# Kerry's record **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 2, 2004, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715 "2004-09-02T03:44:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/41 "2004-09-03T04:17:16Z")
But **'luc** , that anti-satellite system has done wonders. And, the Star Wars too…Hell, it must be working since we’ve now finally deployed it 20 years later! (Hell, we’re so confident it works, we didn’t even bother to subject it to any realistic operational tests…After all, it passed the hopelessly unrealistic tests almost half the time!) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/42 "2004-09-03T04:18:55Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > …He opposed the anti-communist insurgency funding wherever Reagan wanted to engage in it. Are you serious? Honest to Pete, **Sam** do you mean this? You know, I trust, that such as this went to support some of the most brutal and savagely oppressive men of our time? You don’t have to go all the way to Iraq for mass graves of the innocent, **Sam** , they’re right close to hand. We have our own harvest of ghosts to account for. If Kerry opposed this, I can’t find it especially commendable, merely that he is possessed of common decency. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/43 "2004-09-03T04:44:13Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > You must have posted the wrong link. The thread you posted had **Mr. Moto** and **Shodan** opening up a pretty big can of whup-ass on you. I like how you consistently make this claim, that I got handed a can of whup ass or the like. Very compelling. You, on the other hand, merely consistently withdraw to the rear in a gentlemanly fashion when other debaters get too shrill or downright mean. Uh huh. > [@](#): > > Are you aware that the nuclear-tipped Tomahawk was only one minor variant? In fact, the Tomahawk has been one of the most successful weapons systems the U.S. has built. [_much irrelevant discussion of Tomahawks deleted because **Sam** didn’t pay attention to the thread in which I was handed a can of whup ass…_] That’s all nice. What I want you to do, first thing, is tell me what the header for the category under which the Tomahawk is listed on your 20 year old John Kerry memo. No, in fact, before you withdraw to the rear without answering in your gentlemanly fashion, I will quote it for you. Ready … “NUCLEAR FORCES.” Ow, not so hard with your big can of whup ass. But thanks for finding something new to spew in a dispassionate gentlemanly fashion upon our pages… I guess the Swift Boat went down, huh? Anything new on Joseph Wilson? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/44 "2004-09-03T05:00:31Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > … Anything new on Joseph Wilson? Hardly fair, **Hent**. Only been a year. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/45 "2004-09-03T05:07:04Z")
**elucidator** said: > [@](#): > > No, in fact, before you withdraw to the rear without answering in your gentlemanly fashion, I will quote it for you. Ready … “NUCLEAR FORCES.” > > Ow, not so hard with your big can of whup ass. As the Tomahawk was so classified at the time. That doesn’t change the fact that the Tomahawk made an outstanding conventional weapon. However, you could be correct that he was only speaking of the nuclear variant. In fact, the amount of $264 million would be in line with that. But I remember the times well, and Kerry was opposed to the Tomahawk in general. It scared the left because they saw it as a first-strike nuclear weapon, and they figured ole’ Ronnie Raygun would use it. They hated Reagan then just about as much as you hate Bush now, and they weren’t about to roll over and let him have a first-strike nuclear weapon. Here in Canada, protestors tried to shut down the test corridor for the Tomahawk, conventional or nuclear. Didn’t matter. They wouldn’t accept the notion that the Tomahawk would stay conventionally-armed anyway. Lines were drawn in the sand over it. The Tomahawk and MX were the two most controversial weapons systems of the 1980’s, by far. They were debated and argued constantly, and Kerry was on the other side of the aisle. > [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by Sam Stone > …He opposed the anti-communist insurgency funding wherever Reagan wanted to engage in it. > Are you serious? Honest to Pete, Sam do you mean this? > > You know, I trust, that such as this went to support some of the most brutal and savagely oppressive men of our time? You don’t have to go all the way to Iraq for mass graves of the innocent, Sam, they’re right close to hand. We have our own harvest of ghosts to account for. > > If Kerry opposed this, I can’t find it especially commendable, merely that he is possessed of common decency. Now that’s an honest argument. I’m surprised more people on the left haven’t simply embraced Kerry’s record. Most of you who were around then were opposed to the same things Kerry was. Why shouldn’t you be proud of that, and defend that record? I happen to disagree with your assessments, at least in part. I think the anti-communist insurgency support has to be looked at in the context of the larger cold war. Sure, the U.S. supported some unsavory characters, but that’s because their opponents were equally unsavory or worse, and had the decided disadvantage of being in the Soviet camp. The left, especially in Canada, had almost mythologized the Sandinistas into the second coming of the founding fathers or something. They weren’t. They were brutal totalitarians. The Contras were corrupt, and sometimes brutal themselves. But they were better than the Sandinistas, and they helped advance world peace by shrinking the sphere of Soviet influence. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/46 "2004-09-03T05:08:48Z")
Oops. Sorry, that first section was addressed to **Hentor**. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/47 "2004-09-03T05:18:50Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > It scared the left because they saw it as a first-strike nuclear weapon, and they figured ole’ Ronnie Raygun would use it. They hated Reagan then just about as much as you hate Bush now, and they weren’t about to roll over and let him have a first-strike nuclear weapon. Honestly, **Sam** , do you think these things through even a little bit? Might there be a good reason for us not to have first-strike nuclear weapons? Might they be a little bit destabilizing? Now that we know how close the Soviets (and, in fact, I believe our side too) came to mistaking innocent scientific rocket launches or flights of geese for nuclear weapons, do you really think it is wise to build the sort of first-strike capability that would cause the Soviets to go on an even more hair-trigger alert? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/48 "2004-09-03T05:27:36Z")
> [@Sam](#): > > …supported some unsavory characters… What a wondrous gift for euphemism you have, **Sam!** And you would be the man to explain: the Sandanistas siezed power and ruthlessly held an election, lost, and then cunningly handed over the reins of power to a center right coalition. Frankly, the subtle treachery of this is lost on me, perhaps you can explain how this fits stealthily into the Comintern’s plan for World Domination. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/49 "2004-09-03T05:29:13Z")
The Tomahawk was NOT a first-strike weapon. They took four and a half hours to get to many of their targets. You would have needed to launch thousands of them to have a successful first strike. The odds of none of them being spotted were infinitesimal. It was portrayed as one, however. What the Tomahawk gave the U.S. was the capability to hit individual inland targets stealthily - not _en masse_, but one or two at a time. Pretty much like they’ve been used since. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/50 "2004-09-03T05:42:46Z")
John Kerry opposes tort reform that will cap the award an injured patient can collect from a negligent doctor, hospital, nurse, etc., for non-economic damages. Conversely, George W. Bush wants to cap “pain and suffering” awards at $250,000, and Kerry was roundly criticized when he chose a highly sucessful trial attorney as his running-mate. Whether one is for or against tort reform philosophically is one thing, it’s another entirely when one tries to pass legislation based on specious data. [President Uses Dubious Statistics on Costs of Malpractice Lawsuits Two Congressional agencies dispute findings that caps on damage awards produce big savings in medical costs.](http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=133) > [@](#): > > **Summary** > > The President holds out the prospect of major cost savings if Congress will pass a law limiting what injured patients can collect in lawsuits. He wants a cap of $250,000 on any damages for “pain and suffering” and other non-economic damages. His administration projects savings to the entire economy of between $60 billion and $108 billion per year in health-care costs, including $28 billion or more to federal taxpayers. > > But both the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office criticize the 1996 study the Bush administration uses as their main support. These nonpartisan agencies suggest savings – if any – would be relatively small. > > **Analysis** > > In a speech in Little Rock, Arkansas on Jan. 26 the President said, “One of the major cost drivers in the delivery of health care are these junk and frivolous lawsuits.” He said rising malpractice insurance premiums and needless medical procedures ordered up out of fear of lawsuits cost federal taxpayers “at least” $28 billion a year in added costs to government medical programs. Bush’s Department of Health and Human Services claims total savings – public and private – of as much as $108 billion a year. > > Those claims rest mainly on a single 1996 study by two Stanford economists who said caps on damage awards could hold down overall medical costs by 5% to 9%. They studied