October 28, 2004
A: FROM STUDENT MEMBER FRANCISCA L. IN CA
I am not really all that interested in politics. I don't like arguing over which is better candidate. Some people tend to be very zealous when defending their choice. But I still like to know what are the candidates stand of important issues that will someday affect me and this society as a whole. I think that Kerry had a better stance on the science and technology issues even though most of their responses were almost the same they did disagree on some things. I liked the idea of making internet use more available and promoting more science achievement.Funding for science technology and availability is important for the future.
********************
October 16, 2004
A: FROM STUDENT MEMBER ERIN R. IN KY
I think Stem Cell research and other topics are very
important to the election. I follow the debates to
hear their answers, and I am very suprised about the
difference between them. I think our new president
should support science-based bills because they will
help other people in our country to achieve things
they might now have before.
********************
A: FROM STUDENT MEMBER JUNGMIN AMY P. IN CA
Yes, when Mr. Bush responsed to the question, "What are your top three
priorities in science and technology?" and talked about broadband
connection, I was VERY much pleased.
Where I currently live doesn't service any kind of broadband whatsoever
because of the location.
Also, about managing the science, it seems like both candidates agree on
doubling the buget for National Science Foundation, which is good~!!

Who do you think has the best position on science issues?

I think both of them are, but Mr. Bush knows more accurate and
realistic information about science, such about NASA. However, this is an
advantage of him as a president so I guess they are the same!
********************
A: FROM STUDENT MEMBER JENNIFER T. IN FL
No, I am not realy interested in politics, so I don't watch the things they talk about. Yes, I care about these things because I believe we should keep researching stem cells, and we should watch climate change and keep it at bay.
********************
October 14, 2004
A: FROM MENTOR KRIS MOODY IN NH
As people interested in science, we all know that complex questions have
complex answers. I suggest that we not be fooled by concise answers with a
few numbers thrown in to sound good. President Bush may be able to deliver
an answer that sounds like he is doing exactly what you hope he's
doing. But it's what isn't said that really deserves attention. For
example, let's look at some more information about Bush's "Clear Skies"
initiative.

The U.S. Newswire reported that Bush’s "Clear Skies" legislation is opposed
by over 100 physician, health, environmental and consumer groups because it
would create an increase in mercury pollution. The Clear Skies proposal,
considered to be the cornerstone of Bush’s environmental policy, is aimed
at reducing emissions from power plants, but has been criticized for
failing to address carbon dioxide emissions and other pollutants
adequately. According to Reuters, a competing bill drafted by a bipartisan
group of moderate senators would reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide,
and mercury emissions from power plants sooner and with greater efficacy
than the Clear Skies plan. The U.S. Newswire indicated that 8% of U.S.
women of childbearing age currently have unsafe mercury levels ­ which puts
over 300,000 children born each year at risk of mercury poisoning. Bush’s
plan reportedly would delay the initiation of mercury reductions for
another seven years, postpone full implementation until 2018, and
ultimately would reduce pollution only a fraction of what will be achieved
by current law. (Sources: Reuters, "EPA Touts Benefits of Bush Power Plant
Emission Curbs," Chris Baltimore, July 2, 2003; U.S. Newswire, "More
Mercury Pollution Allowed Under Bush Plan, Says Mercury Policy Project; 100
Groups Write to Oppose Legislation," July 8, 2003)

Incidentally, www.FactCheck.org verifies that indeed, Geroge W. Bush's 2003
financial disclosure form shows that he does own 50% of a company formed
"for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." So what
was up with his answer to that question?

If you are interested in environmental issues, I suggest you check in with
environmental organization such as the Sierra Club. (www.sierraclub.org)
Also check with other issue-based organizations to investigate the
candidates' positions on the subjects with which those organizations are
most familiar.

A "good answer" is not an answer that sounds good. A "good answer" is one
that factually addresses the question, and does not mislead people by
telling only part of the story. Otherwise I believe it is a very, very bad
answer.
********************
October 9, 2004
A: FROM MENTOR BARB KONTOGIANNIS IN CO
Very good question, which I'm sure will spark some heated debate. I enjoyed reading the responses and am glad to have the chance to get a view of both candidate's positions on these issues. While I don't necessarily agree with all of President Bush's positions, I thought his answers were better. Bush's responses were substantive and to the point. He offered facts and figures, evidence and concrete action plans. Mr. Kerry's answers were vague and often off the point. I have no idea what Mr. Kerry's actions would be if he were to become president. All in all, I believe that President Bush has the best positions on science issues.
**********
October 7, 2004
A: FROM STUDENT MEMBER SYLVIA P. IN CA
Personally, I am interested in the global enviornment issues (e.g. Greenhouse Effect) that seemed to be neglected in the past years. Our atmosphere is becoming warmer as the years go by and the chemicals in the air are becoming more and more toxic. Therefore, I believe that we need to have more interest in these global issues to ensure the safety of the American population.
Although I had thought that President Bush did not do much for environmental issues, his quotes, to me, seemed more definite and factual. Kerry's responses were mostly general, drifting away from the financials and details of the solutions to problems that the environment suffers from. Here are the quotes that were the most persuasive in thinking that Bush has a better stance than Kerry:

"I have also established the Climate Change Technology
Program to focus on technology to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions via renewable energy, fossil energy, and nuclear
energy efficiency improvements, and carbon sequestration."

"My Clear Skies legislation, which is the most
aggressive presidential initiative in history to reduce power
plant emissions, will create a $50 billion market for clean
coal technologies. Through Clear Skies, we will cut sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury by 70%, while
maintaining America¡¯s most domestically secure, affordable,
and reliable energy source."