Bush Vs Kerry

[DudeAsInCool]

This thread is devoted to all articles on the Bush Vs. Kerry Presidential campaign. Post all your opinions and outrages here:

[DudeAsInCool]

This Austin Powers inspired campaign commercial is mildly amusing. I hear the Democrats have their own video. We will get links for both for your viewing displeasure..

RNC spoofs Kerry as Austin Powers in new Web ads

March 20, 2004  |  WASHINGTON -- Coming soon to a computer near you: John Kerry as ... Austin Powers?

A new GOP Web video pokes fun at the Democratic presidential nominee-to-be, dubbing him "the international man of mystery" for declining to identify foreign leaders he has claimed support him over President Bush.

"Who are you? Honestly?" the fictional 1960s British spy, a creation of actor Mike Myers, asks.

The Republican National Committee e-mailed its video to 400,000 GOP supporters Friday. The committee also was placing two Internet ads -- including one criticizing Kerry's vote

The Web video is a spoof of the "Austin Powers" films. As it shows several clips of Kerry, the video includes comments Powers makes in the movies, the same background music and psychedelic colors.

"Allow myself to introduce ... myself," Powers says as two identical pictures of Kerry playing the guitar appear on screen. Phrases written in bubble letters say: "John Kerry: International Man of Mystery" and "And My Foreign Supporters."

Jano Cabrera, a Democratic National Committee spokesman, said, "That's quite groovy baby, but we think that Bush cat is far more deserving of that 'man of mystery' title." Citing the millions of jobs lost and the increase in the federal deficit, Cabrera said, "The bigger mystery is how he hopes to win in November with a record like that."

The DNC sent its own Web video to supporters Friday in which a cartoon Bush says, "We can balance the budget in the year 2005." An announcer responds, "That sounds like a lot of hot air to me."

Aside from Web videos, the RNC has been placing ads on various Web sites highlighting the GOP agenda. Friday's launch is the first to include an anti-Kerry ad that will run on some 1,400 news, sports, technology, entertainment, music and business Web sites.

The front page of the ad claims: "Senator Kerry says his own vote to 'abandon our troops' was reckless and irresponsible." Kerry's campaign said the ad mischaracterizes the Massachusetts senator's comments.

It's only after clicking on the ad do viewers see Kerry's entire quote from a Sept. 14, 2003, interview on CBS' "Face the Nation" -- a month before he even cast the vote on the $87 billion spending plan. The ad also includes links to a video showing Kerry's answer to a question about whether he would "vote against the $87 billion" if another amendment, which would have repealed Bush's tax cuts to pay for the same programs, failed.

Kerry's response: "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible. What's responsible is for the administration to do this properly now."

Kerry said last week that he voted "no" on the bill after the other amendment failed because he did not support the president's military and reconstruction plans.

"What Kerry opposed was writing a blank check for Bush's failed Iraq policy, which included billions in no-bid contracts for Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton," said Chad Clanton, a Kerry spokesman

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/03/20/...err

[MxRob]

That link wouldn't work for me but here is the link to the GOP site. The video is under Top Stories on the front page. It was hilarious, and it has a bunch of Austin Powers sound bytes through out it.

http://www.gop.com/

[DudeAsInCool]

It was pretty clever, but there's not much substance there.. Have you found the democratic one yet?

[MxRob]

Have you found the democratic one yet?

I dont understand do you mean the DNC Site?

http://www.democrats.org/

[DudeAsInCool]

Yeah...the democrats movie isnt as good...it was on the site and thanx!

http://www.democrats.org/deficit/flash.html

I prefer the moveon.org movies--now they pack a punch

***

Here's an excerpt from Bush's first campaign speech today in Florida, where he viciously tore into Kerry. One of our young aol reporters was there to translate:

"H3 ALSO SUPORT3D A 50-CANT-A-GALON TAX ON GASOLIEN MR111!!! LOL OMG WTF LOL (Mr. Bush added, referring to a proposed increase in the federal gasoline tax that Mr. Kerry backed in 1994) HA WANTAD U 2 PAY AL TAHT MONEY AT TEH PUMP AND WUDNT AVEN THROW IN A FRE CAR WASH1!!1!! OMG WTF"

[Kooperman]

April 1, 2004

POLITICAL MEMO

Kerry Slips Out of Picture

By ADAM NAGOURNEY

and JODI WILGOREN

WASHINGTON, March 31 — At the very moment that President Bush has begun his general election campaign, Senator John Kerry has largely slipped from sight. And Mr. Bush has made the most of Mr. Kerry's absence.

