Full Version: Kerry's voting record
Now that Senator Kerry is the presumptive Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, is an examination of his voting record in the US Senate an appropriate issue and concern for the American people? Kerry has spent nearly 20 years in the Senate, voted on thousands of bills and I'm sure made countless speeches and statements about a variety of issues. That's a long time, a whole lotta votes and one heckuva lot of talking, no question about that, but we're being told by some that none of that is important. It's only important what he's done lately and lately seems to mean different things to different people. Some have decided that the appropriate time frame for consideration of Kerry's record should begin on 9/11/2001 and what he's done since then. I don't happen to agree with that particular viewpoint, but anyone who does is more than welcome to come here and attempt to convince me of why it is the time frame we should use to gauge Kerry's fitness for the office of President. I have my own arguments as to why that shouldn't be the date, but I'll keep my powder dry for the moment. So the question for debate is..... (still need that drumroll icon thingy)
Is Senator John Kerry's 20 year record in the US Senate an appropriate subject for debate in considering his fitness for the Office of President of the United States? Why or why not?
Is Senator John Kerry's 20 year record in the US Senate an appropriate subject for debate in considering his fitness for the Office of President of the United States? Why or why not?
Senators record are absolutely in bounds, and I would actually like to see more debate like this. Unfortunately, a voting record of "yea's" and "nay's" is rarely a good indicator of how they may feel about the actual issue. Take those repubs that had to vote against the NRA bill recently because of unpalatable amendments to it? Would it be in bounds to say that repubs don't support gun rights? So the danger comes in mispresenting possibly thousands of votes.
But if all we debated were thier records over the years, I would be happy. And if all we talked about were thier records WHILE in office, over policy only, we wouldn't have so much fun on AD would we? LOL
But if all we debated were thier records over the years, I would be happy. And if all we talked about were thier records WHILE in office, over policy only, we wouldn't have so much fun on AD would we? LOL
Is Senator John Kerry's 20 year record in the US Senate an appropriate subject for debate in considering his fitness for the Office of President of the United States? Why or why not?
Yes it is fair game. He should be able to justify his reasoning for the stands he has taken in his political career. At the same time the Cold War and the War on Terror are two completely different conflicts. What good are Bombers against terrorist cells. Voting for a nuclear freeze is simply a sign of sanity.
Yes it is fair game. He should be able to justify his reasoning for the stands he has taken in his political career. At the same time the Cold War and the War on Terror are two completely different conflicts. What good are Bombers against terrorist cells. Voting for a nuclear freeze is simply a sign of sanity.
Of course those votes are all fair game. Just the same way that Bush's service in the National Guard, his performance at Harvard, his oil company that went bust, his sweetheart deal to own a portion of the Rangers, his performance in the Austin state house, his 2000 campaign promises, and his performance in the White House are all fair game.
However, if an ad solemnly intones "He voted to weaken our defense" and the context of the vote being mentioned is completely incorrect or exaggerated, well, I'm free to ignore that, right?
However, if an ad solemnly intones "He voted to weaken our defense" and the context of the vote being mentioned is completely incorrect or exaggerated, well, I'm free to ignore that, right?
QUOTE(amf @ Mar 5 2004, 07:45 AM)
Of course those votes are all fair game. Just the same way that Bush's service in the National Guard, his performance at Harvard, his oil company that went bust, his sweetheart deal to own a portion of the Rangers, his performance in the Austin state house, his 2000 campaign promises, and his performance in the White House are all fair game.
However, if an ad solemnly intones "He voted to weaken our defense" and the context of the vote being mentioned is completely incorrect or exaggerated, well, I'm free to ignore that, right?
However, if an ad solemnly intones "He voted to weaken our defense" and the context of the vote being mentioned is completely incorrect or exaggerated, well, I'm free to ignore that, right?
I'll try to move this back on topic and head off another Bush bashing fest.
Voting records are fair game. They reveal a lot about where we might be led, especially when there's such a wealth of info as in Kerry's case. They say so much about the candidate also. Actually thats why Senators have such a hard time in a presidential race, their voting record is there for all to see.
It will be of some interest to see how Kerry explains his record. He seems to cast his votes as a matter of political expediency rather than principle. I imagine this is why so many of his supporters want to take his record off the table. Not much chance of that happening.
I am in agreement with the majority of people here: of course Kerry's Senate record is allowable. He's a decorated war hero (went home six months early because he expolited a rule where you can leave early after enduring a third wound...but only one time did he ever miss duty because of the injury, and that one time only lasted two days). I am in no way trying to take anything away from Kerry's admirable service, I am simply stating that Bush isn't the only person whose military record is subject to debate. Kerry comes home and is an extremely vocal anti-war protestor. He votes to go in Iraq, not to give troops money. He signs NAFTA but isn't in favor of it. He campaigns in a construction jacket, but gets a $500 haricut. All of this is fair game for the Rove Machine to pick apart (URL=http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/19568.htm]Morris[/URL]).
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Mar 5 2004, 11:13 PM)
It will be of some interest to see how Kerry explains his record. He seems to cast his votes as a matter of political expediency rather than principle. I imagine this is why so many of his supporters want to take his record off the table. Not much chance of that happening.
I'd like to see the evidence of how some of the Senator's unpopular previous stands were for political gain. A Senator's record is CERTAINLY fair game for consideration, but it does open itself up to being redefined by opponents. I'm sure the GOP will release plenty of "explanations" that Kerry shouldn't be voted for because: he always does the popular thing, he did all these unpopular things, he's a slave to special interests, he spurned all these interest groups. I think the public needs to take characterization of a Senate voting record, with it's many complexities, with a grain of salt when coming from any place except the Senator's statements and actions at the time of the vote.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Mar 5 2004, 01:57 AM)
Is Senator John Kerry's 20 year record in the US Senate an appropriate subject for debate in considering his fitness for the Office of President of the United States? Why or why not?
QUOTE
Yes. It is definitely appropriate to critique John Kerry's 20 years in the Senate.
If Kerry believes he possess the skills, ability, acumen and talent to lead this nation for the next four years his record as a Senator is fair game and should be presented before the public for their review and scrutiny.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Mar 5 2004, 06:13 PM)
I'll try to move this back on topic and head off another Bush bashing fest.
Excellent impulse - thanks. Maybe next you can work on trying to keep too many threads from becoming Bush worship services.
Is Senator John Kerry's 20 year record in the US Senate an appropriate subject for debate in considering his fitness for the Office of President of the United States? Why or why not?
Absolutely. Looking at any candidate's record is appropriate - so long as that examination is not decontextualized (which is probably way too much to hope for). Times change, situations change, opinions and positions change. I expect (or, at least, hope) that the positions of most politicians whose careers span a couple of decades have evolved somewhat. America is very different now than it was in 1980. Many of my own opinions have changed radically in that time - and even more if we look back to 1970.
I have not yet examined John Kerry's record in detail, but I'm given to understand that some of his positions have changed over the course of twenty years - ***BUSH-BASHING ALERT***BUSH-BASHING ALERT***BUSH-BASHING ALERT*** - just as George W Bush has managed to reverse most of his positions over the course of three years. Looking at either is fair game - and I'm certain we'll be hearing much about both in the next two-hundred-odd days. But I would still argue that the credibility of a candidate in supporting their positions is of equal importance to what their positions have actually been at any given point in time - especially in assessing their current platform and their stated goals and intentions.
QUOTE
Actually thats why Senators have such a hard time in a presidential race, their voting record is there for all to see.
While the sitting president's record is not there for all to see?
Oh, I get it. The senatorial voting record is a matter of public record, whereas what goes on in the White House is shrouded in secrecy and misdirection.
Any which way you cut it, senators are at a disadvantage. This whole question of whether public records are fair game is silly. Of course they are because they are public records.
Then it comes down to how artfully can public records be twisted for political gain. Guess we'll see who has the edge on that, eh?
Sure, Kerrys record will be full of targets for his opponents but Bush has his own set of disadvantages as well. Voting records in Congress are always very easy to distort given that bills are usually so loaded with extras.
But Kerry isnt as likely to be blamed for any unpleasent current events that pop up in the next few months. Bush will though.
Bush has a number of low boiling potential scandals floating around him at the moment inluding a Grand Jury checking out the CIA identity leak (Airforce One records are being checked out now), Memogate in the Senate which may lead to charges for high profile GOP staffers, the 9/11 commission in a few months and any leaked findings of the WMD probe. If any scandals move up from the back burner, its bad for Bush, not Kerry.
