> I just honestly don't see what the appeal of the current president is. Are the Bush backers going for him because they've always voted Republican and see voting for a Democrat as anathema to their very political beliefs? Is it because these people are single issue voters and Bush conforms to their side of the single issue (and, likewise, his opponent doesn't conform to their viewpont)?

Why wouldn't it be because "these people" generally like the job Bush is doing? Why does it have to be a single issue?

I already spelled out two reasons in my front page editorial, which has inexplicably not generated any traffic here on this forum, but I'm ok with that. Bush understands that stimulating the economy means lowering taxes, not raising them. Reagan did it in the eighties -- taxes were lowered for the rich by something like 70%, and the result was an *increase* in total revenue generated by taxes, an increase to heights never before seen in the history of the country. The extra money businesses had meant more jobs and higher salaries, which meant more people were paying taxes.

I do question the advisability of making this move in wartime, when revenues are required more immediately than tax cuts will generate them; on the other hand, I don't see how the recession wouldn't have taken a greater dive without it. Assuming the economy is given a chance to recover without the tax hikes Kerry would enact (partly by his own promise, partly by the necessity of his promised new spending), I see us in back in a thriving economy in four years.

The biggest reason I side with Bush this year, though, I didn't even mention. It's the fact that this Presidential election will very likely determine the majority in the Supreme Court for the next generation. The expectation is that the next President will replace one liberal, one conservative, and one moderate, leaving the Supreme Court with a 6-3 split either way. Despite what either candidate says about how they will choose their Supreme Court nominees, I think it's safe to conclude that the next three judges to the bench will have a history of judgments consistent with the next President's ideals. This one issue may have the longest reaching impact of any other. Consequently, blind, unthinking partisan voting, this time, is not all that blind or unthinking. A vote for Bush doubles as a vote for conservative judges on the Supreme Court, and a vote for Kerry is a vote for liberal judges on the Supreme Court.

I am adamant in my support of state sovereignty, parental rights, the pro-life movement, the second amendment, and any number of other traditionally conservative issues. Even were I to dislike Bush, the fact of being a political conservative would alone compel me to vote for him under the present situation.

I don't always vote along party lines. In fact this year's New Hampshire gubernatorial race is one in which I considered switching sides. Ultimately, I probably won't, but the Democrat running against him is so bad, my ultra-liberal co-worker isn't even going to vote for him. But there are certainly other Democrats I've liked better that the Republican incumbent.