heart patients who were hospitalized, compared costs in states with and without limits on malpractice lawsuits, and then projected their findings to the entire health-care system. > > But both the GAO and the CBO now question their sweeping conclusion. When the CBO attempted to duplicate the Stanford economists’ methods for other types of ailments they found found “no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending.” > > “In short, the evidence available to date does not make a strong case that restricting malpractice liability would have a significant effect, either positive or negative, on economic efficiency, ” the CBO said. > > **What the President Said** > In his Little Rock speech the President blamed baseless lawsuits for a big part of rising medical costs: > > **One of the major cost drivers in the delivery of health care are these junk and frivolous lawsuits.** The risk of frivolous litigation drives doctors – and hear me out on this – they drive doctors to prescribe drugs and procedures that may not be necessary, just to avoid lawsuits. That’s called the defensive practice of medicine. > > . . . . See, lawsuits not only drive up premiums, which drives up the cost to the patient or the employer of the patient, but lawsuits cause docs to practice medicine in an expensive way in order to protect themselves in the courthouse. > > The defensive practice of medicine affects the federal budget. The direct cost of liability insurance and the indirect cost from unnecessary medical procedures raise the federal government’s health care costs by at least $28 billion a year. > > **What HHS Said** > The President was relying on a paper issued last year by an assistant secretary of HHS which said “The litigation and malpractice insurance problem raids the wallet of every American.” > > The HHS report put the cost of malpractice insurance to doctors alone at $6.3 billion in 2002, but said much larger costs come from “defensive medicine”: > > Defensive medicine that is caused by unlimited and unpredictable liability awards not only increases patients’ risk but it also adds costs. The leading study estimates that limiting unreasonable awards for non-economic damages could reduce health care costs by 5-9% without adversely affecting quality of care. This would save $60-108 billion in health care costs each year. These savings would lower the cost of health insurance and permit an additional 2.4-4.3 million Americans to obtain insurance. > That “leading study” was a 1996 paper by Stanford economists Daniel P. Kessler and Mark McClellan. McClellan – who is both an economist and a physician – served more recently as President Bush’s senior White House policy director for health care, and is now the head of the Food and Drug Administration. > > The Kessler-McClellan study is one of the few academic studies that has ever attempted to measure the cost of “defensive medicine” attributable to lawsuits. It did so by examining the cost of treating hospitalized heart patients in states that have caps on damage awards and other restrictions on malpractice suits, and comparing them with the costs of treating similar patients in states without such limits on lawsuits. > > The Kessler-McClellan conclusion: > > We find that malpractice reforms that directly reduce provider liability pressure lead to reductions of 5 to 9 percent in medical expenditures without substantial effects on mortality or medical complications. We conclude that liability reforms can reduce defensive medical practices. > The Kessler-McClellan study won the 1997 American Economics Association’s award in health economics. > > However, a fact not mentioned in the Bush HHS paper is that several other studies of defensive medicine failed to find anywhere near such large costs. A 1990 study by the Harvard University School of Public Health “did not find a strong relationship between the threat of litigation and medical costs,” CBO said. And a 1999 study in the _Journal of Health Economics_ found only tiny savings – less than three-tenths of one percent – when studying the cost of Caesarian sections in states with limits on lawsuits, compared to states without limits. > > Finally, a 1994 study by the congressional Office of Technology Assessment found some added costs (under $54 million total) due to defensive radiology in children with head injuries and defensive Caesarian sections in certain women with difficult pregnancies. But the OTA study concluded: “it is impossible in the final analysis to draw any conclusions about the overall extent or cost of defensive medicine.” > > **What GAO and CBO Said** > CBO and GAO both question whether the results Kessler and McClellan observed in hospitalized heart patients can be applied to patients in cancer wards, nursing homes, doctors’ offices, maternity wards and elsewhere. > > In 1999 a GAO study said the evidence Kessler and McClellan cited was too narrow to provide a basis for estimating overall costs of defensive medicine: > > Because this study was focused on only