Oh, I don’t care. The only people he has to satisfy are his constituents. They seem quite satisfied, and he already has my vote barring some scandal arising from nowhere.
But you know me and how I get about obviously blatant bullshit. “Bush on vacation” does not equal “Bush doesn’t work” as was intimated earlier, which is the basis of my comments.
Oh, heck, I’d be the last to accuse GeeDubya of not “doing enough”. He’s done more than enough. Way, way too much, most all of it blazingly, thunderously stupid.
Of course, theres the way Kerry flip-flopped on the Homeland Security thingy…
Well loookedoo: turns out that Bush’s second attack on Kerry’s record is just as dishonest as the first one:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096874/
Does it? Consider this: he’ll be dealing with a Republican Congress, stripping away virtually every possibility for any big spending he’s got planned. Does that make him MORE attractive as a President to small-government types? After all, if Bush wins a second term, that’s a well known great time for open season on Republican pork, and Bush has already failed to show any ability in fighting spending increases against his own party. The choices seem to be gridlock vs. a clear shot for Republican spending.
Would you at least concede that the same could have been said about Bush looked like prior to 9/11? He RAN on the idea that he would have an unegaged foriegn policy for goodness sake, and look where that disinterest got us.
And how can you seriously say that with a straight face anyway? You can’t REALLY think that ANYONE once president is simply going to sit on their hands, or that any human being isn’t aware of how dangerous terrorism is, even if only politically.
Yes, mental tics all right. Or else I am going too fast for you.
kwildcat asserted that the only qualification Kerry needed to prove he was The World’s Bestest Senator[sup]TM[/sup] was re-election. Strom Thurmond was re-elected far more often than Kerry; ergo, Thurmond is a better candidate for President than Kerry. Come to think of it, I imagine Thurmond is a better candidate than Kerry, since Strom’s current level of activity is roughly equivalent to Kerry’s last 19 years in the Senate, in terms of achievement.
The thing about Ken Starr was, again, kwildcat’s assertion that Congressional investigations are a good sign that anyone involved is actively involved in promoting the well-being of the country. Which surprised me, frankly. He has subsequently made it clear that he didn’t really mean it.
No, you are still wrong. Senate staffers do not submit bills to the Senate, which is performed by the usual rigamarole of making a motion, getting a second, and so forth. Your allegation that staffers perform this function in “putting the bill into the hopper” is simple bullshit.
So Kerry isn’t sponsoring much legislation, his staff isn’t either (since hardly any bills have ever been passed that have the Kerry name associated with it), and you are claiming that he is really, really involved behind the scenes. How exactly do you know this? Just because you need an excuse for his not performing his public duties? Not terribly convincing.
Wrong again. You have asserted that Kerry is a peachy Senator even though he has not sponsored or gotten enacted any significant legislation, and even though he misses a lot of his job because he is out campaigning. Asserted, not demonstrated in any way.
Your allegation that he is an outstanding leader because his staff does all the work for him(they apparently don’t), or because he was involved in Iran-Contra hearings back in the 80s is more than a little weak.
Certainly “number of bills sponsored” is not the be-all and end-all of Senate efficiency. The trouble is, no matter how you measure it, Kerry is pretty pathetic. Number of bills sponsored is low. Number of votes missed is high. Number of bills enacted due to his efforts is low. So far, the best you have been able to say is that he was re-elected. Lots of people have been re-elected. That doesn’t qualify them for President unless the nation as a whole can see some significant achievements. Of which Kerry has, so far, essentially none.
He has nice hair, though.
Not following you here. Are you claiming that Congressional investigations are un-Constitutional? I thought Kerry was Mr. Wonderful because he participated in a couple, oh, donkey’s years ago. And Starr investigated Clinton, who is a Democrat.
Nope, it was right on the money, and you have provided a clear example of why that is so. Kerry ignores his duties - until the real leaders of his party tell him to get his sorry ass back to Washington and vote for once - we got a big vote, and you can’t blow this off. So instead of touring the nation telling us that
he actually goes home and does his job for once.
Once again, he hasn’t done anything.
