Ok here is the premise for the debate question and we shall see if it works. This debate is strictly about the faults and problems that you see in your own candidate (unless of course you see no faults ). I would rather that people not try to say what each candidate should do to win and turn this into a Bush vs. Kerry debate. Stick to your candidate's issues and criticize away.

Question for Debate:

What criticisms do you have for your candidate of choice?

Without going into collosal amounts of detail, I think the problem with/for Kerry is that I think more people than is immediately apparent will vote for Kerry not to actually vote for Kerry but to vote against Bush. But then that is less a Kerry fault and more a symptom of an effectively two party democracy.

The reason I say this is that I and many Americans share the problem that Kerry has a lot to him that still strongly grates with us such as being pro-Patriot Act, pro-pre-emption and the nagging mistrust we feel for a candidate who is married to one of the richest people on earth. There's more besides.

But, as I say, I think I speak for many of those wanting Kerry to win or (unlike me) those who will be able to vote for him in saying that they will be doing so much more out of all the reasons they don't want Bush back rather than actively wanting Kerry himself. So we are in an unusual situation where even Kerry "supporters" will find no issue with quite cutting criticism of him.

Schooly

Question for Debate:

What criticisms do you have for your candidate of choice?

[/quote]


Here are the faults that Kerry has in my opinion:

1.)Probably will have a draft

2.)Probably will not have foreign troops replacing American ones in Iraq

3.)Will probably not fight extensively for Canadian drug importation.

My first choice candidate is LP nominee Michael Badnarik. I agree with him and with the LP platform much more than I do with any of the others, but from my PoV both Badnarik and the LP are far from perfect.

I want to see the LP wake up and smell the coffee on the clash between civilization and Islamofascist barbarism. Currently they take an isolationist position, which which threoretically laudable, just won't cut it in today's world. Because of this, if I thought Badnarik could actually win, I wouldn't be able to vote for him. Being true to libertarian principles is good, but the survival of Western Civilization is more important if they confliict.

And while Badnarik, like Browne before him, is a eloquent spokesman for libertarian ideas, I want to see the LP field a candidate who people have actually heard of, a celebrity or well-known politician, who can get media attention. That might be hard to do but it has to happen. Having the best message in the world will do us little good if most people have never heard it, and the LP doesn't have the budget for the other approach, big media buys.



My second choice, my "lesser evil" is Bush, and I have some criticiisms of him as well. I don't like his brand of big government "compassionate conservatism"; if I have to compromise my principles and vote for a conservative instead of a libertarian, I want a small government conservative, one dedicated to shrinking government where possible and at least slowing its growth otherwise. I don't agree with Bush on most social issues, with the exception of gun control, but I'll tolerate that as something essential to keeping the Republican coalition together. I do like the Bush foreign policy, at least compared to any alternative being offered.

What criticisms do you have for your candidate of choice?



One of the very few actually valid points Kerry made in the 2nd debate was that President Bush had not vetoed any spending bills sent to him by Congress. We all know those bills are loaded with pork submitted from both sides of the aisle. Reagan's solution to that was a Line Item Veto which I think was shot down in the courts, but it seems to me that ANY President who claims to be conservative should at least attempt to resurrect the Line Item Veto in some form. Bush hasn't said a word about that and as President, I hold him accountable for it and thus blame him in part for some of the ridiculous spending our federal government does.

Mr. President - IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY!

Kerry is too polite. He's not calling scoundrels scoundrels, but then too much straight talk won't win an election, will it. He'll just have to wait until after the election to alienate allies and stir up hornets' nests.

Building a career in the Senate may not help win either. Maybe he should have been more corporate? Maybe less cooperative? The opposition keeps hammering him on cooperating with their defense spending reductions. But they keep hammering him on not cooperating too, regarding a rather large spending bill.

Kerry might be too formal as well. Perhaps he should use poor English and develop some foolish looks? Apparently, presidential popularity starts by being a regular good old boy, barely educated, associating might with right, never really explaining oneself, and hanging onto beer ad slogans.

Too skinny, too tall, too much hair, too much tan, too many words to follow. Sometimes big ones!

