Sebastian | October 8, 2004 02:11 PM

"The Florida recount was a dirty business all the way around, and the GOP, rabid little powermongers that they were, were like the poor schmucks at a radio contest who were willing to dive headfirst into a vat of pig shit to get the sparkly prize, while the Democrats were only willing to get in to their knees and half-heartedly pick around, and complain that they shouldn't have to wallow in pork crap in the first place."

Absolutely brilliant. This is why I read the Whatever. Congratulations.

tommyspoon | October 8, 2004 02:16 PM

Yep. Yep. Yep.

Herman Edwards, coach of the New York Jets, said it best: "We play to win the game."

That's why I've given almost $1000 to the Kerry/Edwards campaign. (I've never given to any individual campaign before this.)

That's why my Dad, not the most political fellow, has been volunteering for the Kerry/Edwards campaign for the past two months despite a bad hip and impaired mobility.

That's why I have been on all of my fellow liberal-minded friends (especially the ones who voted for Nader last time and who are still whining about Dean's Iowa Implosion) to suck it up and vote, dammit!

If Kerry does lose, he will not be the only one who has failed.

Harry | October 8, 2004 02:42 PM

I thought much the same thing about beating Bush before a candidate was even chosen. If the Democrats can't beat Bush, they should dry up and blow away. If they fail here, the entire party administration should be replaced.

Mary Messall | October 8, 2004 03:07 PM

This election has nothing to do with the candidates. If Bush were a trained hippo and Kerry a saint (with combat experience and an MBA) half the country would still vote for Bush, and half would vote against him. The senate's going to be close, and the house is going to be close, and that has nothing to do with the candidates either.

People are voting for or against an ideology. Are we brave, Godly individualists, or are we a peaceful, reasonable community?

As long as the country is divided by the culture wars, all elections are going to be close. And there's nothing John Kerry can do about it.

Julie | October 8, 2004 03:20 PM

Holy Jebus, NOW I am terrified.

In my experiences with Bush supporters, I swear they just don't think for themselves, they honestly don't, and no amount of evidence about the smirking incompetent guy will temper their zeal. I don't know how any candidate, including Kerry, can effectively counteract people who don't think for themselves and just follow the dotted line drawn by the neocons and/or the extreme Christian rightwingers.

What I don't get is the undecided voters. What the hell more do they need to decide? And if Kerry can't pull some or all of them to his ticket, then yeah, proceed with the shoe-beating.

Tripp | October 8, 2004 03:21 PM

I totally agree with Mary. This election is only partly about Kerry. It's more about the 'democratic party,' and it is even more about the citizens of the US.

There is a culture war, and it revolves around money. Those with money use race and religion to further their agenda.

Think about it. What drives Republicans today - power or religious principles? If it was religious principles they would have banned abortion. They control 2 1/2 of the 3 branches of government, yet abortion is still legal.

Why is abortion still legal? Because those in power care most about remaining in power, and they simply use the abortion controversy as a means to gather support for themselves. If abortion was ever outlawed they would lose some of their guaranteed support. It is the perfect issue to rally the faithful troops. Sadly, the faithful troops are being used. Illegal abortion is the carrot being held close, but always unattainable.

It is ALL about wealth and power, and American citizens are getting played like a fiddle. Kerry really has nothing to do with it. Focus your anger elsewhere.

Lisa | October 8, 2004 03:23 PM

I know this is going to sound like I should be reaching for the little tin-foil hat, but sometimes when I think of the ridiculous of this situation I think that maybe Bush has Kerry in his pocket in some way. Maybe its a Skull and Bones thing. Maybe Kerry was never meant to win and its all for show and Kerry knows it.
Sometimes when the Bushes have done something or been caught doing something so collosally stupid...I just hold my breath, waiting for Kerry to bat this one out of the ball park. But it always feels like he is holding back. Or he says something colossally stupid in return.
Logically, I don't know if I really believe that Kerry is throwing the race, but every once in a while it haunts the back corners of my mind on an instinctual level.
Okay, don't go calling men in white coats. I'll take my tin hat off now.

Chad Orzel | October 8, 2004 03:27 PM

I agree with Mary. There is a good 30-40% of the country who will simply never vote for any Democrat, ever. It's God, guns, and gays, and no matter how staggeringly incompetent and venal (and incompetently venal, at that) the Republican candidate may be, they'll vote for him.

Until those people get swept under by the demographic tide, national elections will be close at best.

Adam Nelson | October 8, 2004 03:33 PM

Sebastian took the words right out of my mouth. I guffawed continuously while reading that post.

John Scalzi | October 8, 2004 03:36 PM

Chad Orzel says:

"I agree with Mary. There is a good 30-40% of the country who will simply never vote for any Democrat, ever."

Yeah, but that still means the possibility of getting 60%-70% of the vote, which would be pretty convincing. Hell, I'd settle for something like 55%. This 48% to 48% crap is getting old.

Dave Pittman | October 8, 2004 03:39 PM

Definitely Chad. I am a Democrat who has liked and voted for the occasional Republican (at varying levels of government). I have never met a Republican who would make the same move.

As much as they are dangers in other parts of the world, they are dangers in our process too: zealots. I have never been so aware of the spinning, slandering and blind bloody-eyed hatred that most Repubs throw at all things Democratic. It's really scary.

Tripp | October 8, 2004 03:52 PM

John,

"This 48% to 48% crap is getting old."

First, the media likes a horse race. No matter what the score is in the first half, football announcers will never call the game over. They gotta sell some beer.

Second, somebody somewhere (wish I had a link) has a good analysis on why anything less that 50% for an incumbent is really bad news for the incumbent.

Third, 50% of people are below average. That's just the way it is.

John Scalzi | October 8, 2004 04:02 PM

Tripp says:

"First, the media likes a horse race. No matter what the score is in the first half, football announcers will never call the game over."

This does not imply that the football teams themselves need to oblige the announcers and keep the score close. And if one team is up 35-0 at halftime, the announcers can spin it all they want, but the score is still 35-0. I don't believe the race is close because the media wants it close. The race is close because Kerry hasn't capitalized on his opponent's weaknesses.

"Third, 50% of people are below average."

Depends if you're defining the average as the mean or the median.

Tripp | October 8, 2004 04:37 PM

John,

Hey, I found a link for my second point: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.todd.html

I cut my teeth on "How to Lie with Statistics," a great book.

Sadly, I think when it comes to intelligence half the people are below the mean, the median, and the mode. Too bad it doesn't apply to income as well.

Dawn B. | October 8, 2004 06:00 PM

Okay, I may get flamed here, but here goes:

I am a Democratic [bordering on Green for certain issues]. I have voted for Republican candidates before. I firmly want Bush out of office.

However, I also know some very intelligent Republicans who are going to vote for Bush. Most of the Bush supporters I know are brainless. But there are few intelligent ones. They will vote for Bush because they believe that Kerry will get us into worse trouble in the Middle East and/or because they think we were right in removing Saddam, no mater what reason was used. To them, it was more important that the action was taken than the reason. I can kinda see this point. Sometimes, to some people, the ends justify the means. And the end of Saddam justifies the 'misconceptions' Bush held and propegated about the reasons for going to war.

However, I do agree that Kerry is botching this election process. I cannot understand why undecided are voting for Bush. Hard line Republicans I accept, intelligent or no. But the borderline people I just do not understand. Unless they are truly buying into the fear tactics taht Bush & co are spreading. I mean, who really wants to hear that we will suffer if we elect Kerry, votes for him, and then America is attack. That person will feel responsible for all/any deaths that result.

Which sucks and is exactly what Bush is counting on.

Dawn

Jeff Porten | October 8, 2004 06:06 PM

All of you are giving a pass to the people who are truly responsible for this being a close race. Ladies and gentlemen, I present you with: the Democratic Party.

How could this NOT be a close race? For four years, the Republicans have been calling every play, and for four years, the Democrats have by and large been the ones with the pom-poms on the sidelines. Their total irrelevance led to their defeat in 2002, and their complete inability to find a voice or a backbone is what allows a steady stream of mendacity and fraud get accepted as truth by the American people and in the newspapers.

This is the fault of the Democratic party for not having a consistent line to respond to the administration, so that the "everything is peachy in Iraq" story doesn't have the "no, they're lying through their tobacco-stained teeth" counter. This is the fault of Al Gore for retiring from the public stage. This is the fault of Bill Clinton for boffing an intern and losing his rightful place as the voice of the party. This is the fault of Tom Daschle for never taking on public prominence of any worth, and the fault of Terry McAuliffe for playing defense.

Kerry has had to carry the water for ALL of these people. That was why Dean caught fire -- he was a guy who looked like he could carry water in swimming pool-sized tanks. Kerry has taken a much more measured -- some might say wimpy -- approach. But he'd be kicking ass and taking names, and Laura would already be packing boxes, if the rest of his damn party had done its job.

And I say this as a lifelong Democrat. Someone's got to sit up and notice why we're so often the losing team.

Chad Orzel | October 8, 2004 06:07 PM

"Yeah, but that still means the possibility of getting 60%-70% of the vote, which would be pretty convincing. Hell, I'd settle for something like 55%. This 48% to 48% crap is getting old."

Sure, but the 30-40% hard-core Republicans are matched by 30-40% hard-core Democrats, and 20-40% of "independent" voters. And a good 10-15% of that block are Libertoonians like Glenn Reynolds, who claim to have no particular party allegiance, but are really "not-Democrats" more than anything else, while another 10-15% are space aliens, as far as I can tell, and can't be predicted.

I was talking about Kerry's campaign thus far with a colleague this morning, and as I said to him, I'm not entirely sure that he doesn't have the right strategy. He did basically nothing in August, which had all the political junkies saying that he was just dead in the water, but then the only people paying any attention in August are the political junkies, who already know who they're voting for. There's not much point in expending a great deal of effort in August, just to give them warm-fuzzy feelings, when none of the voters who can actually be swayed are watching.

Kerry has sprung to life right around the time that the average undecided voter starts paying attention to the campaign. This may not be a coincidence.

Or that may be just wishful thinking on my part. Tough to say, really.

John Scalzi | October 8, 2004 06:33 PM

Dawn B says:

"And the end of Saddam justifies the 'misconceptions' Bush held and propegated about the reasons for going to war."

Well, and I should note that I personally think getting rid of Saddam was indeed the one good thing about this whole adventure, and the reason I was not opposed to this war when it all was ramping up. The thing that gets me is that some people -- primarily Republicans, but not entirely -- can't get it through their heads that removing Saddam is a discrete event; one can approve of it and yet still come to the conclusion that the rest of the Iraq situation is entirely bungled. This is the classic "removing a fly from your forehead with an axe" problem: Yes, good for you that the fly is gone. But no you've got another problem entirely.

Steve Eley | October 8, 2004 11:00 PM

"Kerry's up today, but not enough that he won't be behind tomorrow if he doesn't ace tonight's debate."

Good thing he aced the debate, for whatever it's worth. I honestly didn't think it was possible for Bush to look worse than he did last week; but he did. Twenty minutes in I was expecting his head to explode.

John Scalzi | October 9, 2004 12:01 AM

Ah but his head *didn't* explode, and because of that, it's being spun by the pundits as a draw, from what I can see.

uhura | October 9, 2004 04:55 AM

Thanks so much, John and everyone who has commented thus far. This is why I love Whatever - to have things with which to intellectually agitate my friends, allies, and enemies. In the snarkiest way possible.

And I love how John writes everything I'm thinking in the funniest way possible.

Chad Orzel | October 9, 2004 09:36 AM

"Ah but his head *didn't* explode, and because of that, it's being spun by the pundits as a draw, from what I can see."

I'm not usually one for media-bias conspiracy theories, but this is one area when I can sort of buy them: it's in the interests of the 24-hour news machine to have the election remain as close as possible for as long as possible. Which gives them a powerful incentive to find something positive to say about Bush's performance last night, because if they reported it as another Kerry walk-over, the gap would start to widen, and pretty soon, people would be tuning out.

Combined with the lowered expectations after that first debacle, all Bush really needed to do was to avoid flying off into some sort of spittle-flecked, profanity-filled rant in order to get it called a draw. Had he managed to suggest some connection between his policies and, you know, reality, they'd probably spin it as a smashing Bush victory-- as it was, "draw" is about as far as things can be stretched.

Stan! | October 9, 2004 01:48 PM

KVB- No matter who wins, we lose.

The election is as meaningless as the carefully orchestrated "debates".

http://www.debates.org/pages/lead.html {Leadership}
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2317343_1?noconfirm=0&channel=LP {Republican. He is also the CEO for Nevada's American Gaming Commission}

Chairman for the Democratic National Committee Paul G. Kirk, Jr. (from 1985-1989, the sitting chairman the year the debates management was coerced from the League of Women Voters)

Both of whom are employed by: http://www.ndi.org/support/ilf/ilf2004/schedule/schedule.asp

Which Madeline Albright described as operating thus:"NDI is by no means a solo act. We are part of a global network that includes other NGOs, the UN, and freedom-loving governments everywhere." {An NGO is "Non-governmental organizations associated with the United Nations"...guess}

The Global Network she mentions is here: http:
//www.ngo.org/index2.htm ,
here's one of their other faces: http://www.iccnow.org/ ...that's an international court, think about it- "International Court..." That's the smell of corrosion of US autonomy and sovereignty.

Here is what the WTO, the NDI and the USA have in mind for Iraq after the war (As of May 2003): http://www.wdi.bus.umich.edu/dc_report2003/findings.htm (I especially enjoyed reading about the "oil for food" program.)

