I'm with Tim Carney.

McAuliffe in 2000 played a role in losing the presidency in a time of peace and prosperity. As DNC chairman in 2002 he defied history, losing the Senate and bleeding seats in the House during a midterm election. He's also handed five southern governorships to the GOP. Now he is trying to beat the Republicans in 2004 running on fiscal discipline and national security.

May Terry McAuliffe have a thousand-year reichgn.

Well, given things like this it could be a week spot for the President. Not that any republican I know would vote for a democrat, its just that swing voters might. Its not the base I worry about, its the ones just outside that base who can be influenced.

Unless the Dems get their act together and somehow drag Lieberman back from the dead and nominate him, the Republicans have little to worry about.

As a (small l) libertarian, I'm a pretty typical swing voter, and with the exception of Bush's handling of foreign affairs, I'm less than thrilled. Ok, I'll grant you the tax cut as well. Of course, without fiscal discipline, the tax cut is just more borrowing and potential for bigger problems in the future.

However, given the current cast of clowns the Dems are parading around, people like me will either vote Bush or stay home. Most likely, I'll vote Bush because the war on terror is just too important to be left to chance. Bush undobutably knows he can get a pass on a lot of garbage simply because a lot of people feel this way, and sadly, I think he's right.