He is the last Democrat standing, and everybody supports him because, well, everybody else supports him. And nobody can point to much that he has done, specifically, for the last nineteen years.
But Kerry isn’t, which is what his problem is.
blah blah
The problem is, we were comparing Nixon to Kerry, not Bush.
Which is Kerry’s biggest problem. No one can defend him because, as I said, there just isn’t much to defend. He hasn’t done anything, he isn’t doing anything now, and he isn’t likely to do anything in the future. Therefore, all discussions about him tend to revert magnetically back to Bush. Because Kerry’s main, or only qualification, is that he is popular among people who hate Bush.
Kerry represents the Democratic party’s attempt to run a Rorschach blot for President. No real meaning there, but plenty of opportunities for questionable minds to project. 
Did I mention he has nice hair?
No, I meant “in general”.
No, I am quite well-informed on some of these, and willing to learn about the rest.
Larouche and Nader have crackpot ideas. Bush has ideas (and achievements) with which some disagree. Kerry has none of the above.
But nice hair.
No, I would not. Mostly because Bush had nine months, and Kerry had nineteen years. Most people would get a clue by then. Kerry had one, sort of, when he voted for the action in Iraq. Now he seems to have lost it again, and votes against paying for it.
I don’t believe it is realistic to blame 9/11 on Bush’s “unengaged foreign policy”, if that is what you mean.
I wouldn’t believe if if Kerry hadn’t voted against the first Gulf War. That shows a kind of naivete that verges on the moronic.
Sorry, Kerry is a foreign policy/terrorism idiot, and eminently unqualified to be President.
Despite his hair.
Regards,
Shodan
No, friend Shodan, you are not too fast, merely too shallow. You blithely trip the light fantastic like a hippopotamus toe-dancing through a mine field, carefully, carefully. (The “hair” line was ok, but much overworked. You cannot throw a tow line over an SDMB hamster and expect the poor little thing to haul your pickup truck out of a ditch.)
But all of that was just prelude, establishing the theme, that leads to a stunning crescendo of credulity.
“…Sorry, Kerry is a foreign policy/terrorism idiot, and eminently unqualified to be President…”
This is a chestnut! I had to walk away, get coffee, and return so that my wondering eyes might behold…yes, he actually said that! Oh, my!
Do you still cling to the laughable position that the attack on Saddam was an essential part of the “war on terror”? No, seriously, you’re not kidding? Attacked by a lunatic band of Saudi religious fanatics, we attack the Iraqi secular cynic, like being attacked by Japan and invading Belgium? This is the foreign policy brilliance you wish to recommend? At the cost of uncounted billions of dollars and God alone knows how many innocent lives?
With a straight face, you recommend to us the author of this carnage as a leader of men?
Its true, Mr. Kerry has not had the opportunity to pour buckets of pure horseshit before the assembled Houses of Congress. (You’ve not forgotten, have you? “Yellowcake”? “Vast stockpiles”? Advise, if you have, we will remind…) And you will have us believe that a flight suit stuffed with bullshit is fit to serve, fit to be entrusted with the lives of millions?
A charitable man might hope that Mr. Bush’s actions are entirely the result of ignorance and incompetence, otherwise, let him tremble for his soul. And if we permit him to continue, let us tremble for ours.
Something called a “Gary Nolan” will be mounting Rocinante and donning the Golden Helmet of Mambrino this year.
And no, it’s not the Gary Nolan that used to pitch for the Reds.
It was Morocco, actually.
Could someone address the point and list the accomplishments of Kerry as Senator?
Oh, that’s right, I forgot. Bush wasn’t born until he became President. Silly me can’t expect him to have lived in this universe before then.
This is the sort of statement that convinces me that you’re full of it, and know it too.
Any serious criticism of Kerry here would at least attack the reasons for these votes, dealing with them in context, with some clue as to how politics works and why people oppose certain specific bills for specific reasons not purely limited to the crudest binary summary of what its for and against. The way you tell it, his reason is purely because he is shizophrenic.
