I apologize, I meant one man's reason not to vote. You know, I don't expect Sen. Kerry to show up for every single vote. (i.e. motions to cloture, ...on the amendment) But when its the passage of a resolution or bill, you're damn right I expect him to show up for it.



As I said, I meant his reason for not voting. And I can't deduce what he's thinkin, but I can sure as hell wonder. I can form opinions. And it's my opinion that if one is going to criticize another's foreign policy, then one should contribute to making a better one. And by not showing up, I believe he's not willing to do so, and IMO should shut up if he's not gonna help the situation. Same with the bill that he voted against that would of provided money badly needed for troops, only to later criticize Bush for the same thing. I'm
not saying I know what he is thinkin, but until he comes forward with his explanations, that's the opinion I'm gonna have.

I apologize for the double post, but the idea hit me soon after I posted.

You know, I did a lil research, and found some intresting facts on Kerry's 'sick days'. An opening para from the link:

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200401220835.asp



33 votes. Good for you senator! Way to not let your job get in the way of whatever it was you were doing.





So according to your excuse for Kerry... Jesus, this guy has way too many personal issues with helping friends and councilling family to be a senator. He did to the doctor for his prostate surgery. He missed two votes for that so I'll give em those two. Lets see, and then picking up the kids...hmm. They're all capable, independent adults. So, lets see 119 votes on issues where GWB had a stance. Kerry showed up for... 33. If you ask me, Kerry has absolutly no room to talk.

Oh, but wait! There's soccer practice, the bridge tournament, the dry cleaning, and... oh yeah the groceries. So that leaves, what, 115 he missed? Think of some more excuse for John, Fife. I'm curious as to what you or the good senator will think of next?

Titus – thanks for the vote tally, never realize he missed so many GWB initiatives. What about non-GWB initiatives? Until Kerry threw his hat into the ring for President his voting record only mattered to his constituency in Mass, and they must be pleased or he wouldn’t get re-elected. They may even applaud his abstinence on GWB initiatives.

Terrorism has become one of the most serious issues in my life time. Now you’re taking a Presidential candidate and drawing conclusions about an abstained vote over a very serious and emotional issue. I just think while discussing the topic of terrorism and making assumptions we all need to tread lightly.

I grew up in a political family and during the summers I worked for the local government and most of the time I would car pool with my father. On our way home we would stop at the Federal building and if our Senator was in town I was fortunate enough to sit and listen to my father and Senator Ford discuss issues of the day and why he voted a particular way.

Unless you’re privy to that type of information then be careful drawing assumptions. I was amazed at the depth of analysis, the strategy and thought process that went into most votes, it’s really surprising. I remember well the conversations over the Panama Canal (and I’m sure I didn’t hear it all) which I thought was a huge mistake until I heard his reasoning.

I’ve always felt that congressmen should be required to write a brief or summary on their votes.

But looking at the Syrian vote he missed, I find it odd the ‘players’ that missed the vote as well: Kerry, Lieberman, and as pointed out Bob ‘Hawk’ Graham. Now, if I started to draw conclusions over why this group as a whole missed the vote I’d get run off the board. I also find it interesting that there were more Rep’s who voted Nay than Dem’s.

So according to your logic, I can now say those Rep’s who ACTUALLY voted against this bill are supporting terrorism. However, I personally would never make that claim because I don’t know their thought process: I’ll leave it up to their constituency.

pennDerek

"KERRY: I will do what we need to do to protect troops. But I am not going to vote for an open-ended $87 billion without questions answered about an adequate effort with respect to the international community [and other matters]."


"Kerry's reservations, stated before the vote, hinged on the reconstruction aspects of the bill."

I see nowhere were Kerry attempted to change this bill to one he could vote for. I see nowhere where he attempted to present a different bill that dealt only with money to pay for troops. I do see "But I am not going to vote for an open-ended $87 billion without questions answered about an adequate effort with respect to the international community" a United States Senator more interested in the international community then the wellfare of troops he voted to send to war.

IMO, Kerry looking to the future tried to have his cake and eat it too. He voted for sending troops so as not to look soft. Then using his feeble "Internationa Community" excuse to vote against it, trying to appear presidential to the anti-war faction of his party.

1SG

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/presid...tecting_troops/



Ok, John, I know you're a member of this fourm! Show yourself! You've been spyin on my posts, haven't you!

Well, according to the arctile above, he tried to get it the way he wanted, which I don't blame him for. What I am wondering is why he refused to compromise when most of his constituents did. I'm sure there are some things in that bill that he didn't like. And as someone in this thread pointed out, it's not like either the Dems or the GOP would have given up on this issue. But for everyday they debate where the money should come from, there are soldiers on or getting ready for the front lines without the best gear out there. I believe if Kerry played it the other way and voted for this bill, a lot of criticism would not be where it is now.

Body armor was already funded well before the appropriations bill. The problem was the supply chain at the Pentagon, not Congress. Here is an AP article from Oct 13 2003, explaining the situation.



That last line is interesting. Since the body armor was already funded, I don't fault Bush for not including it in the request. But it is certainly inappropriate for him to take out ads blaming Kerry for the problem.

I will agree that the U.S. Army is slow to push things through sometimes, but a lot of it can't be helped. (i.e. paperwork and other stuff)

But soldiers aren't just missing armor inserts.

http://www.komotv.com/stories/28230.htm



So as you can see, money for soldiers is still an issue. And Kerry presumably thought otherwise.

Now getting that money to the troops is the responsibility of the Pentagon. Now although the 'check is in the mail' excuse isn't a good one, it's better than having to explain why it isn't coming at all. I wonder if Kerry could explain to the soldier in the article why he voted against the bill.

Here is a speech that he made on the floor of the Senate about the bill. I think it makes his motives very clear.

He wanted to internationalize the operation, sharing the costs and the risks:


He was concerned about the $20 billion reconstruction part of the bill:


He wanted to pay for it by repealing the tax cuts:


It's a good speech.

Is the fact that soldiers are going without supplies Kerry's fault in any way? Definitely not. The appropriations bill passed and it was clearly going to pass all along. I have not heard any evidence that the Congressional debate was holding up checks in Iraq. Kerry and other Senators were expressing their disapproval about the way the war was being conducted and paid for, and I think he's entitled to do that.

