Whom are you voting for, and why? Please be specific.

I am not happy at all with the direction in which our country is headed. The original position of President Bush toward the 9/11 Commission was very disturbing. It was a travesty that the 9/11 families had to fight the administration to get an independent commission, then to get proper funding, access to documents, testimonies from key people, and time to finish the investigation. He later changed his positions ("flip-flopped!") on all these, when it became clear that his original positions would be publicly indefensible. Yet, when asked if he had made any mistakes, certain appointments were the only things he could think of. This lack of self-reflection is scary.

The war in Iraq does not make me feel safer or "stronger." I think daily about the thousands upon thousands of Americans and Iraqis suffering death, disabilities and diseases related to depleted uranium. I am concerned about our foreign policy and worried that the things that would really result in more public safety at home are being short-changed by the current administration.

Then there is this administration's disregard for the environment, the increasing economic insecurity of workers, and the lack of accountability on the part of many major corporations.

Remember 30 years ago, when it was starting to be commonplace that the 40-hour workweek provided a good standard of living for a whole family? Now, it is hard for many families to make it on more than 80 hours a week. Why? Largely because of economic policies instituted over the last few decades - class-war policies that are favored by President Bush. These policies have redistributed wealth away from average working people into the pockets of the top 1 percent of the population. Of course, the administration has all kind of tricks and maneuvers to disguise what is going on and to get many of us to support policies that result in our own harm. One favorite of theirs is to point out that the top 1 percent pay 37 percent of the taxes as proof that the rich pay more than their "fair share." But they don't tell us that the top 1 percent have 50 percent of the wealth. So, another way to look at it is that the bottom 99 percent, who have the other 50 percent, yet pay 63 percent of the taxes!

Working-class youth are sacrificing their lives and health, yet the President will not even ask the top 1 percent to give up a tax break. Despite pretenses to the contrary, he truly does consider the "have mores" to be his "base," as he was shown saying in the movie Fahrenheit 9/11.

I am very concerned about many crucial issues facing our nation - war and terrorism, the economy, the environment, education, health care, democratic rights, etc. The policies of the current President are extremely harmful to most people in our country, though cloaked in the guise of "individual empowerment."

A majority vote for John Kerry will not solve all problems, but at least it will be a step in the right direction: toward supporting policies that are more beneficial to the majority of Americans. We can do much better!

Red-stater Joe Franklin responds:

Blue Staters say Bush will not admit mistakes. I say Mr. Kerry is inconsistent and cannot make decisions. Kerry has expressed commitment to Iraq similar to that of George Bush. The senator has consistently voted to cut military and intelligence spending even after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Where is Kerry's confession and apology to the citizenry?

George Bush will keep taxes low, as he has done, to stave off what could have been a severe recession. President Bush's tax cuts benefited the poor and the middle class. What's wrong with that approach?

The War on terror and the war in Iraq are different from any in history and, like all wars, they have created a deficit. What response should we have made to the terrorists? Should we consult the United Nations and wait for our shady allies to come on board? I say pursue the terrorists for as long as it takes!

Ms. Falbo's reference to Fahrenheit 9/11 and the statement about the have-mores being Bush's "base" are totally out of context. The President's statement was: "This is an impressive crowd of the haves and have-mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base." This statement was made to a group at a nonpartisan fund-raiser for charities run by the Archdiocese of New York.

On the subject of Michael Moore and the Hollywood celebrities: I pay these uneducated buffoons to entertain me, not tell me who to vote for in the Presidential Election. In the future, they will be a few dollars short: mine!

The rich do, in fact, support President Bush. Millionaires in this country are now commonplace. But the real snobs, the super-rich (10 million plus) like Warren Buffet and George Soros, have endorsed John Kerry. These fat-cats have so much money they don't care whether taxes are raised or cut. They could live off the interest of their tax-exempt bonds.

Neither candidate's status as a Christian (though for me this is a plus) or the weight or his purse should be an issue. I don't fear the terrorists, but I am concerned about security and economic future of our country. Sen. Kerry's record is liberal, irresponsible, and troubling. Let's give President Bush the mandate to finish the job he has started.

Red-stater Cynthia Sneed responds:

I can say this: I would not vote for John Forbes Kerry for President of these United States if he were a Republican and the last Republican standing on this Earth.

As for which political party is the "most Christian," I have learned that only erudite, liberal Democrats can discuss religion.

Whenever liberals discuss religion it is always, without exception, based on something other than behavior, because, for them, there is no bad behavior. This is how liberals justify every type of debauchery. They always say: "We love old people, poor people, poor, old people, and furry little animals more than you, nya, nya, nya," while supporting sucking a birthing baby's brain out of its skull and creating embryos simply to destroy them all in the name of "science" (same argument Hitler used).

I think the Rev. William J. H. Boetcker sums up my response to the Blue-staters:

* You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
* You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
* You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
* You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer.
* You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
* You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative.
* You cannot really help men by having the government tax them to do for them what they can and should do for themselves.

Finally, I think that Mathew Manweller, political science professor at Central Washington University, captures, in words better than I can devise, why half of America is supporting President Bush:

This Election Determines the Fate of The Nation

This Nov. 2, we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication, and a reign of ambivalence. Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be twofold:

First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things. Once a nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis, and stood upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big of a task for us. But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations. The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history, regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from who we are.

Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the lesson of Somalia was well learned. In Somalia, we showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom. They learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America. Twenty-four-hour news stations and daily tracking polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow.

Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grisly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland. It is said that America's Second World War generation is its "greatest generation." But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's "last generation." Born in the bleakness of the Great Depression and hardened in the fire of World War Two, they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor and sacrifice.

This November, my generation, which has been absent too long, must grasp the obligation that comes with being an American, or fade into the oblivion it may
deserve. I believe that 100 years from now, historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. Depending on
the outcome, they will describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and
daughters of the greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill.


That's all, folks. Good luck - and remember, no matter who wins on Tuesday, we have to live in America together on Wednesday and beyond.