one condition and on a hospital setting, it cannot be extrapolated to the larger practice of medicine. Given the limited evidence, reliable cost savings estimates cannot be developed. > And on Jan. 8, 2004 , the Congressional Budget Office also said the Kessler-McClellan study wasn’t a valid basis for projecting total costs of defensive medicine. > > When CBO applied the methods used in the study of Medicare patients hospitalized for two types of heart disease to a broader set of ailments, it found no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending. Moreover, using a different set of data, CBO found no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts. > Worth noting: The nonpartisan CBO is now headed by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who previously was chief economist for President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. > > \ > > Copyright 2004 Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania > Judgments expressed are those of [FactCheck.org](http://FactCheck.org)’s staff, not the Annenberg Center Sounds like John Kerry’s position is based on sound science and research. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/51 "2004-09-03T06:03:53Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > The Tomahawk was NOT a first-strike weapon. They took four and a half hours to get to many of their targets. You would have needed to launch thousands of them to have a successful first strike. The odds of none of them being spotted were infinitesimal. It was portrayed as one, however. Well, what I was objecting to was your strawman argument about why people were objecting to having a first-strike weapon. Now, you have changed your argument to say that what they were wrong about was it having first-strike capability in the first place. Maybe that is true, but it would be nice to see some sort of cite to back that up. (A quick look on the web seemed to turn up numbers implying they could reach their targets in considerably less time than the 4-1/2 hours that you portray.) At any rate, Kerry’s memo only talked about reducing the Tomahawk (by which he might have meant the nuclear variant, as you now admit) by 50%. There are just so many holes in logic in going from that memo to claims that Kerry’s proposed cuts were not justified that you will really have to do a lot more work than just flash a 20 year old memo from God-knows-what source and say, “See, Kerry is soft on defense.” And, let’s just say that the credibility on “your side of the aisle” (to borrow a phrase of yours from above) has been kind of wanting lately when we’ve actually taken a close look at these claims. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/52 "2004-09-03T06:55:10Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Listening to the various speakers at the RNC, a theme has emerged (to say the least). That theme is that Kerry’s record as a Senator has been inconsistent… Trying to get a sense of _anything_ about John Kerry from the speakers at the RNC is like asking Ron Brown to describe O.J. Simpson, _n’est pas?_ Not quite the best source for an accurate view of the man, and all that. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/53 "2004-09-03T06:57:58Z")
[Anti-Kerry Ad Highlights Changes On Welfare, Death Penalty Club for Growth PAC ad also recycles some misleading tax claims we’ve de-bunked before.](http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=226) > [@](#): > > **Summary** > > A Club for Growth PAC TV ad released July 26 accurately cites Kerry’s changing positions over the years on welfare reform, the death penalty for terrorists, and gasoline taxes. > > But it also falsely implies that he’s voted to raise taxes 350 times, a claim we’ve de-bunked before. > > And the ad’s main conclusion – that Kerry “has a big problem making up his mind” – is a matter of opinion, not fact. We provide some additional information to help voters put Kerry’s changing positions in context. > > **Analysis** > > The Club for Growth, a Republican-leaning, anti-tax group, said it would spend $1 million on this ad, running it in Boston during the convention and in several Midwestern states afterward. It portrays Kerry as a weathervane, indecisive and “blowing in the wind.” > > > [@](#): > > > > SIDEBAR > > > > Club for Growth ad > > > > “Blowing in the Wind” > > > > **Announcer:** John Kerry has a little problem making up his mind. Okay, a big problem. > > > > In 1996 he opposed the death penalty for terrorists. Now he claims to support it. Sometimes he’s for welfare reform, sometimes against it. For a 50-cent gas tax hike, then maybe not. Kerry voted for higher taxes 350 times, but now says he’d cut taxes. > > > > John Kerry - blowing in the wind. > > > > Club for Growth PAC is responsible for the content of this advertising. > > **Death Penalty for Terrorists** > > It’s true, as the ad states, that Kerry once opposed the death penalty for terrorists and now supports it. He’s long been an opponent of the death penalty in general. In 