Oh, and his wife is rich. And outspoken. Not a teacher. Not in the shadows enough. Too much like the evil harpy, Hillary.

He's an elitist college boy who actually raised his voice against the powers, not an elitist frat boy who kept the mouth shut. Uppity. Too uppity.

He'll raise taxes on those making over $200G/yr! Hey, does anyone know how many small businesses that involves? A whole lot of 'em! Every person who has claimed to be a small business to buy a monster SUV or pickup truck and get the fat tax credit, that's who he wants to tax.

It just ain't fair. And think of how many jobs will be lost, mostly by illegal alien laborers, but still jobs will be lost.

Kerry also has no respect for corporate profit. Why, he probably thinks that Medicare handles health care more efficiently than HMOs, when we all know that government employees make fat salaries, while corporate CEOs keep their incomes modestly low.

Along these lines, Kerry also probably thinks it is foolish to export our drugs only to import them back to avoid price gouging. Why not just regulate the price gougers in the first place? See -- he's for regulation of industry. He wants us to be more like Canada, and what red-blooded good old boy American will ever stand for even the mention of Canada at all?

Yep, Kerry's my choice, but man, do I ever have reservations.

Kerry has a weakness that has kept all legislative branch politicians out of the whitehouse by election since JFK- you have to explain every part of your record and defend it over 20 years- including the nuances of possibly voting against a bill that you might want have wanted to vote for- and Kerry frequently does a poor job of explaining this. I can understand that- it is hard to put into a sound bite the reasoning behind a 200 word bill. He needs to work on this. Also, he has improved the whole "I was in Vietnam" preaching he did there for a while- was getting on my nerves.

He also has to learn to call folks liars when they are lying. Like the swift water liars club- he should have hit them back 110% . He just doesn't have enough of a killer instinct I think- too reasoned and cerebral- and this may be the very thing that costs him votes with much of the US- we don't think much, just go with "gee, I like this guy"- hardly ever is there an in depth analysis of the issues.

edited to add- Well, AM beat me to the punch on this one- and said it better LOL

Interesting observation izdaari, I was a little surprised to hear Badnarik's stand on the war myself. Who would've thought he had views similar to David Cobb of the greens on the war than say, the president?? I thought he would've bene a little more "hawkish" than he is, but I guess the LP does have a history of that kind of strain in their thinking. While I'm a die-hard democrat, I have voted in the past for Libertarians that I thought were very qualified. Very well put by you on your candidate's "weakness"

While I hardly consider Kerry "my candidate", that is who Im voting for this time around because I feel like the third parties arent as prominent this year as they are on other years. And I dont feel anyone really speaking to me, not even Cobb (and Im a supporter of the Greens). My biggest problem with Kerry is that hes a supporter of Israel, like all every president before him. Im sick of blind government support for Israel, when its so obvious they are obstructing the peace process. Our punishment seems to be: give them more forgien aide. I would like a candidate that was vocal in his criticism of Israel, and willing to work towards a state of Palestine, and not in a vague half-hearted sort of way that Bush and Clinton have tried.

I also dont like the fact that Kerry supports the Patriot Act.

My thing with Bush, and it was obviously apparent if you looked at the guy who asked him about this in the debate, was his response on the environment. Anyone whos hard up for the environment is gonna wanna know what you're gonna do to help protect the environment. Bush did give a good answer for the Kyoto treaty, but aside from those few words, he needs help.

I feel kerry is being lax, way to lax in this scenario. I like kerrys methodical calm and cool ways, but i feel its paramount he defeats his rival here, and it makes me nervous on how cool he is about it sometimes. I watch bush, sit there and seem to give the impression on why the king needs to involve himself in this debate, which just kills me really, though that could just be my irrational intense hatred of him. I know that kerry being the moderate does not support same sex marriage, and i dont remember if i heard any thing else on the issue. it seems on the environment front he has like the government in general put that one on the back burner, and sticks mainly to saying he will just improve current acts of protection the government has now, which i guess is better then nothing, just makes me soar still on that one. Though bush alternative to environment protection is one of slow death to the environment and protection the government has to offer currently.
Kerry seems to get more in depth on the issues that come to the debate, and looks to be more on the ball with them, but then i dont know how well this comes across to the people, and how in depth he really is in the first place. So i guess what i am trying to say, is that i dont know if he is speaking in a way that shows him to be truly better then his rival in a sense.

