57 resolutions and bills defining 19years

[stubeeef]

Well here is a site that describes the 57 bills and resolutions by kerry in his 19 years in the senate.

here (http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/politics/kerry_bills.cfm)

There is an ok thing or two here and there, but where's tha meat?
And I'm not refering to the pork :rolleyes: .

If he has such strong feelings on issues like healthcare, social security, assault weapons,..........why no shot at affecting this issues? How'bout atleast a resolution or two for the record. Or did he spend 19yrs debating himself to uselessness.

kerry is too far left with no record to back the retoric (spelling?)

[blackfox]

Well Stu,

I am not sure why there are not more sponsored resolutions by Kerry on the issues you've mentioned...it could be a number of reasons ranging from the byzantine nature of Congress, to the make-up of said Congress over the past twenty years (rebs vs dems vs Administration(s)...). It could be Kerry's fault, or something else I have not thought to consider.

At the risk of beginning yet another partisan tit-for-tat, what has Bush accomplished in his Presidential tenure? Or alternatively, back in 2000, when Bush was running with only a scant few years of Texas Gubernatorial experience (Texas has the weakest governorship BTW), what had he accomplished to deserve the Presidency?

I lived in Texas under Bush, so I knew what we were getting with him as President. At the time, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, despite his lack of experience and past mistakes (as Governor and as a private businessman), and I was severely let-down (an understatement).

So I am again willing to give a guy a chance, as I know how Bush has performed as President. Kerry may be worse, but he may be better, but I know he will be different and God knows I am ready for that.

[stubeeef]

Well Stu,

I am not sure why there are not more sponsored resolutions by Kerry on the issues you've mentioned...it could be a number of reasons ranging from the byzantine nature of Congress, to the make-up of said Congress over the past twenty years (rebs vs dems vs Administration(s)...). It could be Kerry's fault, or something else I have not thought to consider.


Glad you were honest enough to say that, cause if kerry couldn't try and affect the process while in congress how will he get them alligned outside of it.

[wordmunger]

Glad you were honest enough to say that, cause if kerry couldn't try and affect the process while in congress how will he get them alligned outside of it.

Ummm... because he will be president?

Seriously, though. It's very hard for senators to get elected president because most of the real business in the Senate is not done in public (the last Senator elected into office was Kennedy). Even a "voting record" is a rather pointless thing to bring up because so often the bills involved entail so much compromise. A vote "against" a tax cut might be a vote for a larger tax cut. Or vice versa.

Governors usually have a much easier time of it: Carter, Reagan, and Clinton (and of course, GWB) were all governors. Governors can always point to their "accomplishments" running a state, and let's face it, in the natural cycle of business there are always some states that happen to be doing well, so their governors tend to get elected President.

[stubeeef]

Word man, fellow tarheel, I appreciate the education, wasn't aware it had been so long since a Sen had been elected Prez.

As far as effectiveness at affecting, lets contrast the bills proposed by our own 1st term Sen. Dole here (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/R?d108:FLD003:@1(sen+dole)) With medicare and other bills I think she at least is trying to make her case and doing so on the record, kerry really hasn't done near the work in 19yrs that Sen Dole has done in her first term.

[wordmunger]

As far as effectiveness at affecting, lets contrast the bills proposed by our own 1st term Sen. Dole here (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/R?d108:FLD003:@1(sen+dole)) With medicare and other bills I think she at least is trying to make her case and doing so on the record, kerry really hasn't done near the work in 19yrs that Sen Dole has done in her first term.

Well, for most of the time Kerry has been a senator, either the republicans have been in charge of the Senate or the White House or both, so it's been difficult for him to do much. Dole's been working in a government that effectively controls all three branches.

[stubeeef]

WORD man, so because the senate has been controlled for so long, kerry isn't allowed to propose a bill?

[wordmunger]

WORD man, so because the senate has been controlled for so long, kerry isn't allowed to propose a bill?\

I'm not exactly sure how the procedure works, but yes, if the Republicans control a committee, they're not going to let a bill they don't like get to the Senate floor. And if you do manage to get it to the floor, it's certainly not going to get passed. So you can sit there spinning your wheels, suggesting pie in the sky ideas that will never see the light of day, or you can do what you can to influence the bills that do make it to the floor. Not as press-friendly as sponsoring a bill, but still important.

[mischief]

WORD man, so because the senate has been controlled for so long, kerry isn't allowed to propose a bill?

I think it's more a matter of Mr. Kerry being subject to a kind of deep (ocasionally morose) introspection. He kind of reminds me of the character Hamlet from the play of the same name. No decision is made without a litany of questions about all the motives and ramifications. Even after the questions decisions seem to be made with varying enthusiasm based on what those questions revealed.


By contrast Mr. Bush reminds me of the dark character of Lord MacBeth. He drives forewards to a goal of uncertain outcome, ignoring any dark portents so long as he is King at the end.

Because I can't resist I'll add: Glenwood Forest will walk in Washington... sooner or later.

I think that the issue of a Reb dominated Congress over the last 20 yeasr has certainly effected the landscape of politics and the flavour of the Dem's decisions... some have gone to a far-left knee-jerk position, some have gone to "third" parties, some have taken to long bouts of questioning. With sixteen of the last 24 years pairing either a Republican Senate, Republican House, or Both with a Republican President is it any wonder that the Democrats who've been in the game a while are either pulling as hard a left turn as they can or choosing to question every last footnote in a given bill?