The Senator and the President each seem to have a built in set of disadvantages.
But Kerry isnt as likely to be blamed for any unpleasent current events that pop up in the next few months. Bush will though.
Bush has a number of low boiling potential scandals floating around him at the moment inluding a Grand Jury checking out the CIA identity leak (Airforce One records are being checked out now), Memogate in the Senate which may lead to charges for high profile GOP staffers, the 9/11 commission in a few months and any leaked findings of the WMD probe. If any scandals move up from the back burner, its bad for Bush, not Kerry.
The Senator and the President each seem to have a built in set of disadvantages.
Just an example from my recent experience with Kerry.
Kerry voted for NAFTA
Kerry was quoted in my union newspaper saying how free trade is destroying good union jobs in America and replacing them with fast food positions.
Kerry was quoted in my brokers newsletter saying that Free Trade is imperative for the US to compete on a global level.
Now, the interesting thing about this is that he is right on both counts.
The problem I have is not with these statements (or those that see them as flip-flops). My problem is that he doesn't present his idea of a solution.
I have serious issues with Bush and his vote is definitely in question with me. The bouncing around of Kerry, failure to present any plans, and his campaigns tactics like suggesting the Republicans are questioning his war record when they question his Senatorial voting record on military issues are what will keep me form voting for him.
Maybe, I will be forced to vote for Bush. More likely I will vote for a third party candidate if one presents him/herself with similar stances as mine. Worst case will be a abstain from the presidential vote. That will be the first time in 18 years if I do. It might have been an easier choice for me if Edwards was the nominee.
Kerry voted for NAFTA
Kerry was quoted in my union newspaper saying how free trade is destroying good union jobs in America and replacing them with fast food positions.
Kerry was quoted in my brokers newsletter saying that Free Trade is imperative for the US to compete on a global level.
Now, the interesting thing about this is that he is right on both counts.
The problem I have is not with these statements (or those that see them as flip-flops). My problem is that he doesn't present his idea of a solution.
I have serious issues with Bush and his vote is definitely in question with me. The bouncing around of Kerry, failure to present any plans, and his campaigns tactics like suggesting the Republicans are questioning his war record when they question his Senatorial voting record on military issues are what will keep me form voting for him.
Maybe, I will be forced to vote for Bush. More likely I will vote for a third party candidate if one presents him/herself with similar stances as mine. Worst case will be a abstain from the presidential vote. That will be the first time in 18 years if I do. It might have been an easier choice for me if Edwards was the nominee.
Kerrys been saying he wants environmental and workers rights clauses placed into trade agreements.... Not very specific but...
QUOTE
Absolutely. Looking at any candidate's record is appropriate - so long as that examination is not decontextualized (which is probably way too much to hope for). Times change, situations change, opinions and positions change. I expect (or, at least, hope) that the positions of most politicians whose careers span a couple of decades have evolved somewhat.
Wait a minute. Didn't we have an entire Bush bashing thread where all of the loyal lefties jumped on the same Kool Aid truck and went on and on about how Bush lied?
Don't times and situations change between campaigns and three years later in office, and small, little events like 9-11?
Funny how there was no such spirited defense of GWB, no benefit of any doubt. But when it's JFK's turn, why, he just re-evaluated the situation, that's all.
And to imagine....some people claim that conservatives are hypocritical. Sheesh.
This link lays out a nice snippet of Kerry's voting record. Link
This is the way I look at it. John Kerry's voting record in the last 20 years is definitely fair ground. As some might say, only his voting record after 9/11 should be considered. Yet, if he is elected president, I believe this war on terrorism will not be his main focus like it is Bush's. Therefore, his voting prior to 9/11 has a great impact in the decisions he makes concerning the economy and domestic policies. As we have seen, his views have flip flopped back and forth. This proves that he is unpredictable in what stand he will take as president. In fact, a fluctuating president will cause much fear amongst Congress, maybe even the citizens. In the day and age we live in, the power's of the president have reached unprecedented highs. Clinton and yes, even Bush has abused their power as presidents and bypassed Congress when making important decisions. Therefore, in the best interest of our democracy and the evolution of the presidency, it is absolutely necessary to consider the voting record of a potential candidate. (It is these documents that prove the reliability and the strength of a good president...not his military background)
Yes, Kerry's voting record is fair game, and so are the reasons for his voting the way he did. I would hope that the context in which he voted against defense spending of its many sorts will be included to provide a more accurate picture of the man who is Dubya's opponent. It would be nice to know just how much "pork" was involved, and what other issues were riding on the passage of the bills, for we know that these bills are more often than not packed with provisions which may or may not pertain directly to defense.
For instance, how many nukes does it take to make this country secure? Sounds like a joke, doesn't it, until we realize that possession of nukes did not stop the events of 9/11 from occurring anyway, and that unused nuke silos still dot our country and, if we don't use them for something, will decay there. And yet George W. Bush continues to push and has succeeded in the area of increased production of nukes because we need them for our safety (he says).
For instance, how many nukes does it take to make this country secure? Sounds like a joke, doesn't it, until we realize that possession of nukes did not stop the events of 9/11 from occurring anyway, and that unused nuke silos still dot our country and, if we don't use them for something, will decay there. And yet George W. Bush continues to push and has succeeded in the area of increased production of nukes because we need them for our safety (he says).
QUOTE
and that unused nuke silos still dot our country and, if we don't use them for something, will decay there
Just a side note.
I saw a show (I believe on Discovery) last year called America's Castles I think. On the show the have multiple people who had purchased empty (obviously), no longer used missiles silos and made homes out of them.
Weird I know, but someone is doing something with them
QUOTE
QUOTE (Passion51 @ Mar 5 2004, 06:13 PM)
I'll try to move this back on topic and head off another Bush bashing fest.
I'll try to move this back on topic and head off another Bush bashing fest.
QUOTE
Excellent impulse - thanks. Maybe next you can work on trying to keep too many threads from becoming Bush worship services
Make a deal with you Wertz, when the Bush Worship Services outnumber the Bush Bashing Services....then the Bush supporters will stop and take a deep breath!
Now the question for debate posted by Republican/AD member
, Aquilla: Is Senator John Kerry's 20 year record in the US Senate an appropriate subject for debate in considering his fitness for the Office of President of the United States? Why or why not?
Yes Kerry's voting record is important and no doubt will be an important campaign issue. I don't think he will be unduly praised or attacked for the way he voted on issues....any more than any other opponent running for president...that is.
You can't really hold a person's feet to the fire for the way he voted on issues 20 years ago, as events change the political scene. However, the past 12 years should be fair game-the Clinton/Bush years.
Edited to add the article below:
Kerry's Shifts: Nuanced Ideas Or Flip-Flops?
From The New York Times
By David M. Halbfinger
March 6, 2004
QUOTE
When Senator John Kerry was speaking to Jewish leaders a few days ago, he said Israel's construction of a barrier between it and Palestinian territories was a legitimate act of self-defense. But in October, he told an Arab-American group that it was "provocative and counterproductive" and a "barrier to peace."
On Feb. 5, Mr. Kerry reacted to Massachusetts' highest court's decision legalizing same-sex marriages by saying, "I personally believe the court is dead wrong." But when asked on Feb. 24 why he believed the decision was not correct, he shot back, "I didn't say it wasn't."
Throughout his campaign, Mr. Kerry has shown a knack for espousing both sides of divisive issues. Earlier in the race he struggled to square his vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq with his loud criticism of the war and his eventual vote against $87 billion for military operations and reconstruction.
Now with the general-election campaign under way, President Bush and Republicans are already attacking Mr. Kerry for precisely this characteristic. In California this week, the president said Mr. Kerry had "been in Washington long enough to take both sides on just about every issue." And on Friday the Republican National Committee e-mailed to reporters an Internet boxing game called "Kerry vs. Kerry" designed, the committee said, to highlight the senator's "multiple positions on multiple issues."
The e-mail included a list of Mr. Kerry's stances on 30 issues, including many of the examples that were researched in preparation for this article.
