Let's be reasonable, here. No one wants to vote for John Kerry. In terms of why people will vote for him, though, the reason is simply that 1) he's not George Bush, and 2) he has a chance of getting elected. John Kerry is a necessary evil. He's got a lot of problems. One of them is that no one knows who he is! Another is that he wavers (waffles?) on lots of issues.

Still, though, his proposed policies aren't as crazy as George Bush's. Kerry would not let his religion influence his political decisions. Here are some of the religious-based decisions that Bush has made: supporting a constitutional amendment preventing gay marriage; supporting abstinence-only education (despite studies which show it is no better at preventing pregnancy than contraceptive education); providing government funding only for those charities abroad which do not endorse abortion; John Ashcroft, a ridiculous Puritan who -- let's not forget -- tried to overturn a decision of the people of the state of Oregon because he disagreed with it, and is currently engaged in a war on pornography in the midst of a war on terror (let's weigh those out; which is more important? You're right; if we let people see boobies, the terrorists win).

In terms of economic policy, George Bush has turned a multibillion-dollar surplus into a multibillion-dollar deficit. In fact, his budget deficits are the largest since Reagan. He gave a tax cut to the wealthiest Americans under the guise that such an act would create more jobs, since more employers would be able to hire more employees with the extra disposable income they had (this is predicated on the illusion that giving people who make six figures an increase in their personal disposable income will translate into an increase in their company's disposable income). Alan Greenspan, the man that every president listens to, disagreed with Bush's tax cut. (It's a wonder Greenspan is still alive, since everyone in the administration who has disagreed with Bush has been immediately discredited as though this were Soviet Russia. Cf. Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil.) Bush also lobbied for the elimination of the dividend tax. BerkshireHathaway CEO Warren Buffett, who would be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the elimination of the dividend tax, disagreed with Bush, since the only people who would benefit were -- again -- the super-wealthy. As Buffett has said before, the millions of dollars that he would get back would do more to stimulate the economy in the hands of middle-class people than himself. The talk about average Americans getting money back from the elimination of the dividend tax is false. Middle-class Americans would get a few hundred dollars back at most, while super-wealthy people with lots of money invested in stocks (Dick Cheney being one of them) would get millions back.

These are just some of the things that George Bush has done in his four years in office. To see some more, visit McSweeney's Daily Reason to Dispatch Bush.

I have high hopes that John Kerry will not do a lot of these things, and from what I know about his platform, those hopes are correct. Nevertheless, John Kerry will not save the world. He is not a great candidate. He is not a candidate for the idealistic. He is a pragmatic candidate. John Kerry is necessary to undo the last four years of policies that have been bad for America (but very good for wealthy Americans, incidentally). John Kerry is not a Franklin Roosevelt or an Abraham Lincoln. Let's be clear about this. At the DNC, praise was heaped on him and it was as though he were the Messiah. He is no Messiah. At best, he's a janitor that will sweep up the crap that has happened under Bush's authority.

This will be another close election. Neither candidate will have the mandate he wants. Ralph Nader will not win this election. If this were, say, four years ago, when it was a contest of ideals, then Ralph Nader would be a viable alternative. This is not about ideals anymore. This election is 100% about voting Bush out of office. John Kerry is the only candidate that can muster enough votes to accomplish that goal. Ralph Nader will only cut into Kerry's potential winnings. In fact, Republicans have been pushing to get him on the ballot in as many states as possible, hoping that people vote for him so that potential Kerry voters split between Kerry and Nader.

I will be voting for John Kerry, but not because I like John Kerry. I will vote for him because I dislike Bush. The fact of the matter is that Kerry is not the best candidate; he's the least bad candidate. Yes, it's a terrible reason, but this has been a terrible four years for America, and another Bush term only promises more terror in the future.