Considering Clinton basically did little more than status quo, Bush has been doing the same.
As for states protecting the environment--nope it really does not work--there is to much local political pressure. Meaning in rural areas the Agribiz wants it to be pro Ag even if it hurts the environment-(ditching sloughs, tiling Type I wetlands, herbicide and pesticide run off, etc...) They will not protect it sufficiently. Where as the Feds help protect it if East West South or North-they look at the bigger picture and can do a better job in areas the effect ALL Americans.
Now if we could get a candidate in 2008 with Bushs' right to bear arms, pro hunting AND then a guy willing to sink alot more serious $ into the environment and to strengthen enviro laws, that would be great!
This is my opinion only--not the sites. Of the 2 major candidates for 2004 based on right to own arms, hunting and policy, Bush is the clear leader. Kerry says many things but his record is very different. He has sponsored legislation in the past to restrict hunting as set forth by the Human Society of the US. It is the most antihunting org out there-they give Kerry an A+
Kerry also has sponsored legisaltion to restriction law abiding hunters from buying and owning semiautos and pump shotguns. Funny thing is he received a Remington 1187 12 ga hunting shotgun on Labor Day in WI, a gun that he wanted to ban
I do not think he is a real hunter-he is acting like a hunter to try to get sportsmen to vote for him--but his record is clear, he is NOT the hunters friend at all. So do not be fooled by a wolf in sheeps clothing.
With Bush I know what his tract record is, he is Prohunting, for gun ownership by law abiding hunters, and has done an OK job for funding like Crep, etc.
So based on this--Bush is the clear choice in my personal opinion.