Mr. Kerry's low profile occurs at what would seem to be a particularly opportune time for the senator. Mr. Bush has been struggling with questions about his record on terrorism, and Mr. Kerry had been riding on a wave of excitement after his capture of the Democratic nomination.

Yet Mr. Kerry was off the campaign trail yet again on Wednesday, this time for shoulder surgery in Boston, an operation expected to sideline him through Sunday. The surgery followed his weeklong disappearance to the slopes of Sun Valley.

Some Democrats said that should Mr. Kerry lose in November, he might well remember this month as the time when he seriously undermined his hopes of defeating Mr. Bush. A few invoked one of Mr. Kerry's least-liked comparisons, noting how another Massachusetts Democrat who ran for president, Michael S. Dukakis, stuck close to home in August 1988, in what turned out to be a foolish strategic move in his campaign against Mr. Bush's father.

"The Bush people have seized the vacuum," said Carter Eskew, a senior adviser to Al Gore in the 2000 presidential campaign.

Referring to the Kerry campaign, Mr. Eskew said, "It's a fair criticism to say they've been a little slow to do the same." Mr. Eskew said the Gore campaign drifted through the spring before finally settling on a theme to use against George Bush.

"For some people, they have a little déjà vu, and they're a little worried that's what's happening again," he said. "There is some familiarity here that hopefully can be avoided, which is that in 2000 we did not have a good spring, and we weren't ready for Bush. We weren't tooled up on our side on our positive and our comparative message. We paid a price for that."

Mr. Kerry's aides said they were not worried, arguing that now is opportune to raise money and devise a strategy, as they struggled with the inevitable growing pains of changing from a primary campaign to a general election campaign. They argued that voters were more likely to focus on the hearings into Mr. Bush's handling of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and testimony of his former counterterrorism chief, Richard A. Clarke, than on an election in November.

Mr. Kerry's campaign manager, Mary Beth Cahill, said on Wednesday said that her operation was far from idle. She said Mr. Kerry would report this week that he had raised more than $40 million in the first quarter of the year — a figure that would shatter the $14.8 million record set by Howard Dean, who raised that much in three months — more than any other Democratic presidential candidate. Mr. Kerry's aides said the senator was about to embark on an aggressive schedule of speeches and a national wave of television advertisements challenging Mr. Bush on the economy, job creation and health care.

"We learned in the primary that we are going to run a race on our own terms and on our own schedule and carry out the plan that we put together," Ms. Cahill said. "You're watching it executed in front of you. The Bush people have been laying back a year and half and amassing money to launch a campaign. O.K., but the country still thinks we're on the wrong track."

Still, Democrats said they were concerned by polls in recent days showing that voter perceptions of Mr. Kerry had soured somewhat under the press of Mr. Bush's attacks on him and what even Mr. Kerry's advisers acknowledge have been a series of missteps by the candidate this past month.

A USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll this week found the number of voters who view Mr. Kerry unfavorably had increased to 36 percent from 26 percent over the past five weeks, while the number of votes who called him "too liberal" jumped to 41 percent from 29 percent. A New York Times/CBS News Poll this month found that about 6 out of 10 registered voters believed that Mr. Kerry said what he wanted people to hear, rather than what he believed, suggesting some success by Mr. Bush in portraying Mr. Kerry as a flip-floppers.

Mr. Kerry himself has showed signs of concern about the image that he is a slacker on the trail, fitting in a campaign appearance in Boston on Wednesday morning before heading to the hospital.

Ms. Cahill's remarks underline what has emerged as a stark strategic difference between the Bush and Kerry campaigns.

Mr. Bush, after studying his father's experience in 1988 and the success with which Bill Clinton undermined Bob Dole by attacking him in the spring of 1996, has set out to define Mr. Kerry now, in the hope that perceptions created today will be difficult to change in the fall.