Off-topic and just for fun: http://www.fec.gov/press/press2000/mur09262000.htm

An informative bit of background: http://www.usaid.gov/about_usaid/acvfa/acvfafullreptoct2002.pdf

My point is- the election is between two men who are representing the same interests. All we choose is which face. I think the idea is to turn democracy into a figurehead majority that a pick from whatever the corporately controlled media says are our choices. I play that game with my three year old...when I want him to drink fluids I ask him if he wants juice or milk. I don't like the idea of being treated like a three year old.

Nina | October 9, 2004 01:57 PM

Best Kerry quote from last night's debate:

"I agree with the president that we have to go after [the terrorists] and get them wherever they are. I just think I can do that far more effectively. Because the most important weapon in doing that is intelligence."

Sigh. So, so true.

KenL | October 9, 2004 03:45 PM

"My point is- the election is between two men who are representing the same interests. All we choose is which face."

Wow, Stan, not only is that terribly defeatist, it also strikes me as not a little pig-ignorant. Then again, when you're on the looney fringe, everyone else out there starts to look all the same shade of 'other'. But god bless the tin-foil wearing space-alien xenophobic looney fringe for demonstrating that there's always, always, ALWAYS going to be a disagreements in a healthy democracy. Thank god for that.

Meantime, come up with a better plan. If you don't want to vote for the lizards, then maybe you should be finding some way to get the lizards out of office, instead of futilely bemoaning the pointlessness of it all. (see link below for the Douglas Adams reference)

http://wso.williams.edu/~rcarson/lizards.html

rayyy | October 9, 2004 04:32 PM

So Bush opposes new stem cell research because it's unethical to trade one life for others.

Lofty talk indeed, but hang on a minute. Isn't that the deal with the war in Iraq? A few die, but it saves us *all* from the terrorists. One life for many.

Flippety, flippety, flip, flip, flop. (think fish-out-of-water)

Travis | October 9, 2004 05:14 PM

Here's a scary thought; suppose that in the next two weeks the Bushies announce that they have captured Osama bin Laden. Who'd like to make book that this WON'T happen?

Lynn S | October 9, 2004 07:26 PM

-- "How can any major party candidate not beat a sitting president who is the first since Hoover to have the economy lose jobs on his watch?" --

Maybe because a lot of people understand that there are other factors contributing to the poor economy besides Bush's policies.

-- "How can any candidate not beat a sitting president whose rationales for a war of choice have been shown over and over again to be false and reckless" --

Maybe because a lot of people don't think the reasons were false and reckless.

John Scalzi | October 9, 2004 07:42 PM

Lynn S says:

"Maybe because a lot of people don't think the reasons were false and reckless."

Unfortunately for those people, little things called facts contradict them. Unless *they* know where Saddam's been hiding is Weapons of Mass Destruction. In which case, please inform our President. He'll be delighted to know.

Pat Fitzgibbon | October 10, 2004 01:28 AM

Think Occam's Razor. Da Shrub sucked away deployed/snatchable troops as soon as he
could get away with it. He then attacked with enough to maybe get Saddam. period.
He wanted to score one on Senior and thought he could. Everything else in Iraq is cover-up, excuse and rationalization. And the riots wern't
riots; they were destroying the evidence.

Pat Fitzgibbon | October 10, 2004 01:34 AM

Oops. No I don't think we did the riots. Just that they weren't. (Note to self: stay on point...)

Stan! | October 10, 2004 11:30 AM

KenL- I don't think I have a defeatist attitude. I am just incredibly frustrated by growing influence of corporate interest (domestic and foreign) in government. When I see clear evidence indicating that both canidates were chosen by corporate interests and then we are asked to chose between them, I have trouble believing, when elected, either will represent the interests of the people. The corporate interest in global economics are not inherently the same thing as the interests of the people of the United States.

I may be on a fringe but it is not the "looney" one. If I am on a fringe, it is at worst the fringe of a slippery slope. Consider it the side effect of being too informed.

"Looney fringe" people see patterns in their cornflakes- I am simply seeing patterns in human history. Given the perspective of human history, I don't think I am that far off-base in my concern.

Byron | October 11, 2004 02:24 AM

John and Tripp,

The mean and median are the same if the distribution is "Normal" (aka a Bell Curve, aka Gaussian) and in a sample they'll be about the same. IQ tests are supposed to be binomially distributed (they can't be normal as they exist in a specified range and are necessarily discrete).

Income on the other hand... well, thats definitely not Normally distributed... you can't have negative *income* (you can only have 0 income and positive expenses).

sylvia | October 11, 2004 07:02 AM

Somehow made me think of you...
http://www.snopes.com/sports/football/election.asp

moraltorium | October 11, 2004 11:04 PM

Byron- I wish you would inform my bank of that fact. On too numerous an occasion they have tried to tell me I was carrying a negative balance.

Michael Gray | October 12, 2004 01:29 AM

I don't mean to be rude but why on earth would anybody vote for a man who has a proven history of flip flop? And why is everybody into Bush bashing? Please...I wish to be edjucated.

Call me old fashion...I just wish we could hear the issues and not the hype. Well here are the issues.

1. Jobs-America has lost many. Why? What do you think was bombed on 9/11? My Grandma's house? Don't think so. As I recall...it was the World Trade Center in New York. Who in here realizes what was lost there? First of all...lives yes thats true. But the terrorist were'nt targeting people...they targeted America. The Towers were a major blow to this nation's economy. We lost jobs as a result. And as I recall...we almost slipped into resestion...but we did not. This administration prevented that. And Rescently...jobs have been on the rise...not overseas but here in America.

2.Deficit/Surpluss-Do any of you realize what a surpluss is? A surpluss is what the Government has when it does'nt spend money that it has but instead decides to use yours. Why does our government need to save money? They should be spending it on you and me. You want a surpluss? A surpluss does not in anyway mean that we are stable and financialy well. Now what is a deficit? In some cases it means 'in the hole' but for political pourpouses it is used to say "We don't have a large surpluss. The question is...do you want to pay higher taxes so the government can have a couple extra dollars?

3. War-Ok...I'm being shot at...what will you do? I would hope that you would save me. Does anyone in here realize who Saddam was? He thought he was Nebuchanezzar. He thought he could rebuild Babylon. He was a dangerous man. (Kerry's own words.) He has invaded other countries...fired missiles into Iran and Israel...gased his own people...murderd women and children in front of thier families...cut men into peices and shipped them home for thier families to see. Would identify AND sympathize with the men who are beheading our troops. And you say leave him alone? And do what? Place sanctions on him? I laugh at that...and so did he. Even if this man did not have WMD's he still needed to be out. He represented a safe haven for every terrorist that would wish harm upon an American.

You all know what we are to them? We are the infedels. The Koran instructs Muslims to bring the world to Islam or kill them. Since we will not convert...they will kill us anyway they can. Why is the fight so hard in Iraq? It's because of what they beleive. A suicide bommer believes they will be blessed in his afterlife with 70 white virgins if they die for the sake of thier cause. If the President did something wrong in this war it was not realizing the terrorist ambitions.

4. Tax relief for the rich-Its called trikle down. If you give the rich money to throw around...they can create jobs. If not...forget it. They tighten up...hold out...and people lose jobs. Thats how it is. And for us middle classers...we ought not complain. We got our tax break too.

Anything else?

Mark Ensley | October 12, 2004 03:36 AM

Well, what it comes down to is that for many people the party, or the ideology if you prefer, is becoming more important than the country. You can do the math, spout figures and references, and still they'll vote for the dog "because it's a Republican dog, dammit!"
I'm an indy voter, and have always tried to vote for the best candidate, but lately that has more often than not been the dems, because I'm getting a "win at all costs" vibe from the reps that's been really turning me away from the party.

I have a close friend who is a conservative christian who's voting for Kerry-- because to her Bush has been neither conservative nor christian! Why aren't more of them seeing this? This seems obvious to me as an agnostic progressive, but how can we take back the words which have been stolen by the power-hungry?

Why hasn't Kerry been hammering on the fact that Bush's policies have been neither conservative nor christian?

Boggles the mind.

If the dems lose this election then I give up. We will then need to form an American Moderate party and suck in all the disposessed Rs and Ds who can't function in the current split.

-Mark

Michael Gray | October 12, 2004 10:40 AM

Not Christian? There are so many things Bush has done thats been unpopular because it was just that...Christian.

1.Support the sainctity of marriage. When a man and a woman get together they make another person. You cant get this with a man and a man or a woman and a woman. There is a reason why the 'man and woman' senario works. Because thats how its supposed to be. From the beginning thats how God intended. And by the way...God destroyed two whole cities for being a bunch of flaimin homos. Sorry. It true.

2.Abortion-Lets see...wrong.
First of all...if ya'll would keep it in your pants long enough to find the ONE for you this might not be to big of an issue. But the majority of Americans out there have decided that pleasure comes first. Love is no longer valid. SEX SEX SEX baby yeah!!!! Wait for mairrage...its a good thing if you do.

Next...since people got thier hormones outta wack pregnancy is now and issue. You hear a lot of..."I'm not ready to have a child." Wait!!! Stop!!! Reverse that!!! What it really was is you werent ready for sex. Get a clue.

So now we have the potential for a multi-million dollar industry. Doctors can now benifit of teens uncontrolable urges. But it doesnt stop there. John Kerry would like MY tax dollars to go to something I don't agree with. If ya'll can believe what you want to why would I be forced to support that which I don't beleive in?

3.Stem cell research-Now here you have an industry that can benifit from the murder of innocents. You've all heard about the good things about stem cells from fetuses but have you ever heard the bad? These stem cells are unstable. A good majority of the time they can be rejected by the host and even grow into a tummor. So whats the big deal with using stem cells from these fetuses?
Bush never banned stem cell research. He allowed 48 other strand of stem cells to be used. He didn't even ban the fetus stem cells. But if you persue that route you do so without government funding.
Bottom line is this
Sex before marriage(It could stop here)
->Pregnancy(it didn't) ->Abortion(which I beleive to be wrong but Jhon Kerry wants me to support with my money)->Stem Cell research(It should have never made it here)
Bush is standing up for the morals of this country. I could never vote for a man who wishes to shred them to peices while he is in office.

Michael Gray | October 12, 2004 10:56 AM

P.S.
Here's some stuff I've found.

So how does Mrs. Heinz Kerry spend John Heinz's money? Just one example:
According to the G2 Bulletin, an online intelligence newsletter of WorldNetDaily, in the years between 1995-2001 she gave more than $4 million to an organization called the Tides Foundation. And what does the Tides Foundation do with John Heinz's money?
They support numerous anti-war groups, including Ramsey Clark's International Action Center. Clark has offered to defend Saddam Hussein when he's tried.
They support the Democratic Justice Fund, a joint venture of the Tides Foundation and billionaire hate-monger George Soros. The Democratic Justice Fund seeks to ease restrictions on Muslim immigration from "terrorist" states.
They support the Council for American-Islamic Relations, whose leaders are known to have close ties to the terrorist group, Hamas.
They support the National Lawyers Guild, organized as a communist front during the Cold War era. One of their attorneys, Lynne Stewart, has been arrested for helping a client, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, communicate with terror cells in Egypt. He is the convicted mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
They support Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Rights Action League, and the Abortion Action Project.
They support the most violent of all homosexual action groups, ACT-UP. They support the "Barrio Warriors," a radical Hispanic group whose primary goal is to return all of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to Mexico.

You guys want to vote for this?

Nicole | October 12, 2004 11:35 AM

I'm not voting for Teresa; I'm voting for John.

Nicole | October 12, 2004 11:39 AM

And that stuff about the Heinz Endowments has been debunked: http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/tides.asp.

John Scalzi | October 12, 2004 12:11 PM

Among other things Michael Gray gets wrong, he writes:

"We are the infedels. The Koran instructs Muslims to bring the world to Islam or kill them. Since we will not convert...they will kill us anyway they can."

This is unbelievably ignorant.

Koran, 60:8: "God forbids you not, with regards to those who fight you not for [your] faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them; for God loveth those who are just."

Translation: If they're not actively persecuting *you,* leave them be.

Point of fact, in Islamic theology, Jews and Christians are "People of the Book" -- which is to say that they are recognized as following the same God as Muslims. Doctrinally speaking, they can't be made to convert to Islam, and indeed in Islamic societies are supposed to be able to worship freely. Historically Jews and Christians have prospered under Islamic rule up through the 20th century. Some examples: under the Abbasids in Baghdad, in Islamic Spain, and the Ottoman Caliphate. If one wants to get into the historical numbers game of who is converting whom at the point of a sword, the Christians have a far worse record.

Another quote for you from the Koran, directly on point: "And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, 'We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)." Koran 29:46

(NB: There are indeed passages in the Koran that speak suspiciously of Jews and Christians; Koran 5:51 is an example. But none of them, so far as I know, speak directly of converting Jews and Christians on pain of death.)

What I think what you think you're talking about is that Islam sees world in two "houses": The "House of Surrender," which is the world under Islam ("Islam" being the Arabic word for surrender, the idea being that followers of Islam have surrendered to the will of God), and the "House of War," which is the rest of the world -- "war" impling not that it should be warred upon, but that it is *at* war, because it has not found peace in submission to the will of God.

Certainly the theology of Islam is used to justify horrifying acts of barbarism, but I can think of another peaceful religion, whose leader advocated loving one's enemy and offering the other cheek when the first is struck, which has often used to justify terrible, terrible things.

If you're going to go off and write about what the Koran says, it'd be best not to show off the profound depths of your "I don't know what I'm writing about"-ness. May I suggest to you that you actually *read* the Koran? Here's a version online:

http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/

And here's another:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/HolKora.html

There are also several excellent books that will clear up your ignorant misconceptions about Islam, some of which are likely to be available at your local bookstore. I personally recommend Islam: A Short History by Karen Armstrong, but there are a number of titles. Heck, there's even an Islam for Dummies. Or if you can't be bothered, here's a fine article in wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

Now, I don't actually *expect* you clear up your ignorance on the matter. But I'd be happy to be surprised.

