Well, I've been moving around the past few days, so I missed this thread. So I am going to belatedly jump in
In a perfect world, I would probably vote Libertarian, and have Badnerik actually win. I don't entirely agree with all of his proposals (and that is most likely impossible anyway), but I agree with most.
However, that is over-ruled by the fact that I do not want Bush in the White House. It is my opinion that he has sided with his hawkish advisors too often, and messed up relations with the rest of the world (I was going to say warmongering advisors, but that wouldn't be diplomatic
). There are a lot of people that don't think that is a big deal, usually because they have an isolationist view on international politics. But from what I've learned of history, all isolationist states end up having more harm than good come from ignoring the rest of the world. Like it or not, we live in a world with many different cultures, and agression is not the way to deal with it.
I also think that he has largely ignored most domestic issues, including the economy. In my view, cutting taxes and lowering pollution regulations is not an economic policy. The "trickle-down theory" for taxes has one huge, glaring flaw in my view, and that is the assumption that if those citizens with large incomes pay less of that income in taxes, they will spend more in the private sector. But it turns out that a lot of them don't spend, they save. Which ties up a lot of capital where it cannot be used to create products and jobs. From what I know of what Kerry wants to do, the tax cuts will shift from benefitting mostly the upper classes to benefitting the lower-middle to middle class. Here, the trickle-down theory is more applicable, since people in those income brackets are more likely to do things like fix the garage roof, or replace the broken basement door. I know this because that's what my parents did with their tax return checks this summer, when they otherwise would have just let those projects slide.
I remember one of the big issues for the 2000 election was education. It's not being made a big issue this election it seems, but I was really pissed about the so-called "Texas Miracle" being brought nation-wide. I managed to escape to college before it effected me, but after going through public school, I know that the whole "No Child Left Behind" is not the way to go about education. The big deal was, under Gov. Bush in Texas, a large majority of public school students "passed" with basic or better proficiency a standardized test, where not as many did this before. What wasn't spread around much was the little bit of information that this was accomplished by lowering the standards on the tests (eg. now answering 4 out of 10 right is ok, instead of 7 out of 10; these aren't real numbers, just made up to illustrate point). So now with "No Child Left Behind", we have flawed tests at every grade level, taking up money, time, and resources that could be used on real education, instead of encouraging schools to teach only the materials on these tests.
I am also made extremely uncomfortable by the large role that Bush's religious views play in his policies. I don't have a problem with a person having religious views, but I do have a problem with religion in public office. That is just one step too close to theocracy, and a theocracy will inevitably persecute those not of a particular religion who happen to be living under that government. Kerry, while still being religious, has shown some ability in distancing himself from his beliefs when it comes to public policy.
As for the military, Atrocities was complaining about how Clinton reduced the military during his term. I say he had good reason to! The military was the size that it was because of the Cold War, and like was already stated, we increased our military in order to cause the Soviets to increase theirs, our economy could handle it, theirs couldn't. But our economy couldn't handle it indefinitely, only longer than the Soviet economy could. So, when there was no reason to have a huge military, cuts were made. I'm not sure of exactly when the study for the re-alignment of troops was started, but that should also have been completed by around the end of Clinton's second term, instead of happening now at the end of Bush's term. Our military is plenty large, and would be still too large if not for our participation in two theatres of war. The fact that Bush is looking at ways to make even more troops available (while making sure that draft board positions remain filled) makes me worried that if he gets a second term, he'll start yet another war, in the name of the "War on Terror"... and then want to draft me. If that happens, well then I will gladly renounce citizenship, because this country obviously will not be the land of the free I thought I was born in.
Anyway, that's just how I see things.