ABC News' The Note: First Source for Political News

ByABC News
August 12, 2004, 9:58 AM

W A S H I N G T O N, Aug. 12, 2004&#151;<br> -- NOTED NOW

TODAY SCHEDULE (all times ET)

FUTURES CALENDAR

Morning Show Wrap

Evening Newscasts Wrap

18 days until the Republican convention82 days until election day

NEWS SUMMARYYesterday, in full voice, we told you that the presidential race was John Kerry's to lose.

Some readers thought our analysis too dire for Mr. Bush, but we were clear in saying that the president can still quite easily retain the White House, through some combination of Bush winning it and Note well Kerry losing it.

Yesterday's aggressive Bush-Cheney playing of the national security, character, and judgment cards are obviously part of any Bush comeback.

Per ABC News' Karen Travers, Vice President Cheney will say this today, once again playing all three legitimate cards (And keying off of the silliest thing John Kerry has said about national security since his "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" classic):

"Senator Kerry has also said that if he were in charge he would fight a 'more sensitive' war on terror. America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive. President Lincoln and General Grant didn't wage sensitive wars. Nor did President Roosevelt or Generals Eisenhower MacArthur. A 'sensitive war' will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds or thousands more. The men who beheaded Daniel Pearl and Paul Johnson will not be impressed by our sensitivity."

So, beyond opening the door politely to swarming Bush-Cheney-Gillespie assaults on his national security credibility through "sensitive" and other remarks, what are the other potential and real elements of Kerry "helping" the president to keep his job? And what are the things that just might HAPPEN and leave Kerry under pressure to react?

Ask almost any Democratic sharpie inside or outside the campaign and you will get plenty of answers.

A. John Kerry's relative (un)likeability has yet to become as big of a factor in this race as it undoubtedly will in the fall. Hands down, Bush will always win the "have a soda with" question.

B. Says a top Democratic strategist about the Kerry-Edwards campaign: "No one knows what their message is. 'Complex and layered' isn't necessarily enough."

C. Kerry's position on terrorism leaves him somewhat vulnerable to the charge that he simply does not "get" the overwhelming consensus in favor of tough and sometimes pre-emptive action against terrorist entities a proposition that both parties believe most Americans support. (This is entirely separate from the question of whether the Iraqi invasion was warranted, wise, or well-handled.).

D. John Kerry has not laid out a plausible position on how he'd convince foreign countries to send troops to Iraq, how he'd bring US troops home earlier, etc.

E. Let's face it: there is something squirrelly and unsettling and not quite right about the way Michael Meehan answers the media's Vietnam-era questions something that makes nearly every member of the Gang of 500 think there is still something there.

F. Too afraid, too disorganized, too protective to pull the trigger on accepting one of the many, many offers from TOP Democratic strategists and spokespeople to join up and help in the last 2 months.

G. It is not implausible that Kerry will get hammered in the debates.

H. It is not implausible that the possible array of "unexpected events" capturing Bin Laden, another terrorist attack, etc will benefit Bush.

I. Voters for the most part take John Kerry's view of the economy, seniors support him in droves, and yet he barely leads evidence that Kerry hasn't (you guessed it!!) closed the deal.

J. If there's a gay marriage ban on the Ohio ballot .

K. The Democratic message machine is OBSESSED with getting someone to write about certain subjects, like Halliburton, and spends way too much time trying to plant stories about it.

L. The Note is OBSESSED with field machines and knows that the Kerry campaign and the DNC are more than capable of putting together a stellar one. But the Republicans already have one. It's massive, intense, targeted, and sophisticated. The Republicans have the NRA and Redeem the Vote. LINK

And Coddy Johnson, which is sure to help 'em with young women voters.

Yesterday, we also asked for examples of 2000 Gore voters who will vote for the president this year. (Yes, we knew about Ed Koch, the mayor of St. Paul, and some others, but we wanted to get a flavor from non-celebrity voters.)

Thanks to an assist from National Review Online's Jim Geraghty (he of the excellent Kerry spot column LINK), we received more than a hundred responses.

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. LINK

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."

Note Note: very few of our respondents mentioned same-sex marriage.

Today, Vice President Cheney leads and begins the attack this morning when he criticizes Kerry's stated desire to wage a "more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror" highlighting, of course, the last phrase at a campaign rally in Dayton at 10:00 am ET.

Senator Kerry's first chance to respond will come at 2:00 pm ET, when he speaks at California State University Dominguez Hills in Carson, CA.

Kerry is beginning a two-week focus not on sensitivity or the war on terror but the economy dubbed "A Stronger America Begins at Home: The Path to Prosperity."

Kerry spokesperson Allison Dobson tells ABC News' Teddy Davis that there might be some new nuggets on child care today but that for the most part Kerry's speech will collect the various strands of his corporate and personal tax policies proposals you've heard before into one place.

Kerry then flies to Central Point, OR for an 8:00 pm ET rally before spending the night in Eugene.

What Kerry won't be (willingly) talking about: the California Supreme Court is set to rule today on whether San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom exceeded his authority by allowing gay couples to marry earlier this year.

President Bush meanwhile visits Las Vegas, where Kerry was yesterday, to speak to the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners at 2:00 pm ET. He then flies to Santa Monica, where Kerry was last night, for an RNC fundraiser at the Santa Monica Airport with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (who may start campaign out-of-state for Bush, reports the LA Times' Peter Nicholas. ">LINK

President and Mrs. Bush appear (taped) on CNN's "Larry King Live" at 9:00 pm.

And don't forget this nugget of the day: Ralph Nader returns to Florida for the first time since the 2000 election. He holds a 1:00 pm ET press conference and 6:30 pm ET rally in Tampa and has a closed meeting with the St. Petersburg Times' editorial board.

ABC News Vote 2004: Bush-Cheney re-elect: Cheney on the offense:As we Noted above, ABC News' Karen Travers reports that in his speech here today, Vice President Cheney will criticize a statement from Senator John Kerry last week that he would fight a "more sensitive war on terror."

Cheney is responding to a quote from Senator Kerry from the UNITY conference last week in Washington, when he said "I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history."

Phil Singer, a Kerry campaign spokesman, responds: "What Dick Cheney doesn't understand is that arrogance isn't a virtue when our country is in danger. Alienating allies makes it harder to hunt terrorists and bring them to justice. Kerry was saying we shouldn't be arrogant because we are stronger when other countries are working with us to win the war on terror. The Bush Cheney Administration's arrogance led to America bearing nearly 90% of the financial and military burden in Iraq, and to an America isolated in the world."

Travers Notes that this quote from Senator Kerry also came up at the Cheney's town hall meeting in Joplin, Missouri.

A man in the audience said he had a question "for Lynne Cheney to answer" and asked "Senator Kerry has made the statement that he would like to fight a more sensitive war on terror. What in the world would he be thinking about there? Your thoughts?"

Mrs. Cheney responded: "I just kind of shook my head when I heard that with all due respect to the senator, it just sounded so foolish. I can't imagine that Al Qaeda is going to be impressed by sensitivity."