Jennifer | October 12, 2004 12:17 PM

I am registered not as a Republican, but as an Independent. In previous Presidential elections, I have voted Republican, mostly because their policies more accurately reflect what I would choose.

The economy is not so instantly changeable that the President in office is completely responsible. That being said, we are beginning to see the upswing. This ties in with the lower interest rates that have been set, in addition to the tax breaks. I was flattered by John Kerry's statement that only the rich saw a tax break. My husband and I (making less than 200k total last year) had no idea we were considered so.

Additionally, they are not banning abortions. They are however not agreeing to let underage children get an abortion without parental/guardian consent. In the rare event this is a pregnancy by incest (as the Democrats like to cite), then that teenager should be seeking out police assistance. Republicans are also against partial birth abortions, as am I. While I personally do not feel abortion is an option, I cannot state that for another woman. I do feel that waiting until later in the pregnancy, then aborting the child (yes, child) in such a heinous, painful manner is very wrong.

As for Iraq, both parties voted on the same reports. Saddam had already been given UN resolutions/ultimatums that he did not live up to. Part of those resolutions were to provide proof that he had in fact disposed of the tools and supplies he had in Iraq to create WMD. We have gone in there and made great strides to give the Iraqis freedom, something they never thought possible. We have built schools, trained medical personnel, and restored a greater peace than they've had in 20 years. The photos and letters from my brother stationed there show a large number of Iraqi communities that are grateful and appreciative of our presence there.

I will not say that I think Bush is the greatest president of all time. I will, however, say that I think my life and the life of those around me is better with Bush in office than with Kerry. I can say this with the perspective of a former Taxachusetts resident.

John Scalzi | October 12, 2004 12:31 PM

Jennifer writes:

"The economy is not so instantly changeable that the President in office is completely responsible. That being said, we are beginning to see the upswing."

Agreed that the economy is not instantly changeable; on the other hand, inasmuch as Bush's economic policies have been recognized as the primary engine of the US' vast new debt, he certainly deserves a large share of the credit and blame. Being content with an "upswing" after that is like being well pleased that the fellow who drove your car into a tree has managed to get the car in reverse and pry it from the fallen wood.

Q | October 12, 2004 12:37 PM

Michael Gray smugly writes:

"Support the sainctity of marriage. When a man and a woman get together they make another person. You cant get this with a man and a man or a woman and a woman. There is a reason why the 'man and woman' senario works. Because thats how its supposed to be. From the beginning thats how God intended. And by the way...God destroyed two whole cities for being a bunch of flaimin homos. Sorry. It true."

I'll buy that as soon as you prove not only the existence of God but of the accuracy of the writing and translation of the Bible. Use of mathematical proofs or documented archaelogical evidence would be sufficient.

Smugly framing matters of FAITH as TRUTH undermines any shred of credibility you might have had... not that the rest of your ridiculous reasoning hadn't already done that. If you seriously believe the reasoning you put forth, I weep for you. And lastly, the governments job is not to police my morality, but to provide for our civil needs... if I want a lecture about pre-marital sex I'll visit my priest, I don't need that shit from my Preisdent.

Jeff Porten | October 12, 2004 03:40 PM

And hey, spelling, punctuation and grammar are nice things. I'm unlikely to believe the factual assertions of someone who can't spell "educate". But that's just me.

Byron | October 12, 2004 03:51 PM

moraltorium, your bank balance is not your income. Rather, its the sum of your income and your expenses (both non-negative values), or a portion of them. Expenses can exceed income so that value can indeed take on negative values---though weird things happen when expenses > income wrt to your bank so the distribution is probably heavily right-skewed. (I'm not certain, my area isn't financial statistics).

Michael Gray | October 12, 2004 03:57 PM

ME Speeling and riting silz r limeted. Nevr did gud in englis

Michael Gray | October 12, 2004 04:06 PM

Sorry about that. My Enlgish has never been up to par. And I opologize for errors.

Anyway...this is how I see things. I wish the United States could focus on whats right. I wish people would use thier God given minds. If your not ready for a child...don't have sex. Its quite simple. What ever happened to morals and good intentions? The sad thing is that this country no longer follows after what is right...but rather what feels good. So then when someone stands up for thier beliefs they get accused of being the bad guy.

tommyspoon | October 12, 2004 06:28 PM

"So then when someone stands up for thier beliefs they get accused of being the bad guy."

But that's not what you're doing, Michael. You're parroting junk. Period. Let the scales fall from your eyes and take an honest look at what GWB and his administration have done to this country.

John Scalzi | October 12, 2004 07:12 PM

Tommyspoon says:

"But that's not what you're doing, Michael."

Well, I wouldn't go that far. I would say Michael *is* standing up for his beliefs. However, Michael is using very poor examples to bolster what he believes -- and clearly some of what he believes is based on bad information (i.e., the Koran thing). He needs to get better information -- and by doing so, it's possible may have to rethink some of what he believes. Unless he's content with the bad information he has. Sadly, some people with bad information are.

Michael Gray | October 12, 2004 10:51 PM

I'm not content with bad information. Also...thanks to most of you who challenge me to think. I need that as I do tend to get facts wrong.

John Scalzi | October 12, 2004 11:33 PM

Michael Gray writes:

"Also...thanks to most of you who challenge me to think. I need that as I do tend to get facts wrong."

You're welcome. The nice thing about getting facts wrong is that one can then work to get them right.

Michael Gray | October 13, 2004 01:42 AM

Ok...here are my issues that influence me to vote for Bush. Please let me know if I'm wrong.

1.I do not feel John Kerry has adequatlety defined himself.
2.The war was needed to oust a major contributor to terrorism. This guy was sick. Now the people of Iraq...if done right...can have a bright future.
3.I wish not to vote for a man who would use my tax dollars to support that which I do not beleieve in.
4.America could have slipped into recestion over 9/11...but we did not. Yes we lost jobs but now jobs are being created. Why is this a bad thing?
5.We have not been attacked again.
6.I beleive in the sainctity of marriage between a man and a woman.
So those are a few things that persuade me to vote the way I do. So let me know where I am wrong.

John Scalzi | October 13, 2004 02:00 AM

Michael, in order:

1. You might try going to the Kerry/Edwards Web site and checking out his stated positions for yourself. You may or may not find that he's defined himself adequately.

2. There have been numerous reports showing that Saddam was not a supporter of al Qaeda. No doubt he was sick. I for one was not opposed to the war on the idea that Iraq would be better off without him. It still may be, but at the moment it doesn't appear as if this administration was prepared for what it was going to do with Iraq after Saddam fell. It's the "winning the peace" issue that's the problem.

3. This is a perfectly legitimate reason, in my opinion.

4. Jobs are being created but they're not being created fast enough to compensate for the natural influx of new workers into the workplace -- for example 96,000 new jobs were created according to the most recent jobs report, where 150,000 would have been needed.

5. Another perfectly legitimate reason, although one should ask if the rights surrendered through the Patriot Act and other legislation, and pre-emptory trampling of citizen's rights under the Bush Justice Department, were at all necessary to prevent that second attack.

6. I would ask you to explain to me how the sanctity of marriage would be preserved by depriving Americans of a right they already enjoy -- inasmuch as same-sex marriage is already legal in at least one state in the union. As this is the case, explain how this blantant discrimination is at all laudable. Also, tell me how, say, the sanctity of *my* marriage is at all threatened by the marriage of any two other people, because it's been several months since same sex marriages have been legal, and yet my marriage has not been threatened in the least bit.

Michael Gray | October 13, 2004 03:36 AM

Thank you for answering my questions and more so being patient with me.

I have been on John Kerry's site and still do not see him defining himself. What I see is a lot of crap throwing.

As far as terrorism goes...it does not end with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is (1) group. There are many others. If Saddam had no ties with these groups...he still sympathized with them. He even cheered 9/11. The sad thing is that there are so many places we cannot go to find these cells. If we let our presence know it could mean...well...bad things.

As jobs go...I am not to well informed apparently.

What if a 'Michael Cult' was formed. In this 'Michael Cult' people named Michael were going around killing because they thought it was right. Would you not profile me? Of course Homeland Security is still a baby learning to crawl. Hopefully It will make advancements in how it operates.
I have seen Muslim women and childen taken aside at airports and have seen thier belongings gone through. I saw purse being dumped out while I...with my backpack cramed with so many pens pencils loose change books and what not passed right through. Thinig need to be improved for sure.

What I mean by Sainctity of Marriage is that Bush shares my veiws on the issue.

John Scalzi | October 13, 2004 08:21 AM

Michael Gray writes:

"I have been on John Kerry's site and still do not see him defining himself. What I see is a lot of crap throwing."

You're not looking particularly hard, then, since a link to detailed information on his policy is right on the sites front page. But as you appear to have missed it: http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/. It includes a download version on the plan, which I suggest you read, just as I suggest everyone reads the details of the Bush/Cheney plans. Yes, it's a lot of reading, but we're electing a president. One should do one's homework.

"As far as terrorism goes...it does not end with Al Qaeda."

Ah, but it *was* al Qaeda that this administration contended Saddam was in bed with; much of its policies were predicated on this notion (along with the notion that Saddam had WMDs, which turned out to be false). And while he may have sympathized with terrorists, fighting him diverted resources from actually *finding* the terrorists who attacked our country -- the terrorists whom, we may recall, are still at large. So, a big goose egg for this administration on its reasons for attacking Ieaq and the effectiveness of apprehending those who actually brought death to the US. It's difficult to see much reason to celebrate that as competence.

"In this 'Michael Cult' people named Michael were going around killing because they thought it was right."

Oh, just like, say, Christians who kill abortion doctors because they think it's right? If you want to profile people because they kill in the name of their religion, then you *are* going to have to profile everyone, since as I've noted elsewhere, every religion has a rich tradition of people using it to justify their baser instincts.

As it happens, I don't have a problem with Homeland Security taking an especially close look at single men from the Middle East traveling alone on an airplane, as the 19 examples of 9/11 indictates they're more likely to be terrorists than a grandmother from Minnesota. But this has very little to do with the overall (and in my opinion largely unnecessary) restrictions on personal freedoms that the Administration has tried to foist on American citizens.

I understand that Bush shares your opinions on the sanctity of marriage. However, again I ask you: explain to me how the sanctity of marriage would be preserved by depriving Americans of a right they already enjoy, or how the sanctity of *my* marriage is at all threatened by the marriage of any two other people, because it's been several months since same sex marriages have been legal, and yet my marriage has not been threatened in the least bit.

For the record: I believe that a Constitutional Amendment depriving American citizens of a right they already have is the single most un-American proposal Bush has put his support behind. It is absolutely shameful wants to codify discrimination into our Constitution, given how much blood and effort was shed over the years to root it out.

Michael Gray | October 13, 2004 10:27 AM

John...this is cool. I'm actually in an intelectual conversation...something that politics are failing at these days. Although...I'm afraid I dont sound very intelectual.

Ok...answer me this. What...in your opinion...would this country be like with out 9/11? Is it possible that 9/11 got this administration off track?
From what I understand this administration has done what they say they would do but have just come up short in these areas. Could 9/11 be responsible for that?

John Scalzi | October 13, 2004 11:30 AM

Michael Gray asks:

"Is it possible that 9/11 got this administration off track?"

Heh. This administration wasn't particularly on track before 9/11, in my opinion. I suspect that had 9/11 not happened, the question of whether Bush would be a one-termer would be settled already, and the answer would be "yes."

9/11 offered this adminstration a tremendous opportunity to be a defining administration in American history, to rally not only Americans but the world to the idea of liberal democracy, and to create a united fron against terrorism. They botched that pretty badly, and that's a shame. It's worth noting that this isn't a GOP vs. Democrat thing, in my book, since a different GOP administration (say, a McCain administration) may have had a very different and possibly very effective way of dealing with this issue. This is a Bush vs. competence thing.

If Bush had managed to create a coherent response to terror after 9/11 rather than jumping into Iraq, once again the question of whether he'd be a one-term president would be a done deal today; it's just that this time, the answer would be "no."

dete | October 13, 2004 09:05 PM

Well, Michael, regardless of how you end up voting this November, I'm very impressed that you are making an effort to see the arguments of the "other side". I'm doubly glad that you are articulating your arguments for voting Bush so I, too, can see the arguments of the "other side". :-)

You've made a lot of points, some of which have been dealt with adequately, but some of which I think can be further rebutted. Let me take a stab at them...

"God destroyed two whole cities for being a bunch of flaimin homos."

The bible isn't clear about why Sodom and Gomorra were destroyed except to say that the inhabitants were "wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly." True, angels come to visit Lot under the guise of travellers, and the men of Sodom asked Lot to "bring them out unto us, that we may know them". (We can only assume that this means "know" in the biblical sense; I have to trust the translators notes on this.)

A couple of things to keep in mind:

1 - Sodom and Gomorra were ALREADY condemned at this point, there's no evidence that their homosexual tendencies were even partly blame. That is a common interpretation, but does not follow necessarily from the text. (For example, it might have been the raping that God objected to, not the fact that rapists where targeting people of the same gender. Or it could have been something else entirely. The Bible DOES NOT SAY.)

2 - Be very, very careful when using examples from the Old Testament to defend your morality. As pointed out above, there is NO DIRECT evidence in the Bible of homosexuality being the root cause of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra. There ARE direct censures in the Old Testament against eating pork, interacting with women who've had their period in the last seven days, etc.