I think in looking at Voting records it's ESSENTIAL to include the text of the bills voted on. There are so many instances where x or y bill has so many unrelated add-ons or add-ons that neuter the bill's original thrust that simply listing the bill's original intent is incredibly misleading.

[stubeeef]

I wasn't aware that you can't propose a bill in a committe unless it is to get to the floor, and then there would be no record of it. I thought that you could propose a bill and it not get out of committee, but would be on the record that you proposed it.

I think this needs to be researched, I contend kerry has not done want he says needs to be done. In fact he has not tried, except to run for prez.

[mischief]

I think this needs to be researched, I contend kerry has not done want he says needs to be done. In fact he has not tried, except to run for prez.

I take issue with that statement. One does not spend so long in the Senate without doing at least enough active engagement to warrant continued re-election.

Not to mention, of course that given the situation he's likely done all that was possible: raise concerns wherever he could find them. It's important to note that Dems don't rally the same way Rebs do. Republicans are quite capable of getting into a bloc-vote on short notice with very little dissention and debate. Dems, by their nature do not. As a consequence they come across not as the "voice of reason" that they strive to be (and likely actualy are) but as a disorganized and often impotent group of not-so-like minded socialists.

I think that if the Dems ever got their **** together the Rebs would be in serious trouble. In the mean time we have to use a different metric when looking at how they politic. Rebs can be easily measured (most of the time) by voting records that reflect a somewhat uniform and dogmatic set of positions adopted early and negotiated in-party continually for purposes of bill-voting. Dems on the other hand are more individualistic and thoughtful in their decisions. They tend to stay more isolated in their voting and put more individual attention on the nuances of a bill. As a result they form a less coherent voting Bloc but often serve as a multifaceted form of conscience that the Senate would otherwise lack. Where Rebs use Conviction and Faith Dems tend to use Compassion and Reason. It all ballanced out until the Rebs got more homoginous.

[stubeeef]

Mischief, I appreciate your analogizes, but I'm not going into voting records yet, not that at all. I'm concerned with kerry's inability to even propose legislation or resolutions that would show what his cause really is. 19 years is a long time!

If he needs that much time for introspection, minutes would seem like hours, and hours would seem like days. To me it makes his argument shallow if not hollow.

Just my read on it, I realize, but YOU CAN PROPOSE, many very liberal congresswomen and congressmen do that, why not mr kerry?

Voting records are extremely deceptive, like you say, you must look deep into the ramifications and riders of a bill to understand the vote. BUT IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE DIRECTION OF THINGS, YOU ARE A US SENATOR, HAVE SENIORITY, GET OFF YOUR TAIL AND LEGISLATE !

[mischief]

Mischief, I appreciate your analogizes, but I'm not going into voting records yet, not that at all. I'm concerned with kerry's inability to even propose legislation or resolutions that would show what his cause really is. 19 years is a long time!

If he needs that much time for introspection, minutes would seem like hours, and hours would seem like days. To me it makes his argument shallow if not hollow.

Just my read on it, I realize, but YOU CAN PROPOSE, many very liberal congresswomen and congressmen do that, why not mr kerry?

Voting records are extremely deceptive, like you say, you must look deep into the ramifications and riders of a bill to understand the vote. BUT IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE DIRECTION OF THINGS, YOU ARE A US SENATOR, HAVE SENIORITY, GET OFF YOUR TAIL AND LEGISLATE !


I can see your point. I find that it's likely about personality. Kerry had a choice in Service. He could have chosen Air FOrce and been further from the action or even a Fighter Jock. He could have chosen the Marines where snap decisions are all that keep you alive. He chose Navy and was assigned to a duty befitting his personality. As a CO in a Swift Boat he had to have good instincts, keep the welfare of his crew in mind, be willing to call in CAS when neccessary and most importantly: process, analyze and act on a very large amount of data very quickly. All of this adds up (in my mind) to a person who's intelligent, mentally agile, mentally versatile, compassionate and adept at analyzing from both friendly and opposing viewpoints. None of those attributes are at odds with his record as a senator.

Mr. Kerry has continually chosen positions that allow him to utilize a staff of highly competent individuals that fill in where his abilities fall short. As an officer he was given tasks, provided with a talented and highly competent crew and proved an effective leader. I think the office of the President is comparable. As an elected official he would answer to The People. As President he would need all the above talents to deal with the Senate/House as well as Foreign affairs. Keep in mind: The President DOES NOT make laws. Individual Senators DO NOT make laws. The whole process of Legislative creativity, Executive approval and Judicial review makes the Laws. As a result, the initiative in creating Legislation is statistically less relevant to the Presidency than a record of analysis.

In terms of needing impotus in Whitehouse-generated Legislation: John Edwards is the man who would create the legislation (He, after all is the talented Lawyer) and argue it in the Senate (votes to break any ties).

[IJ Reilly]

I'm not wildly impressed by Kerry's record in the Senate. It's underwhelming, to say the least. But it's also worth mentioning that having his name on more bills would not reduce the scrutiny of his record today, and might very well increase it. So it would be a mixed blessing for Kerry.

