-
"I've become more and more disturbed about Bush," said John Barker, 73, of Tampa, Fla., who voted for Bush in 2000, sweated over this year's election for months and finally decided Wednesday night to back Kerry.
"I just don't think with everything we're facing, we can have another four years. I'm talking about the economy. I'm talking about Iraq. Bush just didn't give me a good reason for the way things are," the former policeman said. "He gave me plenty of reasons to vote against Kerry. But why should I vote for him again?"
The pundits have all been talking about Bush's brilliant strategy to make this election about Kerry's record, but what they rarely point out is that this is a campaign of desperation for any incumbent. Bush has no record to run on. A not very popular federal education law, a joint project with Senator Satan Kennedy, and a moment with a bullhorn on top of a mass grave. That's it.
I've also noticed that they think they're running in, say, 1996 or 2000. They keep trotting out these catch phrases, which back then resonated with the public. I'm talking about things like "litmus test." Back in the day, they'd laid the groundwork for "litmus test" and gotten all the bobbleheads to declare over and over that an "abortion litmus test" was a bad thing. Why? Who knows.
But, this is 2004 and most of the public doesn't remember what the fuck this "litmus test" thing that they're talking about is.