Supporting defense spending is not the same as being pro-war; similarly, voting against defense spending is not the same as being anti-war.
First of all, pro-war/anti-war are terms that make little sense, except for presenting perspectives of extremists...and I do not think Kerry fits this bill. When someone labels him/herself anti-war, this usually means that he/she is against a particular war, or how a particular war is being waged.
Second of all, a statement like "Kerry had an extremely poor record on supporting defense spending" is misleading without qualifications. If you were to say that Kerry refused to support defense spending, this would be unfair. If you were to say that Kerry refused to support defense spending when he believed the money should be spent elsewhere first, or to support defense in a better way, that would be fair. Kerry stating that Bush is completely responsible for the budget shift during his term is no worse than Bush saying Kerry voted against tax cuts so-and-so times during his senate career. Both are unqualified blanket statements intended to label, rather than to explain a position. Likewise, Kerry's voting record should not specifically suggest he does not support the "war on terror" as Bush calls it, but that he felt that the pursuit of terror should be considered separate from a possible war in Iraq.
And you are right, by the way, concerning the state of German politics prior to the subsequent regime. He bullied his way into his position through misleading propaganda and brute squads. Still, National Socialism may sound like socialism, but it isn't. Some stages in the ideology resemble each other, ironically; however, they are philisophically opposed concepts if you consider their purpose and ultimate goal.
My problem with the method remains, though. I think (I'm not trying to place words in your mouth) you're suggesting that a popular middle ground within a spectrum of political thought always exists, whether or not the speakers for a perspective are given a voice. You may be right, though the way extremist, totalitarian governments attempted and somewhat succeeded in controlling the reasoning process of the younger generations seems to suggest that the spectrum can be restricted, or shoved in either direction. Supporters of a Marxist movement, often principal participants found themselves staring at the wrong end of a gun, because their views were too moderate...or too extreme. It all depends where the seat of power establishes the throne.
All of which is to say that popular opinion sways dramatically depending on the dynamics of change. But the ideals, the philosophies, do not.
TBT