I'd also point out again that George Bush had four years as president with a Congress controlled by his party to accomplish much of what he promises to accomplish in the next four. Now, that's a record worth questioning, too.

[zimv20]

Just my read on it, I realize, but YOU CAN PROPOSE, many very liberal congresswomen and congressmen do that, why not mr kerry?

i can't tell if you have proof that kerry introduced zero or few (what are these few) bills, or if you've uncovered no evidence and have concluded that kerry introduced zero or few bills. which is it?

[stubeeef]

i can't tell if you have proof that kerry introduced zero or few (what are these few) bills, or if you've uncovered no evidence and have concluded that kerry introduced zero or few bills. which is it?

Check the link in the first post. :)

[stubeeef]

I can see your point. I find that it's likely about personality. Kerry had a choice in Service. He could have chosen Air FOrce and been further from the action or even a Fighter Jock. He could have chosen the Marines where snap decisions are all that keep you alive. He chose Navy

Please - he could have chosen the army they drafted him! (deferment denied)

[mischief]

Please - he could have chosen the army they drafted him! (deferment denied)

The deferment is irrelevant. He could have skipped the country or pulled more strings ( Air National Guard anyone?).

If given the choice of enlisting to a Service at that point in history:

Would you choose to be a drafted GI?

Or would you choose a Service less likely to simply get you Accidentally Dead or Dismembered?

Or would you get out of Dodge?

Personally I think that owning up to a denied deferrment by choosing service rather than being subject to being ASSIGNED service shows courage.

[stubeeef]

I'll grant you most of your retort, but grant me this......what good is it to decry the deferments for cheney, when he applied for them himself? Jealousy perhaps?

[mischief]

I'll grant you most of your retort, but grant me this......what good is it to decry the deferments for cheney, when he applied for them himself? Jealousy perhaps?

A simple matter of Ratio and Result:

Kerry: 1 Deferment. Result: Navy.

Cheney: 3 Deferments. Result?


How can Jealousy enter the picture when I'm:

Not old enough to have been eligible for the Draft between 1962 and 1972

4F anyway

Not a Democrat


On Keery's Behalf (jealousy issue) I'd say it's a matter of honor. Kerry took his deferment denial in stride and chose service. Cheney continued to apply, using the processing time as a delay. I see Cheney's actions as cowardice.

[IJ Reilly]

I'll grant you most of your retort, but grant me this......what good is it to decry the deferments for cheney, when he applied for them himself? Jealousy perhaps?

No, once again: Rich man's war, poor man's fight. This is a classic situation, of which both Bush and Cheney are perfect examples.

And that's why this issue remains relevant today. I would probably not be interested in discussing it at all, if it weren't for the fact that they got us into this war.

[stubeeef]

The rich man would have to be kerry out of these 3.

Back to the subject, what about kerry inaction and ineffectual nature in 2 decades as an elected LEGISLATOR .

[stubeeef]

Mischief, I was refering to kerry being jealous, hence his anger toward cheney's success. Sorry I was not clear, did not mean you-meant kerry :o

Can we not rehash this here, I would like to get to kerry's legislative past on this thread, we have been doing the draft dance in the other threads as well. We can and are continuing them there, so why the lack of progressive social benefiting legislature from mr kerry?

[mischief]

The rich man would have to be kerry out of these 3.

Back to the subject, what about kerry inaction and ineffectual nature in 2 decades as an elected LEGISLATOR .

I'll be more concise: Kerry seems to be more of a Leader by way of Management than by way of Innovation.

In the current total situation I think that his style of careful consideration is more likely to be good for the nation than a more Zealous approach that may look more resolute without having the same consideration for consiquences.

We need a Diplomat and a good Manager more than we need a Crusader and a Pragmatist.

[stubeeef]

We need a Diplomat and a good Manager more than we need a Crusader and a Pragmatist.

So you concede a lacksadaisical 2 decades, but if not his ability to lead his cause on the senate floor/or committee, then the stuff before he was a senator is by default his qualification????? :confused:

[mischief]

So you concede a lacksadaisical 2 decades, but if not his ability to lead his cause on the senate floor/or committee, then the stuff before he was a senator is by default his qualification????? :confused:

It's not a concession, it's a differing view of the same events. I feel that a record of consideration and debate shows an intelligent filter on a solid moral core.

I feel that it's not a lack of leadership in the Senate but the underlying theme that any cause he might have is more nuanced than would be executable by a minority-party Senator in a fairly un-unifiable party with ideals (populism/socialism) that have been under attack for his entire tenure. In short: He's not a glory hound. He seems more long-term minded. Pushing his personal views would have been counter productive when compared with influencing the evolution of laws proposed by others.

[stubeeef]

It's not a concession, it's a differing view of the same events. I feel that a record of consideration and debate shows an intelligent filter on a solid moral core.

I feel that it's not a lack of leadership in the Senate but the underlying theme that any cause he might have is more nuanced than would be executable by a minority-party Senator in a fairly un-unifiable party with ideals (populism/socialism) that have been under attack for his entire tenure. In short: He's not a glory hound. He seems more long-term minded. Pushing his personal views would have been counter productive when compared with influencing the evolution of laws proposed by others.

Wow, is that you Johnnie Cochran, pushing his personal views would be counter productive?
Most would argue that it would show conviction, instead of indifference.