In fact, this trait, perhaps a natural one for a diplomat's son, seems to have been ingrained in Mr. Kerry's personality as far back as when he volunteered for duty in Vietnam after expressing doubts about the war as a college student — and then returned home and helped lead the opposition to the war. …
Sometimes, Mr. Kerry's stances seem to be well-thought political strategy. …
Other times he may tailor his stands to an audience or even run away from past positions. When Gen. Wesley K. Clark pointed to a 1992 remark by Mr. Kerry calling affirmative action "an inherently limited and divisive program," the senator denied he had ever said that.
Sometimes Mr. Kerry seems to embody contradictions. When he lost for Congress in 1972, went to law school and became a prosecutor, he stunned some of his colleagues in the antiwar movement who thought he shared their anti-authority sentiment, sharpened by Vietnam and Watergate. …
Mr. Kerry's explanations for a number of the recent stances Republicans are branding as flip-flops have a common thread. He voted for the Iraq resolution but criticizes the war because, he says, the president "broke his promises" to exhaust the diplomatic process and use force only as a last resort. He voted for the education legislation known as the No Child Left Behind law but lambastes President Bush now because, Mr. Kerry says, he withheld promised additional money for education.
And on Friday, he said he had criticized the Israeli wall before the Arab-American group in October because its path was then expected to deviate widely from Israel's border into West Bank villages — though he conceded he had not made the distinction clear at the time.
Mr. Kerry also voted for the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act, which he has since all but repudiated, telling Democratic audiences that the best thing Congress put into that law was a sunset clause that will make it expire next year, unless Congress renews it. He has likened the law's use against Americans to the repression of Afghans by the Taliban.
But he also says the law was necessary when it was passed, as a response to the Sept. 11 attacks. And as recently as last week, he went further, telling a group of newspaper editors and reporters, "Of course I support it," before adding that his objections were mainly to the way Attorney General John Ashcroft had been "abusing" it.
People who have worked closely with him in the Senate say that Mr. Kerry tends to split differences. A longtime friend and aide put it this way: "On some major issues there are yes-but votes and no-but votes. He sees a lot of them as yes-but."
A "yes-but" can also be revisited. Mr. Kerry's critics have cited his position on the death penalty as evidence that even his core convictions can be bent to his political ambition. He was a longtime opponent of capital punishment but came out in favor of an exception for terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks. …
On Feb. 5, Mr. Kerry reacted to Massachusetts' highest court's decision legalizing same-sex marriages by saying, "I personally believe the court is dead wrong." But when asked on Feb. 24 why he believed the decision was not correct, he shot back, "I didn't say it wasn't."
Throughout his campaign, Mr. Kerry has shown a knack for espousing both sides of divisive issues. Earlier in the race he struggled to square his vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq with his loud criticism of the war and his eventual vote against $87 billion for military operations and reconstruction.
Now with the general-election campaign under way, President Bush and Republicans are already attacking Mr. Kerry for precisely this characteristic. In California this week, the president said Mr. Kerry had "been in Washington long enough to take both sides on just about every issue." And on Friday the Republican National Committee e-mailed to reporters an Internet boxing game called "Kerry vs. Kerry" designed, the committee said, to highlight the senator's "multiple positions on multiple issues."
The e-mail included a list of Mr. Kerry's stances on 30 issues, including many of the examples that were researched in preparation for this article.
In fact, this trait, perhaps a natural one for a diplomat's son, seems to have been ingrained in Mr. Kerry's personality as far back as when he volunteered for duty in Vietnam after expressing doubts about the war as a college student — and then returned home and helped lead the opposition to the war. …
Sometimes, Mr. Kerry's stances seem to be well-thought political strategy. …
Other times he may tailor his stands to an audience or even run away from past positions. When Gen. Wesley K. Clark pointed to a 1992 remark by Mr. Kerry calling affirmative action "an inherently limited and divisive program," the senator denied he had ever said that.
Sometimes Mr. Kerry seems to embody contradictions. When he lost for Congress in 1972, went to law school and became a prosecutor, he stunned some of his colleagues in the antiwar movement who thought he shared their anti-authority sentiment, sharpened by Vietnam and Watergate. …
Mr. Kerry's explanations for a number of the recent stances Republicans are branding as flip-flops have a common thread. He voted for the Iraq resolution but criticizes the war because, he says, the president "broke his promises" to exhaust the diplomatic process and use force only as a last resort. He voted for the education legislation known as the No Child Left Behind law but lambastes President Bush now because, Mr. Kerry says, he withheld promised additional money for education.
And on Friday, he said he had criticized the Israeli wall before the Arab-American group in October because its path was then expected to deviate widely from Israel's border into West Bank villages — though he conceded he had not made the distinction clear at the time.
Mr. Kerry also voted for the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act, which he has since all but repudiated, telling Democratic audiences that the best thing Congress put into that law was a sunset clause that will make it expire next year, unless Congress renews it. He has likened the law's use against Americans to the repression of Afghans by the Taliban.
But he also says the law was necessary when it was passed, as a response to the Sept. 11 attacks. And as recently as last week, he went further, telling a group of newspaper editors and reporters, "Of course I support it," before adding that his objections were mainly to the way Attorney General John Ashcroft had been "abusing" it.
People who have worked closely with him in the Senate say that Mr. Kerry tends to split differences. A longtime friend and aide put it this way: "On some major issues there are yes-but votes and no-but votes. He sees a lot of them as yes-but."
A "yes-but" can also be revisited. Mr. Kerry's critics have cited his position on the death penalty as evidence that even his core convictions can be bent to his political ambition. He was a longtime opponent of capital punishment but came out in favor of an exception for terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks. …
For Entire Article Please Visit : http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/06/politics.../06KERR.html?hp
QUOTE(christopher @ Mar 5 2004, 06:40 AM)
Voting for a nuclear freeze is simply a sign of sanity.
Yeah, while John Kerry was "sane", Ronald Reagan was winning the Cold War and toppling the Soviets inspite of traitors like John Kerry, Ted "Chappaquidick" Kennedy and various others criminals(Frank Lautenburg, Tip O'Neil). Thank God Republicans were running the show when it really counted.
QUOTE(HeatherRob @ Mar 13 2004, 01:23 AM)
QUOTE(christopher @ Mar 5 2004, 06:40 AM)
Voting for a nuclear freeze is simply a sign of sanity.
Yeah, while John Kerry was "sane", Ronald Reagan was winning the Cold War and toppling the Soviets inspite of traitors like John Kerry, Ted "Chappaquidick" Kennedy and various others criminals(Frank Lautenburg, Tip O'Neil). Thank God Republicans were running the show when it really counted.
Calling someone a TRAITOR is a rather serious charge.
I am quite sure you have facts to back it up.
QUOTE
Yeah, while John Kerry was "sane", Ronald Reagan was winning the Cold War and toppling the Soviets inspite of traitors like John Kerry, Ted "Chappaquidick" Kennedy and various others criminals(Frank Lautenburg, Tip O'Neil). Thank God Republicans were running the show when it really counted. Heather Rob
QUOTE
Calling someone a TRAITOR is a rather serious charge. popeye47
Fellow Republican, Heather Rob...this is scary
, but I agree with popeye47's response to your name calling which is a crude substitute for argument.Regardless of the fact that President Bush has been called almost every despicable name in the book: traitor, deserter, AWOL, fabricator, crook, liar, miserable failure, incompetent, stupid, clueless, compared to Hitler and Saddam by the Democrats and Bush haters...two wrongs don't make it right. And more important, we don't want to lower ourselves to their level by attacking the messenger rather than the message.
One of the positive traits of President Bush that was omitted from the Kerry supporters' onslaught of verbal abuse is that our President is civil, tolerant, and acts in a Presidential manner (which Kerry has yet to learn or display) that won't permit him to be misguided into attacking the messenger instead of his message and record. Thus, although difficult at times, it is good to follow Bush's example rather than sound like the parrots or wind-up dolls of his opposition.
Kerry's voting record, Is it important?
You bet it is in addition to his almost daily declarations. As time and events unfold, some of Mr. Kerry's votes and words will come back to bite him in the royal backside.
QUOTE(Desert Resident @ Mar 14 2004, 02:25 PM)
Kerry's voting record, Is it important?
You bet it is in addition to his almost daily declarations. As time and events unfold, some of Mr. Kerry's votes and words will come back to bite him in the royal backside.
You bet it is in addition to his almost daily declarations. As time and events unfold, some of Mr. Kerry's votes and words will come back to bite him in the royal backside.
Of course Kerry's record is important. So is Bush's. And in the spirit of being civil, and only dealing with the message, instead of the attacking the messenger, let's talk about Bush's steadfast, solid leadership, shall we?
First Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he signs it into law.
Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
Bush is against extending the time limit for the 9/11 commission report; then he's for it.
Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.
Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs (on steel); then he's against them again.
Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
Bush says US embassy in Israel should be moved to Jerusalem; then he says it should stay in Tel-Aviv; then he says it should be in Jerusalem; then he says it should stay in Tel-Aviv....
Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage; then he is for changing the constitution.
Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden.
Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.
Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates; then he fails to fully fund NCLB.
Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea until they completely disarm. Then he says he will give them a non-agression statement if they simply "start to disarm". Can you say appeasement?
Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later, Bush announced he would not call for a vote.
Bush says he's against sending weapon inspectors into Iraq; then he's for it; then he's against it.
Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. After meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.
Bush was for CO2 limits during the campaign; after the election, he was against it.
Bush was against Arsenic limits in drinking water; then he was for them after he got called on it.
Bush was against any amnesty for illegal aliens. Now he's for it.
Seems that Kerry is not the only one who's positions change regularly. If we are to vote based on their record of flip-flops, it seems we'd have a pretty equal number of items to point to, on either side. Kerry's isn't the only backside that may get bitten.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @Mar 6 2004 @ 09:29 AM )
While the sitting president's record is not there for all to see?
I have to take issue with this...The Democrats have been attacking the Prez's record for months, if anything, Kerry is completely straying from defending his record.
CP
Editted to add: WOOHOOO!!!!! I got the time stamp to work on the quotes!
QUOTE
Seems that Kerry is not the only one who's positions change regularly. If we are to vote based on their record of flip-flops, it seems we'd have a pretty equal number of items to point to, on either side. Kerry's isn't the only backside that may get bitten. NiteGuy
NiteGuy, I appreciate the effort that went into your "litany" of Bush's supposed flip-flops. Although it is a bit off topic because we are suppose to be debating Kerry's Record, Is It Important?...below are nine links that will take you straight to the source about the President's Record and how much money has been spent and allocated for eight domestic programs. It is a bit mind boggling to say the least when you begin to add the billions and millions on just his domestic agenda.
Eight Links Provided below on President's Agenda/Spending
http://www.gop.com/GOPAgenda/
http://www.gop.com/GOPAgenda/AgendaPage.aspx?id=2 Economy
http://www.gop.com/GOPAgenda/AgendaPage.aspx?id=3 Education
http://www.gop.com/GOPAgenda/AgendaPage.aspx?id=8 Energy
http://www.gop.com/GOPAgenda/AgendaPage.aspx?id=1 Environment
http://www.gop.com/GOPAgenda/AgendaPage.aspx?id=4 Health Care
http://www.gop.com/GOPAgenda/AgendaPage.aspx?id=6 Homeland Security
http://www.gop.com/GOPAgenda/AgendaPage.aspx?id=5 National Security
http://www.gop.com/GOPAgenda/AgendaPage.aspx?id=7 Social Security
Kerry's Record, Is It Important?...
Yes, it is just as important as Bush's record and frequently the records have to be set straight.
QUOTE(Desert Resident @ Mar 14 2004, 07:21 PM)
NiteGuy, I appreciate the effort that went into your "litany" of Bush's supposed flip-flops.
"Litany" of supposed flip-flops? So much for not attacking the messenger, eh? All of these items are well documented, they are not mere assertions. In fact, I listed far fewer here than I could have, simply because I could not verify some of the charges made by some of the sites I found these on. So, no "supposed" to it. They are flip-flops.
QUOTE(Desert Resident @ Mar 14 2004, 07:21 PM)
below are nine links that will take you straight to the source about the President's Record and how much money has been spent and allocated for eight domestic programs. It is a bit mind boggling to say the least when you begin to add the billions and millions on just his domestic agenda.
I don't deny that many billions have been spent. I believe what my list showed, was that while Bush promises one thing, he frequently signs bills that provide far less than he previously promised. I believe it also shows that on many issues, what he says at one point, versus what he says or does later, seems to be no more or no less politically expedient than Kerry, and in a much shorter time span.
QUOTE(Desert Resident @ Mar 14 2004, 07:21 PM)
Yes, it is just as important as Bush's record and frequently the records have to be set straight.
Absolutely correct. As Wertz pointed out earlier, votes on issues and funding need to be taken into context. Not that that has ever stopped either side from distorting the other's record. And I have seen a lot of Kerry's votes (on military spending, for instance) taken completely out of context. If you'd like to give specific examples of Kerry's record you have problems with, perhaps I can help set the record straight.
QUOTE
DR
Fellow Republican, Heather Rob...this is scary , but I agree with popeye47's response to your name calling which is a crude substitute for argument...
Fellow Republican, Heather Rob...this is scary , but I agree with popeye47's response to your name calling which is a crude substitute for argument...
Although the term 'traitor', is a bit extreme, I'm sure was used to exaggerate Kerry's apparent lack of heart to his former prefession.
Kerry has voted time after time to freeze and against raising pay for soldiers.
Why is that imprtant, you might ask? There are NCO's with 10 years in the service who make about $22,000 a year. During the early 1990's, there were almost 20,000 soldiers on food stamps. Although now, the number has dropped, a Special Forces sergeant who now makes about $25,000 would not be able to support a family on the outside with that.
Kerry voted for the war in Iraq.
He then claims he was 'misled' into voting for the action, claiming he voted to 'get the inspectors in, period'. So he's either stupid or naive.
The Senate voted to hold Syria accountable for it's actions in Lebanon and on terrorism.
Kerry was soooo concerned with Bush's 'reckless foreign policy', that he didn't think it was necessary to show up to vote, period.
Kerry recently voted against another bill on defense spending that deprived money for soldiers again. And when I've heard of soldiers who were about to be deployed missing kevlar vests because the unit could not afford it, only to of have them provided by private citizens raising the money, that makes me wonder whether Kerry really cares about those who've answered the call of duty.
NiteGuy...nothing would give me greater pleasure than to reply to a majority of the litany of Bush's supposed flip-flops, but this is not the thread for it as this is about Kerry's record and not Bush's.
"
IMO, I am indeed attacking the message rather than verbally abusing your character (the messenger).
This is probably going beyond the scope of this thread, but I am more interested in what Kerry, if elected President, intends to do to cure ALL the wrongs on the domestic and foreign fronts (since nothing Bush has done is right) and where is he going to get the money needed to scrap Bush's agenda and start over with his? If he thinks raising the taxes on those making $200,000. and above is going to pay the bill for his "wave of the magic wand" then that is very interesting.
Now you know as well as I do that every President from the beginning of time has always asked for more rather than less. He signs the bills that Congress approves unless they haven't given it their all...and then he threatens to veto it. And don't give me that bunk about the Republican majority so every bill is a slam dunk because I can assure you President Carter will be the first to tell you that he had quite a struggle getting funds appropriated and bills passed when Democrats were the majority. And President Clinton would not have passed NAFTA and Welfare Reform without Republican votes.
Think I have pushed my off topic Q & A far enough. It would certainly be astute of Kerry if he would spend less time telling us what he thinks is wrong with Bush and his agenda and spend more time telling us what and how he intends to revamp our domestic and foreign agendas...and where is he going to get the money other than raising the taxes on the rich.
Kerry's Voting Record...Is It Important? Yes...but let's hear more about what he intends to do rather than what he already did that he now doesn't want to do.
"
QUOTE
Litany" of supposed flip-flops? So much for not attacking the messenger, eh?
IMO, I am indeed attacking the message rather than verbally abusing your character (the messenger).
QUOTE
If you'd like to give specific examples of Kerry's record you have problems with, perhaps I can help set the record straight.
This is probably going beyond the scope of this thread, but I am more interested in what Kerry, if elected President, intends to do to cure ALL the wrongs on the domestic and foreign fronts (since nothing Bush has done is right) and where is he going to get the money needed to scrap Bush's agenda and start over with his? If he thinks raising the taxes on those making $200,000. and above is going to pay the bill for his "wave of the magic wand" then that is very interesting.
QUOTE
Bush promises one thing, he frequently signs bills that provide far less than he previously promised.
Now you know as well as I do that every President from the beginning of time has always asked for more rather than less. He signs the bills that Congress approves unless they haven't given it their all...and then he threatens to veto it. And don't give me that bunk about the Republican majority so every bill is a slam dunk because I can assure you President Carter will be the first to tell you that he had quite a struggle getting funds appropriated and bills passed when Democrats were the majority. And President Clinton would not have passed NAFTA and Welfare Reform without Republican votes.