3 - The modern church is even "relaxed" about direct statements made by Jesus. Jesus Christ himself made a clear, unambiguous statement against divorce: "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Jesus answering a direct question about divorce, Mark 10:9)

In the end, I have this to say: Oppose gay marriage all you want, but don't use the Bible as an argument. The only passages in the Bible that can be construed as being opposed to homosexuality are oblique and open to interpretation. At the same time, modern Christians, with the churches blessing, ignore clear and direct directives from the Bible (especially the Old Testament, but occasionally the New). And remember: Jesus' greatest lesson was love and acceptance. That excludes any sort of discrimination in my book.

"Abortion-Lets see...wrong."

I disagree, but accept your point of view. Perhaps we can compromise: Allow abortion for rape victims and in cases of health risks for the mother. Oh, and teach safe sex in school. Promote abstinence if you must (again something we're likely to always disagree on), but recognise that birth control is an important and valid thing to educate people about. (I'm sure we both agree that married folks can have sex even if they don't want kids, yes?)

Stem cell research

Most stem cells come from the "extra" fertilised eggs that result from in-vitro fertilisation. I'm not sure that any stem cell research has been done on aborted fetuses. If you believe that life begins at fertilisation, then I suppose you're still against this, but you shouldn't be taking a stand against stem cell research, that's a by-product. Take a stand against in-vitro.

"The war was needed to oust a major contributor to terrorism."

John put it best with his point about killing the fly on your face with an axe. Please, really think about this. The current situation in Iraq is many, many times worse for the people in Iraq, and has created many more terrorists than Saddam could ever hope to encourage to rise against the West. All other things being equal, I say the world is better off without Saddam, no question. But all other things AREN'T equal. The way the Bush administration has handled the invasion of Iraq has undoubtedly made the world LESS SAFE, America especially.

"We have not been attacked again."

You know, of course, that al Qaeda existed long before 9/11. You probably are also aware that they (and bin Laden specifically) were behind the previous attempt to bomb the WTC. A previous attempt to bomb LAX. The bombing of the American embassies in Africa. Al Qaeda and bin Laden have been trying to get to America for YEARS. You point out they haven't attacked the US again under Bush's watch, but their first real success was on Bush's watch. Don't you think that is a point as strong (if not stronger)?

Michael Gray | October 14, 2004 12:15 AM

Questions....
Economy-
1. Was this country on the verge of resestion before this current administration?
2.Did 9/11 shake things up even more?
3.Did this administation do well to keep things from really falling apart? (Fact: We lost 1 Trillion Dollars and 1 million jobs from 9/11)
4.Was that this administration's fault?
5.Are we or are we not recovering? Even if it is slowly.
6.Is home ownership up?
7.Is a tax cut for the rich a good idea? Does it stimulate growth?
(I dont' know if this relates but here goes. The Union for my company was able to negotiate a deal that would bring in 10,000 new jobs. Not only that but in 3 years time I and many others will be making 16-18 dollars an hour. This happened after 9/11 and while Bush has been in office.)

You know...one thing I've learned from you guys is to research what I beleive. Now I'm still not the most educated person in politics but you guys have done something to me. You've made me into a more diehard Republican. Before I started posting on this site...I had no idea what I was voting for. But you guys challenged me to learn and start using my head.

I've read articles saying that if Kerry loses..."that's it for the Democrats." Suggestion that they should dismantle. But you know what? That's not the case. This country needs Republicans and Democrats both. They keep eachother in check.
So when Bush wins...stay strong...this country needs you. :)

dete | October 14, 2004 06:05 PM

"1. Was this country on the verge of resestion before this current administration?"

No, not at all. True, the dot-com crash had a huge impact on the stock market as a whole, and smashed the reputations of all of the "new economy" pundits, but the country was not irrevocably headed towards a downturn. Growth was slowing, but hadn't stopped. Economists were still predicting that the US National Debt would be ZERO by the end of the decade. You could say we were in danger of a recession, but certainly not "on the verge" of one...

"2. Did 9/11 shake things up even more?"

Yes, absolutely. Things were slow before, and 9/11 came and made things worse making a recession more likely, but again not inevitable.

Questions 3, 4, 5 & 7

George Bush had every intention of cutting taxes before 9/11, when the economy was doing just fine. In fact, that was his *reason* for cutting taxes: The government was in surplus, the economy was still growing (although more slowly), we could afford tax cuts.

Here's the kicker: 9/11 came along and the economy started to look much worse. Suddenly the argument for the tax cut is that the economy is doing badly, and we need to stimulate it. You'll have to forgive me for questioning the motives of someone who claims rationale A for doing thing X, and then when the circumstances change radically suddenly has rationale B, but still is pushing X. Makes me question both rationales A *and* B, and wonder if maybe this person has a true rationale C which hasn't changed, but is simply not being voiced.

(C in this case being "Giving tax cuts to the wealthy who will respond by supporting my re-election campaign with votes and money. Screw the poor, they'll vote dem.")

Regardless, we all know that you can improve the economy by putting money in the hands of people who will spend it. That last part is important. If you are going to give it to people who are going to stick it in a bank account or invest it off-shore, you might as well have thrown the money in the hole (as far as the economy is concerned). You want people to spend the money, hopefully giving it to someone else who will spend it, etc., etc., thus generating a whole bunch of economic activity.

So, tax cuts CAN improve the economy. That's not the controversial bit. The controversial bit is how much money you give, and who you give the money too.

(Aside: There is a popular right-wing myth that cutting taxes can improve the economy SO MUCH that the government will actually end up with more revenue, even thought they are taking a smaller percentage. This has been tried many times and has never worked. No honest modern economist believes it to be true.)

So, who *do* you give the money to? Why, to people who will spend it, of course! Especially people who will spend it on retail goods (with the highest markups, meaning the greatest number of middle men, meaning the greatest amount of economic activity). Does that sound like wealthy people to you? If you are making >$250k a year, and you get a tax cut are you going to go buy a new TV? Nope, you've probably already got a big TV. Gonna spend more on snack food and restaurant visits? DVDs and clothing? Nope, at that income level, your spending on those high-economic-impact retail items is typically limited by your desire, not your means. The extra money might get plowed into an SUV, or a new boat, or some other big ticket item, but those don't have nearly the same economic impact as an equivalent dollar amount of smaller stuff.

Wealthy people WILL invest in the stock market, which seems like beneficial economic activity, except that it's not actually trickling down the average Joe. The current economic situation is this previously unseen bizarro, situation where GDP is up, stocks are up, corporate profits are up, but employment and wages are down. Huh? How can their be so much more money around (higher GDP), but fewer wages? 'Cause all that tax relief money went to rich folks, who either didn't spend it, or spent it on stuff that ended up benefiting other rich folks.

Now, when Bush originally unveiled his tax plans at the beginning of 2001, I thought it was unfair (since it was heavily weighted towards the wealthy), but not ultimately dangerous. The economy was doing okay, and the government was in surplus. But when the argument is economic stimulus, a top-end heavy tax-cut is NOT the best use of the surplus. And, in fact, it didn't work. The economy didn't recover from the first round of tax cuts. Nonetheless, old George "stayed the course." The same (bad) solution to the same problem.

But this time it was worse. By this time, 9/11 had enough direct and indirect impact that the government was no longer in surplus. Now the government is deeply in deficit, with no plan to get out. (Bush does claim to have a plan to cut the deficit, but his plan assumes that his tax cuts will be phased out. At the same time, he has assured people time and time again that if elected, he will move to make the cuts permanent. I know it sounds like I'm making this up, since it's such obvious two-faced-ness, but I'm not. Take a look around on the web.)

Tax cuts when the government is in deficit are perhaps the most irresponsible thing that a government can do. (Increasing spending is a close second.) The thing is that the money has to be paid back one day, WITH INTEREST. There are lots of ways in which government finance and personal finance are different, but the basics of debt are all the same. Financing a smart investment with debt is okay. Using debt to get through a tough spot is okay. But long term living-beyond-your-means is a disaster waiting to happen. Do you pay attention to currency markets? Have you noticed how the US dollar keeps being worth less and less over time? This is a reflection of the world's confidence that the American fiscal policy is sound. (Or should I say, lack of confidence...) :-(

(I point this out, not because I believe that the US should base it's monetary or fiscal policy based on what the world thinks, but to point out that there is empirical evidence that it's not just me who thinks the USA is on track to a financial disaster...)

In short: The economy was slowing down, and then in serious danger of a recession (due to 9/11). The Bush government pushed through a tax cut (which was planned BEFORE 9/11) which they claimed would improve the economy. Many, many economists jumped up and down and said, "No it won't." (Including Bush's own, BTW!) When those tax cuts didn't work, they cut taxes further, even though they didn't actually have the money to pay for them, and instead of being out of debt in 10 years, it's next to impossible to see how we're going to be out of DEFICIT in 10 years.

Ouch!

(Final note: Increase in home ownership is directly attributable to low interest rates. While I think it's a good thing to see, it's not something that the Bush government is responsible.)

Michael Gray | October 14, 2004 10:07 PM

So...tax cuts are a good thing. But if you combine it with big spending...its bad.

So what needs to happen is the government should put more emphasis and money into education. I think all of you would agree that a well educated child does better and eventually makes more money with a better job. You see this in private school vs public. Generaly...a private school puts out more succesful children. But since not everyone can afford private schools...public schools need massive overhaul.

Now if someone can be self-sustaing and not need any government help...does it lighten the burden on government? If thats the case...should we try to move towards a society built like this?

Is it right or wrong to say that that Bush's idea for America is good but given the current timing it is off a little. I personaly am beginning to see that the "Bush Plan" is good in the long run. Eventually its effects will benifit all.(Stop me if I'm wrong.) Unfortunatly the times in which this plan is being introduced is causing it to have problems.

So I guess my question is...In the long hual, does this work? If you take into consideration that the next generation that grows up with this could very well be a smarter, brighter, more succsefull generation.

Mark D. | October 15, 2004 03:22 PM

From a Libertarian Prospective, it's all shades of the same cat. One's Siamese, the other is Russian Blue. Yes, they're different cats. But are they really that different? Not really.

Is there anyone left who actually gives a damn about the patriot act and the erosion of Liberties?

Is there anyone left who gives a damn about the size of the Federal Debt?

Is there anyone left who gives a damn about how much money terrorist make each year, because of the quixotic efforts to stop drug use? (How much money could the government make if drugs were legalized and heavily taxed? would that be enough of a 'sin' tax to help fund the government?)

Is there anyone left who actually thinks people should have the right to make their own choices and decisions; that we don't need the government to hold our hands when we go wee wee, and tuck us into bed at night?

When either the Republicans or Democrats show a serious interest in those topics, then maybe I'll change my vote. Until then, I'll Keep wasting my vote, and a declare a pox on both your houses.

Michael Gray | October 15, 2004 04:24 PM

Mark D. Writes...
"Is there anyone left who actually thinks people should have the right to make their own choices and decisions; that we don't need the government to hold our hands when we go wee wee, and tuck us into bed at night?"

That's kind of Bush's point...isn't it. Does'nt Kerry want to increase government control?

John Scalzi | October 15, 2004 04:32 PM

Mark D writes:

"When either the Republicans or Democrats show a serious interest in those topics, then maybe I'll change my vote. Until then, I'll Keep wasting my vote, and a declare a pox on both your houses."

Voting libertarian isn't wasting your vote, if that's sincerely how you feel. However, I do think Libertarians generally oversimplify the differences between the major party candidates.

That said, I hope Kerry's the Russian Blue. Those are pretty cats.

Michael Gray | October 15, 2004 09:33 PM

I like Russian.

Anonymous | October 16, 2004 12:25 AM

"So...tax cuts are a good thing. But if you combine it with big spending...its bad."

I think a more accurate way of expressing this would be to say that the government should keep taxes as close to what is necessary to cover spending. In other words, taxes are a drag on the economy, so if the current rates result in surplus, it is reasonable to cut taxes. But don't ever forget the deficit and the debt. If there is no surplus, cutting taxes is very irresponsible. That money has to be repaid some day, and the only source of income to repay that is taxes. Bush's tax cuts have merely ensured that taxes need to be raised again in the future. By even more than he cut them, since the debt will have compounded via interest.

"So what needs to happen is the government should put more emphasis and money into education."

Well, I don't think we can necessarily find the root of *all* of America's problems in poor funding for education, but I do agree that education is incredibly important. It honestly seems like both candidates seem to have this as a priority. Bush's critics complain that he's massively underfunded his own "No Child Left Behind" initiative, but he has raised education funding overall....

"Is it right or wrong to say that that Bush's idea for America is good but given the current timing it is off a little."

I suppose that depends on what you think Bush's idea for America is. Perhaps it would be useful for you outline (briefly) what you think Bush's plan actually is?

dete | October 16, 2004 02:24 AM

Two points:

1 - That last message was by me, sorry I forgot to put my name in... :-)

2 - You might be interested in reading an article which evaluates Bush's performance against conservative ideals, by someone who has always been Republican. The short version: George W. Bush's term as president have not been consistent with the "core principles" of conservatism and he should not be re-elected.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041025&s=george102504

You can avoid the registration by logging in using:

User: bugmenot2004
Pass: 19530321

Michael Gray | October 17, 2004 09:18 AM

I've been looking into it online and I've found that economist really don't buy into Bush's or Kerry's plans.

dete | October 19, 2004 12:01 PM

One last point, and then I'm done Michael...

As I'm sure you've guessed by now, I'm left leaning. And it's pretty obvious that you're right leaning. That's fine, and, as you pointed out earlier we each need the other to avoid getting crazy.

