Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+ Facts For Those Who Are Unclear, .

[Ruggiero]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - These are the positions of Republican President Bush (news - web sites) and his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts, on some of the central issues that have dominated the 2004 presidential campaign:







IRAQ WAR:



While the candidates criticize each other over Iraq (news - web sites), critics say their positions are quite similar. In recent months, Bush has sought an increased role for the United Nations (news - web sites) and other international partners, while Kerry has said he would seek to draw NATO (news - web sites) into the rebuilding of Iraq. Bush has said he needs more troops in Iraq due to unrest, while Kerry would like to increase the role of international forces and cut back on U.S. troops within six months of taking office. Bush has cited Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s history of using weapons of mass destruction as justification for the war. Kerry has said he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq even if he had known there were no weapons of mass destruction, but he accuses Bush of misusing the authority to use force if necessary.



WAR ON TERROR/HOMELAND SECURITY:



With the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as a backdrop, both candidates have said military action is needed to fight terrorism and supported creating the Homeland Security Department. Kerry has said he would like to increase the number of active troops temporarily by 40,000 to deal with terrorism threats. Both candidates support creating a new national director of intelligence, but while Kerry has endorsed the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, Bush has not said how much power and authority the position should hold.



ECONOMY, TAXES & JOB GROWTH:



With the U.S. economic recovery under way but new job creation falling short of expectations, both candidates say they are focused on spurring growth. Bush has called on Congress to make permanent the tax cuts approved in 2001 and 2003, saying they will help create jobs. Kerry wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $200,000 a year to help pay for health care but retain the cuts for the middle class. He says letting those cuts expire will restore fiscal health and lead to growth.



HEALTH CARE:



Health care costs have soared in the United States in the past few years and the number of uninsured Americans has increased. Bush seeks to reduce that number by about 4 million and backs health savings accounts to help people purchase insurance on their own. Kerry aims to reduce the number of uninsured people by 27 million, in part by expanding the federal employee health plan to all Americans. Both seek to limit medical malpractice lawsuits, which some analysts have said is one of the causes of soaring health care costs.



ENERGY POLICY:



With consumers paying near record prices for gasoline and still stinging from an electricity crisis, both candidates support efforts to mandate increased automobile fuel efficiency, to build a natural gas pipeline to Alaska and to raise the use of alternative fuels. But they differ on fossil fuel development. Bush, a former oil executive, favors oil exploration in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (news - web sites), while Kerry opposes such drilling. Bush also supports the construction of new nuclear plants and the storage of nuclear waste in Nevada's Yucca Mountain, both of which Kerry opposes. Kerry supports the continued use of existing nuclear plants.



SAME-SEX MARRIAGE:



Same-sex marriage erupted as a controversial issue this year as certain states began allowing unions performed by court officials. Both Bush and Kerry say they oppose same-sex marriage while tolerating different degrees of civil unions among ###### and lesbian couples. Bush supports a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, while Kerry opposes the amendment.



ABORTION



The candidates have polarized views on the issue, with Bush opposing abortion in most cases and Kerry supporting rights across the board. Bush opposes the use of federal funds for abortion and has sought to double to $273 million funding for education programs that advocate abstinence. Kerry supports government funding for abortion and domestic family planning services. He voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 that Bush signed into law. Bush and Kerry have also said they would seek to appoint judges who share their views.



GUN CONTROL



Bush, who has the backing of the powerful National Rifle Association gun industry lobby, opposes most limits on gun ownership although he has expressed support for renewing the assault weapons ban. Kerry, who says he is an avid hunter, supports some limits on gun ownership and measures that would hold gun makers liable for gun crimes. Bush has made millions of child-safety locks available for free to gun owners, while Kerry supports mandating such locks.

[Kyzene]

Reading this....makes me think that the candidates...agree on a lot of the same things, they just want to go about reaching their common goal differently.... ....some of the things, obviously are totally different..

"Both Bush and Kerry say they oppose same-sex marriage while tolerating different degrees of civil unions among ###### and lesbian couples."<- is what Ky believes

"Kerry has said he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq even if he had known there were no weapons of mass destruction"<- something i didnt know


Ky

[InfiniteWarrior]

Interesting debate tonight and very different from the first in the sense that Bush (real "man of the people") was more comfortable and so probably made a much better impression on the impressionable this time, along with the focus on domestic issues alongside international ones.

I don't want to start any arguments over one of the most volatile issues ever debated in this country, but because the forum is here, I must say that the most poignant moment for me had to be during the lady's question on the abortion issue:

ABORTION

The candidates have polarized views on the issue, with Bush opposing abortion in most cases and Kerry supporting rights across the board. Bush opposes the use of federal funds for abortion and has sought to double to $273 million funding for education programs that advocate abstinence. Kerry supports government funding for abortion and domestic family planning services. He voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 that Bush signed into law. Bush and Kerry have also said they would seek to appoint judges who share their views.