Think I have pushed my off topic Q & A far enough. It would certainly be astute of Kerry if he would spend less time telling us what he thinks is wrong with Bush and his agenda and spend more time telling us what and how he intends to revamp our domestic and foreign agendas...and where is he going to get the money other than raising the taxes on the rich.
Kerry's Voting Record...Is It Important? Yes...but let's hear more about what he intends to do rather than what he already did that he now doesn't want to do.
QUOTE(Desert Resident @ Mar 14 2004, 07:25 PM)
One of the positive traits of President Bush that was omitted from the Kerry supporters' onslaught of verbal abuse is that our President is civil, tolerant, and acts in a Presidential manner (which Kerry has yet to learn or display) that won't permit him to be misguided into attacking the messenger instead of his message and record.
My how quickly we forget. So when Bush was caught shelling out explicatives at a reporter during this first campaign you consider this presidential and not attacking the messenger? Oh that's right the target was from the liberal media, all's fair there. Could this be more holier than thou double standard from the right, that's so unusual.
QUOTE
Yeah, while John Kerry was "sane", Ronald Reagan was winning the Cold War and toppling the Soviets in spite of traitors like John Kerry, Ted "Chappaquidick" Kennedy and various others criminals
Oh yes, that marvelous administration that did an end around on the constitution with the Iran/Contra affair and suddenly 'couldn't recall' anything. Please.
As with any elected official their voting record is fair game any time. The key as many have pointed out is the context in which it's addressed. Sadly, too often politicians vote one way on a issue to strike a bargain with their counterparts for a vote on another issue and we never get the complete picture.
Yesterday I about wrapped my 2 iron (can't hit it anyway) around a member of my foursome after the umpth-teen time I heard "A vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism". That's the hyperbole that should be avoided.
QUOTE
Bush was caught shelling out explicatives at a reporter during this first campaign you consider this presidential and not attacking the messenger by Fife and Drum
As we have discussed before...it was intended as a private remark before the actual event began and without the knowledge the mike had been turned on for testing. Although calling a journalist (not Clinton) an AH was not in the best of taste, it is a far reach from a nominee running for President to call a sitting President's party and representatives "liars and crooks" and, as a Kerry representative admitted, with full knowledge the mike was still on. When Kerry was asked to apologize, he refused because in his words, "It was the truth."
QUOTE
Yeah, while John Kerry was "sane", Ronald Reagan was winning the Cold War and toppling the Soviets in spite of traitors like John Kerry, Ted "Chappaquidick" Kennedy and various others criminals by HeatherRob
This was not my expression of sentiments and while I am at it! Although I sent Heather Rob a private email with an explanation of why I came down on him about the above remarks and an apology for crossing the line in doing so...I want to publicly offer my regrets and apologies. If given more thought and time, I could have made the same point without it being at his personal expense. I AM SORRY, Heather Rob.
QUOTE
Yesterday I about wrapped my 2 iron (can't hit it anyway) around a member of my foursome after the umpth-teen time I heard "A vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism". That's the hyperbole that should be avoided. by Fife and Drum
How well I (and everyone that cares) can relate to your anger.
It is an Election Year of course and the rhetoric always heats up on both sides of the aisle-with this year being no exception! Just as you are angered about Kerry being called a "traitor" so are we Republicans about the character assassination of President Bush since the beginning of the Democratic campaign more than a year ago. You are right...character assassination is unwarranted and uncalled-for. And if it makes you feel any better...I have always liked and respected John F. Kerry, but I don't like and respect his (or his party's) methods and choice of labels in their attempts to win an election. So what else is new? This too shall pass as the tried and true saying goes. Now on to Kerry's Voting Record......
QUOTE(Desert Resident @ Mar 15 2004, 05:55 PM)
As we have discussed before...it was intended as a private remark before the actual event began and without the knowledge the mike had been turned on for testing.
I see the difference now, because he didn’t intend for anyone else to hear it’s ok. I really don’t care if Bush got caught using this language while personally attacking a reporter. I really care that some defend this attack as OK because it wasn’t intended for anyone to hear. Sorry, but a personal attack is a personal attack in my book.
Since this is a topic on Kerry’s record, then can you show me where he’s voted for terrorism?
I’m not saying you are but that’s the point I was trying to make. Several of the right wing analysts have made the exact same comment (A vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism) and it’s simply not true. He never voted for terrorism (I didn’t realize congress even had this vote) but some how they’ve drawn this false conclusion.
Analyzing Kerry’s record, or any other sitting candidate, just be careful connecting the dots and drawing assumptions. That’s the rhetoric that needs to be avoided and I hope both side try to keep it clean.
By the way, seldom do I ever get mad and I would never let my anger get to the point of violence. I wouldn’t wrap my 2 iron around my friend’s neck, his wallet’s bigger than his golf game and I can always use the extra income!
But as witnessed in your own apology, the election process can become very emotional and this one may top them all (still looking for a virtual Kevlar vest for the Mods). I for one am proud that we have citizenry who care enough to get emotional over an election, regardless of which side of the coin they support.
Cheers!
QUOTE
Since this is a topic on Kerry’s record, then can you show me where he’s voted for terrorism?
I’m not saying you are but that’s the point I was trying to make. Several of the right wing analysts have made the exact same comment (A vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism) and it’s simply not true. He never voted for terrorism (I didn’t realize congress even had this vote) but some how they’ve drawn this false conclusion.
I’m not saying you are but that’s the point I was trying to make. Several of the right wing analysts have made the exact same comment (A vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism) and it’s simply not true. He never voted for terrorism (I didn’t realize congress even had this vote) but some how they’ve drawn this false conclusion.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...on=1&vote=00445
H.R. 1828 (Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 )
A bill to halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil and illegal shipments of weapons and other military items to Iraq, and by so doing hold Syria accountable for the serious international security problems it has caused in the Middle East, and for other purposes.
This is a vote that Kerry never showed up for. So although he never voted yay or nay on this bill, I believe his apathy speeks volumes.
QUOTE(Titus @ Mar 15 2004, 04:16 PM)
This is a vote that Kerry never showed up for. So although he never voted yay or nay on this bill, I believe his apathy speeks volumes.
Ok, so he didn't show up (along with 6 others, including the hawkish Bob Graham). Now, let's put this into context: has there been any REAL application of this law to date that has directly affected our security or somehow reduced terrorism? Or was this just another exercise in Congressional time-wasting?
Here is a prime example of why Kerry's voting record is important.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/15/main/index.html
Although the focus was on firefighters and other first response units, this quote stuck out.
"Time and again, George Bush has failed to give those fighting the war on terror -- whether they're overseas or over here -- the weapons, equipment and support they need."
So he's implying that GWB has failed to give both soldiers at the front and those fighting the war domestically the resources to fight the war on terror.
HR 1689
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004
In this bill millions of dollars are provided for military personell. Money gravely needed. Here's an example of those being affected by Kerry's vote.
http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1855
So we have an entire platoon without the protection they need because their unit wasn't considered high priority for the armor they needed. Why is the Army prioritizing? Cause they only have x amount of dollars to spend.
But, hark, who comes to save the day?
The common man.
http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1863
So all this chest thumping Kerry does about how badly this administration is treating our soldiers is a bunch of crap. I remember two pay raises in FY 2002 when I was at Ft. Huachuca. What was Kerry doing? Voting against them.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/15/main/index.html
Although the focus was on firefighters and other first response units, this quote stuck out.
"Time and again, George Bush has failed to give those fighting the war on terror -- whether they're overseas or over here -- the weapons, equipment and support they need."
So he's implying that GWB has failed to give both soldiers at the front and those fighting the war domestically the resources to fight the war on terror.
HR 1689
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004
In this bill millions of dollars are provided for military personell. Money gravely needed. Here's an example of those being affected by Kerry's vote.
http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1855
So we have an entire platoon without the protection they need because their unit wasn't considered high priority for the armor they needed. Why is the Army prioritizing? Cause they only have x amount of dollars to spend.
But, hark, who comes to save the day?
The common man.
http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1863
So all this chest thumping Kerry does about how badly this administration is treating our soldiers is a bunch of crap. I remember two pay raises in FY 2002 when I was at Ft. Huachuca. What was Kerry doing? Voting against them.
