I have little to say in favour of Bush other than he is resolute and decisive. He has a number of beliefs which I find troubling and he seems to be only medium good at choosing subordinates. On the other hand he is opposed by many groups that I oppose. To do this just once might be accidental, to line up a large number of such groups seems to be a sign that it is intentional. If you judge a man by his enemies Bush looks very good.
What's wrong with Kerry is that he is for nothing. He is a reactive candidate chosen to counter Bush. There are valid criticisms that can be made about Bush, unfortunately Kerry seems unable to differentiate between valid criticism and invalid criticism, hence complaints by (for example) Haitian peacekeepers that he (to quote a certain J Chirac) "missed an opportunity to remain silent".
There is a military proverb that it is better to make an imperfect decision quickly than to make the perfect decision slowly. I think that sums up the difference between Bush and Kerry. Bush makes decisions, Kerry dithers. If you want a national leader who dithers then vote Kerry. If you prefer a decisive one, vote Bush.