[wordmunger]

I wasn't aware that you can't propose a bill in a committe unless it is to get to the floor, and then there would be no record of it. I thought that you could propose a bill and it not get out of committee, but would be on the record that you proposed it.

I think this needs to be researched, I contend kerry has not done want he says needs to be done. In fact he has not tried, except to run for prez.

According to this document (http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/legprocessflowchart.pdf) from the U.S. Senate, you "introduce" a bill on the Senate floor, and as long as it is seconded, it goes to committee. There is indeed a record of it at this point. Is this the same thing as "proposing" a bill in the site you link? I don't know. That term doesn't appear in the official procedure.

However, let's suppose this procedure indeed constitutes, "proposing" a bill. Why would you waste your time with this unless you knew it at least had enough support to get past committee?

That's what I'm saying, that Kerry was smart enough not to waste his time proposing bills that weren't going anywhere. There are MANY other ways to exert your influence in the Senate. MOST of what goes on involves the backroom deals that enable sufficient compromise to get the job done. It's not as sexy as "proposing" new legislation, but it's what makes the Senate work.

[mischief]

Wow, is that you Johnnie Cochran, pushing his personal views would be counter productive?
Most would argue that it would show conviction, instead of indifference.

Wisdom can seem that way. How often, in a tight game like Chess does the direct route work?

If he were indifferent he wouldn't be a Senator.

There's a fine line between conviction and Zealotry. It's also possible to use conviction in one's beliefs with subtlety, strategy and tact.

Hard-lining a dogmatic stance isn't conviction... it's Zealotry.

Zealot: (Miriamwebster.com) 2 : a zealous person; especially : a fanatical partisan

Conviction:(miriamwebster.com) 3 a : a strong persuasion or belief b : the state of being convinced

[stubeeef]

Well, I aint got a lot'a tact......I'm the kind that thinks those enpowered to make legislation on behalf of their constituancy ought to. Not a whole lot of fluff in that, just the way it should be.

19 years of being on the public payroll for what, a paid ponderer? He ought to pay us back.

Did you look at the link to my 1st term Senator (Mrs Dole) she has been busy in her first term with moderate positive legislation that kerry could not propose in 20yrs!

Mrs Dole's First half of first term (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/R?d108:FLD003:@1(sen+dole))

[wordmunger]

Well, I aint got a lot'a tact......I'm the kind that thinks those enpowered to make legislation on behalf of their constituancy ought to. Not a whole lot of fluff in that, just the way it should be.

19 years of being on the public payroll for what, a paid ponderer? He ought to pay us back.

Did you look at the link to my 1st term Senator (Mrs Dole) she has been busy in her first term with moderate positive legislation that kerry could not propose in 20yrs!

Mrs Dole's First half of first term (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/R?d108:FLD003:@1(sen+dole))
Look at the same search for Kerry (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/R?d108:FLD003:@1(sen+kerry)). In fact, he's introduced MORE legislation than Dole during the same period. But I still think counting bills proposed is no way to evaluate a senator.

Note: the link you gave at the start of the thread was a different site entirely. I suspect the discrepancy comes from the fact that the other site was presenting a summary and not Kerry's complete record.

[mischief]

Well, I aint got a lot'a tact......I'm the kind that thinks those enpowered to make legislation on behalf of their constituancy ought to. Not a whole lot of fluff in that, just the way it should be.

19 years of being on the public payroll for what, a paid ponderer? He ought to pay us back.

Did you look at the link to my 1st term Senator (Mrs Dole) she has been busy in her first term with moderate positive legislation that kerry could not propose in 20yrs!

Mrs Dole's First half of first term (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/R?d108:FLD003:@1(sen+dole))


Yup. He's the Legislature's version of a Troubleshooter. As a techie I can express it this way: Some of us are better at finding and fixing flaws in products than designing them. It isn't a lack of confidence, leadership or impetus. It's a difference in talent. Would you rather have products that have no Beta testing? Equally: Would you rather have lawmakers that are all proposal and no analysis?

[stubeeef]

Some of those look better than the AFL-CIO sites. Still on balance pretty underwhelming, to quote another.

[stubeeef]

Look at the same search for Kerry (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/R?d108:FLD003:@1(sen+kerry)). In fact, he's introduced MORE legislation than Dole during the same period. But I still think counting bills proposed is no way to evaluate a senator.

Note: the link you gave at the start of the thread was a different site entirely. I suspect the discrepancy comes from the fact that the other site was presenting a summary and not Kerry's complete record.

I am sorry if you were thinking I was meaning MORE was important, cause we all know it aint. I was refering to the lack of meaningful work, like Elizabeths food and nutrition issues that are reflected in her legislation attempts.

[takao]

counting bills and resolutions from the other and own side ? ..... man some campaign manager really are desperate... it looks like the US parties are completly lost on issues and are more concerned with pointing fingers and collecting money from lobbies

[mactastic]

Let's see if I get this straight here... 18 years of experience in the Senate is somehow less qualification than 4 years as the weakest governor in the nation, and skipping guard duty is more honorable than service under fire?