Hey, I won't argue that he's not obligated to vote for it or not, or that he can not speak out agaisnt provisions in said bill. But the fact of the matter is he is slamming Bush for not providing for the troops when in fact 37 of Kerry's constituents voted for the bill.

And what about all the votes against increasing military pay? I don't imagine I'll be suffering all that much if the ones proctecting me and mine start getting paid what thery're worth.

What pay raises did Kerry vote against? This is what I found in a Washington Post article:



Also, here is Kerry's proposal to deal with the body armor problem from a CNN article:



His criticisms of Bush's support for troops are about the Pentagon supply chain and administration proposals. Here is a recent speech he gave.

I can see what you are saying about the $87 appropriations bill, because there were certainly parts of it that were good and were necessary. Really, I think it comes down to a question of when you should vote for something you half agree with and half disagree with. I think it is clear from Kerry's speeches on the floor of the Senate and the amendments he supported which pieces he liked and didn't like. Body armor for troops = good, $20 billion nebulous check for reconstruction = bad. In my opinion, the criteria should be:

1. How important are the good parts compared to the damage of the bad?
In this case, I think the good parts were very important, so this weighs in favor of voting for the bill. It seems like this was a deciding factor for many Democrats who voted for the bill despite having their amendments fail.

2. How likely is it that the good stuff won't happen because of your no vote?
This is why I find Kerry's vote reasonable. There was never a chance that the appropriations bill would not ultimately pass. Kerry's vote was a protest vote and clearly articulated as such in his speech on the floor of the Senate.

I believe that his record is indeed important. It takes courage to stand up for what's right in the face of those who oppose it. Without opining as to whether Kerry was voting according to my desires, I believe that his votes are a clear indication of how he will conduct himself as president. In fact, that more than anything else, is relevant. I could not care less if he's more eloquent than Bush, I could not care less if he can play the sax or knows the names of pop artists. None of those things affect the laws of this country nor do they feed my family. What I do care is does he say what he means and mean what he says. In order to answer that question one has to look at his record in congress and elsewhere.

And what is apparent after reviewing his record, is that Kerry seems to have no clear directive. He says things than does the opposite. He votes for things and then condemns others for their support in his speeches. His record indicates that he doesn't say what he means nor mean what he says.

I couldn't even respect a man like that much less trust him enough to vote him into office.

These. (Anyone who has more info on past similar legislation, feel free to add)

(from http://www.politicsus.com/presidential%20p...RNC/100903.htm)

Now I took out the votes on 'conference reports'. That brings this tally from 11 to 6.


S. 1087 (9-5-1995)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...on=1&vote=00397



H.R. 1530 (9-6-1995)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...on=1&vote=00399




S.1745 (7-10-1996)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...on=2&vote=00187



S. Con. Res. 18 (3-24-1993)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...on=1&vote=00072

S. Con. Res. 18 (3-24-1993)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...on=1&vote=00073

H.R. 1335 (4-1-1993)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...on=1&vote=00098

And, I'm sure more will show up.

Edited to modify the "( B )" so it doesn't look like

S. 1087 (9-5-1995)

H.R. 1530 (9-6-1995)

S.1745 (7-10-1996)

These are all DOD appropriations bills. Like the $87 billion Iraq bill, we're talking about huge pieces of legislation, and it is not apparent which piece of the bill Kerry was voting against. Since this is several years ago, I don't have good sources to look up the floor speeches at the time. As Fred Kaplan wrote in his Slate article debunking some of these, by the same logic you could say that Kerry voted to abolish the entire US armed forces. Except that would be less believable.

S. Con. Res. 18 (3-24-1993)

Hmm. Perhaps someone else can puzzle out what this one is about. I look at it and see an amendment to some kind of school construction bill. It isn't clear to me what the original bill is about. The amendment is about military pay. The vote is to table the amendment. All the Democrats vote to table, all the Republicans vote to not table. Looks like Senate procedural hockey.

S. Con. Res. 18 (3-24-1993)

Exact same original bill, again a vote on whether to table a Republican amendment. Again, the original bill is about some kind of school construction appropriations. Republicans introduce a second amendment about military pay. All the Democrats vote to table the amendment.

H.R. 1335 (4-1-1993)

This one is even fuzzier to me. There is an emergency appropriations bill. What the emergency is isn't clear to me. Then there is an amendment to the appropriations bill. The specific vote in question is a vote to table an amendment to the amendment.

I don't think Kerry's votes on tabling possibly unrelated amendments, or his votes against entire defense appropriations bills, show anything at all about his commitment to military pay.

We could ask Kerry about what exact pieces of each of these legislations he didn't like. You could comb through it and use the pieces he didn't like as his excuse for him 'protesting' with his vote of Nay on these bills. But when does anyone truly ever get what they want? Let's say that the latest approprations bill didn't pass, and a soldier asks Kerry why he voted Nay. "I didn't like -x- provision this bill had."
"That's great.", the soldier replies. "But while you folks debate what goes where, my comrades and I are lacking the optimum gear and are getting shot at, bleedin, and dyin for this country."



So because he didn't like the fact that the US is gonna wind up paying for most of the reconstruction, (and IMO, since we blew most of it up ourselves, we should fix most of it) he voted no. That's fine, but while he's debating who should help pay, soldiers are fighting and bleeding. And as you pointed out a lot of Dems weighed that decision and voted for it. Why couldn't Kerry?



If you navigate the site from the link I gave you could click on the bill number and after some razzle dazzle, you should see this:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c103:S.CON.RES.18:

S.CON.RES.18
Setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998. (Placed on Calendar in Senate)

I don't believe I saw anything about school construction. Show me where you found that. I will concede that I missed the second s. 18 link I posted. Strike that, revese it!

As for HR 1335, the link should show what the particular amendment was for, but as for the entire bill, something on the site is screwy, something about the dept. of labor. If you go with what the summary tells you though...

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll..._menu_103_1.htm
(Vote 98)

I would like to point out some other places where Kerry's voting record has got him in trouble.

I brought this one up, and I wish I had this link then. The Syria Accountability Act. Kerry did not show up for that vote. But three months later...



Wait a minute, that sounds like the exact type of legislation he never bothered to vote for.

