People are still seriously talking about no difference between the candidates?

I read this blog entry today that totally annoyed me. Or at least, one of the commenters on the entry annoyed me. here's the statement that made my head explode:

"And Kerry has not given us a clear, strong picture of what makes him different from W."

Oh really?

So I wrote a responding comment myself. You can read it in the extended entry:

Not different from W.? That's just smoking crack.

Let's step away from the Iraq mess for a moment, which either guy is going to be stuck with, and think about the following:

-Pro-choice vs. Anti-choice (with a bunch of really old Supreme Court justices.)
-Pro-environmental regulation vs. getting rid of them
-Pro-civil unions vs. Pro-rewriting the Constitution to make 10% of our population second-class citizens
-Pro-assault weapons ban vs. NOT
-Pro-separation of church and state vs. NOT
-Pro rolling back tax cuts for wealthy vs. making them permanent
-Raising the minimum wage vs. NOT
-Raising the cap, but keeping the Estate tax vs. Repealing it altogether
-Allowing drug importation and government negotiation on drug prices vs. NOT

I could go on. Do none of these issues matter anymore?

You can agree or disagree with any number of the above positions, but don't pretend these two candidates are the same.

This is the Nader red herring, and it makes me crazy.

The fact is that Bush has adopted Kerry's position on Iraq in the last months since it became such a millstone around Bush's neck.

This is a common issue I rant about in the blog for the Santa Clara County Demo. Party, mostly because I can't believe that after four years of Bush, people would still trot out that line.

[Had to get in the plug for this blog of course :)]

Posted by elisa at September 7, 2004 04:12 PM | Comparisons