As Mr. Kerry has stayed on the slopes and the sidelines, the president has pressed forward with a meticulously planned and lavishly financed campaign to undercut him with a barrage of speeches and television advertisements intended to portray him as a liberal, unprincipled, big-spending Democrat.

By contrast, even Mr. Kerry's supporters say he has yet to offer a concise case against Mr. Bush or one for his own presidency.

"Here's what concerns me in the long term: I can tell you what George Bush's definition of John Kerry is: He is a flip-flopping liberal who wants to raise your taxes," said a Democratic strategist who did not want to be quoted by name. "But I'm not sure I can tell you what John Kerry's definition of George Bush is.`

By contrast, in a sign that the White House has figured out what to say about Mr. Kerry, the senator was greeted on Tuesday in California by Bush supporters who held up black plastic flip-flops and clapped them together as Mr. Kerry tried to speak.

Aides to Mr. Bush said their efforts had been successful.

"The equilibrium point of the race right now is roughly event," a senior Bush adviser, Matthew Dowd, said. "I thought Senator Kerry would carry his strong showing from the primaries longer. But that has dissipated quickly. His negatives have gone up fairly quickly."

There are abundant signs that Mr. Kerry's campaign remains a work in formation. Mr. Kerry has flown across the country the past few days accompanied by Bob Shrum, a senior adviser and prominent speech writer, constantly updating and tweaking Mr. Kerry's stump speech.

After two weeks in which Mr. Kerry arguably hurt himself with ill-chosen remarks, his campaign has tried to keep him from reporters. In one seven-day stretch, he met with national reporters once, in a session that lasted nine minutes.

Mr. Kerry's aides said they thought that any advantage that Mr. Bush might be gaining with his attacks would be fleeting because the senator was about to embark in a noticeable step-up of his campaign.

"Their negative ads have gotten some traction, but not any lasting traction that is going to impact us in the long run" Mr. Kerry's communications director, Stephanie Cutter, said. "For us, this campaign has just started. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/01/politics...print&position=

[desdemona]

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, what the.............? how the heck does the bush campaign get away with attacking kerry's military record? he served in vietnam, got medals, injuries, it happened, who cares how severe the injuries were or whatever, I just don't believe it, he got them, geez, THIS coming from a draft dodger that joined the guard so he wouldn't have to go to vietnam, and this crap about this is his service, the war in iraq, that's absurd, it doesn't take courage to order others to do the dying for you, I'm clueless as to how the republican party gets away with this.

[Redneck4sure]

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, what the.............? how the heck does the bush campaign get away with attacking kerry's military record? he served in vietnam, got medals, injuries, it happened, who cares how severe the injuries were or whatever, I just don't believe it, he got them, geez, THIS coming from a draft dodger that joined the guard so he wouldn't have to go to vietnam, and this crap about this is his service, the war in iraq, that's absurd, it doesn't take courage to order others to do the dying for you, I'm clueless as to how the republican party gets away with this.

Us rednecks vote for em!!

[Kooperman]

Kerry's Missing Message . . .

By Richard Cohen

Thursday, April 22, 2004; Page A31

In the past month or so, everything has gone wrong for George W. Bush. He has been criticized at hearings of the Sept. 11 commission for being lackadaisical about terrorism. Richard Clarke accused him of being weirdly obsessed with Iraq. More than 100 Americans have been killed there in the past 30 days, and Bush was so inarticulate in his recent news conference that you could say he violated the standards of his own "No Child Left Behind" policy. Still, if this keeps up, he'll win reelection in a landslide.

The rest of this opinion column is here (registration may be required):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Apr21.html

[ASUmusicMAN]

As usual...interested in what everyone has to say...

Kerry's incredible budget promises

Published April 25, 2004

Is John Kerry making it up as he goes along? The presumptive Democratic nominee, who has been raging about the Bush economy for more than 15 months, was recently asked to tie his campaign proposals into a succinct and compelling agenda. "Succinct agenda," Mr. Kerry replied. "We're going to balance the budget. We're going to cut the deficit in half in four years. We're going to create 10 million jobs. And we're going to provide health care to all Americans? How's that?" Well, which is it going to be? Are you going to balance the budget? Or are you going to cut the deficit in half? The difference is only about $250 billion a year.