What criticisms do you have for your candidate of choice?

Well, my candidate of choice is Nader, and my complaint is that even I know he won't win this one. Sad to say.

Let's go with Kerry, since I might (not sure yet) pull an ABB. (Saddening and sickening me).

1. Kerry rebuked Hugo Chavez for no good reason I could see.

2. Kerry needs to come out stronger on human rights violations like Abu Ghraib and make some serious campaign promises about how this stuff isn't going to happen on his watch.

3. Kerry has a carrot for corporations who produce goods in America, but he needs a stick, and that stick needs to be tariffs. For corporations who run sweatshops and buy goods from prisons, deal with dictators, and in general make the world a worse place to live, those tariffs need to be punitive.

4. Kerry needs to promise to return Aristide to Haiti and promise put the human rights violators in jail (including one we have harbored for years and the coup leaders we trained and are friendly with).

5. Kerry needs to promise to ban DU rounds. No, wait. A moratorium on them until investigations into reports that they're causing sickness and death is thoroughly and independently investigated.

6. Kerry needs to bring up the issue of US beef and promise to work for testing, at very least, to allow companies who want to test their cattle so they can export to China to do so.

What criticisms do you have for your candidate of choice?

Although Bush has done quite a few things that I would never have thought possible, he has stumbled on (at least) a few issues:

Medicare reform. Although Medicare certainly need reform, the way in which Bush did it was probably flawed. This was a campaign promise, however, and Bush delivered on what both he and Gore promised to do.

Farm subsidies. This was the largest government subsidy ever. A huge mistake not only in the implementation, but in the targeting. Subsidies, in general, inhibit innovation. They make businesses dependant. The negatives far outweigh the positives.

Not using the veto power. Bush should have used his veto power to force Congress into a little more fiscal responsibility. Budgets on non-defense issues have grown at 5% a year, which is clearly higher than inflation (2%). Bush doesn't want to seem mean-spirited, but he is spending too much on these non-defense, non-Homeland Security areas. Of course, those that harp on the President for this area should consider that 76% of the discretionary increases have been in the Defense and Homeland Security areas. Conservatives simmer as spending mushrooms under Bush

Kerry has a stellar record on environmental issues, but he seems to think people might think he's too strong on this. The kind of argument made at Careful Voter would strike a chord with most Americans.

This is a very good thread---hard to criticize your own candidate and blast rhetoric at the same time , plus it might help for others to see that you don't really think your guy walks on water, after all.

I'm sure it will completely surprise everyone I'm for Bush . Yes, there are many things I would find easy to criticize with him--some validating his opposition's criticism of him.

1. As I have consistently posted here, I think there are many valid reasons for the invasion of Iraq. Bush has had a couple of years now to articulate them, and has failed to do so. I'm not really sure how you can make a decision like that, and be unable to articulate your reasons for doing so. This would certainly sway my vote were I not able to justify it for myself. The reasons why Bush has been unable to articulate this could probably fill several threads by itself...

2. Bush has been unable to pull both parties together. Some of this was not in his control (come on, let's be real--how much hope did a 'fictitious President' have of doing this?), very much has to do with the item above, and some of it is....

3. Bush doesn't market himself very well. I respect this, but am frustrated by it also. It probably explains some of the above..Bush just doesn't seem to care that much what people think. This can be a boon in decision making, but is definitely a hindrance in perception, which is much of what a politician must manage.

4. Just had this thought this morning....I'm not sure Bush really cares if he wins or loses the election. This would explain his demeanor in the debates...just doesn't seem as energized as he could. Given all the issues of the past four years, I could see where this would come from--but its not very conducive to good politics, is it?

