Which one of these do you think is the least palatable to the voting public and why?

Wow! Well, when you put it like that, all those postitions would make whoever holds them a TERRIBLE candidate.

Oh, wait, but maybe Kerry doesn't hold those positions. Maybe the poll includes misinformation not supported by ANY presented evidence.

I'm not voting, because "none of the above" or "other" are not the choices.

Kerry's biggest weakness is his inability to clearly answer a question in a way that connects with a room of people. He sounds like a senator. He needs to get some public speaking lessons on how to excite a crowd while at the same time clearly stating his vision for his presidency.

Well, let's do process of elimination. In a de facto two way race, any issue where Kerry looks the same or better than Bush will cancel out. So:

1.) His trashing of armed forces, medals: He "trashed" the armed forces in that he protested Vietnam after serving their honorably. He had significant respect among veterans, and he'll win the sympathies of people who feel Vietnam was a mistake. Bush will get supporters of Vietnam who didn't serve and disgruntled veterans who think napalming civilians should go unchastised, even by fellow soldiers.

2.) His refusal to release his military record: Kerry's release of his records is more comprehensive than his rival's and, of course, involves actual combat. I think this is a solid plus for the campaign.

3.) His vote for bil. intel. budget cuts after the 1st WTC attack: Kerry is on record in committee as supporting a shift in funds from expensive but unrevealing satellite surveillance to human intelligence, the lack of which was credited for out problems foreseeing 9/11. With Republican Senators on record saying that Kerry isn't weak on defence, the RNC's attempts to divorce omnibus votes from their context and reason aren't sticking.

4.) His contradictions and changing opinions: Kerry's purported "being in Washington long enough to take both sides of every issue" happened over 20 years. Even if it's all true, the Kerry campaign has an easy, one-ad response: Bush has reversed himself on many issues since the inception of his 2000 campaign, let alone his governorship, and his career in politics has been considerably shorter to justify any "I changed my mind" defense.

5.) His history of drastic tax hikes: The "history of drastic tax hikes" either refers to his support for Clinton's economic plan- thus far, much more successful than Bush's, especially considering this Admin. failed forecasts- or his opposition to Bush's tax cuts. Given the shortfall between the jobs recovery Bush projected and the swelling of the deficit far beyond the Admin.'s consistently rosy predictions, this is another wash.

6.) His refusal to adequately supply our troops: Any debate over the $87 billion where it's not just Bush supporters stroking their own egos will include Kerry's and other's qualifications on their vote. First off, it was the Republican leadership that refused to split the troop's funds from the rebuilding money, a requested move hat would have sped the troops funds through Congress. The leadership instead decided to hold those funds hostage to the money for reconstruction, which would eventually end up lining the pockets of overcharging, no-bid contractors. Many Repubs and Dems, showing more fiscal restraint, wanted to put qualifications on the rebuilding funds-partial or all loan, more foreign involvement, etc. I think many Americans would have gladly allowed more foreign contractors in at Halliburton's cost if it meant our gov't holding less of the financial burden during a time of record deficit.

7.) His priority on relations w/France over national security: Since this one doesn't exist, it's a little hard to debate. If you mean that Kerry lobbied to gain support, and thus defray the cost in American lives and money, to fight the Iraq war of choice, someone needs to convince the American public it was necessary for U.S. security not just to fight the war, but to fight it when we did, and to foot the bill ourselves. Good luck with that, as even the Admin. has backed off such claims in favor of "we did it for the shorties".

8.) His obscenely expensive socialized medicine proposals: I think this is wash, too. Liberals want a health care system for the poor that isn't a give away to pharm. firm campaign donors and insurance companies, and conservatives are faulting Bush's proposals for spending too much, even if it is their beloved corporate welfare. Not likely to be much gain for Bush on this.

9.) His support for unions that force our jobs to go overseas: Given the Bush's admin.'s handling of the outsourcing- statements in support of it, the near-appointment of a job czar who moved his factory to China- I doubt people looking for good jobs will curse him for supporting labor. The bud of Ken lay doesn't have much credibility in telling people that it's the employees of companies like Tyco, etc. that are the problem, not the executives.

10.) His obstructions to reforms against frivolous lawsuits: I missed where he opposed restrictions on frivolous lawsuits, which by definition would be thrown out of court or lost by the plaintiff, often with legal costs being awarded to the innocent party. If your talking med mal practice caps, it comes down to whether you trust insurance companies and incompetent doctors or crippled patients and the lawyers that take their case only if they think the can actually win, i.e. the case is provably malpractice.

So, I offer 11.) as the greatest threat to Kerry's campaign: people that believe everything they read on Newsmax.com, or see on Fox News, or are mailed by the RNC without taking five minute's time to see the other side.

This is some poll--can you say, "skewed"?

