It's a toss up IMO. I'm looking forward to tonight's debate. If zillions of younger votes, from 18-28 get registered and vote then I think Kerry will win. If it's the regular party faithful, then the Republicans seem better organized.
Here's my take on the issues that matter most to me:
1) Job creation. Neither candidate has much impact on this, despite what they say. Bush's tax cuts that went mostly to the affluent were ineffecient. Kerry won't create many jobs by trying to create incentives to keep jobs here and disincentives to move them abroad. The most important issue for me, but neither candidate is really addressing it IMO. 0-0 tie IMO.
2) Energy policy. This is a year-by-year disaster for us, including innovative manufacturing ckompanies. Read today's editorial by Thomas Friedman for a summary (google "Thomas Friedman" and "Battle of the Pump". Read this!
3) Balanced budget. I wouldn't normally put this so high, but both candidates have been over committing and under delivering in an attempt to win votes. Good jobs is job#1, because that funds everything else. Right after creating more jobs and wealth, we need to go on a spending diet. Bush took the world on, underfunded the war, and has since underfunded "no child left behind" and most everything else. Now it's land a man on Mars, because polls say that would be cool. The states are hurting and, in turn, putting the screws to local governments. Kerry is making promises he can't fund. Looking at actual results, the best fiscal policy we've seen in recent years was Clinton (fiscal conservative, social liberal). He made reducing welfare costs a priority, etc. The worst has been Bush Jr. External events (first the economy, then 911, then especially choosing to go to war in Iraq) have naturally dramatically affected this. If Kerry wins, I'm heartened that his economic advisors come from the Clinton balance-the-budget camp. Maybe he can hold off unrealistic spending from the left of the left? I haven't figured out which party will actually do a better job of funding the real essentials, but am convinced that the old Republican vs. Democrat rules of thumb no longer apply. Maybe a draw, when all is said and done. I'd take Clinton back in a heartbeat on this issue.
4) Open and transparent government. This as much as anything has me disturbed. There has been a long tradition in all administrations of seeking the best opinions on both sides of an issue before coming to a decision. That's one of the things I liked, incidentally, about the assault weapons discussion --- for the most part people with strongly held opposing views were willing to listen to each other. This administration has largely gone on gut feel and preconceived notions (oil is good, Saddam is enemy #1, a trickle down economy works, etc.) dissing almost anyone who disagrees worldwide. Within the administration, those who disagree have been fired (like the guy who estimated what the Iraq war would really cost) or worse (e.g. exposing CIA agents whose spouses disagree). Outside the administration they're called unpatriotic, weak, etc. and subject to personal attacks. I see a huge difference between Bush Sr. (reasonably engaged, smart, willing to listen) and Bush Jr. (lacking leadership inside his own cabinet, not very keen on analyzing things, unwilling to listen to anyone who disagrees with his gut feel).
To use a shop floor analogy, the kind of government I like best is one that just goes ahead and efficiently does its job 27x7, but with very clear warning lights to wake me up when some part of goverment goes wrong. Sadly, I'd rather have a slightly inefficient administration than one that goes around turning off or obscuring all the warning lights. For me, this is a plus for an anyone-but-Bush Jr. administration.
5) Support for small businesses. Both parties pay lip service to the companies that create the vast majority of new jobs in this country, but neither is serving them well. The current administration is mostly serving our very largest (think Enron, Halliburton, etc.) companies when it comes to tax breaks and the like. A Kerry administration might be mostly serving the workers in these larger companies. Small businesses need a more sensible regulatory environment. A centrist Republican, like Gov. Arnold here in California, is probably best for that. They also need better educated workers and affordable health care and insurance, which Kerry seems more likely to deal with. Since any real progress for small businesses requires bi-partisan support I'm not hopeful until we see both parties move more to the center.
5) Health care. Anyone who thinks that our current system isn't broke is delusional IMO. We spend more than other countries, cover fewer of our citizens, and fall far down the list in almost every objective measurement of health. We're a fauly high tech 12 cylinder gas-guzzler that's being ourperformed by 4 cylinder healthcare engines in other countries. An efficient health care system would help keep jobs in this country and healthier workers would add maybe 5% (a huge amount) to national productivity. A Kerry administration would do more to shake things up towards effective reform.