Kerry on Intel:

http://www.talonnews.com/news/2004/februar...ntel_cuts.shtml

From rejected bills he proposed to one's that never made a floor vote, Kerry's past attempts to slash Intel funding have been thwarted and have drawn criticism from his colleagues.

http://www.liddyshow.us/kerry7.php



Kerry defended the proposed $1.5 Billion dollar cut as:

...part of a "budget-buster bill" to strip $90 billion from the budget and end 40 programs that he said were "pointless, wasteful, antiquated or just plain silly."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

Kerry on Iraq:

"Iraq Has Developed A Chemical Weapons Capability." "Today, we are confronted by a regional power, Iraq, which has attacked a weaker state, Kuwait. ... The crisis is even more threatening by virtue of the fact that Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program. And Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons of mass destruction in the past, whether in his war against Iran or against his own Kurdish population." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/2/90, p. S14330)

Kerry - October 2, 1990


"If we go to war in the next few days, it will not be because our immediate vital interests are so threatened and we have no other choice. It is not because of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons when, after all, Saddam Hussein had all those abilities or was working toward them for years..." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 1/12/91, p. S369)

Kerry - January 12, 1991

He then voted against the use of force in Iraq

"I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests."
- John Kerry on CNN's 'Crossfire', 1997
October 1990

Kerry voted for use of force in Iraq in 2002

"Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No...Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake."
(Undated: late 2003)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/12/20/15737/481

Then Kerry defends his vote:

"The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That's what I voted for."
(from same article as 'god damned right im angry' quote, late 2003)http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/12/20/15737/481

But he was previously quoted as saying:

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Kerry, October of 2002
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/...hn_f_kerry.html


"Name and Shame", Intel, and Iraq. These issues will also show why Kerry's voting record is important. Why? It'll be his downfall.

Strange, but General Wesley Clark declared the same thing and like Kerry, he never told us just how he was going to accomplish it. Evidently, it wasn't a hot button issue with the voters as Clark is just a remote memory in the campaign race for President.



Kerry's battle plan sounds familiar to me...like the Bush campaign "axis of evil" which won him the distinction among the Democrats as being arrogant not to mention protests from the actual "axis of evil" leaders. Nothing original or different from Bush's "name and shame" campaign, Mr. Kerry so why should I vote for you?

Well, Desert, maybe Kerry would "name and shame" people who - unlike say Saddam Hussein - were actually responsible for acts of international terror rather than launching an aggressive war with the pretense of punishing someone for having launched an aggressive war. Maybe he would go after those behind the September 11 attack, for example, rather than trying to settle old family scores and extend American hegemony.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

The rest of this was transferred from another thread in which the ridiculous charge that "Kerry has literally voted against every effective weapons system used in this and Gulf War I" was parrotted. DaytonRocker responded by pointing out that this was simply not true:

Exactly, DaytonRocker. Reading all of the (unattributed) Hannity quotes in that thread prompted me to actually do a bit of research. Hopefully more Americans will.

Among the things I found were this quote by Kerry, defending his 1991 vote:
Oh, wait a minute - that wasn't John Kerry, that was Poppy Bush in his 1992 State of the Union Address.

But Kerry did say "We will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend." Oh, no - that was Dick Cheney testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1992. But what about "With an end of the Cold War, there was an appropriate drawdown, a peace dividend." No... that was Donald Rumsfeld, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2001.

I guess we shouldn't trust a Bush, a Cheney, or a Rumsfeld with our defense. The point is that these votes need to be seen in context. We also need to see the Republican Slime Machine for what it is. Ninety-two percent of the votes to "cut defense programs and cut defense systems" they keep touting were in two bills from over a decade ago (at the same time a lot of other people - like President Bush and Secretary of Defense Cheney - were also advocating a reduction in defense spending).

As DaytonRocker pointed out, much of Kerry's opposition to the bill in which ten of the thirteen weapons systems were heartlessly threatened had to do with pork barrel politics and crony capitalism. If that's the issue here, Kerry should go up in everyone's esteem.

And, frankly, I'd agree with Bush the Greater - most of those programs and systems should have been voted down. Ronald Reagan's costly, dangerous, and terminally defective "Star Wars" program, for example (which the older, wiser Bush might well have described as "voodoo defense"), or the B-2 bomber, which was designed to deliver nuclear warheads to the Soviet Union. Granted the B-2 has been adapted to deliver "smart bombs" to the citizens of Iraq, but as one journalist put it, that's like using a stretch limo to drive grandma down the block to church. Oh - and these votes weren't "over thirty-two years" as Sen. Saxby Chambliss characterized them (with no one in the "liberal media" correcting him), they were over three years - at the end of the Cold War. Um, Saxby... Kerry has been in Congress for less than twenty years. Evidently you're no better at math than you are at honesty.

Of course, this sort of tactic is nothing new to a Bush Campaign. But maybe, this time, voters will start looking into the facts themselves rather than receiving distortions from a Sean Hannity or Saxby Chambliss. Bush's blindest supporters, will of course, gobble them up without question, but discerning minds will discover that:

• Kerry did introduce a "nuclear freeze" resolution in his first year in Congress
  
  
  
• Kerry did support banning nerve-gas weapons
  
  
  
• in 1995, Kerry proposed a Deficit Reduction Bill which would have reduced intelligence spending by $300 million for five years - and would have increased burden-sharing by South Korea in their defense, as well as proposing seventeen non-defense reductions like downsizing Overseas Broadcasting, reducing electrification and telephone subsidies, cutting agricultural research by 10%, terminating the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation, and limiting the number of days Senior Executive Service employees could accrue as annual leave
  
  
  
• in 1996, Kerry proposed transferring $6.5 billion from defense spending in order to hire an additional 100,000 police officers (the Safer Streets Act) - now described as another security cut
  
  

On the other hand:

• 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 opposed a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over five years
  
  
  
• in 1994, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier
  
  
  
• in 1996, Kerry opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget
  
  
  
• in 1999, he opposed a motion to terminate the Trident II missile
  
  

and

• since 1996, Kerry has voted for every regular Department of Defense appropriations bill
  
  
  
• since 1996, Kerry has voted for every Department of Defense authorization bill
  
  

With 20/20 hindsight, did Kerry propose some bills and/or amendments which may have been unwise? Sure. What member of Congress hasn't? From an interview with the Boston Globe last June:
If only a bit of this learning were apparent on both sides of the aisle...

