On the Supreme Court issue, even moderates should prefer Bush to Kerry. So says Doc Ock, anyway. History shows that Republicans have more recently tended to appoint hardcore conservatives (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas), true moderates (O'Connor, Kennedy), and hardcore liberals (Souter, Stevens) to the Court, while President Clinton was able to get exactly the hardcore liberals he wanted (Ginsburg, Breyer) through on the first try. So Bush is likely, if history is any guide, to lead to a more balanced court than Kerry would, assuming any justices die or retire during the next presidential term. Given that it's already a left-leaning group, the call for balance leads to erring on the conservative side anyway.
I'd prefer myself to see Stevens replaced by someone like Scalia, and then I'd be happy, whereas balance would be something like replacing Stevens with someone like Kennedy. So I can't say balance is what I really want, but I see balance as better than what we now have or what would happen if Kerry got to appoint anyone.