is just too awful," Mr. Flanagan said, drinking coffee and reading newspapers at the local mall. "I could vote for Kerry. I could vote for any Democrat unless he's a real dummy."
Mr. Flanagan is hardly alone, even though polls show that the overwhelming majority of Republicans who supported Mr. Bush in 2000 will do so again in November. In dozens of random interviews around the country, independents and Republicans who said they voted for Mr. Bush in 2000 say they intend to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate this year. Some polls are beginning to bolster the idea of those kind of stirrings among Republicans and independents.
That could change, of course, once the Bush campaign begins pumping millions of dollars into advertising and making the case for his re-election.
But even as Democratic and Republican strategists and pollsters warned that a shift could be transitory, they also said it could prove to be extraordinarily consequential in a year when each side is focused on turning out its most loyal voters.
"The strong Republicans are with him," a senior aide to Senator John Kerry said of Mr. Bush. "But there are independent-minded Republicans among whom he is having serious problems."
"With the nation so polarized," he added, "the defections of a few can make a big difference."
In the interviews, many of those potential "crossover" voters said they supported the invasion of Iraq but had come to see the continuing involvement there as too costly and without clear objectives.
Many also said they believed that the Bush administration had not been honest about its reasons for invading Iraq and were concerned about the failure to find unconventional weapons. Some of these people described themselves as fiscal conservatives who were alarmed by deficit spending, combined with job losses at home. Many are shocked to find themselves switching sides.
While sharing a sandwich at the stylish Beachwood Mall in this Cleveland suburb, one older couple ? a judge and a teacher ? reluctantly divulged their secret: though they are stalwarts in the local Republican Party, they are planning to vote Democratic this year.
"I feel like a complete traitor, and if you'd asked me four months ago, the answer would have been different," said the judge, after assurances of anonymity. "But we are really disgusted. It's the lies, the war, the economy. We have very good friends who are staunch Republicans, who don't even want to hear the name George Bush anymore."
In 2000, Mr. Bush won here in Ohio with 50 percent of the popular vote, as against 46.5 percent for Al Gore.
George Meagher, a Republican who founded and now runs the American Military Museum in Charleston, S.C., said he threw his "heart and soul" into the Bush campaign four years ago. He organized veterans to attend campaign events, including the campaign's kickoff speech at the Citadel. He even has photographs of himself and his wife with Mr. Bush.
"Given the outcome and how dissatisfied I am with the administration, it's hard to think about now," he said. "People like me, we're all choking a bit at not supporting the president. But when I think about 500 people killed and what we've done to Iraq. And what we've done to our country. I mean, we're already $2 trillion in debt again."
A nationwide CBS News poll released Feb. 16 found that 11 percent of people who voted for Mr. Bush in 2000 now say they will vote for the Democratic candidate this fall. But there was some falloff among those who voted against him as well. Five percent of people who said they voted for Mr. Gore in 2000 say this time they will back Mr. Bush.
On individual issues, the poll found some discontent among Republicans but substantial discontent among independents. For instance, on handling the nation's economy, 19 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of independents said they disapproved of the job Mr. Bush was doing.
"As the president's job rating has fallen, his Democratic supporters have pulled away first, then the independents and now we're starting to see a bit of erosion among the Republicans, who used to support him pretty unanimously," said Evans Witt, the chief executive of Princeton Survey Research Associates. "If 10 to 15 percent of Republicans do not support him anymore, that is not trivial for Bush's re-election."
But Matthew Dowd, the Bush campaign's chief strategist, suggested that no one in the White House was worried about Mr. Bush's losing much of his base. He said polls continued to show that the president was enjoying the support of 90 percent of Republicans.
Many of those interviewed said that they had experienced a growing disenchantment with the conflict in Iraq over many months, but that only recently had they decided to change their votes.
A number said they had been deeply disturbed by recent statements of David A. Kay, the former United Nations weapons inspector, who said he was skeptical about administration claims that Iraq possessed unconventional weapons.
"The lack of evidence on Iraq has really hurt him, and the economy here is bad ? there's a lot of unemployment in the mills," said Phyllis Pierce, who is in the steel business in Cleveland and recently decided not to vote for Mr. Bush again.
John Scarnado, a sales manager from Austin, Tex., who voted for Mr. Bush in 2000, said he would vote for Mr. Kerry if the senator won the Democratic nomination.
"I'm upset about Iraq and the vice president and his affiliation with Halliburton," said Mr. Scarnado, a registered Republican who said that he had not always voted along party lines. "I think the Bush administration is coming out to look like old boy politics, and I don't have a good feel about that."
Many of those wavering in their loyalty to Mr. Bush were middle-class voters who said that his tax relief programs had disproportionately helped the wealthy.
"I voted for him, but it seems like he's just taking care of his rich buddies now," said Mike Cross, a farmer from Londonderry, N.H., adding, "I'm not a great fan of John Kerry, but I've had enough of President Bush."
Are you aware that in 1983 he signed the largest tax increase in american history?