Anyway, I'm grateful to Kerry's critics. Were it not for the sake of investigating their lies and distortions, I may not have looked into as much of Kerry's record as I have. If they keep it up, I may have to change my "lesser of two evils" position to one of "good vs. evil". Thanks, guys.

But appropriations bills don't work that way. Appropriations bills cover the following year. They never ultimately fail or the government agency in question shuts down the following year. Eventually legislators do come to some kind of compromise (sometimes with the threat of a looming shutdown over their heads). Pay to soldiers doesn't stop because of debates on appropriations. If soldiers lack optimum gear, it is because the supply chain has problems or because the purchasers have misplaced priorities or because the current budget (ie the one passed the previous year) is inadequate.



Thanks, this does make it more clear. It looks like S.Con.Res.18 is a concurrent resolution, which includes many smaller pieces that as a whole constitute the entire US gov budget. The specific piece being amended by these two votes is the school construction part. I went to the original page you gave. It has a line that reads: Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 233 to S.Con.Res. 18. I followed that link to S.Con.Res. 18 and this is the page I saw. Now I admit that the entire thing is very confusing, and perhaps the link is misplaced on the main page. But from what I can tell, this is Senate procedural hockey. Republicans are amending something about school construction to include military pay adjustments. Democrats are voting to table that amendment. Now I'm not saying that the Republicans are wrong to include that amendment or that Democrats are right to table it. All I'm saying is that you cannot infer anything about Kerry's commitment to military pay on the basis of this procedural game.



Apologize for using this quote from another thread, but I think it summarizes the second half of Titus' post. I do not think Kerry has been inconsistent at all about the war. It is absolutely clear from his statements that he thought Saddam Hussein was a threat who needed to be disarmed. No problem. That was wrong, but a lot of people felt that way. It certainly would be a bad idea to just assume he had no WMDs without checking.

But how did Kerry think Iraq should be disarmed? Through inspections. A very reasonable position, in my opinion, especially given that we were fighting a war against al'Qaeda at the time. He felt that threatening Saddam was a good way to get inspections. So he supported what he thought was Bush's bluff.

So your quote from October 2002, before the war, of Kerry saying that he is voting to give Bush the authority to use force is completely consistent. It is before the war. Kerry wants Bush's threat of force to be credible, so that Saddam will agree to severe inspections. He does not undermine that in public. Only after Bush has used the authorization to actually go to war, does he express dismay that the Bush administration wasn't willing to give inspections enough of a chance.

And when he says that he would ultimately support military action to disarm Iraq, that again is consistent. Had inspections failed, Kerry wanted Iraq disarmed anyway.

The attempt to simplify all of this into 'he was for, then against, then for' is not accurate. This is not a convoluted explanation trying to fit inconsistent positions together. Look at the quotes with Kerry's stated position in mind.

Safron Posted: Mar 20 2004, 08:26 PM

"But how did Kerry think Iraq should be disarmed? Through inspections. A very reasonable position, in my opinion, especially given that we were fighting a war against al'Qaeda at the time. He felt that threatening Saddam was a good way to get inspections. So he supported what he thought was Bush's bluff."

But there had already been twelve years of diplomacy with, on and off inspections. None of it worked. Intell sources were telling us that Saddam was growing as a threat to his area and thus to the world.
But Kerry says he thought Bush was bluffing? By the way where does he say that? If he did say that, then only him and Saddam felt that way.

As to Kerry voting against funding the troops he voted sent into combat because there is something else in the bill he did not like. He will now have to take the heat for that decision. Even his friend McCain says he must defend his votes.

So far, nothing I have read is a viable defense for turning your back on the young Americans you helped send to war.

1SG

"None of it worked." So... the lack of actual WMDs found indicates failure on the part of inspections and diplomacy, eh? Or was it just not as satisfying as dropping bombs on Iraq? And only some of the intel sources were claiming that Iraq had WMD; those intel sources who were being promoted by the Iraqi National Congress (check Here) which wanted Saddam out of power so that they could get control. The rest of the intel was weak or inconclusive or non-existent.

As for Bush bluffing: Bush claimed in late 2002 that he was only going to attack Iraq as a last resort, that he had "an open mind", etc. etc. But now it's revealed that since day 1, he wanted to get Saddam. Sure seemed like a bluff at the time, though. Sure seemed like we were going to give the inspectors time to find the weapons if any existed. And the inspectors had unfettered access in late 2002-early 2003. Bush lied and said they didn't, so off to war we go Hi Ho!

As to Kerry: your posting sounds like you've already decided. Doesn't matter what the circumstances were around the vote. He voted against, so he MUST hate our fine soldiers. Blah blah blah.

Recently in the Senate, Republicans voted en masse against a bill that would have given gun manufacturers a shield against any liability lawsuits. Does this mean that those Senate Republicans want to take away your guns or hate the gun manufacturers? Nope. Context is important. Several amendments got attached to -- amongst other things -- extend the assault weapons ban. Does this mean, then, that Republicans want the average person on the street to have an Uzi? Probably not (although many Republicans voted against this part). Again, it's all about context.

And looking deeper than some people are willing to do.

I'm sorry, but inspection was working. It is absolutely clear now that it was. Saddam had been disarmed, and was being deterred from making new weapons. At the time, intelligence appeared to be telling us that inspection wasn't working. That intelligence was wrong. The people who were telling us to give the inspectors more time showed good judgement, and the administration showed bad.



How is Kerry's vote on an appropriations bill turning his back on American troops? Did it show an intent to not pay soldiers? No, he spoke on the floor of the Senate about his intent. He tried to amend it to make it palatable. Did it have the result of not paying soldiers? No, the bill ultimately passed and was going to all along.

I feel like I'm repeating myself on the appropriations bill, so we'll have to agree to disagree. I just want to make sure that neutral people aren't caught up in the rhetoric of "Kerry hates our troops" and understand that the real issue is about whether you need to vote for an appropriations bill that has pieces you don't like.

Why is it that some on the other side of the aisle think our leaders and government can't chew gum, blow bubbles, walk and talk at the same time?