But here is the key issue that Bush is a bad president regardless of what side of the political spectrum you're on. He's counting on people like you to be so afraid of voting Democrat that you'll support him even if his policies are completely insane. And they are! If he makes his tax cuts permanent, he is going to throw the US into a recession and perhaps even a currency crisis that will be devastating to the economy. (He'll be long out of office by then!) Regardless of how you felt about going into Iraq, he misrepresented the reasons (no WMD, no al Qaeda link) and, more importantly, totally screwed it up.

I'm not suggesting that you vote Dem, but don't just vote Republican because they *claim* to share your values. Actually take a look at what Bush has done and see if you can honestly find a single major policy initiative that he hasn't totally screwed up. Please, please, don't reward incompetence.... :-(

Chuck | October 19, 2004 03:42 PM

The Republicans have one plank in their platform this year: 9/11. Sad.

Michael Gray | October 20, 2004 01:26 AM

You know...all of you are right. George W. Bush is a horrible wicked man. There...I said it. But so am I. We are all wicked.

But hey...as far as me being afraid of voting Democratic...you could'nt be more wrong. I will vote for the man that I feel is most worthy of office.

Why I vote for Bush...
1. First and formost he represents the values in a good Christian man that I feel is needed for office. I beleive that Bush desires a relationship with God. That is something this country has come away from. We need it in our leaders. (Yeah I know...seems to contradict what I said earlier. Well the key to being good is seeing your sin and then being the oppisite of what you see.)
2. I beleive that Satan tried to take this administration off course by the attack on our soil. Hopefully this war can be wrapped up soon. Hopefully we can get to the point where we can maintain the peace.
(dete writes..."he misrepresented the reasons (no WMD, no al Qaeda link)")-what the heck is a president supposed to do when the CIA Director says that its a "Slam Dunk." Regardless of what you think...the president is not all knowing. So you can just drop the misrepresented crap. He obviously thought the weapons would be there.

Take this little scenario if you would.
What makes this issue so important is that under Saddam Hussein, Iraq has a long history of aggression. Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, has used ground forces to invade Iran and Kuwait. Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, has used ballistic missiles to attack Saudi Arabia, Israel, and coalition forces during the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein used poison gas against Iranians. Saddam Hussein used poison gas against Iraqi Kurds.

Ok...I see leave the man alone...let the worthless U.N. Inspectors inspect. This man deserves far worse than what we are giving him. We should have taken him out the first time but the darn U.N had to have thier say.

Anybody who says we should have never gone there is out of thier minds.

3.I think a second term would get this country back on track. We are still struggling from our COUNTY'S BIGGEST FINANCIAL LOSS EVER. I think Bush can turn this around.

Why I wont vote for Kerry...
1.The moral fabric of our society is in jeapordy. Kerry wants to help it along. This man wants us to adopt a live and let live policy. (Well if its right for you...do it) What nonsense. We need to come away from the idea that there are no absolutes. First of all...to say that there are no absolutes itself stes up a universal law that all things are goverend by. So the only thing that is right is the fact that there is "No right or Wrong." P.S.-Bull.

2.Please don't mistake me for a good Christian but...I really don't think the United States of America belongs sucking U.N. dick. I really don't want a man in office who will put the U.S.A. in bed with the U.N. It has become a worthless organization. It's ideals are great. Other than that...nice try.-Not

3.Kerry will kill Iraq.

4.Kerry will kill our military.

5.Kerry will kill this great country.

6.If Kerry could start making up his mind...he might have a chance at my vote.

John Kerry's Flip Flops

Flip Flopped On Trade With China
In 1991, Kerry Supported Most-Favored Trade Status For China. “Sen. John Kerry said yesterday that he is breaking party ranks to support most-favored-nation trade status for China … ‘I think the president has some strong arguments about some of the assets of most-favored-nation status for China,’ Kerry said.” (John Aloysius Farrell, “Kerry Breaks Party Ranks To Back China Trade Status,” The Boston Globe, 6/15/91)

In 2000, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China. (H.R. 4444, CQ Vote #251: Passed 83-15: R 46-8; D 37-7, 9/19/00, Kerry Voted Yea)

Now Kerry Criticizes The Bush Administration For Trading With China. “Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Monday Americans workers were paying the price for President Bush's weak stance on trade with China and other countries. … On the bus tour, Kerry singled out the Bush administration's handling of trade with China and said that country was manipulating its currency.” (Caren Bohan, "Kerry Pledges Aggressive Trade Stance," Reuters, 4/26/04)

Flip-Flopped On Iraq War
Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. (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.)

In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President’s Action In Iraq. KERRY: “George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)

Kerry Later Claimed He Voted “To Threaten” Use Of Force In Iraq. “I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)

Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY: “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04)

Flip-Flopped On Eliminating Marriage Penalty For Middle Class
Kerry Said He Will Fight To Keep Tax Relief For Married Couples. “Howard Dean and Gephardt are going to put the marriage penalty back in place. So if you get married in America, we’re going to charge you more taxes. I do not want to do that.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 10/23/03)

Said Democrats Fought To End Marriage Penalty Tax. “We fought hard to get rid of the marriage penalty.” (MSNBC’s “News Live,” 7/31/03)

But, In 1998, Kerry Voted Against Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief For Married Taxpayers With Combined Incomes Less Than $50,000 Per Year, Saving Taxpayers $46 Billion Over 10 Years. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea)

Flip-Flopped On Patriot Act
Kerry Voted For Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House. (H.R. 3162, CQ Vote #313: Passed 98-1: R 49-0; D 48-1; I 1-0, 10/25/01, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Used To Defend His Vote. “Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Town Hall Meeting, Manchester, NH, 8/6/03)

Now, Kerry Attacks Patriot Act. “We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I’ve been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American’s basic rights.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Iowa State University, 12/1/03)

Kerry Took BOTH Sides On First Gulf War
Kerry Took BOTH Sides In First Gulf War In Separate Letters To Same Constituent. “Rather than take a side--albeit the one he thought was most expedient--Kerry actually stood on both sides of the first Gulf war, much like he did this time around. Consider this ‘Notebook’ item from TNR’s March 25, 1991 issue, which ran under the headline ‘Same Senator, Same Constituent’: ‘Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war.’ --letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991] ‘Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have 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.’ --Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]” (Noam Scheiber, “Noam Scheiber’s Daily Journal of Politics, The New Republic Online, 1/28/04)

Flip-Flopped On Gay Marriage Amendment
In 2002, Kerry Signed Letter “Urging” MA Legislature To Reject Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage. “We rarely comment on issues that are wholly within the jurisdiction of the General Court, but there are occasions when matters pending before you are of such significance to all residents of the Commonwealth that we think it appropriate for us to express our opinion. One such matter is the proposed Constitutional amendment that would prohibit or seriously inhibit any legal recognition whatsoever of same-sex relationships. We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents. … We are therefore united in urging you to reject this Constitutional amendment and avoid stigmatizing so many of our fellow citizens who do not deserve to be treated in such a manner.” (Sen. John Kerry, et al, Letter To Members Of The Massachusetts Legislature, 7/12/02)

Now, In 2004, Kerry Won’t Rule Out Supporting Similar Amendment. “Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn’t rule out the possibility. ‘I’ll have to see what language there is,’ he said.” (Susan Milligan, “Kerry Says GOP May Target Him On ‘Wedge Issue,’” The Boston Globe, 2/6/04)

Flip-Flopped On Attacking President During Time Of War
In March 2003, Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began. “Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts … said he will cease his complaints once the shooting starts. ‘It’s what you owe the troops,’ said a statement from Kerry, a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War. ‘I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won’t speak a word without measuring how it’ll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they’re listening to their radios in the desert.’” (Glen Johnson, “Democrats On The Stump Plot Their War Rhetoric,” The Boston Globe, 3/11/03)

But Weeks Later, With Troops Just Miles From Baghdad, Kerry Broke His Pledge. “‘What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,’ Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library. Despite pledging two weeks ago to cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad.” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Says Us Needs Its Own ‘Regime Change,’” The Boston Globe, 4/3/03)

Flip-Flopped On Death Penalty For Terrorists
In 1996, Kerry Attacked Governor Bill Weld For Supporting Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: “Your policy would amount to a terrorist protection policy. Mine would put them in jail.” (1996 Massachusetts Senate Debate, 9/16/96)

In 1996, Kerry Said, “You Can Change Your Mind On Things, But Not On Life-And-Death Issues.” (Timothy J. Connolly, “The ‘Snoozer’ Had Some Life,” [Worcester, MA] Telegram & Gazette, 7/3/96)

But, In 2002, Kerry Said He Supported Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: “The law of the land is the law of the land, but I have also said that I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/1/02)

Flip-Flopped On No Child Left Behind
Kerry Voted For No Child Left Behind Act. (H.R. 1, CQ Vote #371: Adopted 87-10: R 44-3; D 43-6; I 0-1, 12/18/01, Kerry Voted Yea)

But Now Kerry Is Attacking No Child Left Behind As “Mockery.” “Between now and the time I’m sworn in January 2005, I’m going to use every day to make this president accountable for making a mockery of the words ‘No Child Left Behind.’” (Holly Ramer, “Kerry Wants To Make ‘Environmental Justice’ A Priority,” The Associated Press, 4/22/03)

Kerry Trashed NCLB As ‘Unfunded Mandate’ With ‘Laudable’ Goals. “Kerry referred to [No Child Left Behind] as an ‘unfunded mandate’ with ‘laudable’ goals. ‘Without the resources, education reform is a sham,’ Kerry said. ‘I can’t wait to crisscross this country and hold this president accountable for making a mockery of the words “no child left behind.”‘“ (Matt Leon, “Sen. Kerry In Tune With Educators,” The [Quincy, MA] Patriot Ledger, 7/11/03)

Flip-Flopped On Affirmative Action
In 1992, Kerry Called Affirmative Action “Inherently Limited And Divisive.” “[W]hile praising affirmative action as ‘one kind of progress’ that grew out of civil rights court battles, Kerry said the focus on a rights-based agenda has ‘inadvertently driven most of our focus in this country not to the issue of what is happening to the kids who do not get touched by affirmative action, but … toward an inherently limited and divisive program which is called affirmative action.’ That agenda is limited, he said, because it benefits segments of black and minority populations, but not all. And it is divisive because it creates a ‘perception and a reality of reverse discrimination that has actually engendered racism.’” (Lynne Duke, “Senators Seek Serious Dialogue On Race,” The Washington Post, 4/8/92)

In 2004, Kerry Denied Ever Having Called Affirmative Action “Divisive.” CNN’s KELLY WALLACE: “We caught up with the Senator, who said he never called affirmative action divisive, and accused Clark of playing politics.” SEN. KERRY: “That’s not what I said. I said there are people who believe that. And I said mend it, don’t end it. He’s trying to change what I said, but you can go read the quote. I said very clearly I have always voted for it. I’ve always supported it. I’ve never, ever condemned it. I did what Jim Clyburn did and what Bill Clinton did, which is mend it. And Jim Clyburn wouldn’t be supporting it if it were otherwise. So let’s not have any politics here. Let’s keep the truth.” (CNN’s “Inside Politics,” 1/30/04)

Flip-Flopped On Ethanol
Kerry Twice Voted Against Tax Breaks For Ethanol. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #44: Rejected 48-52: R 11-32; D 37-20, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #68: Motion Agreed To 55-43: R 2-40; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Voted Against Ethanol Mandates. (H.R. 4624, CQ Vote #255: Motion Agreed To 51-50: R 19-25; D 31-25, 8/3/94, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Voted Twice To Increase Liability On Ethanol, Making It Equal To Regular Gasoline. (S. 517, CQ Vote #87: Motion Agreed To 57-42: R 38-10; D 18-32; I 1-0, 4/25/02 Kerry Voted Nay; S. 14, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 38-57: R 9-40; D 28-17; I 1-0, 6/5/03, Kerry Voted Yea)

On The Campaign Trail, Though, Kerry Is For Ethanol. KERRY: “I’m for ethanol, and I think it’s a very important partial ingredient of the overall mix of alternative and renewable fuels we ought to commit to.” (MSNBC/DNC, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Des Moines, IA, 11/24/03)

Flip-Flopped On Cuba Sanctions
Senator Kerry Has Long Voted Against Stronger Cuba Sanctions. (H.R. 927, CQ Vote #489, Motion Rejected 59-36: R 50-2; D 9-34, 10/17/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 955, CQ Vote #183: Rejected 38-61: R 5-49; D 33-12, 7/17/97, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1234, CQ Vote #189, Motion Agreed To 55-43: R 43-10; D 12-33, 6/30/99, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2549, CQ Vote #137: Motion Agreed To 59-41: R 52-3; D 7-38, 6/20/00, Kerry Voted Nay)

In 2000, Kerry Said Florida Politics Is Only Reason Cuba Sanctions Still In Place. “Senator John F. Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview that a reevaluation of relations with Cuba was ‘way overdue.’ ‘We have a frozen, stalemated, counterproductive policy that is not in humanitarian interests nor in our larger credibility interest in the region,’ Kerry said. … ‘It speaks volumes about the problems in the current American electoral process. … The only reason we don’t reevaluate the policy is the politics of Florida.’” (John Donnelly, “Policy Review Likely On Cuba,” The Boston Globe, 4/9/00)

Now Kerry Panders To Cuban Vote, Saying He Would Not Lift Embargo Against Cuba. TIM RUSSERT: “Would you consider lifting sanctions, lifting the embargo against Cuba?” SEN. KERRY: “Not unilaterally, not now, no.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/31/03)