Meanwhile, Mr. Kerry has been unilaterally downsizing the cost of his health-care plan, to which health-care economist Kenneth Thorpe of Emory University independently applied a 10-year price tag of $895 billion. In an interview last summer with Margaret Warner on "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer," Mr. Kerry confirmed the $900 billion price tag. Last week, however, he told Neil Cavuto on the Fox News Channel that his plan would cost a maximum of $650 billion over 10 years. At the same time he has been downsizing the cost of his health-care plan, he has been increasing the number of currently uninsured people it would cover. Mr. Thorpe estimated the plan would cover 26.7 million of the 43.6 million uninsured. In his April 7 budget speech at Georgetown, however, Mr. Kerry claimed his plan would "expand health care for all of our children and cover virtually all Americans."

Mr. Kerry also promises essentially worthless budget savings and pseudo budget discipline. In the face of federal spending that, according to projections by the Congressional Budget Office, will total at least $30 trillion over the next 10 years, Mr. Kerry's campaign offered these specific examples of fiscal restraint: "Extend Superfund (saves $17 billion over ten years); collect royalties for mineral rights of federal lands (saves $1 billion over ten years); cut electricity used by the federal government by 20 percent in 10 years (saves $14 billion over ten years); . . . freeze the federal travel budget (saves $10 billion over ten years)." To more than double his meager itemized savings, he matter-of-factly promises to reduce spending on federal contractors by $50 billion over 10 years.

Even granting him the last, undocumented pledge, his itemized spending savings ($92 billion) total a minuscule three-tenths of 1 percent over 10 years, which doesn't even qualify as a rounding error.

To enforce pseudo budget discipline, Mr. Kerry pledges to enact "budget caps to ensure [total federal] spending does not exceed inflation." His enforcement mechanism would be "an automatic across-the-board cut." This cut, however, would "not apply to defense, homeland security, education, Social Security, Medicare or other mandatory programs." But mandatory programs and interest payments will total $1.485 trillion in 2005. Adding in defense ($450 billion), homeland security ($30 billion) and the non-mandatory spending for education ($79 billion) and health care ($42 billion) brings Kerry-protected spending to $2.1 trillion, which is nearly 90 percent of total federal spending in 2005. This simply is not credible.

With such self-serving, unilateral, revisionist declarations and worthless proposals like these, no wonder a poll of "several economists without a political horse in the race" by Fortune magazine reporter Bill Powell confirmed that Mr. Kerry's promises involving health care, tax increases on the wealthy and deficit reduction did not add up.

Copyright © 2004 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040424-101351-5228r.htm

[DudeAsInCool]

Mr. Kerry also promises essentially worthless budget savings and pseudo budget discipline.

Hard to take analyses like these very seriously, when they are filled with pejorative and imflammatory statements. Mr. Kerry has suggested rolling back the tax cuts, and using those to help fund universal healthcare, while at the same time, giving corporations tax break incentives for hiring and growth. On the surface, that seems as reasonable, as cutting taxes and promising future job growth before it happens.

How about everyone meeting in the middle like they did in the Clinton years and getting something done? I dont understand why every other western country can have a health care program, but the richest country of all can't.

In any event, given the fact we've gone from a surplus to a deficit in a few years, why would anyone believe what the conservatives have to say on the subject??????????????

[Kooperman]

The writing in that editorial opinion was just about as amateurish and unprofessional as I've ever seen. Rather than present a reasoned and smooth message, all that's offered is campaign rhetoric and barbs. If the opinion is to have any creedence, a comparison of the two opponent's approaches is necessary. I can absolutely assure you anyone with the proper numbers and a modicum of writing skill can rip apart the Bush budget just as easily. I don't claim to be an economist but I do know some basic truths: You can't spend more than you earn.......you can't rob Peter to pay Paul for long without major problems.....you can't hide budget expenses for long without creating budget crisis later.....you can't spend, spend spend and still give tax refunds to so many people.

I can at least balance my checkbook.....can this administration?

