If George W. Bush tries to use the worn-out label of "tax and spend liberal" ala Reagan after 8 years of a Centrist Democrat leading the country in a period of unprecedented prosperity, I don't think he is going to be very convincing.

or maybe a classical liberal

That's going to be awfully hard to defend while he tries to convince us he can be trusted as Commander-in-Chief.

I think John Kerry's voting record can and will be used against him.
The Many Faces of John Kerry
He is very weak on military/national security voting, despite his Vietnam war record.

He is quite liberal, according to Americans for Democratic Action, scoring a 92%, the highest of the candidates, even higher than Dennis Kucinich.
2004 Presidential Candidates’ Lifetime ADA Voting Ratings

I think this will be a big issue if Kerry is selected the nominee.

Correction appended 2/02/2004: The "memo" from former Kerry campaign manager Jim Jordan to Mary Beth Cahill referenced in this article was, in fact, a satirical parody of a memo written by the political staff of ABC News. We regret the error.

Kerry should change his name to Samsonite. This guy carries more baggage than a porter at O'Hare Airport. Wait till the mudd starts flying. We've seen the best the libs could do so far vs Bush...BUsh's team is gonna have a field day with Kerry's record on things. Hell, Kerry could even be directly implicated to 911 and held responsible with ALLOT more evidence than GWB.

So far, there have been unsuccessful attacks on Kerry's personal record, like his alleged affair. They've even gone as far to make fake, incriminating photos of him: Photo of Kerry Doctored

My guess is that Bush will win, but it depends on world events, the state of the economy and campaign strategies, so it is all very uncertain, by no means a done deal for either side.

Is Kerry too liberal to beat Bush?

Is Kerry too liberal to beat Bush?

On Fox News this evening it was brought out that Kerry has voted to raise taxes so many times it averages out to one vote to raise taxes every three weeks for his almost 20 year Senate carreer.

And just how do you suppose the Clinton administration managed to get rid of the deficit? (One hint: It wasn't done by cutting taxes for the wealthiest in this country.)

Yes, Bush might well win this election, if he continues to run campaign ads citing Kerry's votes out of context.

Don't Republicans worry that their guy's best chance to win is to obfuscate his opponent's record in Congress? And if the voters figure out that Kerry's constituency still liked him and continually re-elected him in spite of this "fatal flaw," then what?

But hey, maybe that bit of trivia you cited might help you on Jeopardy! some day!

Can a man who voted against every single weapons system used in the last 15 years be credible with the American people?  He voted to cut the CIA field agent budget by 300 million after the terrorist attacks of the early 90s!

Do you have any citations to back up this claim that when it came down to the final vote to approve or deny funding for "every single weapons system" that John Kerry was on the "deny" side of things?

Do you know what the CIA field agent budget was at the time of the vote to cut? Was it 300 billion (which would make 300 million a drop in the bucket)? I really don't know, but you didn't post a citation so that we can see whether your claim is true or even makes any sense.

Thanks!

BUSH FICTION: In 1995, John Kerry proposed "deeply irresponsible" cuts in intelligence spending that "gutted" intelligence funding.

FACT: The so-called "deeply irresponsible cuts" mentioned by Bush "represented about the same amount Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), then chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told the Senate that same day he wanted cut from the intelligence spending bill based on an unspent, secret fund that had been accumulated by one intelligence agency "without informing the Pentagon, CIA or Congress," according to The Washington Post.

The truth is, the cuts passed by voice vote with no opposition, including such radical "left-wingers" as Republicans Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum and Don Nickles. The so-called "cuts" then became law, without a single Republican complaining about the measure for the nine years prior to the 2004 Presidential campaign. Fred Kaplan, writing for Slate, makes this point: "Kerry's proposal would not have cut a single intelligence program." What the Republicans don't want you to know is that John Kerry has supported $200 billion in intelligence funding over the past seven years - a 50 percent increase since 1996.

Before George W. Bush's political operatives started pounding on John Kerry for voting against certain weapons systems during his years in the Senate, they should have taken a look at this quotation:

After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office.

The speaker was President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992.

The claim about these votes was made in the Republican National Committee "Research Briefing" of Feb. 22. The report lists 13 weapons systems that Kerry voted to cut—the ones cited above, as well as Patriot air-defense missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and AH64 Apache helicopters, among others.