1989, he was among a small minority of senators who [voted](http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=101&session=1&vote=00275) against a bill (S. 1798) to impose the death penalty “for the terrorist murder of United States nationals abroad.” The bill passed with a bipartisan vote of 79-20. (Kerry [voted](http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=101&session=1&vote=00274) for an amendment (S. Amdt. 1068) to the bill that would have imposed life imprisonment without parole for the same crime, in preference to the death penalty. The amendment failed by a 20-79 vote.) > > The ad also gets it right when it says Kerry still opposed the policy seven years later in 1996. During a Sept. 16, 1996 Senate campaign debate between Kerry and then-Massachusetts Governor William Weld, Kerry said anti-death penalty countries wouldn’t allow the U.S. to extradite suspected terrorists who could be put to death. As quoted by the _Boston Globe_: > > **Kerry:** Your policy (the death penalty) would amount to **a terrorist protection policy**. Mine would put them in jail. > That, of course, was long before September 11, 2001. Kerry now supports the death penalty for terrorists: > > **Kerry:** We are talking about people who have declared war on our nation, and just as I was prepared to kill people personally and collectively in Vietnam… **I support killing people who declare war on our country**. > So Kerry’s position did change – though he still opposes the death penalty in other cases. Was Kerry simply “blowing in the wind” of public outrage? His explanation is that he responded to changed facts, not changed public opinion. He told the Boston Globe on Dec. 18, 2002 that anti-death penalty countries would be more willing to turn over terrorists after the 9/11 attacks: “I think 9/11 has changed the capacity for extradition.” > > **Welfare Reform** > > The Club for Growth accurately cites two differing votes by Kerry on welfare-related bills. Kerry has an explanation for that as well. > > Both bills emphasized work requirements for welfare beneficiaries. Kerry joined most other Democrats when he [voted](http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00163) on June 22, 1993 to table – or kill – an amendment (S. Amdt 489) requiring states to ensure that at least 10 percent of welfare beneficiaries participate in a work program, with a two percent increase each year, or suffer cuts in federal funding. The tabling measure failed 34-64. The so-called “workfare” amendment went on to pass by a voice vote on the same day, but died in the House-Senate conference. > > Three years later, on Aug. 1, 1996 Kerry [voted](http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00262) FOR a broad-based welfare bill (H.R. 3734) that included cutting benefits for recipients after two years if they didn’t work and setting a five-year lifetime cap on welfare eligibility. The bill passed with a bipartisan majority of 78-21. This time most Democrats supported the measure, and President Clinton signed it into law. > > Why the change? Mike Gehrke, a Kerry aide, told [FactCheck.org](http://FactCheck.org) that Kerry voted against the 1993 bill primarily because it didn’t include funding for childcare or other services to help single mothers get back to work. The comprehensive 1996 bill included billions of dollars for childcare. > > **The Gas Tax** > > It’s true that Kerry once voiced support for a 50-cent gas tax and no longer does. As we previously [reported](http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=163), the only evidence that Kerry ever supported such a tax comes from two newspaper articles from ten years ago. In fact, Kerry never voted for a gas-tax bill in the Senate, and he didn’t co-sponsor a 1993 bill to raise the gas tax by 10 cents per gallon each year for five years. So yes, Kerry went from fleeting, weak support for a gas tax to none at all. > > **"Higher Taxes" 350 Times? Wrong** > > As we already [reported](http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=159), the ad’s claim that Kerry voted for higher taxes 350 times is misleading. It is simply false to imply that Kerry has voted that many times to raise taxes above prevailing levels. The Club for Growth is recycling a figure generated by the Bush-Cheney campaign. And as a Bush-Cheney campaign official cautioned when we asked for documentation: “It is important to note that these are votes for higher taxes, **not necessarily tax increases** , meaning it includes votes against tax cuts.” (emphasis added). Most of the 350 votes the Bush campaign lists are actually votes to keep taxes the same, and against proposed cuts. Some of the 350 votes are actually votes to cut taxes, but because they were votes for Democratic alternatives to Republican-sponsored tax-cut bills, the Bush camp counts them as votes for “higher” taxes – meaning higher than they would have been had he voted the other way. > > There is no question, however, that Kerry has voted to increase taxes in the past. He currently supports raising taxes on persons making over $200,000 a year by repealing Bush’s cuts for individuals at that income level. On that issue Kerry isn’t “blowing in the wind” at all – he’s steadfastly against the Club for Growth’s agenda of making those tax cuts permanent. > > \ > > Copyright 2004 Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania > Judgments expressed are those of [FactCheck.org](http://FactCheck.org)’s staff, not the Annenberg Center ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/54 "2004-09-03T07:00:08Z")
