Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Superbelt
Monstrously big difference in environmental stance and the opinions of who should be getting tax cuts (if any) Do you dream of the day you can eat fish without toxic levels of mercury? How about forcing the grandfathered power plants in the mid west to clean up their emissions one day soon? I wouldn't mind drinking water with lower levels of arsenic. Same thing goes for maintaining the integrity of old growth forests and halting the segmentation of crucial wetlands. Those are all BIG policy differences between the two.
Anti Terror, Kerry will quit pushing missile defense and do what he has been advocating for years now, whichis giving the Coast Guard and our ports the funding to stop terrorism at the borders, rather than be fearful for missiles that we have no chance in hell of stopping anyway, let's worry about the threat that is actually coming.
Intelligence Services: National Security Director, as described by 9/11 commission who has the power of controlling the budget, rather than just be an additional layer of Bureaucracy as Bush wants.
|
And why aren't these supposed differences the mainstays of the Kerry campaign?
Missile defense is a difference but it is far from a standard bearer. You claim that missile defense is impossible but protecting ports is not, how many shipping containers and ships enter our ports on a daily basis versus how many missiles we would see coming at us in an all out missile attack? Protecting our ports is probably more impossible than the missile defense shield.
Putting a new person in charge of Intelligence will not solve our problems. In fact the disarray caused by the transition to this form of leadership would virtually incapacitate our intelligence services when we need them the most.
And as far as the environmental argument, again, how do you think Kerry will accomplish these things with a Republican controlled Congress? How will he specifically remove the mercury from fish?
I never said they were the same only that the differences and what they can realistically achieve are not significant in reality and even less significant to voters. That is precisely the answer to the question I posed at the start of this post.