This young lady obviously had very strong views on the subject as she seemed ready to burst into tears at Kerry's response and wilted in relief at Bush's, which underlines the REAL issue for me. (That I'll define in a moment.)

Bush opposes federal funding for abortion; Kerry disagrees, saying that such a decision should not hinge on personal conviction because the government is charged with representing the majority of the people.

Kerry contradicts himself in saying that while government officials may have strong views on the subject, they are charged with representing the will of the people and so federal funding should be available. But, that federal funding is made up of tax money paid by people who may be either pro or anti-abortion... or (like most of us) walk an even more fine line than that, which means that people who are morally convinced that it is wrong are essentially forced to pay for it anyway.

Bush, on the other hand, is going to decide for all of us based on personal conviction, which means that those who are against it would not be paying for it, but that even in cases where abortion is absolutely necessary those who can't afford it may not be able to have one. That's not good, I admit. But, this is the only point on which I actually agree with Bush... just not for his reasons. My view: This issue is not even within the perogative of the government to decide.

Yes, the question is more complex than the black and white of where the funds are coming from, but in fact there's no other place for the funds to come from than the American people. And funding for education? This country is one of the most over-educated nations in the world when it comes to sex and family planning and yet people still make impossibly idiotic decisions about it every day. No amount of funding in the world is ever going to change that, no matter where it comes from.

Here's my point: The people really have no say in this at all as it is not a matter that the general public will ever vote on. But, in fact, no one has a right to legislate what an individual - male or female - does with his or her own body if that individual REALLY has a choice and is free to make it - not even "the majority". Even if there were a public vote, it would still come down to people making intensely personal, ethical decisions for other people.

And that, in itself, is WRONG. When the government reaches into our personal lives to this degree, I think it's an understatement to say we are governed too much.

[JayBaen]

it would still come down to people making intensely personal, ethical decisions for other people.

Agreed.

The abortion response was Kerry's most shining moment, imho, and NOT because it was about abortion. In a nutshell he said (paraphrasing):

"I respect your beliefs. I also have many beliefs of my own, many of which may agree with yours. However, not everyone in the US believes what I believe personally and/or ethically -- as they have a right not to -- and therefore, I CANNOT create legislation based solely on what I've determined as moral."

Amen.

The meaning of what he stated stretches FAR beyond the abortion issue.

JB

[InfiniteWarrior]

The meaning of what he stated stretches FAR beyond the abortion issue.

Right. Impartiality, emotional distance and reasoning, if you will, should be applied to any political decision to be made. None of those seem to have come into play during Bush's administration so far.

But for the moment, I'm talking about the abortion issue (so was Kerry) and very much wish that, since some faceless someone - or committee - did decide that it is within the government's perogative to pass legislation on it and there's not a blessed thing we can do about it, Kerry was not for federal funding. What would be better is if some emotionally distanced, reasonable person moved to pass a bill that takes this issue, same-sex marriage and a myriad other things out of the hands of the government, because the point is: This degree of government is far too much.

Now I know someone is thinking that the same-sex marriage issue hinges on the legality of it and so it must be a part of the legislative process. But the legal issues surrounding marriage have nothing to do with marriage itself and everything to do with people being civil to one another. Marriage itself is an emotional/spiritual bond and not subject to legislation - same or hetero. It was decided that heterosexual marriage should be "legalized" only to exact more control over what the general populace can and cannot do. As for civility, there are already laws in place to judge impartially what is fair to people who don't agree with each other.

Back to the affordability of necessary abortions.... The general populace is perfectly capable of forming its own groups and foundations to raise PRIVATE funds and in fact do so on a regular basis. This is a much better way to go about it, because no one ever is placed in an ethical dillema over it.

We don't have to have every aspect of our lives legislated; we can do some things for ourselves.

--EDIT--

BTW, there's no question in my mind that the young lady who asked that question will vote for Bush only because she was pleased with his answer on this one subject. If so, nothing could be more short-sighted or irresponsible. What frightens me more than anything else in this election is that I hear so many people saying "I'll vote this way because the view on this or that is right or wrong". What's important is that the direction taken on all the issues is reasonable, intelligent and in the best interests of the people. It's not one issue. It's not about just you or me. And it's certainly not about the interests of the politicians themselves above the well-being of absolutely everyone else, which is obviously the thrust of the Bush/Cheney camp. Please bear that in mind.