Kerry Does Not Support “Opening Up The Embargo Wily Nilly.” “Kerry said he believes in ‘engagement’ with the communist island nation but that does not mean, ‘Open up the dialogue.’ He believes it ‘means travel and perhaps even remittances or cultural exchanges’ but he does not support ‘opening up the embargo wily nilly.’” (Daniel A. Ricker, “Kerry Says Bush Did Not Build A ‘Legitimate Coalition’ In Iraq,” The Miami Herald, 11/25/03)

Flip-Flopped On NAFTA
Kerry Voted For NAFTA. (H.R. 3450, CQ Vote #395: Passed 61-38: R 34-10; D 27-28, 11/20/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Recognized NAFTA Is Our Future. “‘NAFTA recognizes the reality of today’s economy - globalization and technology,’ Kerry said. ‘Our future is not in competing at the low-level wage job; it is in creating high-wage, new technology jobs based on our skills and our productivity.’” (John Aloysius Farrell, “Senate’s OK Finalizes NAFTA Pact,” The Boston Globe, 11/21/93)

Now, Kerry Expresses Doubt About NAFTA. “Kerry, who voted for NAFTA in 1993, expressed some doubt about the strength of free-trade agreements. ‘If it were before me today, I would vote against it because it doesn’t have environmental or labor standards in it,’ he said.” (David Lightman, “Democrats Battle For Labor’s Backing,” Hartford Courant, 8/6/03)

Flip-Flopped On Double Taxation Of Dividends
December 2002: Kerry Favored Ending Double Taxation Of Dividends. “[T]o encourage investments in the jobs of the future - I think we should eliminate the tax on capital gains for investments in critical technology companies - zero capital gains on $100 million issuance of stock if it’s held for 5 years and has created real jobs. And we should attempt to end the double taxation of dividends.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At The City Club Of Cleveland, 12/3/02)

May 2003: Kerry Said He Opposed Ending Double Taxation Of Dividends. “Kerry also reiterated his opposition to the Republican plan to cut taxes on stock dividends. ‘This is not the time for a dividends tax cut that goes to individuals,’ he said.” (“Kerry Says Time Is On Dems’ Side,” The Associated Press, 5/8/03)

Flip-Flopped On Raising Taxes During Economic Downturn
September 2001: Said Should Not Raise Taxes In Economic Downturn. “The first priority is the economy of our nation. And when you have a downturn in the economy, the last thing you do is raise taxes or cut spending. We shouldn’t do either. We need to maintain a course that hopefully will stimulate the economy. . . . No, we should not raise taxes, but we have to put everything on the table to take a look at why we have this structural problem today. . . .[Y]ou don’t want to raise taxes.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/2/01)

We Should “Absolutely Not Raise Taxes.” “Well, I think it’s very clear what I favor because we voted for it early in the spring, which was the Democratic budget alternative that had triggers in it where you didn’t wind up spending money you don’t have. It had a smaller tax cut but more tax cut for a stimulus, which is what we need. So you ask me, what do we need now? Yes, we need additional stimulus. We should absolutely not raise taxes. We should not cut spending. What we need to do is drive the economy of this country. The economy is the number one issue. It is the most important thing we should focus on.” (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,” 9/8/01)

April 2002: Said He Wanted Larger Tax Cut And Was “Not In Favor Of” Repeal. CNN’s TUCKER CARLSON: “Senator Kerry . . . [many Democrats] [g]et a lot of political mileage out of criticizing [President Bush’s tax cut], but nobody has the courage to say repeal it. Are you for repealing it?” KERRY: “It’s not a question of courage. . . . And it’s not an issue right now. We passed appropriately a tax cut as a stimulus, some $40 billion. Many of us thought it should have even maybe been a little bit larger this last year … [T]he next tax cut doesn’t take effect until 2004. If we can grow the economy enough between now and then, if we have sensible policies in place and make good choices, who knows what our choices will be. So it’s simply not a ripe issue right now. And I’m not in favor of turning around today and repealing it.” (CNN’s “Crossfire,” 4/16/02)

December 2002: Flip-Flopped, Would Keep Tax Cuts From Taking Effect. NBC’s TIM RUSSERT: “Senator . . . should we freeze or roll back the Bush tax cut?” KERRY: “Well, I wouldn’t take away from people who’ve already been given their tax cut … What I would not do is give any new Bush tax cuts.” … RUSSERT: “So the tax cut that’s scheduled to be implemented in the coming years …” KERRY: “No new tax cut under the Bush plan. . . . It doesn’t make economic sense.” … RUSSERT: “Now, this is a change …” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/1/02)

Called For Freeze Of Bush Tax Cuts In Favor Of Year-Long Suspension Of Payroll Taxes On First $10,000 Of Personal Income. “Kerry said Bush’s tax cuts have mainly benefited the rich while doing little for the economy. Kerry is proposing to halt Bush’s additional tax cuts and instead impose a yearlong suspension of payroll taxes on the first $10,000 of income to help the poor and middle class.” (Tyler Bridges, “Kerry Visits Miami To Start Raising Funds,” The Miami Herald, 12/7/02)

Flip-Flopped On Small Business Income Taxes
Kerry Voted Against Exempting Small Businesses And Family Farms From Clinton Income Tax Increase. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #79: Motion Agreed To 54-45: R 0-43; D 54-2, 3/25/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

Three Months Later, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Proposal To Exclude Small Businesses From The Increased Income Tax. (S. 1134, CQ Vote #171: Motion Rejected 56-42: R 43-0; D 13-42, 6/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Claimed He Fought To Exempt Small Businesses From Income Tax Increases. “I worked to amend the reconciliation bill so that it would … exempt small businesses who are classified as subchapter S corporations from the increased individual income tax.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 6/29/93, p. S 8268)

Kerry Flip-Flopped On 50-Cent Gas Tax Increase
In 1994, Kerry Backed Half-Dollar Increase In Gas Tax. “Kerry said [the Concord Coalition’s scorecard] did not accurately reflect individual lawmakers’ efforts to cut the deficit. ‘It doesn’t reflect my $43 billion package of cuts or my support for a 50-cent increase in the gas tax,’ Kerry said.” (Jill Zuckman, “Deficit-Watch Group Gives High Marks To 7 N.E. Lawmakers,” The Boston Globe, 3/1/94)

Two Years Later, Kerry Flip-Flopped. “Kerry no longer supports the 50-cent [gas tax] hike, nor the 25-cent hike proposed by the [Concord] coalition.” (Michael Grunwald, “Kerry Gets Low Mark On Budgeting,” The Boston Globe, 4/30/96)

Flip-Flopped On Leaving Abortion Up To States
Kerry Used To Say Abortion Should Be Left Up To States. “I think the question of abortion is one that should be left for the states to decide,” Kerry said during his failed 1972 Congressional bid. (“John Kerry On The Issues,” The [Lowell, MA] Sun, 10/11/72)

Now Kerry Says Abortion Is Law Of Entire Nation. “The right to choose is the law of the United States. No person has the right to infringe on that freedom. Those of us who are in government have a special responsibility to see to it that the United States continues to protect this right, as it must protect all rights secured by the constitution.” (Sen. John Kerry [D-MA], Congressional Record, 1/22/85)

Flip-Flopped On Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees
Kerry Used To Oppose Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees. “Throughout two centuries, our federal judiciary has been a model institution, one which has insisted on the highest standards of conduct by our public servants and officials, and which has survived with undiminished respect. Today, I fear that this institution is threatened in a way that we have not seen before. … This threat is that of the appointment of a judiciary which is not independent, but narrowly ideological, through the systematic targeting of any judicial nominee who does not meet the rigid requirements of litmus tests imposed …” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 2/3/86, p. S864)

But Now Kerry Says He Would Only Support Supreme Court Nominees Who Pledge To Uphold Roe v. Wade. “The potential retirement of Supreme Court justices makes the 2004 presidential election especially important for women, Senator John F. Kerry told a group of female Democrats yesterday, and he pledged that if elected president he would nominate to the high court only supporters of abortion rights under its Roe v. Wade decision. … ‘Any president ought to appoint people to the Supreme Court who understand the Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court. In my judgment, it is and has been settled law that women, Americans, have a defined right of privacy and that the government does not make the decision with respect to choice. Individuals do.’” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Vows Court Picks To Be Abortion-Rights Supporters,” The Boston Globe, 4/9/03)

Flip-Flopped On Federal Health Benefits
In 1993, Kerry Expressed Doubts That Federal Employees Health Benefits System Worked Well. “Hillary Rodham Clinton today offered a fresh description of one of the most confusing elements of the Administration health care plan, the health insurance purchasing alliances, saying they would let all Americans choose coverage in the way members of Congress do. … Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said he was not sure that the Federal program worked all that well.” (Adam Clymer, “Hillary Clinton Says Health Plan Will Be Familiar,” The New York Times, 12/8/93)

Kerry Expressed Personal Dissatisfaction With His Coverage Through Federal Program. “Earlier this month, when Hillary Rodham Clinton came to Boston and vowed that average Americans would get as good coverage as that enjoyed by their senators and representatives, Sen. John F. Kerry told Clinton that he thought the country could do better. The Massachusetts Democrat said he was thinking, among other recent disasters, of his $500 dental bill for treatment of an abscessed tooth. ‘Because it was done in the dentist’s office, rather than the hospital, they didn’t cover it. So they were urging me to go spend twice as much in a hospital,’ said Kerry, who is covered by BACE, the Beneficial Association of Capitol Employees.” (Ana Puga, “Lawmakers Talk Health Care,” The Boston Globe, 12/19/93)

Now, On Campaign Trail, Kerry Is Enthusiastic About Health Care He Receives As Senator. “As a U.S. Senator, I could get the best health care in the world. Most people aren’t so lucky, and we need to change that. That’s why my plan gives every American access to the same kind of health care that members of Congress give themselves. … Because your family’s health care is just as important as any politicians’ in Washington.” (Sen. John Kerry, “Affordable Health Care For All Americans,” Remarks At Mercy Medical, Cedar Rapids, IA, 12/14/03)

Kerry: “I’m Going To Make Available To Every American The Same Health Care Plan That Senators And Congressmen Give Themselves …” (Sen. John Kerry, AARP Democrat Candidate Debate, Bedford, NH, 11/18/03)

Flip-Flopped On Tax Credits For Small Business Health
In 2001, Kerry Voted Against Amendment Providing $70 Billion For Tax Credits For Small Business To Purchase Health Insurance. (H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #83: Rejected 49-51: R 48-2; D 1-49, 4/5/01, Kerry Voted Nay)

Now, Kerry Promises Refundable Tax Credits To Small Businesses For Health Coverage. “Refundable tax credits for up to 50 percent of the cost of coverage will be offered to small businesses and their employees to make health care more affordable.” (“John Kerry’s Plan To Make Health Care Affordable To Every American,” John Kerry For President Website, www.johnkerry.com, Accessed 1/21/04)

Flip-Flopped On Health Coverage
In 1994, Kerry Said Democrats Push Health Care Too Much. “[Kerry] said Kennedy and Clinton’s insistence on pushing health care reform was a major cause of the Democratic Party’s problems at the polls.” (Joe Battenfeld, “Jenny Craig Hit With Sex Harassment Complaint - By Men,” Boston Herald, 11/30/94)

But Now Kerry Calls Health Care His “Passion.” “Sen. John Kerry says expanding coverage is ‘my passion.’” (Susan Page, “Health Specifics Could Backfire On Candidates,” USA Today, 6/2/03)

Flip-Flopped On Welfare Reform
In 1993, Kerry Voted To Kill Bipartisan Welfare Work Requirement. In 1993, Kerry and Kennedy voted against a welfare-to-work requirement that was supported by many Democrats, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Harry Reid (D-NV):

Fiscal 1993 Supplemental Appropriations - Welfare Work Requirement. “Moynihan, D-N.Y., motion to table (kill) the D’Amato, R-N.Y., amendment to sharply cut federal welfare administration aid to states that do not, within a year, require at least 10 percent of their able-bodied welfare recipients without dependents to work. The required workfare participation rate would be increased by 2 percent a year until 50 percent were working.” (H.R. 2118, CQ Vote #163: Rejected 34-64: R 1-42; D 33-22, 6/22/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

But In 1996, Kerry Voted For Welfare Reform. (H.R. 3734, CQ Vote #262: Adopted 78-21: R 53-0; D 25-21, 8/1/96, Kerry Voted Yea)

Flip-Flops On Stock Options Expensing
Kerry Used To Oppose Expensing Stock Options. “Democratic Senator John F. Kerry was among those fighting expensing of stock options.” (Sue Kirchhoff, “Senate Blocks Options,” The Boston Globe, 7/16/02)

Kerry Said Expensing Options Would Not “Benefit The Investing Public.” KERRY: “Mr. President, the Financial Accounting Standards Board … has proposed a rule that will require companies to amortize the value of stock options and deduct them off of their earnings statements … I simply cannot see how the FASB rule, as proposed, will benefit the investing public.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 3/10/94, p. S2772)

But Now Kerry Says He Supports Carrying Of Stock Options As Corporate Expense. “On an issue related to corporate scandals, Kerry for the first time endorsed the carrying of stock options as a corporate expense. The use of stock options was abused by some companies and contributed to overly optimistic balance sheets. Kerry applauded steps by Microsoft Corp. to eliminate stock options for employees and said all publicly traded companies should be required to expense such options.” (Dan Balz, “Kerry Raps Bush Policy On Postwar Iraq,” The Washington Post, 7/11/03)

Flip-Flopped On Medical Marijuana
Kerry Said His “Personal Disposition Is Open To The Issue Of Medical Marijuana.” “Aaron Houston of the Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana said that just a month ago Mr. Kerry seemed to endorse medical marijuana use, and when asked about the content of his mysterious study, said, ‘I am trying to find out. I don’t know.’ Mr. Kerry did say his ‘personal disposition is open to the issue of medical marijuana’ and that he’d stop Drug Enforcement Administration raids on patients using the stuff under California’s medical marijuana law.” (Jennifer Harper, “Inside Politics,” The Washington Times, 8/8/03)

