From
The Note:
We don't know for sure that these folks voted for Gore, but we'll take them at their word. Many took the time to write careful, measured essays, and we sincerely appreciate it. We read every single response.
One reason for the decision to choose Bush stood out: the GWOT and Bush's decisiveness. Looks like those polls showing that undecided voters still find Kerry indecisive are on to something.
Among those responding was the journalist Ronald Kessler, whose new book about Bush's character essentially chronicles his journey from Gore voter to Bush voter. A sampling of responses:
M. Connor, Ohio: "I am a lifelong Democrat from Ohio, who is proudly voting for President Bush. I am ashamed to say I voted for Al Gore in 2000. President Bush is a man of incredible strength and moral clarity. He is rock solid and a genuine family man who I am proud to support. John Kerry scares the heck out of a lot of us in Ohio. He is so unsteady and I don't trust him with the safety of my children."
L. Helton of Miami, Florida: "I was NEVER into politics before like I have become in this election. I have become a news junkie, and a more educated voter ever since 9/11. I never cared for Bush before, but ever since 9/11 his decisions and resolve to stand up and protect our country has really impressed me."
B. Sigalow, Maitland, Florida: "My main reason for doing so is my belief that Mr. Bush and the current administration are more capable of addressing the terrorist threat facing this nation and the Western world."
J. Faust, Des Moines, Iowa: "Have people forgotten 9/11? Have they forgotten we are the hunted, and that the United Nations let us down? Should I become an independent as I vote for the man, not for hatred?"
A.E. Diggins, Nevada: "I'm female, 40, work in academia, and the rest of my background reads like a liberal poster. But this election I'm switching because, for the first time, I'm a single issue voter -- the war. Despite some misteps by the Bush administration, I largely agree with the way they are proceeding in this war. I have 3 sons, the oldest will be 18 in 4 years. Selfishly, I want this war to get fought and won over the next few years before my sons have to do the fighting.
P. Albinus, New York, New York: "Hi. I voted for Al Gore in 2000 and I plan to vote for Bush in November. Why? The war on terror. Bush may be too conservative for my tastes but he gets the war and the fact that we have an enemy that wishes us ill. Kerry, I'm not so sure."
S. Mahar, New York, New York: "The main reason I'm voting for Bush in November is the war against the fascist strain of Islam that would destroy us if it had the opportunity."
A psychology professor from Colorado: "I've never voted for a Republican in my life before now (2 Clintons, 1 Gore, and PA Gov. Ed Rendell). But frankly, I think that nobody can truly say what Kerry believes, and that's disturbing to me. His DNC speech sealed my vote against him, with the aforementioned 'retaliation' and the fact that he's running on 30 year old accomplishments and entirely skipped his long Senate career."
(Here is a recent interview of Kessler.)
I find these letters highly dubious, especially the one that says "His DNC speech sealed my vote against him." That sounds like something a Republican would write. I can't imagine any genuine Democrat would be so completely turned off by that particular Kerry speech. So I think that letter is a fake and I find others suspicious but slightly less so.
Yesterday, I wrote a diary suggesting that Mr. Bush, for whatever reason, intentionally went to war before the time was right. I want to go back to some of the issues alluded to but not clearly stated in that diary because I think they get at the huge credibility issue Bush has in the war on terror.
First, George Bush (and influential members of his staff) was so obsessed with Iraq that after 9/11 he insisted on blaming Iraq, evidence to the contrary be damned. As for the obsession, this CBS piece on Paul O'Neill contains eyewitness testimony to the pre 9/11 obsession with Iraq. This CBS piece on Richard Clarke contains eyewitness testimony to the post 9/11 obsession with Iraq and a real disinterest in the evidence. Clarke makes a point of showing Mr. Bush also ignored the FBI and the CIA. Mr. Bush and some of his highly placed staff members wanted to immediately and knowingly go after those who were not responsible for 9/11 instead of those who were. Needless to say, this is not what I want to see in the man responsible for our national security.
But that troubling misstep immediately after 9/11 is no less troubling than Mr. Bush's actions during the run-up to war. In the month before the war, Mr. Bush was again ignoring the evidence and telling his own factually challenged version of events in speeches. This CBS piece gives eyewitness testimony from Iraq which acknowledges that the war resolution (the one John Kerry voted for) worked because it made it possible for inspectors to be there but makes clear that the evidence they were finding on the ground in Iraq contradicted what Mr. Bush and the British were telling the world. Mr. Bush was telling a very different version of events as seen in the transcript here.
Mr. Bush, in direct contradiction to the advice and information given to him by the FBI, the CIA, the State Department and anti-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, made up false accusations that Saddam Hussein was in league with terrorist organizations and otherwise knowingly blew the evidence out of all proportion. (link and link) Then, when evidence from the very inspectors in Iraq contradicted his story, he cut short diplomacy and invaded. This is the simple truth as revealed by evidence that is commonly available to anyone sincerely interested in finding it.