Wertz, you aren't telling us that you believe because Osama isn't six feet under or behind bars that nothing else is being accomplished on the hunt for terrorists front including al Qaeda? Wertz, that isn't a direct insult to the sitting President, but it is an insult to our armed forces, special forces, participating allied countries, various departments of our government, and the list goes on and on. Don't you people get it?....Bush is not the one climbing the mountains and crawling through the tunnels in search of Osama or al Qaeda! So, in your quest of insulting him and diminishing his efforts, your bashing is directly targeting those who are really on the hunt for terrorists and risking their lives in the process.!

I personally don't give a fig how Kerry voted from day one, so his flip-flop and no-show records aren't going to make me an avid or rabid Kerry fan. However, if the majority of Americans want him for President....hey, I will hang black balloons over my doorway for two years like I did with Clinton! And then, I will get on with it and he will be my President. And, I can guarantee you...no matter what happens or doesn't happen because of his actions or inactions....you will not hear me refer to Kerry in a disrespectful manner while I am either praising him or detesting him...it will be CIVIL!

[quote]Wertz
...since 1996, Kerry has voted for every regular Department of Defense appropriations bill...[/quote]

Well, Kerry missed the vote for the FY 04 DOD Appropriations bill. But yes, ever since 1996, he's voted for the bills indeed. We can only wonder what precipitated the sudden change.

[quote]Wertz
...in 1995, Kerry proposed a Deficit Reduction Bill which would have reduced intelligence spending by $300 million for five years - and would have increased burden-sharing by South Korea in their defense, as well as proposing seventeen non-defense reductions like downsizing Overseas Broadcasting, reducing electrification and telephone subsidies, cutting agricultural research by 10%, terminating the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation, and limiting the number of days Senior Executive Service employees could accrue as annual leave.[/quote]

Yeah, a proposal that had no co-sponsors and never made it to the floor. And the Intel cut wasn't $300 million over five years. It was $300 million, per year, over five years. That's $1.5 Billion. But I suppose Im using 'fuzzy math'.

And you forgot to mention another bill he proposed a year prior.

http://www.talonnews.com/news/2004/februar...ntel_cuts.shtml

[quote]The previous year, Kerry proposed a bill to slash $1 billion from the budgets of the National Foreign Intelligence Program and from Tactical Intelligence, and freezing their budgets. That bill was rejected.

The National Foreign Intelligence Program encompasses all programs, projects, and activities of the intelligence community. A major component of the program is the FBI's Nationwide Counter Terrorism Programs. The responsibilities of the FBI's field offices include foreign counterintelligence and counter terrorism within the United States.

The mission for special agents working in these programs is to detect and thwart the intelligence collection activities of foreign powers and their agents, and take aggressive measures to reduce the vulnerabilities of the United States to terrorism.
[/quote]

[quote]Wertz
...in 1996, Kerry proposed transferring $6.5 billion from defense spending in order to hire an additional 100,000 police officers (the Safer Streets Act) - now described as another security cut.[/quote]

Transferring? Well if it's just transferring, it's ok, isn't it? Well, seeing as how that proposed bill, again, had no co-sponsors and never made it to the floor, I guess the rest of the Senate didn't feel that way.

[quote]Wertz
Kerry did introduce a "nuclear freeze" resolution in his first year in Congress.[/quote]

Aww, so we should just forget about everything I and others have pointed out in his voting record.

[quote]Wertz
  Kerry did support banning nerve-gas weapons.[/quote]

That's great but the 1972 BTWC (Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention) was created in 1972, the U.S. Senate ratified it in '74, and President Ford ratified in in '75 so I imagine a lot of people were for banning them already. Big deal.

[quote]Wertz
...in 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget.[/quote]

So did 69 other senators. There were only 2 Republicans (one who is now an independent) and 23 Dems who voted for the cut. Seeing as how 31 of Kerry's Democrat colleagues voted with almost every single Republican against the cut, I wouldn't say he went out of his way.

[quote]Wertz
...in 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion.[/quote]

The amendment was regarding these two programs:

The National Foreign Intelligence Program
The Tactical Intelligence and related activities program.

Sound familiar?

"The previous year, Kerry proposed a bill to slash $1 billion from the budgets of the National Foreign Intelligence Program and from Tactical Intelligence, and freezing their budgets. That bill was rejected."

http://www.talonnews.com/news/2004/februar...ntel_cuts.shtml

[quote]Wertz
in 1994, he opposed a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over five years.[/quote]

I'll be honest, I can't find that motion on the senste.gov site, so I can't remark on that.

And as for his voting against a whopping six F-18s and a carrier, that still pales in comparison to the billions he's tried to gut from defense and intel.

But I love this rationalization.

[quote]With 20/20 hindsight, did Kerry propose some bills and/or amendments which may have been unwise? Sure. What member of Congress hasn't? From an interview with the Boston Globe last June:
QUOTE 
In retrospect, Kerry said some of his positions in those days were "ill-advised, and I think some of them are stupid in the context of the world we find ourselves in right now and the things that I've learned since then."

But he defended his opposition at the time to the MX missile, the "Star Wars" strategic defense initiative, and some other programs.

"Some of this stuff was ahead of its time. Some was not as well thought out as it might be," Kerry said of his campaign posture then. "I'm not ashamed of that..."

"I mean, you learn as you go in life," said Kerry. [/quote]

In other words, if a few of your friends say, jump off the Capitol building, it's ok if you do it too. And hey, life is a learning experience, I won't argue that. And I inagine being president is apart of that 'learning'.

[quote]...the presidency is not the place post 9/11 for on-the-job training.[/quote]
Sen. John Kerry on Chris Matthews 'Hardball'
October 20, 2003

He's right. One of the MANY reasons why IM NOT VOTING FOR HIM!

Ok, lets provide some context for these intelligence cuts. For the first cut, the 1994 cut, Kerry did have some co-sponsors. The intelligence reduction was part of a larger package of budget cuts, designed to reduce the deficit. There were domestic and defense items included. Here is one of Kerry's co-sponsors speaking from the floor:



But surely, cutting the intelligence budget was short-sighted! They really needed that money, didn't they? Well, not really.