I didn't say that he was perfect. I just think that he was the best, up to now. In fact, there are other places where I disagreed with him. But, his administration had a net positive effect on the nation. In the end, he had reduced, however slightly, the size of government, boosted the economy and brought about the downfall of the Soviet Union, in the process. I think that had Barry Goldwater won, he would have been even better, though still not my idea of perfect.
Reagan was also the first President to declare war on drugs, who actually followed through and did something about it. At the time, I thought that it was a good idea, as did most conservatives, of that era. As history has now show us, that has turned out to be a disastrous failure, that every President since then, has built upon. However, since it had never been tried, it is hard to blame him for at least attempting to do what several Presidents before him had threatened to do and never followed through. At least he did what seemed logical, at the time.
I didn't agree with his amnesty program. But, there was a problem and as with the drug problem, he tried something that had never been tried before. That, as we all know, also failed in a big way. But, the key is that, in both cases, he was trying to do something that had never been tried before, rather than just repeating prior administrations' mistakes.
Dubya, on the other hand, has those failures as rock solid proof that those approaches won't work and yet, has increased spending on the failed War on Drugs and is pushing yet another amnesty, that is doomed to fail, just as Reagan's did. It wouldn't be near so bad if he would make his own mistakes, but he seems determined to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Furthermore, Dubya has not seen a spending bill that he didn't like. He has not even threatened a veto of a spending bill, let alone, actually vetoed one. While Reagan actually managed to slightly reduce the size of government, Dubya has increased the size and power of the federal government more than even klinton. The Reagan era saw record prosperity. Under Dubya, the value of the dollar is plummeting, foreign investors are switching to Euros and other foreign currencies, over 360,000 US citizens and permanent residents permanently left the US last year (the vast majority were moderately wealthy to wealthy) and more jobs are being shipped offshore than ever.
Personally, I would like to see the GOP nominate Tom Tancredo (CO) for President. He is a traditional, small-government, Constitutional Conservative. He probably would not be perfect either. But, even if he did something stupid, it would probably be his own mistake and not a repeat of someone else's mistake. And, like Reagan, some of his new ideas would probably work great. I think that we could also count on him to push through a repeal of about half of the (ANTI)Patriot Act. I know for certain that he would clamp down on illegal immigration, as that is one of his pet issues, of which he is extremely well informed. Unfortunately, RINOs now control the GOP leadership and they will do anything they can to keep Constitutional Conservatives like Tancredo and Ron Paul (TX) out of any position of power in the party.
The GOP still controls both houses of Congress and will likely keep that majority, regardless of the outcome of the presidential race. So, even if Kerry wins, we will be back to gridlock and after four year of the free-spending, power-grabbing Dubya and a docile GOP Congress, that followed his orders, gridlock seems positively enchanting.
One of many lies in this article. The NY Times is worth less than used toilet paper.
Did the Times just rehire Jason Blair? A Republican said this? Does anybody believe this fairy tale? There are subtle lies, and there are convincing lies. This isn't either one.
Sounds like Dubya is really cramping your style.
You have no idea.
Had we had a real conservative President for the last three years, instead of a RINO, I would probably already have that helicopter. We had a mega-deal signed by all parties, that had already gone to escrow, that died as a direct result of the (ANTI)Patriot Act. We had a pretty standard 30 day window of opportunity, to close escrow. It was a pretty straight forward buy-sell, with a few brokers on each side, that should have taken only about three days - five at the outside - to close escrow. But, the US government got involved and wanted to give everyone involved in the deal a financial anal exam, all the way down to a broker, who was getting only one quarter of one half percent on the sell side. They finally approved the deal 34 days later. That was one day after a German, dealing in Euros, closed an almost identical deal, with a South African, using the securities that we had to give up after 30 days. Since there were no US citizens involved and no US dollars involved, there were no delays for the German.
I understand more clearly every day, why so many wealthy Americans are leaving. They can't afford to stay. That's what I am so desperately trying to avoid and Dubya isn't helping a bit. In fact, he is only making matters worse. He is killing US investors, who invest internationally. Just the one deal discussed above, though it involved two other countries, would have brought millions of dollars into the US, but (ANTI)Patriot Act compliance killed the whole deal. This is especially interesting, when you consider that every government agency that investigates such things, is on record, stating that the terrorists never use our banking system to launder money, since they have such easy access to the Arabic banking system, that operates on a cash settlement basis and is impossible to track. The question then becomes, "If they are not looking for terrorists, what is their real reason for giving everyone who transfers any sizable sum of money a complete financial anal exam?" Could it be POWER???
Welcome to Free Republic, since 2-14-2004.
Just an FYI... Nader tends to be to be pretty far out on the left. You should check him out fully because if you ARE a conservative, you won't like his platform.
Oh what to do ,wha tto do? The Nation is DOOMED, we are all doomed unless Super Conservative leaps from his Pool of Golden Water to save us from our sins. Well, t'ain't gonna happen. What will happen breaks two ways, We reelect the President, or we open our own veins when some idiots vote Kerry/third party. Your choice and it sounds like you've made yours. .Remember ,open them parallel on ,and not perpendicular to, your arm.
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.