That’s the crudest form of pure soundbite politics, and it should be beneath you. It isn’t beneath the RNC, of course, as we’ve seen in both of their major attacks on his record so far. But I’d like to believe there can be serious criticism of Kerry’s positions that doesn’t rest on superficial nonsense even you wouldn’t put up with in any other context.
I believe it’s perfectly reasonable to fault him on his unegagement from the issue of terrorism until after 9/11. Both he and Clinton had terrorist attacks happen on their watch, and both were lax. The point is that he reacted to events, and changed his tune. Does that make him a wishy washy flip flopper?
The fact is, Bush had far less of a foriegn policy when he was running for President in 2000 than Kerry has currently. And yet, I don’t remember you bemoaning Bush’ dearth of foriegn policy interest and engagement, even though it turned out to be so misguided that he himself had to do an unelegant 180 when 9/11 caught his well-vacationed ass totally by surprise.
So what was Kerry’s reason for not supporting the first Gulf War?
Good question. As far as I can tell, the answer is: Because that was the Democratic party position in response to a Republican president.
But I’m sure this question will be asked in the first debate…
Funny you should mention that. From the New Republic Online…
http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=1261
Keeping in mind that this is the same outlet for a recent acme of the slime arts that purported that John Kerry was a KGB stooge (no, really. Not making it up.)
But, keeping that in mind, is this the best they got? This, and gay marriage?
No, no, there’s John Kerry’s singleminded campaign to reduce our military to Red Ryder BB Guns.
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kerry-military-votes.html
furthermore,
"…in an interview with Rep. Norm Dicks (D.-Wash.): “The Republicans list something like 13 different weapons systems that they say the record shows Senator Kerry voted against. The Patriot missile, the B-1 bomber, the Trident missile and on and on and on.” "
and
"…Appearing on CNN (2/3/04), Bush-Cheney campaign strategist Ralph Reed explained to anchor Wolf Blitzer that Kerry’s record was one of “voting to dismantle 27 weapons systems, including the MX missile, the Pershing missile, the B-1, the B-2 stealth bomber, the F-16 fighter jet, the F-15 fighter jet,…”
"… at the time of the 1991 vote, deeper cuts in military spending were being advocated by some prominent Republicans-- including then-President George H.W Bush and Dick Cheney, … Cheney appealed for more cuts from Congress: “You’ve squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don’t fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements.”
Cheney went to name the M-1 tank and the F-14 and F-16 fighters-- all of which appear on the RNC’s list-- as “great systems” that “we have enough of…”
So Kerry voted against spending money on weapons the Sec. Defense says he didnt want or need. Radical. A bit short of Fonda-esque, though, don’t you think?
Ah, but he did, even before beginning his stellar career doing what he does in the Senate, whatever that is.
Remember the hearings, where he testified under oath that it was a matter of routine policy for American troops to commit atrocities in Viet Nam? He never did come up with a reason why, if he witnessed such things, he never reported it, as was his duty as a member of the armed forces.
AFAICT, Kerry won medals with his stellar service in Viet Nam, and has been either coasting or shooting off nonsense ever since. And haircuts.
Born? What are you talking about?
Before Bush ran for President, he was governor of Texas. Before Kerry started his run for President, he was a Senator for nineteen years. Wouldn’t you say that a Senator should have some attempt at a recognizable record on foreign policy - perhaps more so than a governor?
No, no, you misunderstand me. I am not saying Kerry voted against the first Gulf War because he is schizophrenic - I am saying he voted against it because he is stupid about foreign policy.
As far as crude binary - you only get to vote Yea or Nay (or abstain) on a vote in the Senate. “Guilty, but with an explanation” is not going to cut a lot of ice in the US Congress.
Of course, if you are a real leader, you try to get the bill amended, but I don’t think that is a real option for our distinguished do-nothing. So his choices are limited. The right vote, or the wrong one. He chose the blue pill.
Criticizing someone’s publicly recorded vote is “superficial nonsense”? If we aren’t allowed to criticize a publicly held position, what exactly do you suggest we use to decide who to vote for?
Is it that hair thing again?
I am still not following you. Kerry reacts to terrorist actions (the invasion of Kuwait) in a way that is pretty obviously stupid and short-sighted. But we aren’t allowed to criticize that.