But Now Kerry Says He Wants To Wait For Study Analyzing Issue Before Making Final Decision. “The Massachusetts Democrat said Wednesday he’d put off any final decision on medical marijuana because there’s ‘a study under way analyzing what the science is.’” (Jennifer Harper, “Inside Politics,” The Washington Times, 8/8/03)

Flip-Flopped On Burma Sanctions
In 1995, Kerry Was Against Burma Sanctions. “‘I question whether isolation is a successful means of promoting political change,’ Kerry told a constituent in a 1995 letter justifying his opposition to a Burma sanction bill.” (Geeta Anand, et al., “Menino Gets Ahead Of Himself, Starts Contemplating Third Term,” The Boston Globe, 5/18/97)

But Now Kerry Supports Burma Sanctions. “In his 1996 reelection campaign, Kerry, after Governor William F. Weld took up the cause, was badgered by advisers into shifting his position. But as he eyes a presidential campaign and the Burma sanction movement gains credibility, Kerry … describes the Burma regime as a ‘semi-criminalized dictatorship … which should not be treated with respect by other nations, but should be instead subject to limitations on travel, investment, and access to the most developed nations.’” (Geeta Anand, et al., “Menino Gets Ahead Of Himself, Starts Contemplating Third Term,” The Boston Globe, 5/18/97)

Flip-Flopped On Military Experience As Credential For Public Office
Kerry: Service Should Not Be “Litmus Test” For Leadership. “Mr. President, you and I know that if support or opposition to the war were to become a litmus test for leadership, America would never have leaders or recover from the divisions created by that war. You and I know that if service or nonservice in the war is to become a test of qualification for high office, you would not have a Vice President, nor would you have a Secretary of Defense and our Nation would never recover from the divisions created by that war.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/08/92, p. S17709)

But Now Kerry Constantly “Challenges The Stature Of His Democratic Opponents” Over Their Lack Of Military Service. “And more than ever, Mr. Kerry is invoking his stature as a Vietnam veteran as he challenges the stature of his Democratic opponents -- none of whom, he frequently points out, have ‘worn the uniform of our country’ -- to withstand a debate with Mr. Bush on national security.” (Adam Nagourney, “As Campaign Tightens, Kerry Sharpens Message,” The New York Times, 8/10/03)

Flip-Flopped On PACs
Kerry Used To Decry “Special Interests And Their PAC Money.” “‘I’m frequently told by cynics in Washington that refusing PAC money is naive,’ Kerry told his supporters in 1985. ‘Do you agree that it is “naïve” to turn down special interests and their PAC money?’” (Glen Johnson, “In A Switch, Kerry Is Launching A PAC,” The Boston Globe, 12/15/01)

But Now, Kerry Has Established His Own PAC. “A week after repeating that he has refused to accept donations from political action committees, Senator John F. Kerry announced yesterday that he was forming a committee that would accept PAC money for him to distribute to other Democratic candidates. … Kerry’s stance on soft money, unregulated donations funneled through political parties, puts him in the position of raising the type of money that he, McCain, and others in the campaign-finance reform movement are trying to eliminate.” (Glen Johnson, “In A Switch, Kerry Is Launching A PAC,” The Boston Globe, 12/15/01)

Flip-Flopped On $10,000 Donation Limit To His PAC
When Kerry Established His PAC In 2001, He Instituted A $10,000 Limit On Donations. “A week after repeating that he has refused to accept donations from political action committees, Senator John F. Kerry announced yesterday that he was forming a committee that would accept PAC money for him to distribute to other Democratic candidates … The statement also declared that the new PAC would voluntarily limit donations of so-called soft money to $10,000 per donor per year and disclose the source and amount of all such donations.” (Glen Johnson, “In A Switch, Kerry Is Launching A Pac,” The Boston Globe, 12/15/01)

One Year Later, Kerry Started Accepting Unlimited Contributions. “Senator John F. Kerry, who broke with personal precedent last year when he established his first political action committee, has changed his fund-raising guidelines again, dropping a $10,000 limit on contributions from individuals, a cap he had touted when establishing the PAC. The Massachusetts Democrat said yesterday he decided to accept unlimited contributions, which has already allowed him to take in ‘soft money’ donations as large as $25,000, because of the unprecedented fund-raising demands confronting him as a leader in the Senate Democratic caucus.” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Shifts Fund-Raising Credo For His Own PAC,” The Boston Globe, 10/4/02)

Flip-Flopped On Using Personal Funds In 1996 Race
In 1996, Kerry And Weld Established $500,000 Limit Of Personal Wealth To Be Used In Senate Campaign. “In 1996, Kerry and Weld gave their already noteworthy Senate race added significance by establishing a spending cap. The candidates agreed to spend no more than $6.9 million from July 1 through the election. Weld ended up spending $6.6 million and Kerry $6.3 million. One key element of the agreement limited the candidates to spending $500,000 in personal wealth, a clause Weld favored because Kerry is married to a millionaire, Teresa Heinz.” (Glen Johnson, “In Kerry’s Plan For A Pac, The Resolution Of Opposites,” The Boston Globe, 12/18/01)

Kerry Broke Agreement By Spending $1.2 Million Over Limit. “[P]ost-election reports showed a last-minute infusion of $1.7 million from Kerry’s wife, heiress Teresa Heinz. … [K]erry denied that his campaign violated its agreement. The money had been loaned--not contributed--by his wife, he explained. ‘There was nothing in the agreement that restricted us from taking a loan … and we paid it back in $1,000 and $2,000 chunks.’” (“Global Ecology Lobby Rocked By Defection,” Political Finance, The Newsletter, 1/02)

Flip-Flopped On Israel Security Fence
October 2003: Kerry Calls Fence “Barrier To Peace.” “And I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government’s decision to build a barrier off the green line, cutting deeply into Palestinian areas. We do not need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israel’s security over the long- term, they increase hardships to the Palestinian people, and they make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks Before Arab American Institute National Leadership Conference, Dearborn, MI, 10/17/03)

February 2004: Kerry Calls Fence “Legitimate Act Of Self-Defense.” “US Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, described Israel’s construction of a security barrier as a ‘legitimate act of self defense’ after Sunday’s suicide bombing in Jerusalem, clarifying a position he took in October when he told an Arab American audience, ‘We don’t need another barrier to peace.’” (Janine Zacharia, “Kerry Defends Security Fence,” The Jerusalem Post, 2/25/04)

Flip-Flop-Flipped On Ballistic Missile Defense
Kerry Called For Cancellation Of Missile Defense Systems In 1984 And Has Voted Against Funding For Missile Defense At Least 53 Times Between 1985 And 2000. (“John Kerry On The Defense Budget,” Campaign Position Paper, John Kerry For U.S. Senate, 1984; S. 1160, CQ Vote #99: Rejected 21-78: R 2-50; D 19-28, 6/4/85, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1160, CQ Vote #100: Rejected 38-57: R 6-45; D 32-12, 6/4/85, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1160, CQ Vote #101: Rejected 36-59: R 1-49; D 35-10, 6/4/85, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1160, CQ Vote #103: Rejected 33-62: R 28-22; D 5-40, 6/4/85, Kerry Voted Nay; H.J. Res. 465, CQ Vote #365: Motion Agreed To 64-32: R 49-2; D 15-30, 12/10/85, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4515, CQ Vote #122: Ruled Non-Germane 45-47: R 7-42; D 38-5, 6/6/86, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2638, CQ Vote #176: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 41-11; D 9-38, 8/5/86, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2638, CQ Vote #177: Rejected 49-50: R 10-42; D 39-8, 8/5/86, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1174, CQ Vote #248: Motion Agreed To 58-38: R 8-37; D 50-1, 9/17/87, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1174, CQ Vote #259: Motion Agreed To 51-50: R 37-9; D 13-41, With Vice President Bush Casting An “ Yea “ Vote, 9/22/87, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2355, CQ Vote #124: Motion Agreed To 66-29: R 38-6; D 28-23, 5/11/88, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2355, CQ Vote #125: Motion Agreed To 50-46: R 38-7; D 12-39, 5/11/88, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2355, CQ Vote #126: Motion Rejected 47-50: R 38-6; D 9-44, 5/11/88, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2355, CQ Vote #128: Motion Rejected 48-50: R 6-39; D 42-11, 5/11/88, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2355, CQ Vote #136: Motion Agreed To 56-37: R 9-34; D 47-3, 5/13/88, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2355, CQ Vote #137: Motion Agreed To 51-43: R 38-5; D 13-38, 5/13/88, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4264, CQ Vote #251: Motion Rejected 35-58: R 35-9; D 0-49, 7/14/88, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4781, CQ Vote #296: Motion Agreed To 50-44: R 5-39; D 45-5, 8/5/88, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1352, CQ Vote #148: Motion Agreed To 50-47: R 37-6; D 13-41, 7/27/89, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #202: Rejected 34-66: R 27-18; D 7-48, 9/26/89, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #213: Adopted 53-47: R 39-6; D 14-41, 9/28/89, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2884, CQ Vote #223: Adopted 54-44: R 2-42; D 52-2, 8/4/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2884, CQ Vote #225: Motion Agreed To 56-41: R 39-4; D 17-37, 8/4/90, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2884, CQ Vote #226: Motion Agreed To 54-43: R 37-6; D 17-37, 8/4/90, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 5803, CQ Vote #319: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4739, CQ Vote #320: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1507, CQ Vote #168: Rejected 39-60: R 4-39; D 35-21, 7/31/91, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #171: Motion Agreed To 60-38: R 40-3; D 20-35, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1507, CQ Vote #172: Motion Agreed To 64-34: R 39-4; D 25-30, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1507, CQ Vote #173: Rejected 46-52: R 5-38; D 41-14, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #207: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 38-5; D 12-44, 9/25/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D 54-2, 5/6/92, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4990, CQ Vote #108: Adopted 90-9: R 34-9; D 56-0, 5/21/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #182: Motion Rejected 43-49: R 34-5; D 9-44, 8/7/92, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 3114, CQ Vote #214: Rejected 48-50: R 5-38; D 43-12, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #215: Adopted 52-46: R 39-4; D 13-42, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 5504, CQ Vote #228: Adopted 89-4: R 36-4; D 53-0, 9/22/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1298, CQ Vote #251: Adopted 50-48: R 6-36; D 44-12, 9/9/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #64: Rejected 40-59: R 2-42; D 38-17, 3/22/94, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1026, CQ Vote #354: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 47-6; D 4-42, 8/3/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1087, CQ Vote #384: Rejected 45-54: R 5-49; D 40-5, 8/10/95, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1087, CQ Vote #397: Passed 62-35: R 48-4; D 14-31, 9/5/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #399: Passed 64-34: R 50-3; D 14-31, 9/6/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #608: Adopted 51-43: R 47-2; D 4-41, 12/19/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1635, CQ Vote #157: Rejected 53-46: R 52-0; D 1-46, 6/4/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1745, CQ Vote #160: Rejected 44-53: R 4-49; D 40-4, 6/19/96, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1745, CQ Vote #187: Passed 68-31: R 50-2; D 18-29, 7/10/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 936, CQ Vote #171: Rejected 43-56: R 2-53; D 41-3, 7/11/97, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1873, CQ Vote #131: Motion Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41, 5/13/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1873, CQ Vote #262: Motion Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41, 9/9/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2549, CQ Vote #178: Motion Agreed To 52-48: R 52-3; D 0-45, 7/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Then Claimed To Support Missile Defense. “I support the development of an effective defense against ballistic missiles that is deployed with maximum transparency and consultation with U.S. allies and other major powers. If there is a real potential of a rogue nation firing missiles at any city in the United States, responsible leadership requires that we make our best, most thoughtful efforts to defend against that threat. The same is true of accidental launch. If it were to happen, no leader could ever explain not having chosen to defend against the disaster when doing so made sense.” (Peace Action Website, “Where Do The Candidates Stand On Foreign Policy?” http://www.peace-action.org/2004/Kerry.html, Accessed 3/10/04)

Now Kerry Campaign Says He Will Defund Missile Defense. FOX NEWS’ MAJOR GARRETT: “Kerry would not say how much all of this would cost. A top military adviser said the Massachusetts Senator would pay for some of it by stopping all funds to deploy a national ballistic missile defense system, one that Kerry doesn’t believe will work.” KERRY ADVISOR RAND BEERS: “He would not go forward at this time because there is not a proof of concept.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 3/17/03)

Flip-Flopped On 1991 Iraq War Coalition
At The Time, Kerry Questioned Strength Of 1991 Coalition. “I keep hearing from people, ‘Well, the coalition is fragile, it won’t stay together,’ and my response to that is, if the coalition is so fragile, then what are the vital interests and what is it that compels us to risk our young American’s lives if the others aren’t willing to stay the … course of peace? … I voted against the president, I’m convinced we’re doing this the wrong way …” (CBS’ “This Morning,” 1/16/91)

Now Kerry Has Nothing But Praise For 1991 Coalition. SEN. JOHN KERRY: “In my speech on the floor of the Senate I made it clear, you are strongest when you act with other nations. All presidents, historically, his father, George Herbert Walker Bush, did a brilliant job of building a legitimate coalition and even got other people to help pay for the war.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 1/11/04)