Wow, you sure got your priorities screwed up... :D

[Taft]

Well here is a site that describes the 57 bills and resolutions by kerry in his 19 years in the senate.

here (http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/politics/kerry_bills.cfm)

There is an ok thing or two here and there, but where's tha meat?
And I'm not refering to the pork :rolleyes: .

If he has such strong feelings on issues like healthcare, social security, assault weapons,..........why no shot at affecting this issues? How'bout atleast a resolution or two for the record. Or did he spend 19yrs debating himself to uselessness.

kerry is too far left with no record to back the retoric (spelling?)

FALSE!

Over his entire career, Kerry has conceived of or sponsored HUNDREDs of bills. Here is a complete breakdown by year of the bills for which Kerry was the PRIMARY sponsor from wikipedia (note this does not count legislation Kerry co-sponsored): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsorship_of_legislation_by_John_Kerry

RANT MODE ON

WTF? Where do people on the right get this idea that Kerry, even though he was a senator for twenty years, was just able to coast by without doing any actual work? I hear the accusation all the time, but never with any actual backing.

These kind of lies frustrate me to no end.

Taf

[mischief]

FALSE!
(snip)
WTF? Where do people on the right get this idea that Kerry, even though he was a senator for twenty years, was just able to coast by without doing any actual work?


A lot of folks operate on the assumption that any job they don't understand, (particularly one that's not based on a PhD) is dead easy if not an utter slackfest.

There's also a strong contingent of folks that are more than willing to let the emotional rhetoric overpower what little reason the utilize in life.

In this country you can go further with:

" That spineless dork is going to take food out of your mouths and eat your children while he wastes YOUR tax money!"

than with: " I'll work my hardest to make the life of every American more liveable."

Never mind the fact that the first statement is most likely to be made by cowardly, spineless, thieving, cannibalistic, lazy pork-barrelists. That's just politics in the USA. There's two factions in politicians:

There's the Limbic contingent who works on stoking fears of repression, war, terrorism and encourages hatred, prejudice and repressive fundamentalist doctrine.

There's the "Can't we all just get along" contingent that wants it all resolved in some myopicly Utopic 30-minute-ending. These folks believe that reason, discourse and compassion are the ONLY tools that should ever be used.

Note: I'm going to work to drop the Dems Vs. Rebs in my statements. I realized yesterday that the Politicians of a Party are distinct in thought and action from the voters of those same groups. Instead I'll try to use the above terms: Limbics Vs. Utopians. If I slip, please realize that I feel that most Americans feel the same way on better than 90% of issues and only the few that have chosen Politics as a profession fall into the groups I routinely slam. If I slip it translates as: Reb (politicians)= Limbics, Dem (Politicians)= Utopics. At this point I have utter contempt for one group of extremists and total frustration with the other.

[stubeeef]

An interesting summation

rant (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1182739/posts)

[pseudobrit]

I wonder why the National Enquirer hasn't blown this story wide open yet?

Stu, what did Kerry do while on the intelligence committee?

[stubeeef]

do your own googles
Sen kerry was on the senate intelligence committee for nearly 8 years, 1993-2000. All critical to the buildup of the present conflict in Iraq.

Sen edwards, hand picked by kerry is now on and was on the senate intelligence commitee.

Both voted to go to Iraq, if kerry is to lambast W then he should have the same feelings for the VP he choose.

there are numerous fringe news organizations that break stories every week, that was/is the point with the bloggers and cbs. :rolleyes:

kerry voted to go to war with iraq after 7+ years of being a member of the senate SELECT intelligence committee, edwards was on the committee and had the same conclusion.

[Taft]

[QUOTE=stubeeef]An interesting summation

Edit: Whatever. I'm tired of this. I'll contribute no more inflammatory posts.

Taft

[Taft]

Edit: Already been addressed by wordmunger. Sorry.

Taft

[Taft]

Look at the same search for Kerry (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/R?d108:FLD003:@1(sen+kerry)). In fact, he's introduced MORE legislation than Dole during the same period. But I still think counting bills proposed is no way to evaluate a senator.

Note: the link you gave at the start of the thread was a different site entirely. I suspect the discrepancy comes from the fact that the other site was presenting a summary and not Kerry's complete record.

I missed the fact that you caught this, too. Then comes Stu's reply:

I am sorry if you were thinking I was meaning MORE was important, cause we all know it aint. I was refering to the lack of meaningful work, like Elizabeths food and nutrition issues that are reflected in her legislation attempts

From our link:


1) A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include in the criteria for selecting any project for the low-income housing credit whether such project has high-speed Internet infrastructure.

2) A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an income tax credit for the provision of homeownership and community development, and for other purposes.

3) A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to create a presumption that a disability or death of a Federal employee in fire protection activities caused by any of certain diseases is the result of the performance of such employee's duty.

4) A bill to create a 3-year pilot program that makes small, non-profit child care businesses eligible for SBA 504 loans.

5) A bill to require payments to State and local governments for infrastructure and social services needs in the same amount as the amount of relief and reconstruction funds provided to Iraq.

6) To increase the budget allocation for programs to combat the global HIV/AIDS epidemic and to reduce the deficit.


I just picked 6 in a pseudo-random method.