[Kooperman]

I did some examination of this Washington Times paper that ASU used for his article. It appears to be a "house" paper for the Republicans if today's paper is any indication. In one editorial they slam Kerry for wanting the U.N. to assume a greater role in Iraq, http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040425-102730-2272r.htm

Perhaps the Washington Times missed the President Of The United States at the White House recently when he all but begged the U.N. to take this political hot potato out of his lap, and the sooner the better.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040415/325/er2tf.html

Even the U.N. was surprised by that one.....

Here's another one from the Washington Times editors which offers some unsubstantiated innuendo about shady money pouring into the Democratic coffers.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040425-102731-6419r.htm

Very professional.....if it was the gossip column.

Bottom line....if you want one side only go to the house journals.

[ASUmusicMAN]

I love reading everyone's commentary...very interesting

[Kooperman]

Mondo Washington

by James Ridgeway

John Kerry Must Go

Note to Democrats: it's not too late to draft someone—anyone—else

April 27th, 2004 11:45 AM

WASHINGTON, D.C.— With the air gushing out of John Kerry's balloon, it may be only a matter of time until political insiders in Washington face the dread reality that the junior senator from Massachusetts doesn't have what it takes to win and has got to go. As arrogant and out of it as the Democratic political establishment is, even these pols know the party's got to have someone to run against George Bush. They can't exactly expect the president to self-destruct into thin air.

With growing issues over his wealth (which makes fellow plutocrat Bush seem a charity case by comparison), the miasma over his medals and ribbons (or ribbons and medals), his uninspiring record in the Senate (yes war, no war), and wishy-washy efforts to mimic Bill Clinton's triangulation gimmickry (the protractor factor), Kerry sinks day by day. The pros all know that the candidate who starts each morning by having to explain himself is a goner.

What to do? Look for the Dem biggies, whoever they are these days, to sit down with the rich and arrogant presumptive nominee and try to persuade him to take a hike. Then they can return to business as usual—resurrecting John Edwards, who is still hanging around, or staging an open convention in Boston, or both.

If things proceed as they are, the dim-bulb Dem leaders are going to be very sorry they screwed Howard Dean.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0417/mondo1.php

[Kooperman]

Need your glasses cleaned and don't have anything to clean them on? If you were George Bush it would be no problem...

http://www.bushflash.com/quicktime/george1.mov

Quicktime video

[ASUmusicMAN]

Latest Gallup Poll...Bush is losing momentum...VERY interesting results

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselect...atodaypolls.htm

[DudeAsInCool]

Im not very excited about the Kerry campaign...but it really doesnt matter. Bush is going to lose because the public wants a change just like they did in California...

[Kooperman]

John Kerry is here in my town today and creating a good bit of interest, even in a state which inevitably will vote 60% Bush.

[Lord_of_the_Dense]

Effective or not...isn't my cup of soup...

[DudeAsInCool]

Latest Gallup Poll...Bush is losing momentum...VERY interesting results

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselect...atodaypolls.htm

A couple weeks later, Kerry has pulled into the lead by 8 pts. And if McCain is on the ticket, the lead will be even larger according to a CBS Poll:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/26/...ain619786.shtml

[desdemona]

"I figured out Karl Rove's political strategy–make gas so expensive, no Democrats can afford to go to the polls."

Sen. John Kerry

[DudeAsInCool]

Ran across this interesting book review at Powell's com--the substance of which we can all agree!

The Buying of the President 2004: Who's Really Bankrolling Bush and His Democratic Challengers -- and What They Expect in Return

by  Charles Lewis

A Review by Gerry Donaghy

In a publishing season that has seen the number of George Dubya books published explode exponentially (love him or hate him, the man is a publishing gold mine), it is quite refreshing to see what, in my opinion, has to be one of the most non-partisan books on politics out there. The Buying of the President 2004 by Charles Lewis and the Center for Public Integrity is essential election time reading.

To set the stage for the upcoming elections, Lewis examines the many mistakes that were made in the 2000 presidential election. From Republican election officials who greeted with a shrug the accidental purging of thousands of eligible voters from the voting rolls, to the Democrats who attempted to have absentee ballots cast by overseas military personnel thrown out, few stones are left unturned.

