Kerry, Bush, and the pragmatic view
To follow up, while I am personally still undecided, I don't have a hard line against those who espouse the 'vote for the candidate that will seem to do the least harm' view. Nevertheless, even if that were my own view, I'm not sure I could make a decision this November. Bush's foreign policy is disastrous, in my humble opinion — his leadership in that arena is simply unbiblical (unless we're thinking in terms of the Old Testament). That's not to say I could vote for for Kerry, but his sentiments in his anti-Vietnam speech most directly hits the nail on the head when it comes to my own sentiments on war; unfortunately, even in that particular point, its hard to tell if Kerry is the man he used to be — he strongly believes in a U.S. presence in Iraq, although from what I understand it's because in his eyes we have a moral duty to finish what we've started.
What really gets me is that many Christians sign up for the Republican party without thinking; in other words, without asking themselves "on what issues are even Republicans non-Christian?" I think many have taken it as a no-brainer and assume that the Republican party and the Christian viewpoint are synonomous — which they are absolutely not . . .
. . . but isn't Republicanism closer to the Christian view than the Democrats? In an overt sense, and assuming you shut an eye to the unjustified military action that has taken place countless times under the Reagan-Bush Sr.-Bush Jr. administration, then yes, Republicans do appear more moral. But if we are learning anything about politics it ought to be that moral appearance and intention and what actually gets carried out in the White House (by Republican or not) are two entirely different things.
Ironically, most of the time we assume this will work against us: we vote for Candidate X who according to his campaign believes in A, B, and C, and once in office he makes a feeble attempt at B and C, and seems to entirely forget about A. We turn out disappointed, but the politician knows what he's doing — he's trying to simultaneously please his constituents and as many members of the opposing party in order to bolster his chances of getting re-elected. If he actually followed through on A, B, and C, he would have no chance of the swing vote from the other side; instead, his lack of commitment is likely to be forgiven by his own party and looked on as sufferable by those critical votes within the opposing party.
If you think the previous paragraph is a needlessly cynical or pragmatic view, I'd ask you to consider two things: 1. I'm applying it largely to candidates from the two major parties — i.e. candidates with a chance of winning. Peroutka, Nader, and the like have no chance of getting elected precisely because they are not moderate enough. 2. This is nothing new or unique to America; we may have perfected it in the modern era, but this is how the game of politics has been played since the days of the Graeco-Roman Senate: "some people can be fooled all the time, and all of the people can be fooled some of the time" (Rhetoric in Athens and Rome).
So could we get the principle of candidates not following through on their campaign promises to work for us? Would a Democrat that does very little in office be better than a Republican that does much that I don't desire? To me, yes. My ideal scenario would be for Kerry to get into office and proceed to do absolutely nothing (read: fulfill few to zero of his platform issues that involve immorality) except restore some respect to America by leading our military out of situations that comprimise our long-term security (read: quit engendering hatred through unjustifiable war). To me, that is a better scenario than another four years of Bush's jingoism and international bravado, which if it weren't for my knowing that God is truly sovereign, I would find extremely disturbing.
That said, poor leaders are poor leaders, and God being sovereign doesn't abdicate an American president of his responsibility to make sound decisions. I do not have confidence in Bush to make those decisions in accordance with a peaceful, turn-the-other-cheek outlook.
And if you don't believe that turning the other cheek can work in international security matters, consider Britain's dealings with the Irish Republican Army: they haven't yet resorted to bombers-on-parade.
Imagine if they had!