1 and 2 are efforts to promote infrastructure for the nations low incoming housing projects and to promote home ownership. There are a host of others in the same vien. 3 is an attempt to make it easier for the families of firefighters to handle work-related death finances more easily. 4 is an attempt to promote small business (there are many others with this goal in mind as well). 5 is an attempt to ensure that domestic funding gets as higha priority as the funding of Iraq's recontruction. 6 attempts to fight AIDS worldwide.

Remember, this is only in the current session of congress. You may not agree with all of these goals and agendas, but they do attempt to address important issues. I'm not trying to trash Sen. Dole here, either. But to say Sen Dole is a great senator because she tried to address children's nutrition issues, then trashing Kerry for "not doing anything" when he has proposed bills to fight AIDS is very deceptive, indeed. You dismissed his legislative attempts on very shakey grounds.

Taft

[mactastic]

So now that Stu has disparaged Kerry and lauded Dole for their Senatorial efforts, and has now been corrected and shown that Kerry has done more and substantial work than Sen. Dole, I wonder if it will affect his open mind on the subject? I mean, if your rationale for not liking Kerry over Dole was that Kerry was lean on substance, and now you find out that there is plenty of substance there most people who aren't blinded by idealism would consider changing their opinion.

Unless, of course, their minds are made up already.

[stubeeef]

Stu, what did Kerry do while on the intelligence committee?

Even prior to the 2000 presidential election, Kerry took a decidedly anti-Hussein stance:

KERRY: "[I] believe he is the kind of threat that has been described. I believe that in the post-Cold War period this issue of proliferation, particularly in the hands of Saddam Hussein, is critical. It has implications for a Qaddafi, for a Sudan, for other countries in the world in the future." (ABC’s "This Week," 2/22/98)
GEORGE WILL: "Senator Kerry, you’re way ahead of the commander in chief [Bill Clinton] in this regard." (ABC’s "This Week," 2/22/98)
KERRY: "I am way ahead of the commander in chief, and I’m probably way ahead of my colleagues and certainly of much of the country. But I believe this. I believe that he has used these weapons before. He has invaded another country. He views himself as a modern-day Nebuchadnezzar. He wants to continue to play the uniting critical role in that part of the world. And I think we have to stand up to that." (ABC’s "This Week," 2/22/98)

And finally, Mr. Kerry voted in favor of the Iraq war (Iraq War Resolution 10/11/02 (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea)

Clearly Mr. Kerry wasn’t misled, in fact, his statements were among the strongest in opposition to Hussein. In addition, Mr. Kerry spent 8 of his 19 years in the Senate in the Senate Intelligence Committee and was well aware of the most sensitive intelligence regarding Iraq. Claiming to be misled simply does not agree with his previous statements and actions.

[stubeeef]

Yup. He's the Legislature's version of a Troubleshooter. As a techie I can express it this way: Some of us are better at finding and fixing flaws in products than designing them. It isn't a lack of confidence, leadership or impetus. It's a difference in talent. Would you rather have products that have no Beta testing? Equally: Would you rather have lawmakers that are all proposal and no analysis?

I can accept this better than most, but in the words of a Clinton advisor Dick Morris (independant used on the left and right) Probably the most prominent American political consultant, Dick Morris is almost universally credited with piloting Bill Clinton to a stunning comeback re-election victory in 1996 after the president lost Congress to the Republicans two years before. Called "the most influential private citizen in America" by Time Magazine, Morris helped steer Clinton to the center and away from the liberal policies he had pursued in his first two years in office. Morris is also credited with advising Clinton to sign the welfare reform bill of 1996 and getting him to back a balanced budget, both key centrist positions. Morris began his relationship with Clinton in 1977 when he handled the Arkansas Attorney General's successful campaign to become the youngest Governor in the nation. Morris did not work on Clinton's defeat for re-election in 1980 but did oversee his comeback victory in 1982 as well as his Arkansas re-election victories in 1984, 86, and 1990.

Dick Morris: Kerry Is A "Back-Bencher." "Where did his 20 years in the Senate go? Oddly, his absence of biography confirms the impression I formed of him during my White House years: He's a back-bencher. I never can recall a single time that his name came up in any discussion of White House strategy on anything. He was the man who wasn't there." (Dick Morris, "The Bagel Candidacy," The New York Post, 7/30/04)

[mischief]

So now that Stu has disparaged Kerry and lauded Dole for their Senatorial efforts, and has now been corrected and shown that Kerry has done more and substantial work than Sen. Dole, I wonder if it will affect his open mind on the subject? I mean, if your rationale for not liking Kerry over Dole was that Kerry was lean on substance, and now you find out that there is plenty of substance there most people who aren't blinded by idealism would consider changing their opinion.

Unless, of course, their minds are made up already.

Hmm... Are you implying he has some sort of.... Bias?!? (snikker, chortle) :D

[katchow]

a bloody mishandled mess defining 4 years...

[Taft]

Hmm... Are you implying he has some sort of.... Bias?!? (snikker, chortle) :D

I refuse to believe it!

MacRumors politics forum: bias-free...or something... :rolleyes:

Taft

[stubeeef]

for those still on the fence of which candidate I support, It is Bush......
for some it might have been difficult to come to that conclusion, but it is time you make the BIG leap here.
I could be wrong, and it will quickly be brought to my attention :p , but I think that most of you guys/gals are pro kerry.
Yes I am as biased as most of you.

