Bush vs Kerry - a constructive thread

[Dhalgren]

I have an idea. Let's start a thread that lists all of the issues where Kerry and Bush are diametrically oppososed to one another! This would give everyone some real meat to bite into and should give folks a chance to be on the same side (if for only a moment). I'll get the ball rolling.

Now, remember, this is a list of only where the two have opposing policy postions - not where one would simply do the same thing only better/worse.

Kerry - pro reproductive rights
Bush - anti reproductive rights

Kerry - anti death penalty
Bush - way pro death penalty

Kerry - anti gay descrimination amendment
Bush - pro gay descrimination amendment

O.K. have at it!

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. Well, there are some asterisks and footnotes on 2 of those

Kerry supports the death penalty for "terrorists," and he has said that equal protection under the law should be an opt-in choice for states, the other day he had a fund-raiser and some pledges in jeopardy, and shrewdly said that he would grant federal benefits to state-sanctioned unions, which of course he cannot do, as DOMA specifically prohibits it, but hey, he voted against DOMA, not his fault. Anyway, he saved his fund-raiser.

[Dhalgren]

3. Good points.

However, this is at least on this particular case, a place where they actually are on opposite sides of an issue - Kerry, no constitutional amendment; Bush, constitutional amendment. Not necessarily gay/lesbian rights in general - just this particular amendment. Hey, it's something.

[Dhalgren]

6. Sorry for getting side-tracked there.

I had not heard about Kerry's exception to the death penalty. I don't get how that squares with principle, but maybe someone else will know and can explain it?

[DuctapeFatwa]

13. He said it in one of the debates, the Larry King one I think

My assumption is that it is intended to square more with popular sentiment than principle.

Kerry is a much shrewder politician than bush.

[Dhalgren]

16. Yes, shrewdness isn't one of Bush's strong suits.

.

[Armstead]

2. Bush Republican -- Kerry Democrat

[Dhalgren]

Yes...But not really an issue kinda' thing, eh?

.

[PATRICK]

4. Substance is there

Execution is everything. He must keep up and increase his momentum as he did against BETTER opposition by fellow Democrats, taking into consideration a whole new electorate and game. Keep close to the people, keep on the offensive without offending, close all the wedges the media will assist in driving in at every opportunity. Speed of response and pre-emption. Deflation of the Bush strategies which have been miserable failures all except for the mere fact of occupying the seat of "trust" at a critical time at least half of his own evil creation.

The uniting and growth of the party, the future, may seem premature, but this must cover over our defensive worry wart mode if we are to win the Presidential contest. People must have hope, an alternative besides an outlet for the committed ABB Americans.

We should aim to take back the Congress and fund it.

I might note that the efforts to jawbone the media are meeting with plainly hypocritical resistance. We were told, in their own sorry defense, how the Right simply was louder and more effective. Our own flood of rational and democratic communiques have shown how phony that excuse was. Still, if intimidation or pressure or critique does work it is too early to quit now. Efforts should be redoubled and the REAL people and consumers backing it up should be made plain to these truth arbiters.

[Dhalgren]

5. Good analysis, actually. Not bad...

What you say is true, but I was looking for issues where DUers could come together and say "here we agree and the candidate has the right stand." Not disparaging your post, though, not at all.

[lovedems]

7. Doesn't Kerry want the sunset clause to take effect on the PA

while the chimp wants to keep the PA alive?

[Dhalgren]

9. I'm sorry, is that "Patriot Act"?

.

[lovedems]

12. yep. n/t

[Dhalgren]

17. O.K. So I am assumong, then, that Kerry opposes PAII, right?

That would be another fundamental difference in policy/program.

Kerry - against Patriot II
Bush - for Patriot II

Good!

[salin]

18. take it further... Kerry wants it to sunset.. while bush wants to EXPAND

the Patriot Act Powers.

Not sure about Kerry but many Democrats (and I assume Kerry, as it would be consistent) - want oversight over the Dept of Justice USE of the Patriot Act.

Bush and Ashcroft want secrecy/NO oversight.

[Mattforclark]

8. Yep, I'm for Kerry

[Dhalgren]

10. Good for you! Now do you have any policies or programs to list?

.

[Mattforclark]

15. Sure

Kerry - Pro-Sane foreign policy
Bush - Pro-Insane foreign policy

Kerry - Pro-Sane global warming policy
Bush - Pro-Insane foreign policy

Kerry - Pro-Sane fiscal policy
Bush - Pro-Insane fiscal policy

Kerry - Just plain Pro-Sanity
Bush - Just plain Pro-Insanity

[Dhalgren]

19. You are listing things Kerry would be better at handling than Bush.

That's a given, hell, a three-legged cow, with brain damage could manage things better than Bush. I was looking more for policy differences, so that people could begin to see that voting "for" someone is better than voting "against" someone.

[charlie]

11. Okay

Bush - will privitize and sell off everything that isn't nailed down to his favored cronies since gummint is evil and market-driven greed delivers maximum wealth for the most people (it took good care of his goldplated ass, didn't it?).

Kerry - has the conviction that public stewardship of critical public services is the way to ensure accountability, sensible longterm management, and reliability.

Bush - is working like a madman to shoehorn hardline theocrats into every level of government bureaucracy.

Kerry - not a fundie nutjob.

