You cannot be serious Punster, unless of course you re undecided between the Republicans and the Libertarians (for reference, see Punster's comment to the Political animal). Ok. Reason one, Stem cells. Kerry again and again has lied about embryonic stem cells, and argued for un-ethical research. Bush has a much more, shall I say it?, nuanced and ethical position. Two, cloning. Kerry believes in cloning for therapy (yes this is intimately wrapped up with the first argument). Now as the report form the Presidents Council on bioethics (despite the name a very bi-partisan group, see bioethics.gov) points out this allows for too many un-ethical exploitations. Three, Judges. As stated tonight (during the debates, by Bush, which ended not thirty minutes ago), and well proved over the last four years, the only party that has a "litmus test" for judges is the "democratic" party. (If you are wondering why I put their name in quotations, see any news article about what they are trying to do to Nader). Four, funding for AIDS and family planning across the globe. On this point you either agree with Bush and vote for him or you disagree with him and vote for Nader, there should be no alternative. Fifth, only the religious and culture minded Bush team will be able to face the world in the coming century. Lets face it Europe, from Iberia to Russia, is no longer the center of the world. The new axis of history is Africa, Oceania, and Latin America (Do I need to remind the people who where listening to Cardinal Arinze five months ago about this?). Any Kerry team will not be able to face this. They talk of more of "more the same" well what about there outdated Euro-centric view of the world.