I don't know if the Right have these crises of wondering whether to 'waste' their vote on the party or independant they REALLY want or to cast a begrudging vote for the big O Opposition who have the best chance of unseating the guy they want out.
I only know that I'm prepared for a little moderation in the form of John Kerry if it means clearing away Bush and his scary talk of the 'homeland' and his insidious Patriot Act, his history as a governor with the highest execution rate, his series of dirty tricks to gain high office, his relentless war speeches propping up his power where any examination of his other 'achievements' would come out firmly in the negative side of the ledger, his willingness to sacrifice soldiers in the field regardless of how well things are going; in short his strong resemblance to a totalitarian thug.
From what I can gather Bush, when he has finished exploiting the 9-11 tragedy, intends to target Kerry as weak and indecisive. A strange assessment of a war hero from a showpony who has never seen active combat. Of course it is possible that Kerry might be weak on the domestic economy. But this should be a moot point considering how much Bush has unravelled the fiscal rectitude of Clinton before him.
True conservatives should be aghast. Gauging from the comments thusfar though, they have just put on the nosepeg and decided that they can't vote Democrat or allow them to sneak in so they will vote Bush whatever the issues. I'd like to say this is just the Right being dumb brutes but, if I was happy to lend my weight to the mealy-mouthed moderate Social Democrat at the expense of a more honest and precise vote for Just Us Naturalists For Natural Justice or somesuch (and I know scores of left-of-centre colleagues who have the same dilemma), then why can't their 'no moral weaklings' cry be understandable?
The reason politicians of all stripes get away with so much is because their status is such that we make allowances for dishonesty, for nepotism & cronyism, for the kind of bungling that directly impacts on us; in short, we provide a latitude for politicians that we would not extend to any other member of the community. Liberal voters can light on a Graham Richardson or Mal Colston to show how Labor has (had)its share of ratbags. I imagine the US scene is littered with the same career politicians who are there for the perks. This doesn't mean that those with an ideological axe to grind won't also find their way into Parliament but knowing that Elaine Nile or Ted Mack have a seat doesn't sway us from generalising the pecadilloes, so Howard's front bench going down like ninepins on various corruption issues didn't stop people from voting them, or their remnants, back in. They were making their choice on different grounds altogether.