[Dhalgren]

14. O.k.!

Added to the list

Bush - a crook
Kerry - Not a crook

Bush - fundie nutjob
Kerry - not a fundie nutjob

Come on, guys, this can't be it! Saying one guy's crazy and criminal and the other guy isn't? Hell, we know that - I'm talking opposing foundational policies, here.

[salin]

20. Kerry - energy policy should center on r&d and renewable

energy.

Bush - energy policy = drill and kill - with corporate tax giveaways with no strings attached (e.g., no use of tax policy to encourage types of energy investment) - and that encourages plundering the environment with little to no investment in renewable energy.

Kerry - against Anwr drilling
Bush - open up all national lands to drilling.

[Dhalgren]

21. Good!

Energy policy direction - that's a good one. Both renewable/deadend and pro/con ANWR. Now we're talkin'.

[blm]

22. Kerry is AGAINST the militarization of space. Bush is for it.

Kerry will cancel Star Wars and all mini-nuke programs.

[salin]

23. can't speak to it.. but bet that you can help me finish this blm

bush - for political means... go to mars (but real agenda is to cut off NASA research and spending.)

[Dhalgren]

25. More good ones!

Kerry - against militarizing space
Bush - for militarizing space

Kerry - against the further development of nuclear weapons
Bush - for developing more nukes.

See? These are good reasons FOR Kerry - not just against Bush!

[Blue_Roses]

24. I love this thread!

Kerry--for Social Security
Bush--against(for "privotizing" it)

[Dhalgren]

26. Yes!

.

[Dhalgren]

27. Surely there are some more oppositional policies/stands?

We've got a pretty good list going, but is this it? We have 8 points of contention - there has to be more!

[salin]

28. bush - pro-Christian Coalition vetted judicial nominees

kerry - freezeout Christian Coalition etal from influence on judicial nominees.

[Dhalgren]

31. Indeed, a huge difference.

Bush - ideologues on bench (all levels)
Kerry - qualified jurists on bench

[sangh0]

29. Energy Conservation

Kerry - supports
Bush* - just a "personal virtue"

[sangh0]

30. War

Kerry - last resort
Bush* - first resort

[salin]

32. staged coups

bush appears to have done/attempted 2 in 2 years... (esp, if one includes the cutting off of US aid, and strongarming other aid agencies to do the same to Haiti - in order to escalate unstability in Haiti.)

kerry - unlikely to do so.

[Dhalgren]

34. O.k. foriegn intervention.

That may be a valid policy difference. I think Kerry has been very vocal on all this "coup" nonsense - in Venezuala, anyway - and this may be valid.

[Dhalgren]

33. The conservation of energy is a valid one

but, the war one, IMO, isn't. Kerry has said repeatedly that his main problem with the Iraqi war is how it was and is being managed. But energy conservation as national interest/personal vanity is a good difference in policy/program.

[sangh0]

35. similarities don't negate differences

The fact is that Kerry believes in war as a last resort, while Bush* is far more willing to use war before it becomes a last resort. Bush*'s policy of preventative war makes this difference explicit.

Saying that there isn't a difference because there is a similarity on another matter (ie Iraq specifically, as opposed to war in general) is like saying tigers are no different than dogs because they both have four feet.

[salin]

36. In fairness...

mind you - one of my biggest problems with Kerry is/was the IWR vote - and while I look beyond it, I am not one who has totally "bought it".

However, contrast Kerry in the war buildup period (Jan-March) and his voiced concern on the eve of the war to folks like Edwards and Gephard - who contend it was a right war... still just... just needed coalition partners and UN.

Kerry was voicing criticism - as he said he would do - when bush did not let the inspections work their way to conclusion, when bush etal did not go back to the UN Security council as promised, etc. Bush etal didn't because there was no immenent threat, the only condition that Kerry stated at the time of the vote -and at the time of the onset of the invasion- warrented action. On this point, he was consistent.

We may be harshly critical of his judgement of the IWR vote (I am on multiple levels.) but he has been consistent in the conditions (that is WHEN preemptive action is allowable (e.g., immenent threat) and with what preceding actions (going to congress which bush initially did - but did not before the invasion - just sent a cursory note; and in working with/through the un to get un support.)

Viewed in that light - I do believe at as CIC it is not consistent to say he would be anti-war and would never go; but it is consistent to say that he would go as 'last resort'. That does not preclude giving the criticism that the IWR did not force the 'last resort' triggers as he and others state they believe that it required.

[Dhalgren]

37. I could argue with you about all of this (and have done so)

but this thread was for those policy/programs where there simply weren't that kind of contention. Bush, himself, will mouth the phrase "only as a last resort", and it means nothing. Kerry's may mean more, it may not - we can only trust. What I am looking for, here, are "real" differences that you can put on paper and take to the bank. Saying "I won't kill unless I have to" and the other one saying the same thing is not in this catagory.

[salin]

38. I see where you are coming from

but don't think that the issue should be discarded as the positions and what they imply as CIC are very different.

However framing of points are arguments are important - and as stated it is easy to dismiss on a rhetorical level (the words) for the reason that you state.

Give me some time to think about different ways of framing this - as to be factual, and to fit with your framework (binary AND nonrefutable due to the vote - without having to go into long explanations per the vote.)

[Dhalgren]

39. I think I have another one, let me know if it doesn't fit.

Kerry - full, strong support of veterans
Bush - proven lack of support for veterans

[salin]

40. tweak...

Kerry - states support for veterans/acts to support veterans.
Bush - states support for veterans/acts to make cuts to veteran programs.