QUOTE(Titus @ Mar 15 2004, 05:57 PM)
So he's implying that GWB has failed to give both soldiers at the front and those fighting the war domestically the resources to fight the war on terror.
HR 1689
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004
In this bill millions of dollars are provided for military personell. Money gravely needed. Here's an example of those being affected by Kerry's vote.
http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1855
So we have an entire platoon without the protection they need because their unit wasn't considered high priority for the armor they needed. Why is the Army prioritizing? Cause they only have x amount of dollars to spend.
HR 1689
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004
In this bill millions of dollars are provided for military personell. Money gravely needed. Here's an example of those being affected by Kerry's vote.
http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1855
So we have an entire platoon without the protection they need because their unit wasn't considered high priority for the armor they needed. Why is the Army prioritizing? Cause they only have x amount of dollars to spend.
You're ok, though, that billions are being spent on Iraqi reconstruction while the soldiers don't get those billions for additional armor? Hello?? Note that it's called a "Reconstruction Act", not a "Arm Our Military Act". Do I want Congresspeople to spend billions in ways that aren't clear on Iraqi reconstruction or would I rather they spend that money outfitting our troops? Why did the votes for them have to be combined into one bill?
Context. It's all about context.
It is about context. And I love how you left out the word 'Security' in Security and Reconstruction act. How can our troops rebuild and secure Iraq and Afghanistan if they don't have the protection to withstand the bullets flyin at them?
QUOTE(Titus @ Mar 15 2004, 09:16 PM)
This is a vote that Kerry never showed up for. So although he never voted yay or nay on this bill, I believe his apathy speeks volumes.
Wow.
By not voting he voted for terrorism. I hope the Bush camp has more than this or he’s certain to be a one termer like his daddy.
Your statements are completely misleading and it’s the exact rhetoric that I’ve posted against. So now we’ve sunk to the point where we’re drawing conclusions on issues he didn’t even vote on? I guess desperate times call for desperate measures.
We deserve better.
Amlord brought up an excellent point in the topic starter: Should one’s voting record be looked at differently post 9/11?
In matters of defense and national security I think the answer is yes.
I knew this was the reaction I would get. I am not saying that Kerry 'voted for terrorism'. But what does it say when almost all of your constituents show up and vote for a bill that overwhelmingly passes, and you don't bother to show?
This bill (and some would consider it a waste of time) at the very least shows that the US knows what Syria is doing is having a detrimental effect on the conflicts in the region, that it's support of terror is unacceptable and that they need to be held accountable for them.
So you can blow my statement out of proportion, but does that addage 'if you're not part of the solution...' apply to politicians as well?
This bill (and some would consider it a waste of time) at the very least shows that the US knows what Syria is doing is having a detrimental effect on the conflicts in the region, that it's support of terror is unacceptable and that they need to be held accountable for them.
So you can blow my statement out of proportion, but does that addage 'if you're not part of the solution...' apply to politicians as well?
Is Senator John Kerry's 20 year record in the US Senate an appropriate subject for debate in considering his fitness for the Office of President of the United States? Why or why not?
IMO, everything Kerry has done that might shed light on his future performance as president is fair game. We know what GWB will do as president, but Kerry is a blank. Taking him at his word while he is campaigning for the job is naive at best. It is his record of votes and speeches that will give us the clues about future performance we need.
For example, Kerry is currently riling that GW is shorting troops on equipment and that as president he would insure troops are properly equipped. Yet, after voting to send American troops into harms way, he voted against the funding they needed to carry out the mission he helped send them on. In the same vote, he was against the funding needed by our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Do we believe the election rhetoric or the vote?
1SG
IMO, everything Kerry has done that might shed light on his future performance as president is fair game. We know what GWB will do as president, but Kerry is a blank. Taking him at his word while he is campaigning for the job is naive at best. It is his record of votes and speeches that will give us the clues about future performance we need.
For example, Kerry is currently riling that GW is shorting troops on equipment and that as president he would insure troops are properly equipped. Yet, after voting to send American troops into harms way, he voted against the funding they needed to carry out the mission he helped send them on. In the same vote, he was against the funding needed by our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Do we believe the election rhetoric or the vote?
1SG
Thanks for providing a perfect example of how a vote can be divorced from all context for the purpose of an attack. Unlike the older votes, this one is well within memory for anyone reading papers in the last year. Many politicians, Repub and Dem, suggested their vote on the reconstruction funds would be tied to certain provisions easily within the power of the Repub leadership- like splitting the votes between a bill for the troops and a different one for reconstruction, receiving a plan for what it would be spent on, involving international funding, making it a loan that oil revenue could pay for, etc.
Kerry suggested his vote would rely on receiving assurances from allies to pay for the reconstruction. Absolutely nothing suggests he would have refused to fund a bill on the troops alone. Not only taking a vote out of context but also spinning it's purpose isn't a "record", it is rhetoric itself. The implication from the vote is that Kerry'd probably lobby harder to involve our allies in funding Iraq reconstruction, perhaps by allowing critical nation's companies to participate in return for funds from their gov't.
Oh, and how does not leaving the campaign for votes on legislation destined to pass mean something dire? The Repubs scheduled a close, controversial vote on Super Tuesday and Kerry quit campaigning to vote on it (the recent gun bill). But he sits out a no-contest and this proves he doesn't care about the issue? If I'm a member of the House and I miss a vote on a resolution condemning Janet Jackson's breast because my wife's in labor, does this logic make me a pornographer?
It's no wonder not much of a President's platform gets enacted after election, despite the "honeymoon" period. We keep sending governors who's first battles with even relatively compliant Congresses turn out horribly. But we won't elect a Senator familiar with how things get done because the public ignores the complexities of voting on the average bill and buys into one-dimensional, revisionist spin implying insidious motives that don't remotely approach making sense.
Kerry suggested his vote would rely on receiving assurances from allies to pay for the reconstruction. Absolutely nothing suggests he would have refused to fund a bill on the troops alone. Not only taking a vote out of context but also spinning it's purpose isn't a "record", it is rhetoric itself. The implication from the vote is that Kerry'd probably lobby harder to involve our allies in funding Iraq reconstruction, perhaps by allowing critical nation's companies to participate in return for funds from their gov't.
Oh, and how does not leaving the campaign for votes on legislation destined to pass mean something dire? The Repubs scheduled a close, controversial vote on Super Tuesday and Kerry quit campaigning to vote on it (the recent gun bill). But he sits out a no-contest and this proves he doesn't care about the issue? If I'm a member of the House and I miss a vote on a resolution condemning Janet Jackson's breast because my wife's in labor, does this logic make me a pornographer?
It's no wonder not much of a President's platform gets enacted after election, despite the "honeymoon" period. We keep sending governors who's first battles with even relatively compliant Congresses turn out horribly. But we won't elect a Senator familiar with how things get done because the public ignores the complexities of voting on the average bill and buys into one-dimensional, revisionist spin implying insidious motives that don't remotely approach making sense.
pennDerek
So you feel it is alright for Kerry to vote against properly supplying and equiping our troops because he does not agree with the method of payment for Iraq reconstruction? The actuality is that the subjects were not split and the majority of the Congress of the United States did their duty for the greater good of the troops they sent into harm's way. Kerry did not.
Is it your contention that putting America trooper's lives on the line in order to perhaps get a few more Bucks is defensible??
1SG
So you feel it is alright for Kerry to vote against properly supplying and equiping our troops because he does not agree with the method of payment for Iraq reconstruction? The actuality is that the subjects were not split and the majority of the Congress of the United States did their duty for the greater good of the troops they sent into harm's way. Kerry did not.
Is it your contention that putting America trooper's lives on the line in order to perhaps get a few more Bucks is defensible??
1SG
QUOTE(pennDerek @ Mar 16 2004, 11:54 AM)
Thanks for providing a perfect example of how a vote can be divorced from all context for the purpose of an attack. Unlike the older votes, this one is well within memory for anyone reading papers in the last year. Many politicians, Repub and Dem, suggested their vote on the reconstruction funds would be tied to certain provisions easily within the power of the Repub leadership- like splitting the votes between a bill for the troops and a different one for reconstruction, receiving a plan for what it would be spent on, involving international funding, making it a loan that oil revenue could pay for, etc.