5. Bush is not good at admitting mistakes. Yes, I know everyone thinks of this in reference to Iraq, which is probably why he is so defensive about the topic...but, looking back, I can't remember anytime he's done so. Demonstrating a little fallability would probably do wonders to address some of the issues above.

I agree with these criticisms of both of 'my' candidates. A huge frustration with me is that the Libertarians have not come around since the mid-90's and Islamic terrorism really came onto the scene. Isolationism just won't cut it anymore, especially when you're telling everyone to be free traders.

As for Bush, would he please actually CUT SOMETHING. Anything. A department, a budget, veto something, anything. Government is growing completely out of control, and for the Republican candidate to be a big-government 'conservative' is just ridiculous. I'm all for tax cuts, but the idea is that you cut spending too.

Also, Bush is way too weak on the borders. This pandering to the Mexican-American vote doesn't even make any sense - they aren't voting for him. This is just crazy. One would hope that the president of a country would be obligated to secure the borders of that country.

And honestly, I just wish he was cooler. The shrugs, body language and deer-in-the-headlights looks are just painful to watch. Of course, cool guys like me would never be pres, but this was the great thing about Clinton - he just looked cool most of the time. This is probably, sadly, the single biggest slam on Bush. It's just never going to be socially acceptable to vote Republican, because they are not cool. The music at the conventions - sheesh.

A very good point, Hobbes.

I recall Bob Woodward saying many times that Bush was willing to stake his re-election on his decision to go into Iraq. He knew it was unpopular, but he thought it was important enough that he was willing to risk his second term on that decision.

1) Kissy-kissy with Ted Kennedy on the Education boondoggle.

2) Mushrooming domestic spending rather than shrinking domestic spending.

3) Failure to hold the Senate's feet to the fire on the judicial appointments.

4) Not firing people who deserved it. Norman Mineta is first to come to mind, followed by Tenet.

5) Signing McCain-Feingold

6) Sugar subsidies. For some reason, that one really frosts my cookies.

7) Not offering to take Kerry up for a ride in a F102, just so Kerry can get a sense of what "hiding in the Guard" was all about.

8) Referring to Islam as a "religion of peace." To paraphrase what Thumper's mother said, "if you can't tell the truth, then don't say anything."

10) Not challenging the all-knowing, all-wise media behemoth that is arrayed against him for their failure to find Osama bin Laden. If the media is so darn good at reporting, why haven't they found him?

11) did I mention McCain-Feingold?

12) Not calling the Sudanese genocide "genocide."

13) Leaving it to Congressional Republicans to fight the legislative battles alone. Use that veto!

14) Not revoking the passports, thus refusing re-entry of the "human shields" and other idiots who went to Iraq before the commencment of Operation Iraqi Freedom, giving "aid and comfort" to Saddam.

15) Being too tired the night of the first debate.

Bush:
1. Spends like a liberal
2. Tramples on Civil Liberties occasionally [cough, PATRIOT ACT, cough]
3. Doesn't break out the veto pen
4. Won't admit his mistakes.
5. Anti-Civil Unions

CP

The only real problems I see with Bush are small in my opinion.

1. He is against abortion. I am conservative and I don't think abortion is a good thing to make a habit of, but I think it is very necessary in our society. There are just a lot of young kids that make mistakes and need to learn from them, but they don't need to learn by having to support a kid the rest of their life.

2. He doesn't seem to be for gay rights. I, like Bush, am confused about what makes people gay; however, I feel they should get the same legal rights as anybody else. I don't think they should call it marriage, but I am all for providing a civil union for same sex marriages.

3. The no child left behind act needs to be fixed. I feel it was an extremely good step toward providing education for kids, but if schools don't improve for a certain amount of years in a row, they lose funding. The problem is that a long time down the road people will have to get better than a perfect on the test in order for their school to still receive federal funding. Overall I feel it is a good plan, but I think it needs to be fixed.

4. The last thing is that he needs to spend a little less. Much of the spending that was proposed was necessary, but I'm sure there is somewhere to cut a little bit of money from.

These issues aren't small in everyone's opinion, but I am neither gay nor a woman able to have an abortion, so those issues aren't important to me. I just care a lot more about conservative economics than some of those issues.