Bush, Kerry, and green differences

[Feanorcurufinwe]

In a tight race the environment could swing undecideds.
By Brad Knickerbocker / Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

As George Bush and John Kerry circle each other warily in the early days of the presidential campaign, focusing mainly on war and economic recovery, there's another issue that could make the key difference in a close race. It's the environment. There are dramatic differences in tone and approach between the presumptive candidates here. As a result, the issue is more politically significant than it has been since former Interior Secretary James Watt's pyrotechnic presence early in the Reagan administration 20 years ago.

<snip>

In a confidential memo to elected Republican leaders last year, GOP pollster Frank Luntz warned that environmental issues are the Republicans' weak spot.As a result, wrote Mr. Luntz, "Not only do we risk losing the swing vote, but our suburban female base could abandon us as well." That Mr. Bush and Vice president Dick Cheney are both former oilmen does not help the administration's image here.

<snip>

For Senator Kerry, the environment has been a major issue throughout his years in politics, especially in the US Senate, where he chaired the oceans and environment subcommittee. He's not hard-core about it. He favors oil drilling in some areas, just not in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He's pushed for stiffer fuel-efficiency standards for motor vehicles, but he welcomes some market-based solutions. He notes flaws in the Kyoto Protocol. But the League of Conservation Voters gives Kerry a 96 percent lifetime voting record on the environment, one of the highest in Congress. And his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, is very involved in the environmental movement, giving large sums to green groups.

Among activists, there's no doubt who's the greener candidate. They point to what they say is a long list of industry representatives holding senior positions in the Agriculture and Interior Departments - the two federal agencies that oversee hundreds of millions of acres of public land. They note that Bush reversed a campaign pledge to regulate industrial carbon dioxide, pushed to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, and favors a "Healthy Forest Initiative" that critics say is a giveaway to the timber industry in the name of wildfire prevention.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0325/p01s02-uspo.html

[DaveSZ]

1. This is what I've been saying all along

Someone on the Kerry site mentioned that Kerry should take a trip to the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and show the world where Bush wants to drill for oil:

http://forum.johnkerry.com/index.php?showtopic=11776

I also mentioned Padre National Seashore since Bush has granted permits to drill there too. We need Kerry’s help to save this important National Park for future generations.

Can you imagine the great campaign commercials? :)

Then Kerry can announce his plan to free us from our dependency on foreign oil.

If Kerry doesn’t capitalize on this issue, he will be making the same mistake Gore did in not distinguishing himself from his competition.

Kerry also needs to highlight how the Bush Admin has wiped its collective ass with the Bill of Rights, and explain how he will fight terror while protecting civil liberties at the same time.