Next year, the Washington Post reports that the National Reconnaissance Office(NRO), an intelligence agency :



Five days after this report, Kerry proposes the 1995 intelligence reduction cited by Titus, again as part of a larger deficit busting bill. The intelligence program Kerry was targetting was the NRO.

This is the proposal that Bush says is so irresponsible that Kerry didn't receive a single co-sponsor. That's not true. Kerry didn't have any co-sponsors, but not because his bill was irresponsible. It is because that very same day, Arlen Specter proposed a bill cutting about the same amount from the exact same intelligence program. Kerry joined that bill, and it passed on the floor of the Senate by a voice vote.

The Washington Post has an article addressing this, as does Slate.

There are many Kerry votes to discuss, not just his repeated votes against military appropreations.

A look at Kerry's votes on taxes, as opposed to his rhetoric is IMO,an eye opener.

--------------------------

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...27/221538.shtml

Kerry, of course, voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. He voted against eliminating the marriage penalty a dozen times. In 1993, he voted twice for President Clinton’s budget plan, which raised taxes by a history-making $240 billion. In 1998 Kerry voted against requiring a super-majority to raise taxes. He voted no to across-the- board spending cuts in 1999. He’s been greedily at the trough with the best of them, voting at least five times to raid the social security trust fund.

1989-90: Votes against considering a capitol gains tax cut.

1993-94: Votes against spending reductions -- an amendment to reduce budget spending by $94 billion. Votes for the largest tax increase in American history.

1995-96: Votes against balancing the budget -- a bipartisan plan to balance the books in seven years.

1997-98: Votes against approving a GOP budget to cut spending and taxes. Votes against a balanced-budget constitutional amendment.

1999-2000: Votes against reducing federal taxes by $792 billion over 10 years.

2001: Votes against the Bush tax cut -- a $1.35 trillion tax cut package to reduce income-tax rates, alleviate the “marriage penalty” and gradually repeal the estate tax. Votes to reduce Bush’s proposed tax cut ceiling by $448 billion over 10 years.
Then in April of 2002, Kerry doubles back on himself, calling for a tax cut even larger than the one passed in 2001, telling CNN’s Crossfire:

“It’s not a question of courage.... And it’s not an issue right now. We passed appropriately a tax cut as a stimulus, some $40 billion. Many of us thought it should have even maybe been a little bit larger this last year....

------------------------

How will Kerry explain voting against tax cuts , then saying the cuts should have been larger??

1SG

So in your mind, wanting to vote for cutting a bit more than $40 billion in taxes, but against a number 30 times larger is flip-flopping?? Can you see how your argument sounds silly?

And voting FOR tax cuts that have created a $500 billion deficit two years running is somehow laudable?? Again, can you see how your argument sounds silly to those of us who don't think economic policy starts and ends with the words "tax cut"?

People really need to stop listening to talk radio and start doing more research. Simplistic punch-lines don't solve the complicated problems we face.

GDan204:

Don't forget that in 1995 (2 years after the first WTC bombing), he voted to cut $80 million from the FBI’s budget and introducing a bill that would have reduced the overall intelligence budget by $1.5 billion by the year 2000.

Article

How hypocritical. He's yelling to crowds that the budget for the intelligence department is not enough or the intelligence community stinks and that Bush isn't spending enough on National Security issues, meanwhile, deep in the records of life, he voted to cut the FBI and CIA's budget by billions just 9 years earlier.

Oh wait...i can tell you why he must do all those flip flops....it's an election year and he's trying to grab the Big Chair.

I can't stand politicians.

How lacking in context.

And what was the FBI's budget at that time? Is $80 million just a rounding error?

And what was our "intelligence budget", whatever that was back then? Was that for cutting human intelligence, which is what we needed, or cutting those whiz-bang systems that Congresscritters load up the budget with?

The article fails to provide context. Tells me that it's got an axe to grind instead of a clear interest in informing the public.

As your attempted smear on my character was even more gratuitously off-topic than the comment to which I was originally responding, Desert Resident, I will try to relate this back to Kerry's voting record (while defending my position - and my reputation)...


If George W Bush can blow bubbles and talk at the same time, I am impressed. I wonder if Karl Rove can make his dummy sing while he's drinking a glass of water?


No, I am not. But that sure as hell didn't stop you from presuming that that's what I was telling you - and going on at great length in your attempt at character assassination.


If that is what I had been saying, you could make that argument. If you read my post, it is obvious that I was saying nothing of the kind. Thanks for the false, negative spin, though. You should look for work with Fox News - or the RNC.


No, it isn't - and I take great offense at the words you are trying to force into my mouth. It is underhanded and wrong. I have never failed to support the men and women who are putting their lives on the line on a daily basis for the security of our country. Never, Desert Resident - not for a single instant. The source of some of my outrage is that the Bush administration has failed to support them - egregiously. Don't you people get it?

I appreciate the fact that the actions of the Bush administration are indefensible and that you must, therefore, try to turn the argument into something which it is not, but let us look at the grim reality:

During the first eight months of his presidency, the Bush administration focussed on the ludicrous missile defense shield rather than on intelligence and real security. They ignored the Hart-Rudman report, the Clinton administration's systematic anti-terrorism effort, and Richard Clarke's counter-terrorism strategy. Had they pursued any one of these, the September 11 attack may well have been prevented altogether. This was at the expense of not only "our armed forces, special forces, [and] participating allied countries", but of every citizen in this country. After September 11, the Bush administration stopped chewing gum and started walking - by pursuing all of the above a tad late.

John Kerry, on the other hand, opposed the Reagan-era "Star Wars" nonsense and advocated the Clinton administration's counter-terrorism program, especially the Richard Clarke proposals which may have had bin Laden in captivity by the spring of 2001.


Since September 11, the Bush administration has got its priorities entirely wrong:

QUOTE

Nowhere has the importance of transforming America's military been on better display than in the war in Afghanistan. The effectiveness of our smartest, lightest, and stealthiest weapons systems has been proven on the battlefield as never before. Their success in real-time warfare set the stage for President Bush to offer a new defense budget that would force the military to shift spending priorities from Cold War preparedness to today's changed realities... Unfortunately, when it came time to write a new budget for 2003, the president missed his opportunity. The "transformation" promised by his administration is instead merely a new veneer on an existing military structure that is designed to fight a no-longer-existent enemy.

