Thanks for your acknowledgement, Chant.

As I said elsewhere, if the allegations against Bush were less hyperbolically distorted and just respectfully stuck to the facts, I really feel they'd have a better case against Bush. ( As I outlined in my super-long post near the top of this page.)
I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the deceitfully bitter rhetoric and tactics of Democrats have driven me firmly into the Republican camp.

For example, if Democrats didn't allege that Bush "ruined" the economy (which ignores that the recession began a year before Bush took office, during Clinton's term).
Democrats could simply say that Bush, despite the inevitable recession he inherited from Clinton, and the further blow of 9-11, has not done enough to improve the economy, and Kerry offered voters a lucid alternative plan, well, then I'd give the Democrat ticket serious consideration.
But right now, Kerry is just saying over and over, "Bush is wrong, Bush screwed up, if you hate Bush vote for me", instead of offering an alternative plan.

Similarly, Kerry complains about "outsourcing" of jobs overseas to places like India and China (which was partly occurring under Bush Sr and Clinton's terms for factory labor and industrial blue-collar jobs, but now has also expanded into outsourcing white-collar jobs). Again the allegation that Bush started all this, while the truth is NAFTA was passed under Clinton, and a similar free trade agreement with Central and South American-bloc countries.
Kerry proposes measures to prevent jobs from going overseas. But the highest authority on the U.S. economy, Alan Greenspan, said before a senate hearing a month ago that such measures would just damage the U.S. economy even more.
And for all the Bush-bashing over the economy, the U.S. economy is still the healthiest in the world. It has been better, but there is nothing surpassing it outside the U.S.

Similarly in Iraq, Kerry and the leading Democrats offer no alternative. Democrats offer false idealistic plattitudes of how we should get/should have gotten the support of the U.N. and other countries. But the truth is, the U.N. consistently flees every time there is danger, and even in the best possible scenario, would offer a maximum of 20,000 troops in Iraq, and probably a lot less. I see nothing resembling courage and resolve on the Democrat side regarding Iraq.
Republicans are trying to seed democracy in the Middle East, and eliminate the despair in the Muslim world that led to 9-11. What alternative do the Democrats offer?
None.

The likelihood of my voting the Democrat ticket pretty much died when Lieberman dropped out of the race, and Kerry stopped being respectful and logical regarding Iraq, in order to successfully steal Howard Dean's thunder and get the Democratic nomination.

I actually hate the Republican ads I've seen on TV the last month or so. They have narrative voice that projects an annoying informal silliness, telling you about all the "wacky" ideas Kerry and the Democrats have. Kind of like Andy Rooney on 60 Minutes, saying "Have you ever wondered about..." in a cranky half serious tone.
But the Democrats offer no lucid alternative, and thus have less credibility than Bush. Kerry's partisan angry rhetoric just offends me, and drives me into the arms of the Republicans.

What infuriates me most over the last few weeks is how Democrats make bitter angry partisan allegations (specifically, Richard Clark, and the surrounding debate) and pretty much obligate Republicans to respond, and then the Republican response is characterized as an attack? I mean, WTF ?!?
Republicans didn't start the blame game, and Republicans didn't fire the first shot.

As I said, during 8 years of escalating al Qaida terrorism from 1993-2000, Republicans never used similar blame-game tactics against Clinton.
Democrats started the blame-game, and Republicans cannot fairly be blamed for it.