Kerry suggested his vote would rely on receiving assurances from allies to pay for the reconstruction. Absolutely nothing suggests he would have refused to fund a bill on the troops alone. Not only taking a vote out of context but also spinning it's purpose isn't a "record", it is rhetoric itself. The implication from the vote is that Kerry'd probably lobby harder to involve our allies in funding Iraq reconstruction, perhaps by allowing critical nation's companies to participate in return for funds from their gov't.
Kerry suggested his vote would rely on receiving assurances from allies to pay for the reconstruction. Absolutely nothing suggests he would have refused to fund a bill on the troops alone. Not only taking a vote out of context but also spinning it's purpose isn't a "record", it is rhetoric itself. The implication from the vote is that Kerry'd probably lobby harder to involve our allies in funding Iraq reconstruction, perhaps by allowing critical nation's companies to participate in return for funds from their gov't.
Did Kerry propose an alternative funding bill?
Lawmakers cannot be pigeon-holed easily, but here we can at least expect the quote unquote "opposition" to propose some alternative.
Kerry's stance on the entire Iraq issue is filled with inconsistencies and downright hypocrisy, in my opinion. That vote is simply one example.
Kerry's voting record is the most direct and compelling testimony to his stance on the issues. We should allow him to justify his voting record, of course. There is certainly alot that needs to be justified.
QUOTE(GDan204 @ Mar 16 2004, 06:45 PM)
Is it your contention that putting America trooper's lives on the line in order to perhaps get a few more Bucks is defensible??
1SG
I don't think anyone's life was put on the line by Kerry voting "no" on a vote everyone knew would pass. Had the vote count magically been off by that much, and Kerry's "No" became decisive, than likely critics of the bill as it was would have had some real leverage against the Administration.
Are you asserting that it is your honest belief that had the measure failed, instead of splitting or otherwise amending the bill, everyone in Congress and the Admin. would have just given up? This is the only scenario whereby Kerry's vote might have put "trooper's lives on the line". Congress would be criminally negligent in its Constitutional duties if they only voted for or against legislation passed from the Executive branch over to Congressional leaders. Senators have no negotiating power to improve legislation if they can't credibly pin their votes to certain changes. Pretending Kerry voted as he did because he thought it would deny troops needed funds requires a great deal of disbelief to be suspended, even absent the concerns voiced by many Congressional leaders about the bill's many imperfections.
QUOTE
PennDerek
Are you asserting that it is your honest belief that had the measure failed, instead of splitting or otherwise amending the bill, everyone in Congress and the Admin. would have just given up?
Are you asserting that it is your honest belief that had the measure failed, instead of splitting or otherwise amending the bill, everyone in Congress and the Admin. would have just given up?
This isn't about everyone in Congress. This is about one man's reason, one man's logic behind his vote. I wanna know what that logic was. The vote was 87-12 so obviously a lot of Dems voted for it. I just wanna know why Kerry is allowed to slam the president for isuues that Kerry is guilty of himself. And he can't say he was 'misled' into voting for this one. He's used his 'Get out of Responsibility Free' card already.
QUOTE
If I'm a member of the House and I miss a vote on a resolution condemning Janet Jackson's breast because my wife's in labor, does this logic make me a pornographer?
No, but if you rail on about how much Janet offended you and how much of a detriment to society it is, and then not bother to vote, it does make you a hypocrite.
Also, I would like to know what Kerry was doing that was so important. And it sure as hell was about his wife in labor.
QUOTE(Titus @ Mar 16 2004, 10:02 PM)
QUOTE
PennDerek
Are you asserting that it is your honest belief that had the measure failed, instead of splitting or otherwise amending the bill, everyone in Congress and the Admin. would have just given up?
Are you asserting that it is your honest belief that had the measure failed, instead of splitting or otherwise amending the bill, everyone in Congress and the Admin. would have just given up?
This isn't about everyone in Congress. This is about one man's reason, one man's logic behind his vote. I wanna know what that logic was. The vote was 87-12 so obviously a lot of Dems voted for it. I just wanna know why Kerry is allowed to slam the president for isuues that Kerry is guilty of himself.
Kerry's logic was that the President was failing to do enough to secure international funding for the reconstruction effort at a time when the U.S. was already running a large deficit. Kerry isn't "guilty" of failing to support the troops for trying and failing to get the Admin.'s reconstruction effort modified.
What everyone in Congress would have done had a majority voted Nay is relevant. GDan204 suggested that Kerry's vote put soldiers in danger. This is wrong twice over: the vote was not close, and if it was, the result would be another bill for funding the troops, perhaps separate from the reconstruction bill, perhaps not. There's no sane reason to believe that Kerry would have not voted for the funding if it was the "last chance" or separate from the flawed reconstruction language. The only real world consequence of Kerry's vote depending on more international funds was to apply an (unfortunately) insignificant amount of pressure on the Admin. to reapproach our allies for reconstruction.
Under the other, tortured interpretation, any candidate who votes "No" because they want to see a change in provision "B" of a bill and knows the portion "A" they agree with will pass anyway, must be seen as against "A". If I proposed a bill to A.) cut massive amounts of unquestionably wasteful spending and B.) pour the money into my Swiss bank account, would your "No" vote demanding the money instead be used for tax cuts, schools, etc, somehow mean you support wasteful spending? Kerry couldn't add an amendment or create a counter-proposal dealing with his specific beef- the President's lack of diplomatic effort to mitigate the cost- so pressure on "yea" or "nay" is all he had.
Titus:
QUOTE
QUOTE
If I'm a member of the House and I miss a vote on a resolution condemning Janet Jackson's breast because my wife's in labor, does this logic make me a pornographer?
No, but if you rail on about how much Janet offended you and how much of a detriment to society it is, and then not bother to vote, it does make you a hypocrite.
Also, I would like to know what Kerry was doing that was so important. And it sure as hell was about his wife in labor.
The vote wasn't close. Kerry's vote would only be symbolic, with no actual effect. If he made every lopsided vote for "symbolic" reasons, he'd only be campaigning on the weekends. Suspending events and wasting gas to fly back to DC for the sake of symbolism is kinda silly, and hypocrite is a strong word for being practical.He was in AZ for at least part of the day. If this disturbs you, please write the campaign and offer to defray the expense of flying Kerry back for every predetermined vote. He'll continue to pick up the tab on the close ones.
QUOTE(Titus @ Mar 16 2004, 10:02 PM)
Also, I would like to know what Kerry was doing that was so important. And it sure as hell was about his wife in labor.
I wasn't going to respond to this until I saw you make the same point in another thread.
I'm sure you've never had to take a sick day, miss work to assist a loved one who might be ill or in need of family council, go to the doctor, pick a child up early, or help a friend.
If you were with Kerry that day or know his exact where abouts then please fess up, other wise this is the most feeble point I've see made and reused on this board which only weakens a usually intelligent argument.
QUOTE(Titus @ Mar 16 2004, 10:02 PM)
This is about one man's reason, one man's logic behind his vote.
What have I missed, please show me where he voted on this issue? If you keep claiming he voted then I'll fire back the same questions. And you're bending spoons with Uri now? You can deduce from an abstained vote what he was thinking?
Dubya has a job for you in Iraq, he needs help finding WMD. Even if he had voted, are you that wired into his mind that you can tell what his logic and reason was behind his vote?
Since this was such an important piece of legislation in your mind and you're making such a point out of his phantom "vote", how has this worked so far?
pennDerek
"I don't think anyone's life was put on the line by Kerry voting "no" on a vote everyone knew would pass."
Except it is Kerry who now says troops do not have the funding needed to support their mission. It is Kerry who voted against giving them the funding. It's easy to say "everyone knew" in hindsight, but the fact remains that John Kerry voted against funding troops that he voted to send into harm's way.
What proposals did Kerry initiate to change this bill? What bills has he initiated since, to bring troop equipment up to the standards he is demanding? He is a Senator and can do that! Why hasn't he?? Is it because he is too busy running for president to help the troops he voted to sent into combat? Or is it that he is just blowing political rhetoric and doesn't care about our troops anymore then his vote shows.
1SG
"I don't think anyone's life was put on the line by Kerry voting "no" on a vote everyone knew would pass."
Except it is Kerry who now says troops do not have the funding needed to support their mission. It is Kerry who voted against giving them the funding. It's easy to say "everyone knew" in hindsight, but the fact remains that John Kerry voted against funding troops that he voted to send into harm's way.
