Disenchanted Bush Voters Consider Crossing Over (Independent joins GOP in just two weeks time!)

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."

Texasforever: All of this over your helicopter? LOL

Not at all. It's about being able to keep what I have already worked so hard, to earn and maybe even making some more, so I can afford to have nice things and be able to pass it all on to my descendants. Dubya is hampering that. A helicopter is only one of many goals that I have, so that I will keep striving for more. Goal-setting is, after all, a long accepted tool for success. It is said that you never truly get old, until you stop striving for more of everything that makes life better. I have everything that I could possibly want socially, with a wonderful family and friends. Setting lofty, though attainable goals, like a helicopter, a jet and a yacht, is just one of the ways that I drive myself to achieve in other areas and in the process, stay young, so I can enjoy the other good things in life longer. It's not about those goals, but about the underlying success ... or more properly, about the unreasonable government restraints that would limit success.

raloxk: "I dont believe for one second that 360,000 US citizens left the country last year."

I don't expect RINOs (liberals, really) to believe anything factual. After all, RINOs can't be bothered with the facts. All that matters to them, is the "R" after the name on the ballot. I'm not concluding that you are definitely a RINO.

In fact, on the off chance that I may have misjudged you and that you are not really a RINO, I will tell you that the numbers that I quoted are an official, forward-looking estimate, published by the INS and based upon data from the US Census Bureau, in a report titled, "2000 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service". That number is the total of both US born and foreign born emigrants. The two are listed in two different places in that document and unless you read it very carefully, you might be misled into believing that only 298,000 left in 2002, which would be bad enough. But, the total actually comes out to 363,000.

I must admit that I erred slightly, in my earlier statement. You see, I ran across that data last year and the year that it referred to was 2002, not 2003. I was used to referring to it as last year. The projections for 2003 place the number around 370,000 expatriates. I should also note that I did not use the even larger numbers that have been suggested by several other credible sources, since the publication of the Census data, because although there is ample reason to believe that the number of US citizens and permanent residents who are leaving, has increased sharply since September 11, 2001, those numbers would be even more unbelievable and the 363,000 number makes my point just fine. In fact, several foreign consulates in the US have reported sharp increases in requests for applications for citizenship and permanent residence, starting shortly after the 9/11 attacks and continuing. They don't report how many applications were granted - just that requests for such applications increased sharply after 9/11 and has not subsided. Because of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the (ANTI)Patriot Act and other recent wealth oppressive legislation, the real number of expats is probably much higher than the Census Bureau's pre-9/11 estimates. Interestingly, a significant number of those expats are foreign born immigrants, who came here, made a good deal of money and now, faced with new wealth oppressive laws, are taking their new wealth and returning to their native homes. But, whether US born or foreign born, the wealthy are leaving. They have been leaving for some time. But, instead of reversing that trend, Dubya is making it worse and they are leaving faster than ever before.

raloxk: "Now that ive read your profile, I can see you really are a peleo extremist."

I will admit freely and proudly, that my own positions are further right than most. However, I have never claimed to expect my elected representatives to be the same. In fact, I draw a line down the center. To the left, represents a net bad for the country. To the right represents a net good for the country. Sure, I would like my candidates to be further right. But, if the best electable candidate for a particular office is only one percentage point to the right of center, then he represents, however small, a net good and will get my vote, though somewhat grudgingly. But, if the best electable candidate is anywhere to the left of center, then he represents a net bad for the country and I will not be party to electing someone who will help to destroy what so many before us have labored so long and hard - many paying the ultimate price - to build up, even if he will only destroy it slower.

Rokke: "The American people will NEVER elect the "true conservative" you are looking for."

This is a true statement. But, as I pointed out to raloxk, above, what I want and what I will accept are far apart. What I want is a real across-the-board conservative. What I will accept, is anything to the right of center. Dubya doesn't come close to qualifying on either point.

Rokke: "I'm curious, which country will suit your "true conservative" lifestyle the best."

I won't go into my personal choices here, for a number of reasons. As the Census Bureau pointed out in the above mentioned report, getting accurate numbers on expatriations is extremely difficult, since most expats don't tell the US government where they are going. As an expat friend of mine, in Belize, once told me, for an expat to tell the government, whose attacks on wealth forced him out, where he is going, would be like an abused wife giving her new address to her ex. If I should be forced to leave, I will probably be too visible to worry about that. But then again, there is no use in advertising.