[mischief]

for those still on the fence of which candidate I support, It is Bush......
for some it might have been difficult to come to that conclusion, but it is time you make the BIG leap here.
I could be wrong, and it will quickly be brought to my attention :p , but I think that most of you guys/gals are pro kerry.
Yes I am as biased as most of you.

I guarantee I'm more biassed than you are. I think Dubyaw is posessed by the restless spirit of RM Nixon but is too coke-burned to have even that much effective policy. I think he very much wants to be Teddy Roosvelt but is too cowardly to have the audacity. I think he wants to touch Americans like Reagan but lacks the compassion to do so.

I'll readilly admit that Kerry is a strategic choice rather than a preferencial one. If we could vote for the two names on the ticket and pick one or the other I think Edwards'd do better and honetsly be a better choice. This is where the "It's senator "xyz"'s turn." party politics gets really annoying.

Basically: I'm anti-limbic. Right now that means anti-proffessional-conservative-Republican. When they stop using fear, hate and the spread of ingnorance and lies as a means to gain power I may very well vote for their conservative fiscal policies. Right now their powermongering outwieghs their fiscal wisdom.

[Taft]

for those still on the fence of which candidate I support, It is Bush......
for some it might have been difficult to come to that conclusion, but it is time you make the BIG leap here.
I could be wrong, and it will quickly be brought to my attention :p , but I think that most of you guys/gals are pro kerry.
Yes I am as biased as most of you.

Bias aside, many of us are still willing to listen to what others post in the formation of our positions. With you, I'm not so sure. Did you even consider, for a second, that some of the 48 bills Kerry proposed this congressional session have some merit and thought behind them? It seems to me that you immediately dismissed them without thought. (Size doesn't matter!)

I guess what I'm saying is that in the land of the forums it is important that your fellow posters know that you (general you, not Stu specifically) are listening to what they are saying. That you are considering the information they are giving you. It is essential to meaningful debate.

Taft

[stubeeef]

Mr/Mrs Taft,
I don't think most are willing, I am usually jumped on by a dozen if my wording is not exact. Because kerry isn't on the intell comm this week is not a reason to discredit me to the extent I was attacked. To imagine the AFL-CIO cite would not include 100% of kerry's work is puzzling, I have since found numerous problems with site's on this subj, including the one you used (links that don't work, difference between res and bill, 8 or nine bills/reso/ 4bills & 4 res or 5 bills and 4 res.). My intent on this thread was to find the meat, to get to understand where kerry is coming from. When wordmunger gave me another site to view, I did, he was not attacking me when he did it either, I mentioned it was a better site. Your site had some more indepth info but the links in the grid were not able to get me to the answer. I used Sen Dole only because she was the first person I could think of, not because I think she is the most awesome (I do apprecitate her alot though) she is also a senator that wordmunger and I share in NC. I never once said that more was better, I believe the opposite, lean is best. I would prefer very little, well thoughtout and examined legislation. I mearly wanted to find out where the meat was with being on the record for some of the issues he has perported to champion. Your link
had this text....
John Kerry has sponsored or cosponsored hundreds of bills during his time as a Senator. Areas of concern in the bills include small business concerns, education, terrorism, veterans' and POW/MIA issues, and marine resource protection. A full list of Kerry's sponsored legislation is available on his Senate web site; see also the AFL-CIO web site for a selected list.
It refers to the Afl-Cio site too. It doesn't elude to social securtiy, healthcare, or taxation legislation, it doesn't mean there isn't any, but it too would look like it is slighting him if there was any.
I have been on the record and so has W that kerry had honorable service to his country, it gets mucky from there, who was drafted, deferments, medals, statements when kerry got home, wether or not W completed service by points or not, preferential treatment, .......ad nausium(sp)
But I find mact and some others here, of counter point, are often trolling. I too am on the record here as saying that W has not been the best president in history, but I find no compulsive reason to change to kerry.
Except for 2 or 3 posters here, including me, this is a mutual admiration society. Sorry but that is what it feels like to me.
I don't mind excusing myself from this forum, I am trying to give the other view, from the first person. I am not a columnist, writer, blogger, pundit, or other, just a regular guy trying to articulate another position.
Many of you may want to hear the other point of view, but it is not my perception.
I find the CBS think fishy, it is true, I believe there maybe some more to come, look out.
I soon will post a thread on the oil for food mess, or excuse myself at your behest. But the posters here are not as holy/unbiased/open as they believe and purport themselves to be.

[Taft]

Except for 2 or 3 posters here, including me, this is a mutual admiration society. Sorry but that is what it feels like to me.

I'd agree with that, actually. We have a flood of liberal voicees here and it can be quite intimidating to conservatives who haplessly wander onto the site.

I don't mind excusing myself from this forum, I am trying to give the other view, from the first person. I am not a columnist, writer, blogger, pundit, or other, just a regular guy trying to articulate another position.
Many of you may want to hear the other point of view, but it is not my perception.

I disagree with this bit. I really do want to hear the other position. But there is a big caveat to that: the other position must be well articulated, informed, and adhere to some minimum standards of debate. I know I do this a lot, but consider Boortz for a moment. He presents only one side of any issue (not fully informed), he shouts down dissent and uses some shady tactics (which is AGAINST fair and open debate), etc. etc.