Bush didn’t apparently know in advance that Osama bin Laden was going to stage terrorist attacks nine months into his first term. He reacted in a way that was decisive. But we can criticize this?
Hmmmm…
The trouble with “discussing the reasons” for Kerry’s lapses on foreign policy and Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait has been made clear by elucidator. (A moment, please, while I recover from the horror of having elucidator provide evidence against a liberal. Whew!)
luc’s cite of Kerry’s oscillations as regards Kuwait make clear the difficulties we will encounter in any discussion of Kerry foreign policy. When confronted by a constituent asking for his motives for his vote, Kerry tells what amounts to a straightforward lie - that he “strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush’s response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf.”
Apparently the statement Senator Kerry made regarding Clinton -
cannot be applied to Kerry himself, who is not nearly as good as Clinton was. He abandoned the first principle of the political liar - make sure you cannot easily be demonstrated to be telling whoppers. In the Gulf War instance, Kerry’s vote is a matter of public record, and it is thus easily apparent that Kerry either does not remember from day to day what he thinks, or hopes very much that none of the rest of us do either.
So, lacking any reassurance that Kerry will tell the truth about his blunders, we can only speculate that John Mace is correct, and that Kerry voted the way kwildcat describes him as doing - in accordance with the orders handed down by the real leaders of the Senate, and not in accordance with any ideas of his own, which seem to be rather rare with him.
No, certainly not. Of course, the world was a different place then. As it was the morning after Kuwait was invaded, in contrast to how it was the night before. Bush learned from his change. Kerry, apparently, did not. Or maybe he did, and then voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq, and has now changed his mind again. What I would be interested in is why he does so.
But I do not expect him to be forthcoming on that, any more than he was in 1991. Because, I suspect, he has no real ideas to guide him. Political expedience, certainly, but nothing you could call core values.
As I said, an empty suit. But with - well, you know the rest of it.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, calling the invasion of Kuwait “terrorist actions” distorts the term beyond all meaning and usefulness.
Still waiting for this. Kerry’s own website is very vague; can someone link to a concrete list?
“… (A moment, please, while I recover from the horror of having elucidator provide evidence against a liberal. Whew!)…”
Don’t get all excited, Shodan. You neglected to mention my caveat, which is that the source of the morsel you are enjoying to the point of orgasm has a past history of putting forth perfectly slandorous opinions of Mr. Kerry with a straight face. I have seen no further citing, and make no, repeat, NO, claims as to its veracity.
Now, back to some previous bunkum…
“…Viet Nam? He never did come up with a reason why, if he witnessed such things, he never reported it, as was his duty as a member of the armed forces…”
Never said he witnessed them. Said he was told this by other soldiers during his investigation. And he was reporting it. He was reporting it to us.
“…Before Bush ran for President, he was governor of Texas…”
Oh, yes, indeedy, he was. I should be quite perfectly delighted to have GeeDubya run on his splendid record as to Texas governance. For instance, inviting in the major polluters of his state to write voluntary guidelines that they very well might seriously consider complying with, under penalty of brow beating. Would you like some Houston air? I have a cousin there, he could slice you a cubic chunk and mail it to you. Requires “toxic!” stickers.
Oh, yes, let’s do make his record as Tex Gov…oh, dear, those papers are sealed, aren’t they. Now that is a pity, isn’t it? The very papers that could prove what a paragon of civic prudence was ol’ GeeDubya, but they are out of reach. Boy, you’d think they would just love to have those papers all over the news, wouldn’t you? Think, I mean?
“…So, lacking any reassurance that Kerry will tell the truth about his blunders, we can only speculate…”
May I have a moment, please, to roll about on the floor? Its John Kerry who will not tell the truth about his blunders? John Kerry? Tell me, Shodan, do you blush when you type this stuff?
“… He reacted in a way that was decisive. But we can criticize this?..”
Yes, I think we can. Because it was stupid. Neutron-density stupid, weapons grade stupid. We had the sympathy and potential cooperation of the world, people who don’t even much like us were holding candle-light vigils for the Americans. And he pissed it all away being a tough guy.