Though the budget request is $48 billion higher than the 2002 budget, the spending plan drafted by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld appears very similar to the one he inherited upon taking office. It fails to trade off old weapons and concepts for new capabilities...

The war on terrorism is expensive - more than $1 billion per month. But most of the proposed defense spending increase would not directly go to those missions. Instead, it would go toward advanced fighter aircraft, destroyers, and other weapons designed in the 1980s to fight advanced Soviet military capabilities. Neither the al Qaeda network nor any other terrorist organization nor any state sponsor of terrorism possesses such a force. Potential peer competitors, such as China, also lack these capabilities. Every dollar spent on these systems comes at the expense of alternatives that would make the United States more secure.

It also comes at the expense of "our armed forces, special forces, [and] participating allied countries". The Bush administration could be financing a modern force rather than wasting our resources on outdated business practices (70% percent of the defense budget is spent on overheads and infrastructure, for example, with only 30% going to direct funding of our combat forces in the field). They don't have to abandon the money-spinners of their corporate sponsors in the defense industry, but they could also focus on some useful programs. But, then, that would involve talking and chewing gum at the same time.

QUOTE

The Air Force, for example, remains committed to the F-22 Raptor, a short-range tactical fighter conceived in the 1980s to combat the threat of advanced Soviet planes. America's existing fighter fleet of F-15s and F-16s, and the development of the Joint Strike Fighter, already assure aerial supremacy over any conceivable enemy for the next generation. Instead of buying 295 Raptors at $214 million each, the Air Force should scale back the number built and fund unmanned reconnaissance drones such as the Predator and Global Hawk, long-range bombers, and the airlift and tanker aircraft that are in short supply. The current Bush plan proposes spending 12 times more on tactical aircraft than on unmanned ones.

So the Bush administration is failing to support "our armed forces, special forces, [and] participating allied countries" by funding the wrong equipment to fight a war on terror - and underfunding the weaponry they could actually use. Looks like they're still chewing gum on this one.

John Kerry, on the other hand, has been advocating the phasing out of such out-moded weaponry since the end of the Cold war and has advocated focussing on Pentagon waste and developing weapons systems and strategies which could actually assist our armed forces in such a war - such as electronics and advanced sensors and munitions.


In terms of intelligence, the Bush administration has done little more than seek to avoid blame, repeatedly stonewalling the 9/11 Commission and Congressional efforts to understand the intelligence mistakes that led up to the September 11 attack. The Bush Administration hasn't even completed the National Intelligence Review mandated at the beginning of their reign.

Going back to the first eight months of this administration, intelligence reports on planned attacks against the US - both national and international - were ignored by this administration. And we've seen the amount of respect with which intelligence has been treated by them in relation to Iraq.

Further, the astronomically costly new bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland Security, appears to have done little apart from coming up with a color chart and boosting the duct tape industry. The only security it seems to be affecting is our economic security as it digs our deficit deeper with every passing day. The Bush administration has also supported increases in intelligence spending which amount to little more than slush funds for defense contractors.

According to a report by Sen. Graham, Chairman of the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence during most of the 107th Congress:

QUOTE

The Bush administration's strategy is not so much a strategy as a list of objectives. What is lacking is clear guidance on how we can achieve these objectives. What is also lacking is a level of specificity that will allow all agencies in our government to work towards this common set of priorities and goals through the common strategy.

They're still chewing gum on this as well - and blowing a few bubbles for their friends - but, again, it is at the expense of "our armed forces, special forces, [and] participating allied countries".

John Kerry, on the other hand, has supported $200 billion in intelligence funding over the past seven years – a 50 percent increase since 1996. As long ago as 1993, he argued:

QUOTE

If intelligence is the valuable commodity that I contend it is in this very uncertain world, a world of new threats but from which the old nuclear threat has not completely faded, if it is the force multiplier that our military commanders say it is, than it ought to be amply funded. If it is tied to Defense with a continuation of the current policy of hiding the intelligence budget inside the Defense budget, then it is at risk of declining along with Defense. Absent new military threats, I believe we all agree that the Defense budget will continue to drop, perhaps steeply. A concurrent drop in the intelligence budget would not be appropriate.

He has - rightly - opposed funding bloated, wasteful agencies like the National Reconnaissance Office and favored streamlining an intelligence budget which was riddled with pet projects, pork barrel deals, and crony capitalism at its worst (and which is no longer appropriate to the intelligence tasks at hand), but seems to have a much clearer grasp on the need for supporting pertinent intelligence - as evidenced by the seven intelligence authorization bills which he has successfully supported since 1997.


Iraq is probably the Bush administration's greatest failure in terms of supporting all those "armed forces, special forces, [and] participating allied countries" of which you speak. This illegal invasion has made unwitting criminals of those armed forces, has drained vital funding, weaponry, manpower, and resources from the real war on terror, has done nothing to make America more secure, and has lead to an increase in terrorist recruiting.

Maybe the administration is capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time - but it is not capable of overextending our forces, their infrastructure, and their tools beyond what is available in the physical universe as we know it. The invasion of Iraq was a supreme disservice to "our armed forces, special forces, [and] participating allied countries" - especially those who are on the front lines in the real war on terror - which has nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam Hussein. It is an insult to those forces and allies - and to the American people, many of whom have been duped into supporting it.

John Kerry opposed that illegal invasion.


And what kind of respect has the Bush administration shown those forces which you presumably hold in such high regard? Again, let's look at the facts:

• the Bush administration is cutting off access to its health care system for 164,000 veterans; they are also is pushing a cut of $1.5 billion in military housing/medical facility funding
  
  
• the Bush administration is opposed to a proposal to give National Guard and Reserve members access to the Pentagon's health-insurance system, jeopardizing the plan's future, at a time when 20% of Guard members have no health insurance
  
  
• the Bush administration wants to roll back recent increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops in combat zones
  
  
• the Bush administration's 2004 budget proposes a 14% cut ($1.5 billion) in funds to military family housing and medical facilities
  
  
• under the Bush administration's tax cut, one million children living in military and veteran families are being denied child tax credit help; more than 260,000 of these children have parents on active military duty
  
  
• the Bush administration opposed increasing the death gratuity paid to the families of those who die in battle from $6,000 to $12,000
  

You don't consider that "an insult to our armed forces"?? No wonder you're supporting Bush! Yeah, his administration can chew gum - and they can blow bubbles. But their treatment of our fighting men and women just blows, period.