Suffice it to say that now, almost every country in the world makes it easier to do business internationally, than does the US. The US is one of only three countries in the world (Eritrea and Philippines are the others), who tax the offshore income of their citizens and corporations. Only the US, with England and Canada, to lesser degrees, attempts a financial anal exam of every person (foreigner or citizen) who transfers funds to or from one of their citizens or companies, often holding up critical transactions, well beyond any reasonable period. The list goes on.

Even Warren Buffet stated in an October 27, 2003 Fortune Magazine article, "Through the spring of 2002, I had lived nearly 72 years without purchasing a foreign currency. Since then Berkshire has made significant investments in-and today holds-several currencies." Sir John Templeton, founder of the Templeton Group and value guru, Jeremy Grantham, have both expressed similar sentiments recently. The move to foreign currencies is happening, whether the US government admits it or not and the same motivators are what is driving expatriation of the wealthy.

It's not about a conservative lifestyle. It's about conservative business laws. It's about relatively unrestrained capitalism. The US, which for many decades was the leader in unfettered capitalism, is now one of the worst offenders at getting in the way of capitalism. There is still lots of money to be made here, but the laws are now so restrictive that only major corporate investors, with hefty bank accounts, can afford the delays involved and as Buffet's statements show, even many of them are shifting their investments, in preparation of it getting so bad that even they might have problems, too. More and more, individual investors (the real risk takers, who build companies) are finding it increasingly difficult to do business in the US and as each one reaches his personal financial pain threshold, he takes the only legal avenue left open to him. He leaves.

To get an idea of some of the countries where expats are going, you might want to check this answer that I gave to an earlier post. It contains links to info pages on several countries that are popular with US expats.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1002390/posts#11
gatorbait: The Nation is DOOMED, we are all doomed unless Super Conservative leaps from his Pool of Golden Water to save us from our sins.

Super Conservative??? I know as well as you that a Super Conservative could never win.

Right now, I would be ecstatic to be able to vote for ANY conservative for President. As I said above, anywhere to the right of center would be acceptable. Unfortunately, Dubya doesn't qualify either as a conservative or as even one degree right of center. All Dubya's "compassionate conservatism" will give us, is that we will get Socialism slower than with the Rats and it won't hurt until it's too late. I'm sorry if it bothers you, but to me, Socialism at any rate is unacceptable.

raloxk: 4/5 of his favourite places are outside the US and his retirement dream is to live in the Caribbean.

Certainly, I would like to live in the Caribbean about 5 or 6 months out of the year. That's because I don't like winter. I hope to spend some time cruising about the world, too. But, it is my sincere hope that for all my days, when I return home, it will be to the good ol' US of A. I have never had any desire to relinquish my US citizenship, even after retirement. I want to travel a lot, but I hope to always return home to the USA. It's my home and I don't want to be driven out by power-hungry politicians. But if, at some future point in time, expatriation is the only legal option left open to me, to protect what I have earned, for myself and my descendants, then I will be forced to take it, as so many who have gone before me.

But, regardless of where I end up, I will always consider myself an American, at heart and I will take America with me, wherever I go. After all, the United States is as much an idea, as it is land and borders. More so, in fact. Wherever someone stands up for right, there is a piece of America. Wherever someone stands up for freedom and individual liberty, there is a piece of America. Wherever I go, there will be a piece of America.

I hope that I will be able to live to the end of my days, as a US citizen, although based upon the actions of the last two administrations, that hope is fast dwindling. But, even if I am forced to leave, I will always carry the United States with me. It's like the old saying, "I love my country. It's my government that I fear." But, the one thing that really bothers me most, is that, of all the people who might drive such actions, it would be a Republican President who is making it harder for patriots, with any substantial amount of money, to stay. I am convinced that most of the 363,000 people who left the US in 2002, didn't leave the US because they wanted to, but because our own government has made it so difficult for them to do business, that they had to leave. I'm hoping to see things turn around, before I find myself in a similar situation. But, since Dubya has been a major part of the reason for this shift offshore, I feel pretty certain that he will not do what it takes to reverse the damage that he and klinton have already done.

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.