If you were born in 1971, or late 1970, the first time you could vote in a Presidential election was 1992.
If you were an apathetic Democrat, you won, and the first time you ever lost was 2000.
And then you found out your earlier victories weren't so hot after all.
In 2004, we get to choose between Bush and Kerry.
I'd like you to think that Bush isn't bad, but that he does not know how bad his friends are.
And that Kerry may not be great, but that he is better.
I think arguments should be designed to convince Conservatives and Independents, not ourselves.
I think Kerry's best feature for Conservatives, and this isn't something often heard, is that he is in no way a Democratic Party loyalist.
I think it might be the kind of fairness that often comes out of a career in the courts, isn't it? <-- that argument doesn't go far, if it exists.
The proof is in his role in the Iran-Contra-Drugs investigation, and later BCCI (that was a CIA front? bank also massively corrupt and involved in shady arms deals)..
Important Democrats told him to stop making waves, and he didn't, Senior Democrats were implicated (along with far more Republicans) in both instances.
It's important to remind Republicans that not voting for Bush is as good as voting for Kerry, even if that logic doesn't hold for your Democrat colleagues.
And also to remind Republicans that a change in President isn't the same as a change in Congress, and that seems very, very unlikely, regardless of the Presidential race.