Or perhaps one could also observe that Bush has been the President for the last three years, while his own party has controlled both Houses and the Supreme Court. Wouldn’t a far more reasonable conclusion be that he has had more actions on his record to be criticized for? Wouldn’t it follow, reasonably, from that that conservatives who still want to support him have good reason to feel defensive because of Bush’s actions themselves than because others point them out to you?
Perhaps you could save yourself some trouble in answering **Shayna ** and explain why you said what you said. It’s almost pointless, in terms of establishing your credibility, to try to go find facts that can be made to support something you already “knew”. So, tell us, how did you reach your conclusion that “Kerry’s voting record in the Senate on defense spending is not a good one”?
I’m glad you’re enjoying your weekend, as am I. Do so, however, in the knowledge that the whininess and partisanship of your posts are transparent.
Hiya, Shyana. I’m glad you posted, because it would have been quite the drag to have spent hours poring over thomas.loc.gov only to find I had proved something no one disagreed with in the first place!
I did say, “Kerry’s voting record in the Senate on defense spending is not a good one.”
But I said it in the context of comment on Zell Miller speech, which itself was a comment on why Miller supported Bush for CinC over Kerry. So the context of my comment was, “Kerry’s voting record in the Senate on defense spending is not a good one, compared to Bush’s record on defense as President.”
Now, that context may not have been obvious, but in fact it’s clear that my comment, even devoid of that context, needed SOME comparison for it to have any meaning. “Kerry’s voting record in the Senate on defense spending is not a good one.” Compared to who? Senator Hawky Hawkerson? I’m sure I’m right, unless you contend that Kerry was the most hawkish of all 100 senators. Compared to Senator Dovey Doveson? Then no, I’m sure Kerry was not the worst guy in the Senate.
So before I either re-trod the steps factcheck.org took, I guess we should agree on what needs to be shown.
Agreed. It is unfair to compare 19 years of senate time, which included the end of the Cold War and an overall sense that we could scale back defense, to Bush’s tenure in the White House.
The Chief Executive proposes a budget; though he does not technically vote on it, we may assume his proposal constitutes an endorsement of the items therein.
Let’s define “good” compared to who else’s record, or what standard? Then I’ll either concede the point or seek to prove the contrary.
Why should spending more money on Defense automatically be defined as “good?”
I would argue that you could spend less money more effectively. I would also argue that spending tens of billions on an unneseccary war is bad for defense, since it wastes resources, diverts manpower (not to mentions kills it), hurts morale and in the case of Iraq, fosters more hostility and terrorism, therby making the US less safe then it was if the war had not been started.
There is a difference between spending money on defense and spending it on non-defensive acts of pure aggression.
When the Secretary of Defense, through the President, proposes a budget, one approach is to give a strong deference to the presumption that they have asked for what is necessary to effectively administer the DoD.
That’s certainly the classic definition of “strong on defense.”
Your point is a good one – sometimes the DoD does not effectively curtail wasteful practices or identify dead-end programs. Sometimes inter-service rivalries cause insistance on program that are overall inefficient, from the Warfigter perspective.
But all other things being equal, more funding for DoD is fairly equated to being stronger on defense. There are certainly nuances to that broad generalization.
What would qualify as “pretty good” (and consequently “good”, “excellent”, “poor”, etc.) then, in your opinion, Bricker? We’re going to have to find some kind of common ground to work off of here.
And another approach could be to propose the question: “Have they asked for more than what is necessary to effectively administer the DoD?”
So Bricker, then do you agree that funding is an indication of a good record. Why did you say it isn’t? What percentage should they spend before it starts getting good?
**Diogenes **, I was painting with bold strokes; I agree with your post. But determining the best spending plan comes down much to opinion. At least until time gives us it’s report, some program’s success levels won’t be borne out for years.
One’s appropriations with the constituency’s dollars must count for something over time. The higher the percentage approved, one has to assume, the higher the representative’s confidence level with the whole shebang.
Besides, some appropriations will have smaller budgets from time to time getting the yes vote.
It appears you’ve already done the former. The use of “good” is your own, whether you’re describing what you think Miller’s views are or your own views. That gives you the privilege of stating what definition you meant, without which your observation, contextualized or not, has no meaning. But, since you’re conceding that privilege, you’re conceding the point. Good day.
I never said funding wasn’t an indication of a good record on defense. I said we couldn’t agree that 60% was “good” – I pointed out that a 60% on a high-school test would net the test-taker a low “D” - nearly an “F,” in fact.
I’m not conceding the privilege or the point. I said, “Let’s define…” LET US, together, reach a fair definition of “good.” It may be that we cannot. But let us try to propose a fair-minded standard against which we can measure support of the defense program by a US Senator.
I was trying to get a ballpark figure. Using your school grade system, voting yes on 16 out of 19 bills is somewhere in the ballpark of 4/5ths of the time he voted yes for the bill. That’s about a “B” average, right? Can we use this as an indication that he’s at least “pretty good”, “not bad”, etc. as a baseline?
Or will you continue to insist this record’s “not good” just because Zell says so? They’re few differences between Cheney’s and Kerry’s proposals. How is Kerry’s record significantly worse than Cheney’s? How many differences do there need to be before Cheney’s record starts looking dismal?
Unless you believe overall that our DoD is not, or has not recently been in good shape, Kerry is someone who mostly approved making it what it is. Specifically, at what points does he fail? Also, you might as well be sure to double check it against Cheney’s record, as it’s likely others will ask you to explain what makes either one considerably dissimilar?
If you think our defense has been lacking, say so, but don’t go laying all the blame at Kerry’s feet.
By the way, the school card rating doesn’t really wash as far as I’m concerned as “strong on defense” is not really a right / wrong decision laid out with definite answers that are either correct or not. One might vote against bills repeatedly for moral reasons, and may even be supported by their constituents in doing so. It isn’t necessarily a matter of get with the program or you fail. Some, by voting for big reforms, may be doing exactly what duty tells them.
In this case however, someone who votes better than 50%, about 75% of the time in fact, is mostly giving their consent, right?
That’s a fabulously stupid theory. The Republican Party was not explicitly right-wing, and it has not become left-wing. Nor has, let’s see… the YMCA, the Boy Scouts, the League of Women Voters…
What an interesting line of inquiry! How might we set that up, get some kind of thread going so we can break it down. How many referred by an ex-spouse? (“No, these are your kind of people…trust me on this”). How many overmedicated? How many from reading the paper, how many the books…
That would be cool to know! (Or has it already been done?)
The League of Women Voters is famously liberal. The YMCA has become decidedly secular over time, and seems to be, in many places these days, a low-cost gym. It is not the evangelizing, proselytizing body it once was.
The Republican Party bacame squishy on social programs until a conservative takeover in the 1960’s and 1970’s, and appears to be getting squishy again.
The Boy Scouts were a quite right wing organization at the outset, and are considerably less so now.
Why don’t you come up with some examples that actually prove your point, instead of helping mine?