What proposals did Kerry initiate to change this bill? What bills has he initiated since, to bring troop equipment up to the standards he is demanding? He is a Senator and can do that! Why hasn't he?? Is it because he is too busy running for president to help the troops he voted to sent into combat? Or is it that he is just blowing political rhetoric and doesn't care about our troops anymore then his vote shows.
1SG
pennDerek
"The vote wasn't close. Kerry's vote would only be symbolic..."
Did he make a speech on the Senate floor outlining his reason for voting against this bill? If not, then the symbolism he is holding before the nation is one of neglect for our troops in time of war.
"If he made every lopsided vote for "symbolic" reasons, he'd only be campaigning on the weekends. "
If he views his presidential bid as more important then the job he was elected to do, then maybe he should resign as a show of faith with the people who thought he would be representing them when they elected him. Maybe he ought to give back the money he's been wrongly paid for the sessions he has missed. Maybe he is showing us just how dependable he will be as president.
1SG
"The vote wasn't close. Kerry's vote would only be symbolic..."
Did he make a speech on the Senate floor outlining his reason for voting against this bill? If not, then the symbolism he is holding before the nation is one of neglect for our troops in time of war.
"If he made every lopsided vote for "symbolic" reasons, he'd only be campaigning on the weekends. "
If he views his presidential bid as more important then the job he was elected to do, then maybe he should resign as a show of faith with the people who thought he would be representing them when they elected him. Maybe he ought to give back the money he's been wrongly paid for the sessions he has missed. Maybe he is showing us just how dependable he will be as president.
1SG
QUOTE(GDan204 @ Mar 17 2004, 12:59 AM)
pennDerek
"I don't think anyone's life was put on the line by Kerry voting "no" on a vote everyone knew would pass."
Except it is Kerry who now says troops do not have the funding needed to support their mission. It is Kerry who voted against giving them the funding. It's easy to say "everyone knew" in hindsight, but the fact remains that John Kerry voted against funding troops that he voted to send into harm's way.
What proposals did Kerry initiate to change this bill? What bills has he initiated since, to bring troop equipment up to the standards he is demanding? He is a Senator and can do that! Why hasn't he?? Is it because he is too busy running for president to help the troops he voted to sent into combat? Or is it that he is just blowing political rhetoric and doesn't care about our troops anymore then his vote shows.
1SG
"I don't think anyone's life was put on the line by Kerry voting "no" on a vote everyone knew would pass."
Except it is Kerry who now says troops do not have the funding needed to support their mission. It is Kerry who voted against giving them the funding. It's easy to say "everyone knew" in hindsight, but the fact remains that John Kerry voted against funding troops that he voted to send into harm's way.
What proposals did Kerry initiate to change this bill? What bills has he initiated since, to bring troop equipment up to the standards he is demanding? He is a Senator and can do that! Why hasn't he?? Is it because he is too busy running for president to help the troops he voted to sent into combat? Or is it that he is just blowing political rhetoric and doesn't care about our troops anymore then his vote shows.
1SG
Running for President provides a much better platform for influencing the public debate than being one of many Senators. Case in point: we're discussing what he said right now. As party standardbearer, Kerry can have many Senators propose amendments or legislation for him while he's out on the trail- measures that the Republican controlled Senate will probably kill, especially during an election year. The buck stops with the President, who proposes a budget minority party members can only hope to influence- remember, this year's budget again did not include inevitable Iraq funding.
Try to avoid it as you may, but there is still NO reason to believe Kerry would have denied the portion of the $87 billion destined for the troops had the Republican leadership allowed the bill to be split. The portion for the troops could have passed much faster if Byrd's proposal to do so had been honored.
QUOTE
pennDerek
"The vote wasn't close. Kerry's vote would only be symbolic..."
Did he make a speech on the Senate floor outlining his reason for voting against this bill? If not, then the symbolism he is holding before the nation is one of neglect for our troops in time of war.
"If he made every lopsided vote for "symbolic" reasons, he'd only be campaigning on the weekends. "
If he views his presidential bid as more important then the job he was elected to do, then maybe he should resign as a show of faith with the people who thought he would be representing them when they elected him. Maybe he ought to give back the money he's been wrongly paid for the sessions he has missed. Maybe he is showing us just how dependable he will be as president.
1SG
"The vote wasn't close. Kerry's vote would only be symbolic..."
Did he make a speech on the Senate floor outlining his reason for voting against this bill? If not, then the symbolism he is holding before the nation is one of neglect for our troops in time of war.
"If he made every lopsided vote for "symbolic" reasons, he'd only be campaigning on the weekends. "
If he views his presidential bid as more important then the job he was elected to do, then maybe he should resign as a show of faith with the people who thought he would be representing them when they elected him. Maybe he ought to give back the money he's been wrongly paid for the sessions he has missed. Maybe he is showing us just how dependable he will be as president.
1SG
The vote i'm referring to was the Syria one he missed, brought up by Titus, not the Nay vote on the Iraqi Reconstruction. Please read the entire post before replying.
There's another thread, or at least was recently, on whether Kerry should resign. I somehow doubt Kerry's returning from the campaign trail on close votes but not on ones where his vote won't make a difference says much about anything but simple common sense. The majority of his constituents can punish him at the ballot box if they feel betrayed (somehow, I'm thinking he'll win Massachusetts). And suggesting he'll be lax in his duties as President because he's "distracted" by running for President throws a spotlight on the man who's currently Pres and running for the same. I've dismissed fellow liberals' complaints about Bush favoring his campaign activities over his official position as the nature of office and the political season. I assume you think Bush should either stick to policy until November or resign to campaign? With the deficit, I suppose we could use the money saved if he didn't use gov't funds to make "official" visits to swing states to discuss his opponent's criticisms.
pennDerek
"Try to avoid it as you may, but there is still NO reason to believe Kerry would have denied the portion of the $87 billion destined for the troops had the Republican leadership allowed the bill to be split."
Had Kerry made a speech on the sanate floor to that effect prior to his vote, you would be absolutly correct. As he did not (as far as I can tell) then you do not know if he would have changed his vote or not. Based on the vote he did cast, a far better argument can be made that he would have voted against troop funding again.
1SG
"Try to avoid it as you may, but there is still NO reason to believe Kerry would have denied the portion of the $87 billion destined for the troops had the Republican leadership allowed the bill to be split."
Had Kerry made a speech on the sanate floor to that effect prior to his vote, you would be absolutly correct. As he did not (as far as I can tell) then you do not know if he would have changed his vote or not. Based on the vote he did cast, a far better argument can be made that he would have voted against troop funding again.
1SG
QUOTE(GDan204 @ Mar 17 2004, 02:06 AM)
pennDerek
"Try to avoid it as you may, but there is still NO reason to believe Kerry would have denied the portion of the $87 billion destined for the troops had the Republican leadership allowed the bill to be split."
Had Kerry made a speech on the sanate floor to that effect prior to his vote, you would be absolutly correct. As he did not (as far as I can tell) then you do not know if he would have changed his vote or not. Based on the vote he did cast, a far better argument can be made that he would have voted against troop funding again.
1SG
"Try to avoid it as you may, but there is still NO reason to believe Kerry would have denied the portion of the $87 billion destined for the troops had the Republican leadership allowed the bill to be split."
Had Kerry made a speech on the sanate floor to that effect prior to his vote, you would be absolutly correct. As he did not (as far as I can tell) then you do not know if he would have changed his vote or not. Based on the vote he did cast, a far better argument can be made that he would have voted against troop funding again.
1SG
QUOTE
Q: Will you vote yes or no on the president's request for $87 billion to continue the effort in Iraq?
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].
And if you don't get the answers that you're looking for?
KERRY: I would be prepared to vote no.
Source: Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate Sep 9, 2003
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].
And if you don't get the answers that you're looking for?
KERRY: I would be prepared to vote no.
Source: Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate Sep 9, 2003
-http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_War_+_Peace.htm
Kerry's reservations, stated before the vote, hinged on the reconstruction aspects of the bill. There'd be no motivation for him to oppose a separate bill funding the troops. NOTHING suggests he opposed the troop funding portion, his statements suggest otherwise. Assuming he would do the opposite of his stated intention, with no motive, isn't a "far better argument", it's pure campaign rhetoric.
The Republican leadership knew a troop funding bill would slide through Senate and that the Reconstruction portion was highly controversial. They kept them together for political, not policy, reasons.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.