H:
The reasons I voted for Bush are a bit long and complicated (I voted against him in 2000 mostly because of the stem cell question - not much more than that).
Here's the short version (at least, I'll try to keep it short):
- During my lifetime, and especially during the 1990s, the after-party of the Cold War, there was a status quo which was dangerous, but seemingly innocuous. This status quo led directly to people flying planes into buildings in the biggest city in the U.S., and only a few blocks south of JP and me. The first plane flew over our heads on its way to death and destruction.
- Kerry basically said that as President, he would try to get us back to that status quo, where we ignore the problems of the world and hope, crossing our fingers, that people wouldn't attack us like that again.
- We did not choose this war - it was thrust upon us. Bush's idea is a radical one, admittedly, but in my opinion more likely to end this war than anything offered up by Kerry. Bush decided to take the fight to the enemy - break the status quo, and start to change the conditions that produce people who want to kill as many innocent Americans, Europeans, South-East Asians, Middle Easterners, etc. as they possibly can.
- It's a gamble, but the alternative is to sit back and wait (1 year, 5 years, 20 years, etc.) for people to attack again, with no guarantee they won't take out an entire city, or worse.
There's an author (Steven Den Beste) who has written a very good overview of what's going on - you can find it here.

If there had been a candidate who would have cut taxes, massively reduced government spending, while aggressively fighting the war, I would have voted for that candidate over Bush. Unfortunately for Kerry, he was not that candidate.

[Update at 11:15 am: here is a quote from George Will which neatly summarizes most of my problems with Kerry:
"Kerry ran a high-risk "biography candidacy" based on a four-month period 35 years ago. His contrasting silence about his nearly 20 Senate years echoed. He was an anomalous kind of challenger. The most important changes he promised would be either restorations or resistances. That is, he campaigned as the candidate of complacency, albeit a curdled, backward-looking complacency. Regarding foreign policy, he promised to turn the clock back, to the alliance-centered foreign policy before the intrusion of the "nuisance" of terrorism. Regarding domestic policy, he promised to stop the clock, preventing any forward movement on entitlement reform to cope with the baby boomers' retirements."]

Hopefully this is somewhat helpful in explaining my decision.
C
- posted by Christoph Roggenkamp @ 11/04/2004 10:22:00 AM