From there Lewis examines the financial entanglements that mire the political process. This book is like having a smoke-filled room in the palm of your hand. Not only does it reveal who donated money to which candidate, it also illuminates a little discussed practice called bundling, where individual contributors can skirt their way around the $1,000 maximum contribution by agreeing in writing to raise $100,000 by soliciting 100 friends and family to contribute $1,000 each. In the George W. Bush parlance, this makes you a Pioneer, if you can get 200 contributions, you can be called a Ranger. Everybody has an agenda, and it's easy to see whose favors are being returned through legislation.

Without explicitly stating this, the authors drive home the point that politics in America is a flawed system, where voting means finding a candidate whose agenda closely matches yours or at least picking the candidate that disgusts you least. In an election where it seems like the Democratic nominee will be picked solely on the basis of whether he can beat George W. in the fall or not, this book is required reading.

http://www.powells.com/review/2004_02_14

[DudeAsInCool]

Today's LA Times:

Voters Shift in Favor of Kerry

Thu June 10, 7:55 AM ET

By Ronald Brownstein Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Widespread unease over the country's direction and doubts about President Bush (news - web sites)'s policies on Iraq (news - web sites) and the economy helped propel Sen. John F. Kerry to a solid lead among voters nationwide, according to a new Times poll.

Yet in a measure of the race's tenuous balance, Times polling in three of the most fiercely contested states found that Bush had a clear advantage over Kerry in Missouri and is even with the presumed Democratic rival in Ohio and Wisconsin.

The surveys suggest that attitudes may be coalescing for a contest that pivots on the classic electoral question at times of discontent: Will voters see more risk in stability or change?

More than one-third of those questioned in the nationwide poll said they didn't know enough about Kerry to decide whether he would be a better president than Bush. And when asked which candidate was more likely to flip-flop on issues, almost twice as many named Kerry than Bush.

Yet Kerry led Bush by 51% to 44% nationally in a two-way matchup, and by 48% to 42% in a three-way race, with independent Ralph Nader (news - web sites) drawing 4%.

Lifting Kerry is a powerful tailwind of dissatisfaction with the nation's course and Bush's answers for challenges at home and abroad. Nearly three-fifths believe the nation is on the wrong track, the highest level a Times poll has recorded during Bush's presidency.

Also, 56% said America "needs to move in a new direction" because Bush's policies have not improved the country. Just 39% say America is better off because of his agenda.

Majorities disapprove of Bush's handling of the economy and Iraq, despite recent encouraging news on both fronts.

Such dissatisfaction is moving voters like Joseph Rechtin, a retired postal worker in Cincinnati, toward Kerry, even though the Massachusetts senator has not yet made a very sharp impression on him.

"I haven't seen that much that [Kerry] can provide us real leadership," Rechtin said. "But it's more than three years now, and we don't seem to be going anywhere at all, and this involvement in Iraq is taking us down the wrong path. So I definitely feel we need a leadership change."

The surveys showed that Bush still enjoyed significant political strengths, including virtually undivided support from his base and continued admiration for his handling of the struggle against terrorism. Nationally, his general approval rating is just above 50% — the mark that has divided the winners from the losers in recent presidential elections involving an incumbent.

His assets are enough for Bush to maintain a double-digit advantage in Missouri with Nader in the mix, and to remain essentially even with Kerry in Ohio and Wisconsin, even though majorities in each state say the country should change direction.

"Bush is a very strong person, and that's what we need for a president," said Harley Wilber, a machine operator in Milwaukee and a Vietnam veteran. "If we had Kerry … in there, [he] would be kind of wishy-washy."

The Times Poll, supervised by polling director Susan Pinkus, interviewed 1,230 registered voters in the national sample, as well as 566 registered voters in Missouri, 722 in Ohio and 694 in Wisconsin from Saturday through Tuesday. The margin of sampling error for the national sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points; for the state polling it is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The view of Bush as a strong leader is a powerful motivator for his supporters: Among the voters who express a favorable opinion of him, as many cite strong leadership as any other factor in explaining their opinion.

Michelle Mann, a stay-at-home mother in Oklahoma City, said she saw Bush as "a resolute man, and he is doing what he firmly believes is the right thing to do" without worrying about political consequences or reactions from other nations.