It is instructive, however, to look at the footnotes. Almost all of them cite Kerry's vote on Senate bill S. 3189 (CQ Vote No. 273) on Oct. 15, 1990. Do a Google search, and you will learn that S. 3189 was the Fiscal Year 1991 Defense Appropriations Act, and CQ Vote No. 273 was a vote on the entire bill. There was no vote on those weapons systems specifically.

On a couple of the weapons, the RNC report cites H.R. 5803 and H.R. 2126. Look those up. They turn out to be votes on the House-Senate conference committee reports for the defense appropriations bills in October 1990 (the same year as S. 3189) and September 1995.

In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank dishonesty.

Another bit of dishonesty is RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie's claim, at a news conference today, that in 1995, Kerry voted to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget. John Pike, who runs the invaluable globalsecurity.org Web site, told me what that cut was about: The Air Force's National Reconnaissance Office had appropriated that much money to operate a spy satellite that, as things turned out, it never launched. So the Senate passed an amendment rescinding the money—not to cancel a program, but to get a refund on a program that the NRO had canceled. Kerry voted for the amendment, as did a majority of his colleagues.

...several of your points are extremely misleading

Senator Kerry will have to twist a lot of facts to show me he has not voted against the intelligence and defense communities in his two decades in the Senate. That history leaves me chilled by the fact there is a possibility he may become president of the United States.
-- GDan204

Bush and his operatives are making a practice of mischaracterizing the voting record of the presumptive Democratic nominee. Two weeks ago, the Republican National Committee put out a "Research Brief" that flagrantly distorted Kerry's votes on weapons systems. (Click here for the real facts.) Bush's remarks yesterday are more dishonest still.

One thing is true: Kerry did introduce a bill on Sept. 29, 1995—S. 1290—that, among many other things, would have cut the intelligence budget by $300 million per year over a five-year period, or $1.5 billion in all.

But let's look at that bill more closely.

First, would such a reduction have "gutted" the intelligence services? Intelligence budgets are classified, but private budget sleuths have estimated that the 1995 budget totaled about $28 billion. Thus, taking out $300 million would have meant a reduction of about 1 percent. This is not a gutting.

Second, and more to the point, Kerry's proposal would have not have cut a single intelligence program.

On the same day that Kerry's bill was read on the Senate floor, two of his colleagues—Democrat Bob Kerrey and Republican Arlen Specter—introduced a similar measure. Their bill would have cut the budget of the National Reconnaissance Office, the division of the U.S. intelligence community in charge of spy satellites.

According to that day's Congressional Record, Specter said he was offering an amendment "to address concerns about financial practices and management" at the NRO. Specifically, "the NRO has accumulated more than $1 billion in unspent funds without informing the Pentagon, CIA, or Congress." He called this accumulation "one more example of how intelligence agencies sometimes use their secret status to avoid accountability."

The Kerrey-Specter bill proposed to cut the NRO's budget "to reflect the availability of funds … that have accumulated in the carry-forward accounts" from previous years. Another co-sponsor of the bill, Sen. Richard Bryan, D–Nev., noted that these "carry-forward accounts" amounted to "more than $1.5 billion."

This was the same $1.5 billion that John Kerry was proposing to cut—over a five-year period—in his bill. It had nothing to do with intelligence, terrorism, or anything of substance. It was a motion to rescind money that had been handed out but never spent.

In other words, it's as if Kerry had once filed for a personal tax refund—and Bush accused him of raiding the Treasury.

By the way, the Kerrey-Specter bill—which called for the same intelligence cut that George W. Bush is attacking John Kerry for proposing—passed on the Senate floor by a voice vote. It was sheer common sense. It also led to major investigations into the NRO's finances, both by the White House and by the CIA's general counsel.

John Kerry's bill died—its title was read on the floor, then it was sent to the Senate Budget Committee—but, again, not because it was an abhorrence. It died for two reasons. First, some of its provisions, including the intelligence cut, were covered in other bills. Second, Kerry's bill was not just about the intelligence budget; it was a 16-page document, titled "The Responsible Deficit Reduction Act of 1995," that called for a scattershot of specific cuts across the entire federal budget. (The New York Times today, reporting on Bush's attack, states that Kerry's bill "also proposed cuts in military spending." The story neglects to mention that it proposed just as many cuts in non-military spending.)

Before George W. Bush's political operatives started pounding on John Kerry for voting against certain weapons systems during his years in the Senate, they should have taken a look at this quotation:

After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office.

The speaker was President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992.