The following premise has been swallowed whole by millions of Americans: John Kerry is invariably liberal, on every vote, on every issue. He is also a non-stop flip-flopper. First, he’s on the liberal side, then he turns around, and he’s on the liberal side, then all of a sudden, he reverses himself, and is on the liberal side… Any more silly questions about the threat of Cognitive Dissonance? I have some brochures, right here… ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/55 "2004-09-03T16:01:36Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > We already ripped the crap out of this lame claim [here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=254047&highlight=Aegis). > > Use your brain for a second and ask yourself, for example, if CANCELLING the Aegis system would yeild only $800 million, or if that is more in line with eliminating ONE Aegis Cruiser, which were replaced by Aegis Destroyers anyway. And the Tomahawk nuclear missle was ELIMINATED by GHW Bush 7 years after Kerry proposed cutting it. There are other misstatements here as well. Check the thread. I have to take you to task for all of this. I have refrained from criticizing Kerry for this campaign document after it was revealed that he later admitted that it advocated cuts that were foolishly deep. I commend Kerry for coming to his senses on this one. Your post, however, is full of misstatements. First of all, Aegis cruisers were not replaced by Aegis destroyers. Aegis cruisers were commissioned between 10 to 15 years before the Aegis destroyers were. At the time they were built, the Aegis destroyers existed only on paper. Cancelling the cruisers and building only the destroyers would have delayed the Aegis program for years, at a time when the Soviets had ships with missile systems and also aircraft that posed grave risks to our aircraft carriers. Furthermore, the destroyers have not yet replaced the cruisers. All of the cruisers built are still commmissioned ships in the fleet, including the USS Monterey, the cruiser I was fortunate to serve on for two years. Furthermore, the Tomahawk nuclear missile has not been eliminated. It is an active weapon system. I hope this clears some matters up. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/56 "2004-09-03T16:48:50Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > I hope this clears some matters up. Blah, blah, blah. > [@George H. W. Bush](#): > > After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office. > [@Richard Cheney](#): > > Overall, since I’ve been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That’s the peace dividend. … And now we’re adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend. > > … > > [The Democratic] Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you’ve squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don’t fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You’ve directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them. > [@](#): > > At the same time, in 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile. (Interestingly, the F-18 and Trident II are among the weapons systems that the RNC claims Kerry opposed.) [http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/](http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/) You guys really ought to make up your minds. It’s either anti-American and unsafe to want to cut the military budget, or it’s fiscally responsible and pragmatic to seek reductions or eliminate certain weapons at certain times, under certain circumstances. Either way, quit the damn finger-pointing. Seeing as how more of them would be pointed your way than Kerry’s it’s a rather obvious double standard. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/57 "2004-09-03T17:20:01Z")