With the exception of a few (Lethal, BTTM, ...), many conservative posters here seem to revel in the role of Boortz. Their goal is to spew carefully tailored information at those with dissenting views. If your goal is to find truth, this type of person is working against your efforts.

I am not here to be a stump for Kerry. I am not interested in changing your mind on a given topic. I am here to add my perspective to the debate and refute perspectives which I consider ill-formed. I expect other posters to do the same, I guess. And I promise that if I am proved wrong, I'll admit it, and that I'll always listen to other viewpoints.

That said, I too am biased. Sure, I want Kerry to win. And deep-down, I would hope that if I can show them my point of view, Bush-supporters would at least think twice before automatically voting for him. But that really isn't my goal. If it was, I would try to find a far more productive outlet for such activities (ie. donating my time to a campaign).

BTW, its Mr. Taft, I guess. Taft will do just fine, though.

Taft

[stubeeef]

I can't remember ever using boortz, if I did it must of served some point, I never heard of him till this site.
Where is the cry of misleading gooblygook about typewriters capable of concocting this drivel?
I am not trained in debate, sorry just a blue collar guy here.
Have you seen the (hopefully satirical) thread making rabid rather a dupe of rove?
how about some screaming here? (come on, we all know why. It is ok with me). Afterall does the political forum on macrumors even count as an edy in a flood?
I absolutely, to my very fiber, know that I will not sway anyone here, but I too want to refute the ill-formed perspective, or at the very least give the other slant or spin, cause lets face it, all of pick from sites that paint our spin, I mean facts....... :rolleyes:
I have tried to and will try to inject some humor, I think some here do that at risk of exposing their intellect, but it is fun.
Sorry you don't agree with my perception, but that is the problem with perception isn't.

[mischief]

After all does the political forum on macrumors even count as an eddie in a flood?
.

We're a mousefart in a very large political jacuzzi. :D

[pseudobrit]

I can't remember ever using boortz, if I did it must of served some point, I never heard of him till this site.

You cited freerepublic's message board. Which is one of the few places more biased than Boortz.

I absolutely, to my very fiber, know that I will not sway anyone here, but I too want to refute the ill-formed perspective, or at the very least give the other slant or spin, cause lets face it, all of pick from sites that paint our spin, I mean facts....... :rolleyes:

Well, it's nice to see you've come to such a shallow conclusion of us all. FTR, conservative members have changed my mind on a topic on more than one occasion when I found that I couldn't logically defend my opposing position.

So if you have a logically sound, factually based argument that has no reason for refutation, you'll change my mind.

Imagine that. Oh, you can't, 'cause you've already judged us.

[Taft]

I can't remember ever using boortz, I never heard of him till this site.

Yeah, I know you never have. I was just using him as an example of debate-gone-bad.

Were is the cry of misleading gooblygook about typewriters capable of concocting this drivel?

I don't think that was misleading. There WERE typewriters capable of creating those memos at the time and the Air Force had even tested them.

The BIG problem with memo-gate is that CBS was withholding so much information. To me, it was never a question of whether or not the memos could be real. I think, rather obviously at this point, it is equally possible that they are real as it is that they are fake. Without the original memos in hand (and the original sources known) it is impossible to verify the origin of the memos.

And THAT was CBS's big mistake: they took something which could not be verified and held it up as the truth. That was a truly horrible error for a news organization to make. Many, including myself, will think twice before believing another big story from that organization.

I am not trained in debate, sorry just a blue collar guy here.

You don't have to be trained to debate in an honest manner. Most of the official "rules" of debate are just common sense. Like, "you don't take a fellow poster's comments out of context." Or, "you don't take a poster's comment, switch the meaning, then represent the new meaning as his original intent."


Have you seen the (hopefully satirical) thread making dan a dupe of rove?
how about some screaming here?

Speculation is shakey ground, to be sure, but I don't think its off limits. People are allowed to believe in conspiracy theories, but passing those theories off as truth is definitely an offense.


I have tried to and will try to inject some humor, I think some here do that at risk of exposing their intellect, but it is fun.
Sorry you don't agree with my perception, but that is the problem with perception isn't.

Humor is always appreciated round here. Just make sure it is duly marked (;) :o :) :D etc), as I've said a few things in jest that have been taken seriously (and vice-versa).

I think our differences are realtively minor, given some other posters I've met on the conservative side round here. A little consideration is all I've ever wanted from those who disagree. Unfortunately, in the anonymous world of the internet hot tempers, bad behavior and inflammatory language are the rule instead of the exception. I've been guilty of that countless times myself.

Taft

[mactastic]

But I find mact and some others here, of counter point, are often trolling.

I feel so special... Singled out like that and all.:D

[mischief]

I feel so special... Singled out like that and all.:D

Yeah... too bad you can't moon someone in text. Maybe you should talk to SunBaked about getting the Moonie Emoticon for this special occasion? ;)

[stubeeef]

You cited freerepublic's message board. Which is one of the few places more biased than Boortz.

Whether or not you like their bias, cause they are, they are reputble enough for Russert to have one of their reps on his show.
I think that bias is not always the issue, as discussed to death in these threads bias is ooooozzzzzzzeeeeeeeeedddddddddd from about every source, it is the volume of the anger that seems to strike me as the difference.
I have often found your retoric lost in your anger.
Adios.....