They should also have looked up some testimony by Dick Cheney, the first President Bush's secretary of defense (and now vice president), three days later, boasting of similar slashings before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

"Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend."

Cheney proceeded to lay into the then-Democratically controlled Congress for refusing to cut more weapons systems.

"Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them."

The Republican operatives might also have noticed Gen. Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same hearings, testifying about plans to cut Army divisions by one-third, Navy aircraft carriers by one-fifth, and active armed forces by half a million men and women, to say noting of "major reductions" in fighter wings and strategic bombers.

Granted, these reductions were made in the wake of the Soviet Union's dissolution and the Cold War's demise. But that's just the point: Proposed cuts must be examined in context. A vote against a particular weapons system doesn't necessarily indicate indifference toward national defense.

...

In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank dishonesty.

...

At the same time, in 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile. (Interestingly, the F-18 and Trident II are among the weapons systems that the RNC claims Kerry opposed.)

Are there votes in Kerry's 20-year record as a senator that might look embarrassing in retrospect? Probably. But these are not the ones.

After John Kerry emerged as the likely Democratic nominee for president, the Republican National Committee (RNC) began criticizing his record on military spending. The campaign against Kerry's record escalated on February 22 when the RNC released a list of weapons systems that Kerry allegedly "voted against."

Republican spokespeople used this list to make sweeping claims about Kerry in the media: "I think the more that the president and the Republicans describe accurately-- they don't have to exaggerate at all; they just have to describe accurately and calmly-- what it means...to have voted against every major weapon system," Newt Gingrich declared on Fox's Hannity and Colmes (2/26/04), "I think if they stick to that and stick to the facts, Senator Kerry will react by saying that he's being smeared by his own record."

Partisan TV pundits like Sean Hannity quickly echoed these charges: "He's voting against every major weapons system we now use in our military," Hannity told his Fox News audience (3/1/04). Hannity's participation in the RNC's attack was perhaps to be expected, but he was not the only media figure to simply pass on the Republican allegations without examination. CNN anchor Judy Woodruff (2/25/04) framed the issue this way in an interview with Rep. Norm Dicks (D.-Wash.): "The Republicans list something like 13 different weapons systems that they say the record shows Senator Kerry voted against. The Patriot missile, the B-1 bomber, the Trident missile and on and on and on."

Embarrassingly, Dicks had to explain to Woodruff that most of the weapons "votes" weren't individual votes at all, but a single vote on the Pentagon's 1991 appropriations bill. Woodruff responded with surprise to this information: "Are you saying that all these weapons systems were part of one defense appropriations bill in 1991?"

...

Ironically, Cheney made the rounds on the cable channels on March 2, criticizing Kerry's record in terms parallel to the RNC's release. During an interview with Fox News Channel's Brit Hume, Cheney said: "What we're concerned about, what I'm concerned about, is his record in the United States Senate, where he clearly has over the years adopted a series of positions that indicate a desire to cut the defense budget, to cut the intelligence budget, to eliminate many major weapons programs."

Unfortunately, Hume failed to raise an important follow-up: Why was Cheney now criticizing Kerry for having essentially the same position Cheney advocated back in 1991?

The Bush/Cheney campaign plans to spend $133 million over the next several months in an effort to "redefine" Kerry (Sydney Morning Herald, 3/4/04). If this charge is an indication of the Republicans' approach, then the media would perform a valuable service if they took a keen interest in evaluating the accuracy of such campaign rhetoric.

And no, he's not too liberal.

Lots of us disagree and this National Journal's bipartisan study.


Kerry rated most liberal member of Senate

I actually woke up thinking about the current liberal/conservative positions this morning: Liberals want government to help us out financially -- at the expense of our tax money -- and to stay out of our personal lives; Conservatives want government to help out security-wise -- at the expense of our civil liberties -- and to regulate our personal morality.

So why is being a "liberal" so bad?  Seems like the conservatives are the ones who are the bad guys here when it comes to freedom. 

I need to get more sleep. 

Well your description of the positions is a little rough.  IMO conservatives believe in less government at all levels while maintaining the regulations needed to insure a level playing field in the commercial marketplace.    We have discussed this before.  Government is not the most efficient provider of goods and services, the private sector is.

They are making as many or MORE mistakes and now the exact “data” is classified so we will never know how bad they really are.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/020418c1.htm

This site keeps a running national projection for the election in 2004. It is shaping up to be very close like 2000.

link