She added: "As long as it is best for the American people, he is willing to go the distance."

 

 

Yet the national poll found that Kerry had erased Bush's earlier advantage on leadership skills, blunting one of the core arguments for the president's reelection.

Asked which candidate "will be a strong leader for the country," voters divided exactly in half, with 44% choosing each; in a Times' poll in March, Bush held a 9-percentage-point lead on that question.

Also, while Bush narrowly led in March when voters were asked which candidate "has the honesty and integrity to serve as president," the two now are essentially tied, with Bush attracting 41% and Kerry 40%.

On other personal attributes, the poll indicates that Americans are making clear distinctions about the two candidates' strengths and weaknesses.

By 50% to 31%, those polled said Bush would be best at "keeping the country safe from terrorism." By 45% to 36%, Bush was picked over Kerry when voters were asked which man shared their moral values. Perhaps most troubling for the Democrat, nearly half said Kerry "flip-flops on the issues," while just a quarter applied that description to Bush.

But for Bush, the flip side of the flip-flop charge is a deepening perception that he is too rigid: By a resounding 58% to 16%, poll respondents said the phrase "too ideological and stubborn" applied more to Bush than to Kerry.

Bill Baggett, a retired accountant in Commerce Township, Mich., said he preferred Kerry's willingness to change his mind over what he saw as Bush's intransigence. Kerry's flexibility, Baggett said, "to me is a sign of intelligence."

Voters also preferred Kerry by about 10 percentage points when asked which man had better ideas for improving the economy and a better chance of building "respect for the United States around the world."

Kerry has established these advantages even while voters are just filling in their portrait of him. More than one-third of them — and nearly half of independents — said they did not know enough about Kerry "to decide whether he would be a better president" than Bush. Just 53% said they knew a great deal or even a fair amount about Kerry's domestic policies; only 42% felt that way about his foreign policies.

Yet Kerry has planted some flags with the public. He has been criticized by some Republicans and veterans over his activities during the Vietnam War era, when he enlisted in the Navy but protested the war after returning from combat. But nearly three-fifths of those surveyed agreed that "in his combat missions in Vietnam, John Kerry (news - web sites) demonstrated qualities America needs in a president." Just one-third said that in protesting the war, "Kerry demonstrated a judgment and belief that is inappropriate in a president."

Those answers may help explain Kerry's strong showing on what is likely to be a critical test in the election: 59% said they were very or somewhat confident he would be a good commander in chief; just 38% expressed doubts.

One of Bush's assets is some voters' belief that he has been a strong commander in chief on one front: 54% approve of his performance in the war on terrorism.

But on the economy, 54% of voters disapprove of his performance, while 43% approve. That's virtually unchanged from March, despite several months of strong job growth.

Eventually, that growth may boost Bush. But for now, 52% of voters said they believed Bush's economic policies had hurt the economy, while just 22% said his actions had improved it.

On Iraq, 44% approve of his performance, while 55% disapprove. That's down sharply from March, when a slight majority backed him on this issue. The new poll also found that only 35% believed Bush had "offered a clear plan" to achieve success in Iraq, while 44% said he had not.

Bush scores better on his overall approval rating, partly because of his continuing strength on the terrorism issue and partly because of his virtually unanimous support from Republicans and independents who consider themselves conservative. In the new poll, 51% approved of his performance while 47% disapproved, down only slightly since March.

Over the last 50 years, presidents who have won another term have generally enjoyed approval ratings about 55% or more by this point in the election year, while those who lost had fallen below 50%. So Bush finds himself on the cusp.

Bush also is bolstered by solid leads among culturally conservative groups that have favored Republicans over the last generation: married couples, rural voters, those who attend church services regularly (especially whites) and gun owners.

But Kerry has unified Democrats, muted the traditional GOP advantage among men and opened a narrow edge among suburbanites.

Kerry also performs well among many groups that his party's nominees have traditionally relied upon: women, singles, those who attend religious services rarely or never and lower-income families.

In a three-way race, Nader has little effect on these dynamics.

With Kerry still an opaque figure for many, Bush looms as the clear fulcrum of this race. More than 80% who approve of the president's performance said they would vote for him; more than 90% who disapprove said they would pull the lever for change.