Here are excerpts from four recent endorsements that John Kerry has received. Let’s see if you can figure out what they all have in common :

The first is Bush’s hometown paper, The Lone Star Iconoclast :

Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:

Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.

Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans? benefits and military pay.

Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.

Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.

Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.

Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and

Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.
. . .
These were elements of a hidden agenda that surfaced only after he took office.
When examined based on all the facts, Kerry?s voting record is enviable and echoes that of many Bush allies who are aghast at how the Bush administration has destroyed the American economy. Compared to Bush on economic issues, Kerry would be an arch-conservative, providing for Americans first. He has what it takes to right our wronged economy.

The re-election of George W. Bush would be a mandate to continue on our present course of chaos. We cannot afford to double the debt that we already have. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.

Second is Dwight Eisenhower’s son, former ambassador John Eisenhower :

The fact is that today?s ?Republican? Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word ?Republican? has always been synonymous with the word ?responsibility,? which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today?s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.
. . .
The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation?s financial structure sound.

The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today?s Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.

Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.

Third up is today’s endorsement by former John McCain aide (as well as member of the Heritage Foundation, Christian Coalition, etc.), Marshall Wittmann (via Josh Marshall)

If John Kerry wins, it remains to be seen whether his administration will be more willing to break with its ideological base than a Bush team that has been slavishly loyal to its corporate paymasters. But there is no remaining shred of doubt that another four years of a Bush presidency would have a toxic effect on American politics. If George W. Bush is re-elected, unlimited corporate power, cynicism, and division will ride high in the saddle.

In the past few years, there has been an effort by the neoconservative center-right to forge a new politics of national greatness. Although this new political perspective was never spelled out in specifics, its adherents (including me) envisioned an energetic federal government that would implement a foreign policy advancing American interests and human rights, along with a domestic policy that would promote national service, and an economics focused on benefiting the middle class.

Our model was Theodore Roosevelt, the original Bull Moose, who did not flinch from taking on the special interests at home while aggressively promoting American interests abroad.
. . .
This Bull Moose is not all the way with Kerry, but part of the way with JFK. I am generally to Kerry’s right. However, on the key issues of progressive economics and a muscular and smart foreign policy, John Kerry’s ideas are far preferable to George W. Bush’s. And, with his gesture this summer in approaching McCain about the vice presidency, Kerry demonstrated that he is committed to a new politics of national unity.

Although I had my differences with Kerry during the Cold War, he has demonstrated by his hawkishness on Kosovo and Afghanistan that he is willing to use force to defend American ideas and interests. He advocates increasing the size of the U.S. military. On domestic issues, Kerry has positioned himself in the New Democrat tradition. Kerry has proposed an ambitious national service program. He would retain the tax cuts for the middle class while rolling them back on the super-rich.

And finally, here’s some quotes from an interview with 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser :

I spent, along with the other 9/11 family members, three years trying to get 9/11 issues addressed by this administration. And it’s been a long fight, and I use the word fight because that’s what it was. And I think it’s disappointing to be this far removed from 9/11 and to still not feel as safe as we could be feeling.

It’s been a long three years, and we tried to get failures addressed. We tried to have accountability assigned, and it’s just not happening under this administration. And I have a five-year-old daughter. I want to know that I’m safer than I am right now. And President Bush has not put me in that place, and I believe Senator Kerry will.
[. . .]
With regard to the 9/11 Commission, President Bush: fought the creation of the commission; fought the legislative language to make sure the commission was set up in a bipartisan manner; fought the funding of the commission; fought an extension for the commission; fought access to individuals and documents.

This commission was very important because it was going to make sure that we learn from the mistakes that occurred in 9/11 and, in a sense, honor the lost lives by making sure that in the next attack — which we know is going to happen — more lives would be saved.
[. . .]
He came around after he was backed into a corner and after a 90-8 vote in the senate. And it was a long year. And I wonder, what if the president had started his own commission in the days after 9/11, much like happened in Pearl Harbor. Maybe this wouldn’t be a campaign issue this year. Maybe national security would be taken care of. Maybe I would feel safe. Maybe I wouldn’t be so scared three years since 9/11.

And I think it’s terribly sad that it is an issue in this campaign, because it’s an issue — because it hasn’t been taken care of.
[. . .]
And I can tell you from my heart, I reached out to the Kerry campaign. I reached out after the Republican convention that was in New York, and I felt that listening to people talk about 9/11 as incessantly as it was done during the campaign — or the convention in New York, if you’re going to use 9/11, use it to make this nation safer than it was on 9/11. And that’s not being done. If you’re going to use 9/11, if you’re going to be impassioned about the lives lost on 9/11, then do so by making us safer. Don’t use 9/11 to go to war in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 — not on my husband’s name. The war in Iraq has increased recruitment of al Qaeda. It has increased animosity and hatred toward Americans.

Did you figure our what they have in common (other than their support for John Kerry)? The small town newspaper editor, the ambassador and son of a Republican President, the conservative wonk, and the widow whose crusade led to the formation of the 9/11 Commission have one thread that binds them.

They all supported George W. Bush in 2000.

The Republicans would love you to believe the only opposition to Bush’s re-election is a mob of angry leftists who hate America, but these four people are the proof that Bush’s presidency has been a disaster. When faced with the single-minded extremism of the Bush Administration, people who would normally find themselves pulling the lever for the GOP are flocking to John Kerry. Not only because Bush can’t be trusted with another four years, but because John Kerry has proven again and again throughout his life that he can.