6) Terrorism threat #1. Nuclear proliferation has the greatest potential for mass destruction. I'm still angry about 9/11. Yet two thousand people killed in this tragedy pale in comparison to what could happen if we let nuclear weapons get in the hands of terrorists. The Bush administration has been incompetent in dealing with the real threats (Korea, Iran, etc.) A Kerry administration might do a bit better.
7) Domestic terrorism threat #2. The good news is that we're better insulated from these threats than, say, Spain. The bad news is that a repeat of a 9/11 through some other means would be quite easy for determined terrorists. The general level of incompetence in getting a single database of terrorists, addressing threats to our ports, etc. is mind boggling. We would have lost WWII if the same complacency prevailed.
8) Domestic terrorism threat #3. More people will die from crime and gang violence than soldiers we lose in Iraq. Most everyone on this board is far more likely to die from a random bullet through the head in this country than abroad. Where's the solution for this? Right now, most communities around me are cutting police and random gang violence is increasing. I haven't heard either candidate address this; maybe in tonight's debate?
9) Domestic and international terrorism threat #4 - drugs. Drugs drive maybe half the problems above. They have also made places like Columbia and (once again) Afghanistan a mess for any regular citizen. Taking the profit out of drugs would go a long way making the US and the world a safer place -- and it's more a US problem (we're the source of drug profits) than most any other country. I don't know the answer to this, but think we need to get the facts and make rational decisions. The mayor of Chicago, for example, said maybe we should decriminalize marijuana use and focus on other crimes. Maybe what we want to see is a situation where drugs were as cheap to buy as Drano (no profits in illegal sales) and just as attractive to injest.
10) Terrorism threat #5 - the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Palestine, etc. Just about any objective measurement of the situation would say that extreme fundamentalist Moslems are creating terrorists (defined as willing to blow themselves up in order to kill one or more infidels), aided by progaganda against our present policies, than we are killing. If insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results, we're insane. Almost no example of covert regime change we've ever participated in (dozens of cases) has come out looking good a decade later. So, I'm sadly not real optimistic about Iraq regardless of whether Bush "stays the course" or Kerry plays Lyndon Johnson to Vietnam. Before the war, I thought we should keep (increase) spending a fraction of the present $200 billlion to contain Saddam economically. The present administration has made colossal miscalculations (back to the point about not listening to anyone else) and neither party is going to acquit us with honor. What's really needed in all these places (Palestine to Iraq) is to withdraw funding from terrorist states (see energy policy), support moderates, and keep extremists on the run, without money, life, or visions of heaven with virgins to rely upon.
11) Separation of church and state. The founding fathers had it right when they insisted upon separation of church and state. Matters of government can be left to objective analysis and discussion. Will a new road ease traffic or create traffic? Will an investment in broadband nationwide having a high ROI for the nation or be a waste of money? Who should get a tax cut to jump start the economy? Reasonable people can disagree on the answers, just like reasonable people disagreed if the earth was flat or round, if brain waves existed or not, if there would every be a market for personal computers, and if the moon was made of cheese. Eventually, we can get answers most folks agree upon. Religious faith is to discuss, prove, or disprove. And, as the founders suggested, it needn't matter. Folks were worried when Kennedy (a Catholic) was running about his faith. Liberman (a Jew) also raised some questions. I'm much more worried when the current president confides that God gave him the confidence to invade Iraq. Geez, that's the same argument the mullahs are using. No wonder they see this as Crusades part II.
12) Stem cell research. This is part of #11. I understand and respect the faith-based issues. But I also remember that it was our churches that thought Galileo was a heretic. The potential benefits in terms of healthier lives and new jobs outweigh the religious issues in my PERSONAL opinion. To those who disagree -- how about you go to heaven on your beliefs and let me live a bit longer before going to hell on my beliefs?
13) Fringe issues of like homosexual marriage. Fringe, because it doesn't much affect me personally. These are fringe issues, just for me I realize, because they don't affect me much.
Bottom line? Bush is a likeable guy. People respect someone who has the strength of their convictions. Kerry is a little less likeable, more thoughtful, maybe even sometimes paralyzed by weighing the alternatives before picking a path forward. However, at this point "just plunging ahead" is getting us in so much trouble I'd welcome a change. I don't have high expectatons that either candidate can turn things around in four years, but desperately hope we address some real issues like jobs, energy policy, support for small businesses, efficient and effective health care, and the truly gravest threats of "terrorism."