**Shayna** , what is your problem? That post wasn’t directed against Kerry, and I made great pains to say so. It was meant to correct some things **Hentor** said that flat out weren’t true. I merely wanted to inform him of such. I have a bit of knowlege and expertice here. I work on the Tomahawk cruise missile project, and install missile support systems on the very same Aegis cruisers and destroyers **Hentor** referred to. If you have any data that contradicts this, please let me know about it. But I’d stack my eleven years of Navy experience, as a sailor and a civilian contractor, against your - what? - Google searches? A wise person defers to the expertice of a subject matter expert. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/58 "2004-09-03T17:20:52Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Your post, however, is full of misstatements. > > First of all, Aegis cruisers were not replaced by Aegis destroyers. Aegis cruisers were commissioned between 10 to 15 years before the Aegis destroyers were. At the time they were built, the Aegis destroyers existed only on paper. Okay, let’s be specific, since you feel my characterization is a misstatement. Certainly you should correct me if I am wrong, but the _last_ Aegis cruiser was commissioned in 1991, and the _first_ Aegis destroyer was commissioned in 1991, so it seemed fair to say that the destroyer replaced the cruiser. > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Cancelling the cruisers and building only the destroyers would have delayed the Aegis program for years… But in the thread in which we discussed this, [you](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4839946&postcount=139) said > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Perhaps that’s true, coffeecam, and I’m willing to concede that Kerry may have wanted to cut one one ship only. So why have you reverted back to the interpretation of this line on the memo as “cancelling the cruisers?” > [@](#): > > Furthermore, the Tomahawk nuclear missile has not been eliminated. It is an active weapon system. We also talked about this in the thread. It is actively in storage. Perhaps you merely object to the term “eliminated,” when I perhaps should have said “mothballed.” > [@](#): > > The [Tomahawk TLAM-N](http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/d...ukes.html#tlamn)(Tomahawk Land Attack Missile - Nuclear) sea-launched cruise missiles (SLCM) was carried aboard a variety of ships and submarines. All have been removed and are in storage since September 1991, when President Bush recalled all non-SLBM sea-based nuclear weapons (a sweeping measure, which when included with the Russian reciprocation, removed on the order of 6,000 operational warheads). > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > I hope this clears some matters up. Well, not really, since you seem to have flip-flopped on your interpretation of the line in the Kerry memo, and described the TLAM-N as active, despite my having quoted that information about its being recalled and placed into storage once already. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/59 "2004-09-03T17:38:36Z")
The newer Aegis destroyers are replacing older Kidd class destroyers, Spruance class destroyers and Perry class frigates. These non-Aegis ships are being removed from active service at a brisk pace and transferred to reserve duty, the mothball fleet, sale to foreign naval forces, or sinking in torpedo or Harpoon exercises and continued service afterward as artificial reefs. Since the Aegis cruisers have fifteen or twenty years left in them, they hardly have been replaced. Also, you will notice, per your post, that the nuclear tomahawks were removed from ships in an arrangement with the Russians that included reciprocation from them. This, you’d agree, made the world much safer. Safer, surely, than unilaterally cancelling the program on our own, without getting anything from them. The missiles are in storage, and threaten no one. The program is still considered an active one. You can interpret this as you see fit. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715/60 "2004-09-03T17:42:09Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > I merely wanted to inform him of such. I have a bit of knowlege and expertice here. I work on the Tomahawk cruise missile project, and install missile support systems on the very same Aegis cruisers and destroyers **Hentor** referred to. > > If you have any data that contradicts this, please let me know about it. But I’d stack my eleven years of Navy experience, as a sailor and a civilian contractor, against your - what? - Google searches? For some reason, I trust [reputable sources on the web](http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/theater/slcm.htm), like the Federation of American Scientists, more than someone who says “trust me I know”: > [@](#): > > **Tomahawk Cruise Missile** > > The Tomahawk long range, subsonic cruise missile can attack targets on land (Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM)) and at sea (Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (TASM)). The TLAM can be fitted with either conventional unitary warhead (TLAM\C), nuclear warhead (TLAM\N) or submunition dispenser (TLAM\D). On 27 September 1991 President Bush announced a number of initiatives affecting the entire spectrum of US nuclear weapons. The United States removed all tactical nuclear weapons, including nuclear cruise missiles, from its surface ships and attack submarines. **The nuclear equiped UGM-109A TLAM-N Tomahawk was withdrawn from service in 1992, though conventional versions remain operational.** (Bolding mine.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerrys-record/262715.md?page=4)