I'm not going to vote in this one, either, because I think Kerry's greatest weakness at this time is that unlike elections in years when we are not embroiled in a war, he has to be careful not to go too far in criticising the incumbent, especially since the cause itself (if not this war) is one he believes in.

The American people are becoming strapped for cash in so many ways--

1) The No Child Left Behind Act whose lack of funding necessitates increased funds from property taxes while schools are closing and teachers are being laid off (Muskegon just had to close and cut teacher and staff positions for two of its elementary schools--increasing the burden of the remaining schools)

2) The Medicare Prescription coverage bill that Bush's people had to lie about the cost of to Congress in order to get it passed

3) The mounting costs of war and the subsequent occupation whose outcome is looking steadily worse

4) Loss of manufacturing and technical jobs to other countries

5) The cost of gasoline

There is a war and an astronomical deficit that Americans (you and I, our children and our children's children) will be responsible for paying for. President Bush touts his income tax cut as if it were the Holy Grail, but the reality is that the pittance (yes, to the middle class $300 or so doesn't last that long these days) it represents is not getting the jobs back for those who used to have incomes.

Each time Senator Kerry has tried to cut down or has voted against increased expenditures in order to help remedy the situation, the Bush camp snipes that Oh, Kerry must be against defending our country/troops/Grandma, etc. This is the administration that sent the troops without the body armor in the first place! Then they tack the measure on to the Mother of All Spending Proposals and criticize those who flinch (reflexively or otherwise) at what the consequences will be to ordinary, middle class Americans.

Addressing another issue, Vietnam, Kerry's records are available. He doesn't have unaccounted-for time during his term of duty as does our President. He has medals of his own; he did, at the request of some other veterans, throw their ribbons at that one protest in Washington. And he did lie in that one talk show about throwing his medals. (Would you care to have me--or nearly any AD poster--list the lies that we know George W. Bush has told during the three years he has been President? I didn't think so.)

I believe Kerry's ideas of providing health insurance for everyone to be a noble and necessary idea, much more noble than financing people to go kill other people. As far as calling it socialistic--how would you like it if every time I mentioned The Patriot Act I used the term "fascistic" or "totalitarianistic"? I can, if you'd like.

Kerry's spoken support of labor unions has virtually nothing to do with the outsourcing of American jobs. It is the CEOs, COOs, and the shareholders who have a greater concern for squeezing out every penny they can for their bottom lines who are responsible for moving their operations to countries with fewer environmental quality standards and dirt-cheap labor forces. I would laugh if these executives found their companies nationalized as a consequence! It would serve them right.

In the meantime, we in Muskegon have a smelly, polluting paper mill owned by South Africans that just managed to extort a deal from the local government: to stop paying their share of money to depollute the water they pollute, and have the residents make up the difference. Of course, they might not stay around if Muskegon doesn't play ball. I have only kept my mouth shut about it because this area has such high unemployment as it is. But many mornings in the week, I step outside and smell the stench of that plant, and I wonder if Muskegon refusing to pay the extortion money wouldn't have been the better idea. Corporations know that in areas where so many people depend upon them in order to work, they have the populace over a barrel. These corporate officials are George W. Bush's friends.

Now you know I could go on. But I'll spare you. I will nullify my vote in order to watch the progress of your little poll.

After posting this thread though, I think Kerry's greatest weakness is the fear that the American people have that Bush and his cronies have so skillfully cultivated and are still playing upon. Every little guy or gal is concerned about how s/he is going to make it financially in these times, and Bush's little income tax cut and scare tactics about what the big bad Democrat might do, will manage to keep many of them from voting against the incumbent. But it's like fear of a colonoscopy: you're afraid of where it is going and how it's going to feel, but the disease your fear of having the test is not revealing is far worse. At times the diagnosis or treatment is scarier than the disease, but the alternative to diagnosis and treatment is scarier yet.

This was a tough poll. I would've voted for "all of the above" but sadly it was not an option. In lieu of the only correct answer I nulled my vote.

This was titled wrong. You ask what will hurt him and then you give Right created propaganda and repub. allegations as facts.

This should have been titled: Which of these republican smear slogans will reverberate the most with voters.

What you did would be the same as someone in the election of 1824 saying what is Anrew Jackson's biggest weakness

1) His mother ran a prostitute house
2) He is an adulterer
3) His wife is a prostitute
4) He is a redneck
and so on and so on.

Props to PennDerek and Paladin Elspeth for doing the heavy lifting and taking on the poll questions and debunking them quite throughly.

The questions are posed in such a way that it leads one to presume that they should have been in the "Republicans Only" thread. Then again, these are aren't really questions at ALL as much as they are talking points that I'd expect to find on the Republican National Committee web site or in the first hour of Rush Limbaugh.

Obviously this should have been on a conservative rah rah website- probably should be closed- though perhaps- I will start a thread in the same manner, or a more balanced look at what possibly is his real weakness- because we know what his real strength is- the current incompetent president LOL