John Kerry, on the other hand, has opposed the reduction in military benefits and advocates providing mandatory funding of veterans health care, has called for providing mortgage insurance for National Guard and Reserve members to assure that when they are called to active duty won't lose their homes, favors pay increases and improved active duty housing, promotes more aggressive health screenings for troops, advocates increasing death benefits, supports restructuring the compensation provided to surviving families by mandating $250,000 non-taxable life insurance plans for all service members, wants to provide access to TRICARE for military reservists, and wants to ensure that veterans have the support they need to find the housing, jobs and social support they deserve - and help reduce the 30% of homeless people who are veterans.

And he wants to reduce the strain which the Bush administration has placed on our military by temporarily increasing active-duty Army troops by about 40,000 (20,000 in specialties as military police and civil affairs and another 20,000 in combat troops), funded entirely by a reduction in the budget for the wasteful missile defense system.


Finally - and this hardly needs reiterating at this stage - if we're going to have a wartime president one way or the other, I would much prefer a Commander-in-Chief who has more combat experience than frat party experience. It's what "our armed forces, special forces, [and] participating allied countries" deserve.

So: do I support our armed forces, special forces, [and] participating allied countries"? You bet your sweet patootie I do. That is why I cannot possibly support the Bush administration. And, frankly, I don't see how anyone of conscience can.



Well, I certainly hope that you have a higher opinion of John Kerry than I have of George W Bush, then. If someone wants my respect, they must earn it - having stolen a public office is simply not good enough. If someone - anyone - wants to be treated in a civil fashion by me, then they should not be destroying my country, threatening my freedom, shredding my Constitution, violating international law, and endangering the entire planet. To be CIVIL to such a one as that is a sin.

My "bashing" (as you choose to characterize rational, considered conclusions based on factual research) is not "directly targeting those who are really on the hunt for terrorists and risking their lives in the process". It is targeting those in the Bush adminisitration who are putting those lives at even greater risk - and who don't give a damn what happens to them when they come home. If they come home.

I really don't like having my opinions radically spun and taken out of context, with negative extrapolations imposed upon them, Desert Resident - but, I suppose, if one has no other weapons, such low tactics are as handy as any other act of desperation. But if you're going to extend the courtesy to John Kerry, why not try to keep your manner in relation to other contributors here respectful and CIVIL as well?

Oh, I almost forgot the "real American" seal of credibility! Here you go:

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

Titus: You don't like the fact that Kerry's proposed "military and intelligence cuts" were part of much larger deficit reduction bills, so you ignore it.

You don't like the fact that Kerry has supported every defense authorization and appropriations bill for nearly ten years, so you characterize that pattern as "a sudden change of mind" - and argue that he missed a single vote once.

You don't like the fact that Kerry voted to increase the size of our military capability, so you try to make six F-18s (which could cost over $100 billion) and an aircraft carrier (the CVN-76 Ronald Reagan cost $4.3 billion ten years ago) sound negligible.

You don't like the fact that Kerry's voting record on defense isn't at all as bad as you'd like to make out, so you say "Ah, but some of his votes didn't carry!" and "Ah, but some of his bills didn't make it out of committee!" (including most of those much-touted "cuts in defense spending").

Changing the argument when one doesn't like the facts is not a game I'm interested in playing.

Wertz: While I certainly appreciate some of your outrage about what DR said, I have to take issue with a couple of things.I have a family member who served in Vietnam, received a few Purple Hearts, and countless other medals, that said, he isn't fit to run the free world...Combat experience and being the President are almost unrelated.There are numerous reasons why I [a person with a conscience, who goes to Church every Sunday] am going to vote for George W. Bush...But I'm not going into that because that would be off topic. However, saying that no one with a conscience could vote for Bush is as annoying as being called un-American for having liberal views [both of which I do not think further the debate, nothing personal, just letting you know]

CP

While responding to this would be somewhat off-topic, let me just say that, when we are fighting two separate wars (both of which have striking similarities to Vietnam) on a couple of fronts - while clearly ignoring the needs of those in combat - I think such experience could make a difference. By the way, does your decorated family member (for whom I have nothing but respect), also happen to have twenty years' worth of experience in Congress - and an additional decade's worth of political activism?


To an extent, I was lampooning the needlessly divisive "real American" argument which has been put forward here. But I didn't say a person of conscience couldn't support Bush - I just said that I, personally, didn't see how they could.

I would welcome the arguments of those who claim to support our servicemen and women and our veterans, yet also support an administration which has been systematically decimating their benefits - in another thread...

Abosutely not! And that's why I think that Kerry and his campaigners need to focus more on his work in activism and the Senate instead of his war record. A lot of folks have gotten medals, only a few have done what he's done in the Senate.That's absolutely, 100% fine by me

CP

editted to add: The crowd gasps and the timid faint as Wertz and ConservPat have agreed on two issues in two consecutive posts.

Well, that's kinda what the rest of my posting was about.

All I ever wanted was to get Bush out of the White House and this country back on its feet. Who knew I'd have to spend hours of my free time researching the life and work of John Kerry in an effort to do so?



I think we agreed on something once before, didn't we? Maybe that was in Casual Conversation...

And that's why I think that Kerry's voting record should be if not the only, but the main issue here, as should be Bush's political record...All the rest of this personal garbage has no impact on one's ability to run the country, i guess that's kind of unrealistic though, politics aren't going to change...unless...ConservPat for President.
I disagree.

CP

editted because I forgot my flag

Once again, Wertz you cease to dazzle me with your rhetoric! I didn't read three-quarters of your post because it was off topic. Although tempting, I can't bite on your line of bait in response to your numerous accusations of character assassination whether it be by me or self-imposed.

Now to get back to the topic for debate:

=====================================================

Election 2004 -> Kerry's voting record

Ted Kennedy did a beautiful job on Meet The Press today defending Kerry's voting record. So good, that when Kerry comes down off the slopes, he should take a few lessons from the old pro.

Link to the actual raw transcript...read through it on other issues...Kennedy does become a little tongue-tied sometimes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4573986/