Up until this year I've done it exactally the same way tich did it. Basically line up the issues and compare your stances to the candidate's and their opinions. Because some issues are more important and always will be natural party lines have been drawn based on the country's opinions. Also, because the way one thinks effects how they stand on any given issue, you'll usually see a very one-sided trend on issues with any given person. Swing voters are historically people who don't hardline their thinking process one way or the other. In other words, where a liberal might be described as, "open minded" and a conservative as, "careful and deliberate" (I tried not to bias those terms... just examples) a swing voter would be someone who is some of both, or hasn't decided which is more important. In this election however, I think 'swing voters' are turning out to be people that are not only conceptually on the line, but also people that typically favor republican policies more, but are specifically repulsed by Bush's administration.
There are several things that make his administration especially divisive. First and foremost Bush does believe he knows what's right for the country and he's not afraid to act on it. In many of our great past leaders this is a great quality to have. For Bush however it's one of the worst, because the stances he takes are so hotly contested and oftentimes minority that the majority of the country is turned off by his confidence in his decision making. Or if it's not the majority being turned away from him, it's an even split of people vehemently supporting and attacking him for his actions. Basically because Bush is enforcing reactionism-esque policies on modern issues that would otherwise progress in a different direction. One prime example is Bush's religious fundamentalism. He prays to God to give him answers for being president, he plans to ban gay marraige (with a Constituational amendment), he donates government money to 'charities' that are really Christian organizations designed only for the purpose of expanding their religion (breaching the boundaries of Church and State), etc... etc..
Another good example is Bush's foreign policy. As he has a habit of saying, 'I'm right you're wrong', we can't really afford to have solid allies anymore. In fact we've lost a good percentage of powerhouse nations out there that used to consider themselves friends because we decided their opinions and militaries were irrelevant (not that we necessarily needed the help invading Iraq, but we obviously needed the intellectual pursuasion not to go in the first place). We also now live in a constant state of 'color-coated' fear brought on by an administration that can't pin-point how to stop terrorism or how to inform the public on measures they can take without being consistently paranoid. And to be honest having a myriad of good, justifiable reasons to go to war is more important than anything else. When Bush goes to war with Iraq almost
entirely on the platform that Saddam has WMD's and he's proven wrong, that's a big, big mistake. When he claims terrorist connections to Saddam and there are none, that's a huge mistake. Scaring people into believing that Iraq was in some minute way tied to terrorism is so Bush that it's not worth discussing.
For me above all else (and this is just a personal thing) the issue is a more general one. For me, it's too frightening to have someone in the whitehouse who is both stupid and determined. I've heard Republicans say many times that they like how Bush sets his foot down with his policies and talks straight to the public (which is nice, Republicans spend lots of $$ making the 'honest' Bush image) but as I said before that's the worst thing about him. I'd have preffered he were incapable and dormant in the whitehouse than enforcing the policies he's bringing about, because simply put: I think he's wrong. And that's what politics are all about <img src="/~stretch/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
