[Knightscape]

I believe he has provided tax incentives and grants for alternative energies, more so than any other president before him.

Mmm... nope. In fact, some big incentives under PURPA just lapsed. But I won't hold him accountable for that solely, because they would have been renewed in the energy bill, had it passed. However, part of the reason it didn't pass was the Clean Air Act rules he insisted on changing to allow major modifications at plants without getting permits amended. So, he's partially, not wholly, at fault on that one. Now, he did mention a lot of money for fuel cells, which I wholly supported. However, for more than one year now, I have seen his State of the Union addresses turn to only dust in the wind, so I'm not going to credit him for unkept promises.

Freedom CAR was a very good start for alternative energies and Bush is continuing his good work with a $4000 tax credit for fuel cell cars in his 2005 Budget plans.

A general statement unsupported by facts. Mushy language -- trying out for your political campaign? As I said, regarding the environment, he took industry lobbyists and put them in charge. Former Monsanto execs at the helm of the FDA. C'mon, the "capturing" of agencies by the industries they govern is bad enough already -- they don't need the help.

Just because these individuals don't love trees more than people, does not mean they are not highly qualified.

I think I was very specific. If you need more, Natural Resources Defense Council is very thorough and very professional, and though they've got a left-leaning bent, they've been around for ages, so they can probably convince even you. If you are willing to read with an open mind. However, he fails the conservative market test on environmentalism as well. Here we see that PERC, a group dedicated to market solutions to solving environmental problems, also rated him a "C-." Read on, very interesting stuff. Either angle you come at it, Bush is an eco-disaster, as I said. Feel free to go to his own website, too. Link info from there, and you will show us all that it's very non-specific stuff where the environment is concerned. He touts "healthy forests" as fire safety while COMPLETELY ignoring the clear-cutting that will be approved. All he's good at when it comes to the environment is creative euphamisms.

Thanks for the left of centre links but if I wanted a liberal bias I could just turn on CNN, ABC news, CBS news, NBC news PBS, or a number of left-wing stations here in Canada.

Okay, now back to the things I know less about, because it's not my job. Regarding the drug bill, there were OTHER options OTHER than cutting the drug companies a big fat check. Prices are regulated in several indsutries -- why not drugs? He specifically DISALLOWED the states from negotiating for lower prices, showing who's side he's really on.

Kerry and the Democrats fail to do anthing about the high cost of prescription drugs for years then a Republican comes in and quickly passes a bill for the benefit of senior citizens. Kerry and the Democrats promptly complain.

Regarding the military, sorry but I don't fall over and pay homage to spending just because it's done for tanks. When it comes to failure at balancing the budget, there is always an excuse. Every president is guilty of it, it's a deplorable thing, and J.M. Keynes rolls over in his grave daily because we have totally misunderstood his economic philosophy. But do note this: Bush DID NOT cut other spending, so the military along ain't gonna hack it, here. He likes to spend, and he's never lived life on a budget.

Bush has put a lot of money and resources into social programs (prescription drugs freedom CAR) to the chagrin of many fiscal conservatives. Actually until all the mud slinging by Kerry and Democrat supporters, many conservatives were very ambiguous about Bush. If not for move-on-dot-org and Michael Moore, Bush would probably not be doing as well in the polls.

And, this is about Bush, don't make it about Kerry. "The other guy is bad too" doesn't defeat my points, so I refuse to go there in response to this particular post.

Actually I had thought this thread was about options in the U.S. presidential election. Avoiding looking at any of Kerry weaknesses, weakens a persons argument by creating an appearance of strong bias. Unfortunetly with Kerry flip-flopping on so many issues it is hard to do a compare and contrast. With Bush, you may like his views or you may dislike his views but at least you know what his views are.