Yeah, I can criticize that. No prob.
You must be confusing him with Dean, whose records are still sealed.
Admittedly, it has been a while since I revisited this issue. My recollection is that quite a lot has been placed at the disposal of anyone who wishes to investigate, and quite another lot remains out of reach. Maybe so, I hadn’t heard otherwise.
Besides, John-boy, a man of your delicate sensibilities would be best advised to avoid any exposure to the real truth about Texas politics. It is not for the squeemish, or persons not otherwise heavily sedated.
Remember Upton Sinclair’s quote: “There are two things no civilized person should be forced to witness: one is what actually goes into sausage, and the other is what a Texas politician does for his daily bread.”
And Dean? Dean who?
Indeed!
But if you do some research, you will find that Bush’s records are considered “open”. IYR, Dean tried to pull a “I’ll show mine if Bush shows his”, and it backfired badly.
Changing the subject. The question was about whether or not one’s stance prior to 9/11 really tells you what they would do about foriegn policy in light of it. In Bush’s case, we had someone who’s foriegn policy ideas were even LESS engaged and interested than Kerry’s. If Bush can change his tune in light of 9/11, then so can Kerry, and you can’t claim that Kerry would sit on his hands because you aren’t satisfied with his prior foiegn policy interests when you could have said the exact same thing based on Bush’s record prior to 9/11 as well. Both Bush and Kerry, post 9/11, say that we need to be aggressive about terrorism, to the point of bringing war to their doorsteps.
Truly, you are a dignified and intelligent poster. Not crazy, stupid! Well, I’m sold!
Anyway, you said this “Kerry had one, sort of, when he voted for the action in Iraq. Now he seems to have lost it again, and votes against paying for it.”
Clearly you’re saying that, that crazy Kerry, for the war but not for paying for it!
That’s an utterly subrational attack, taking the complicated war of wills between parties and between Congress and the White House that bills play a part in, throwing it all out the window, and trying to tell a story about Kerry utterly devoid of any meaningful context. He was for the war, now he’s against it! How stupid!
This is EXACTLY like claiming that Kerry was against 18 weapons systems when what he really voted against was an entire year’s lump appropriations bill, or that he “gutted” intelligence because he started a bill to cut less than 1% of money that wasn’t even being used… and his bill failed only because REPUBLICANS introduced another bill that did the same thing, making his redundant. Leave out key facts, and you can make anyone sound crazy or stupid.
You wouldn’t accept that kind of crappy attack from anyone here, so why expect us to swallow it?
How about criticizing it with at least some acknowledgement that there’s like, you know, this thing called politics, wherein parties try to manuever various bills to gain partisan advantage, and sometimes you might want to vote against a bill that contains things you like, but too many things you don’t like. I really doubt you’d ever maintain this “principle” of having to vote for bills just because they happen to ostensibly do something right, even if they are loaded, because if you did, you’d have to call “shenanigans!” on virtually every Republican lawmaker in the Senate.
Just last week many Republicans voted down their own bill on guns (which was a good pro-2nd amendment bill) because they didn’t like the riders attached to it. Guilty, but with an explanation not going to cut it for you?
bup bup bup… remember, no explanations allowed!
Invading another country is terrorism now? Man, if only Bush I had been able to see into the future and realize that all wars are actually terrorism, not invasions at all!
You’re confusing Iraqs. Was that intentional? I was complaining about your criticisms based on Iraq 2, not Iraq 1.
So, in your world, there are only two positions: invade Iraq, or not invade. No regard to two different points in history, two different geo political situations, or a multitude of different ideas about how any particular situation could be best handled.
No no, everyone who voted for fighting Iraq in the 90s had the foresight to know that what they were really doing was being a part of a single, unified, and ongoing effort to lure terrorist groups into Iraq so they could be more easily combatted and they wouldn’t have time to do other things like bomb Spain. Either you’re for invading Iraq, or against it, no matter what, no matter when.
I don’t know Shodan: aren’t you against bombing Japan? What are you, some kind of Jap lover? Flip-flopping from your support bombing them in '44?