Flip-Flopped On View Of War On Terror
Kerry Said War On Terror Is “Basically A Manhunt.” “Kerry was asked about Bush’s weekend appearance on ‘Meet the Press’ when he called himself a ‘war president.’ The senator, who watched the session, remarked: ‘The war on terrorism is a very different war from the way the president is trying to sell it to us. It’s a serious challenge, and it is a war of sorts, but it is not the kind of war they’re trying to market to America.’ Kerry characterized the war on terror as predominantly an intelligence-gathering and law enforcement operation. ‘It’s basically a manhunt,’ he said. ‘You gotta know who they are, where they are, what they’re planning, and you gotta be able to go get ‘em before they get us.’” (Katherine M. Skiba, “Bush, Kerry Turn Focus To Each Other,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/13/04)

Two Weeks Later, Kerry Flip-Flopped, Saying War On Terror Is More Than “A Manhunt”. “This war isn’t just a manhunt – a checklist of names from a deck of cards. In it, we do not face just one man or one terrorist group. We face a global jihadist movement of many groups, from different sources, with separate agendas, but all committed to assaulting the United States and free and open societies around the globe.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At University Of California At Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 2/27/04)

Flip-Flopped On Funding For Our Troops In Iraq
Kerry Pledged To Fund Reconstruction With “Whatever Number” Of Dollars It Took. NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?” SEN. JOHN KERRY: “No. I think we should increase it.” RUSSERT: “Increase funding?” KERRY: “Yes.” RUSSERT: “By how much?” KERRY: “By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/31/03)

Then Kerry Voted Against Senate Passage Of Iraq/Afghanistan Reconstruction Package. “Passage of the bill that would appropriate $86.5 billion in fiscal 2004 supplemental spending for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would provide $10.3 billion as a grant to rebuild Iraq, including $5.1 billion for security and $5.2 billion for reconstruction costs. It also would provide $10 billion as a loan that would be converted to a grant if 90 percent of all bilateral debt incurred by the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein has been forgiven by other countries. Separate provisions limit reconstruction aid to $18.4 billion. It also would provide approximately $65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance and $1.3 billion for veterans medical care.” (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Later Claimed: “I Actually Did Vote For The $87 Billion Before I Voted Against It.” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Blasts Bush On Protecting Troops,” The Boston Globe, 3/17/04)

Flip-Flopped On Tapping Strategic Petroleum Reserve
In February 2000, Kerry Said Release Of Oil From Strategic Petroleum Reserve Would Not Be “Relevant.” “Without being specific, Kerry, a key member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, suggested the US could retaliate economically in other trade areas. He also said he does not want a release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. A release ‘is not relevant. It would take months for the oil to get to the market,’ he said.” (Cathy Landry, “US Energy Chief Warns Of Gasoline Crisis,” Platt’s Oilgram News, 2/17/00)

Now, In March 2004, Kerry Called For Stop In Filling Strategic Petroleum Reserve To Reduce Prices. “Kerry would pressure oil-producing nations to increase production and temporarily suspend filling the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, according to campaign documents. ... ‘The Bush administration has put the SPR fill program on automatic pilot without regard to the short-term effect on the US market,’ the campaign documents said. ‘The program needs better management ... Kerry would temporarily suspend filling SPR until oil prices return to normal levels.’” (Patricia Wilson, “Kerry To Offer Plan To Reduce Record Gasoline Prices,” Reuters, 3/29/04)

Flip Flopped On Internet Taxation
In 1998, Kerry Voted To Allow States To Continue Taxing Internet Access After Moratorium Took Effect. Kerry voted against tabling an amendment that would extend the moratorium from two years to three years and allow states that currently impose taxes on Internet access to continue doing so after the moratorium takes effect. (S. 442, CQ Vote #306: Motion Rejected 28-69: R 27-27; D 1-42, 10/7/98, Kerry Voted Nay)

In 2001, Kerry Voted To Extend Internet Tax Moratorium Until 2005 And Allow States To Form Uniform Internet Tax System With Approval Of Congress. (H.R. 1552, CQ Vote #341: Motion Agreed To 57-43: R 35-14; D 22-28; I 0-1, 11/15/01, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Said “We Do Not Support Any Tax On The Internet Itself.” “We do not support any tax on the Internet itself. We don’t support access taxes. We don’t support content taxes. We don’t support discriminatory taxes. Many of us would like to see a permanent moratorium on all of those kinds of taxes. At the same time, a lot of us were caught in a place where we thought it important to send the message that we have to get back to the table in order to come to a consensus as to how we equalize the economic playing field in the United States in a way that is fair.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/15/01, p. S11902)

Michael Gray | October 21, 2004 11:51 PM

Here is something I found interesting...

RUSH: I want to get back to this theme that Kerry, in order to win, is having to act like a conservative. He's out there duck hunting today in full camouflage gear, and he's out there talking about God. So he's talking about guns, and he's talking about God. Howard Dean warned him back in November 2003 and December of 2003 -- that would be during the early stages of the Democratic primary -- here's a montage of Howard Dean warning Democrats what they'd better stay away from.


DEAN: We have got to stop having our elections in the south based on guns, God, and gays. Why can't we talk about jobs, health care, and education, which is what we all have in common, instead of allowing the Republicans to consistently divide us by talking about guns, God, gays, and all this controversial social stuff that we're not going to come to an agreement on.

RUSH: Okay, so Howard Dean's recipe, stop talking about guns, gods, gays, and all this controversial social stuff. We have a montage here of John Kerry violating Howard Dean's rules.



KERRY: We're all God's children. They felt God had made them. I believe that choice is between a woman, God. As I said, I grew up a Catholic, I was an altar boy. There's a great passage of the Bible. But I know this. God's work must truly be our own. He just said that freedom is a gift from the almighty. Everything is a gift from the almighty. And as I measure the words of the Bible, the greatest commandments are love the Lord your God. And with faith in God, and God bless the United States of America.

RUSH: You know, Howard Dean has a point. These are generally losing issues for Democrats. And if Kerry's base were fully fired up he wouldn't be doing this. There's something odd about all this, and then to add to it, as I mentioned last hour, in Xenia, Ohio, yesterday Kerry said, "I will bring my faith with me to the White House and it will guide me?" The left is having conniption fits because they think that's what Bush is doing. I hate to tell you this, but George Soros gave 18 and a half million dollars to Kerry precisely because he doesn't like Bush and his Christianity, and George Soros is probably making phone calls to the Kerry campaign saying, "I hope you're lying about this. I hope you don't really mean this." And a lot of the left is, "What is this? What about separation of church and state?" Where are you separatists these days that reside on the left? Your candidate is talking about God. Pat Robertson never even went this far when he was a presidential candidate. He said God told him to run but he never said he's going to take God in the Oval Office with him. John Kerry just did. "I will bring my faith with me to the White House and it will guide me." Wait, he has an out. He could be talking about faith in Lenin. But I think he meant God. He's out there talking about God, and now here he is, we've got him talking about gays. This is the second rule of Howard Dean's that Kerry violates.

KERRY: I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was. She's being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not a choice.

RUSH: You want to get to the real point here in talking about gays, though? Let's talk about gay marriage. The homosexual community in this country is predominantly supporting Democrat candidates, and especially the militant and wealthy gays in the country, very avid contributors to the Democrat cause. But their party will not come out for gay marriage. I wonder why? Wonder why? Has to come out and camouflage, "Well, we're for gay civil unions and so forth, but I believe marriage between a man and a woman." And then he calls Mary Cheney a lesbian. Now, it seems to me, if this country were as rabidly liberal as the left thinks it is he would be out there championing gay marriage because a majority of people in this country being liberal would be for it. It seems to me that if this country were as liberal as it is, John Kerry would not be going hunting and killing an innocent goose that did nothing but fly above him, and then have some sycophant walking alongside him carrying it around by the neck dead for the whole world to see proving what a tough real guy John Kerry is.

If this country were as liberal as they think it is, he wouldn't dare do this. It would offend the liberals in this country. And he certainly wouldn't be talking about God. He wouldn't be promising to take his faith into the Oval Office and be guided by it. What is John Kerry having to do here, folks, in the last two weeks prior to Election Day, what does he have to do to win this election? He has to convince conservatives that he's not a liberal. He's not the out trying to fire up his base. He's not out doing that at all because there aren't enough of them to carry him to victory. He can get a hundred percent of his base, this is one of the big myths that the media has put forth in this whole election year. He could get a hundred percent of his base and it's still not enough to count on. He's losing support in the black community, he's losing support in the Jewish community, he's losing support in the seasoned citizen community, who voted in large numbers in Florida for Bush in 2000 because they're tired of hearing this same old threat about Social Security, they know it's a lie, it doesn't happen. Social Security doesn't get cut, their checks never got stopped, they only get bigger. What they're doing is listening to John Kerry say he'll do to defend the country and it isn't much. He'll turn it over to the United Nations. A global test. He still doesn't get that Iraq and the war on terror are the same issue. He still wants to separate the two. Anybody with half a brain knows Iraq and the war on terror are the same issue, especially since Zarqawi now has officially aligned himself with Al-Qaeda.

You know, there's an interesting juxtaposition you can make here about Kerry's issue. Kerry sits there and says that we have, because of Bush's incompetence, turned Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground, right? And he says this is bad. Well, if Bush and his incompetence has turned Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground, doesn't it make Iraq the forefront of the war on terror? It does, and furthermore, doesn't it also mean that the terrorists are too preoccupied with us there than to attack us here? Hasn't it all along been sensible to coalesce and congregate all the terrorists in one spot and they may be flooding into Iraq because they know how crucial it is. They're fighting to the death to defend Iraq because if Iraq goes, they lose big. It's a brilliant move to have this all happening in Iraq instead of here.

So Kerry, on the one hand, tries to say it's incompetence on Bush's part that we have caused all this new terrorism and turned Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground, when according to Michael Moore it was nothing more than a happy-go-lucky bunch of people flying kites before we got there and now it's just horrible. It is the center front on the war on terror, and the terrorists are so occupied with us there, they don't have the resources nor the ability to hit us here as they did on 9/11.

It's a paramount, profound success, Senator Kerry, and more and more people begin to see this. And what will you do, sir? Well, you'll find a way to get us out of there as quick as we can, in a way that causes us to lose, lose it, and lose face, and thereby expand their momentum and their confidence that they can hit us again, and that we won't do much about it once you're in the White House, sir. Well, you gotta go out, though, and still make people think you're a tough guy, you're a conservative, you're a real guy. Well, you better get John Edwards away from that mirror and the hair spray for ten minutes at a time, and you better do more than learn how to put on some camouflage gear, carry a shotgun, claim to shoot a duck while somebody else is carrying it around for you. Kerry actually said he was too lazy to carry it himself, he was up late watching the Red Sox. One more sound bite here. In fact, two more. Here he is in the third debate talking more about guns.
KERRY: I believe it was a failure of presidential leadership not to reauthorize the assault weapons ban. I am a hunter, I am a gun owner. I've been a hunter since I was a kid, 12, 13 years old, and I respect the Second Amendment, and I will not tamper with the Second Amendment.


RUSH: Do you realize what hearsay that is to a genuine liberal? Second Amendment to American liberals shouldn't be there. The Second Amendment should not be in the Constitution. The Constitution is a living, breathing document according to the left, it bends and shapes to form whatever perversions our society and culture takes to accommodate them. And the Second Amendment, why, the Founding Fathers, had they known about Bowling for Columbine, why, they would have never written that. John Kerry's view of the Constitution is, had we known what was going to happen when we wrote it, we wouldn't have written it. That's the way he looks at the war. Had we known that we were gonna lose, we shouldn't have started. Had we known it was going to go bad in a couple of days, we shouldn't have been there. Bush lied.

Well, in the meantime the American left thinks that the Second Amendment shouldn't be there at all. Here's John Kerry swearing allegiance to it. You tell me that this is a majority liberal country. There's no way, hell's bells, folks. Big time progress is being made when the number 1 liberal in the U.S. Senate has to get elected by telling people and convincing conservatives he's one of them. He cannot get elected by showing everybody how liberal he is! He cannot get elected by rallying all of his base behind him and having them all vote for him because even if he does, it ain't enough. He has to go siphon conservative votes. He has to go get some religious conservatives. He has to go get some NRA conservatives. He has to go get any number of conservatives he can anywhere, real-guy conservatives, whoever they are. They failed, I guess, with the NASCAR dads campaign, but they made a go of that, they tried that. Here's one more Kerry sound bite. Let's go back to 1993. He's on CNN, again, with Frank Sesno. And the question from Sesno. "Senator Kerry, how about a big tax on guns if you're not going to go along with a big tax on bullets?"

KERRY: I think you ought to tax all ammunition more personally. And I think you ought to tax guns.

RUSH: John Kerry in 1993. Tax guns, tax all ammo more, tax everything more, raise everybody's taxes except mine.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

Uh, ladies and gentlemen, I have a question. I haven't been able to follow the news other than the sound down since the program began. Does anybody know whether Senator Kerry suffered any shrapnel wounds today when he was out there hunting geese in Ohio? If somebody knows that, I'd love to know if he had any shrapnel wounds to report. I know you don't get medals for this and we might not know otherwise, but if anybody has any clue, I'd like to know. I also have a question about this. Kerry says that he's gonna take his faith with him to the White House and that his faith will guide him. Well, Senator Kerry has been a senator for 20 years, and before that, he was lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, both times on a government payroll. What I want to know is this: Did Senator Kerry bring his faith to those positions? If he did, you cannot tell. Did his faith tell him to support partial-birth abortion over and over? Did his faith tell him to vote against the military? Did his faith tell him to raise taxes on Social Security recipients? Did his faith tell him that he needed to cut the U.S. defense budget and the intelligence budget? Did his faith tell him to vote against the Gulf War in 1991? Where is the evidence that Senator Kerry took his faith with him to the office of the Senate or his lieutenant governorship position in Massachusetts?

The problem, ladies and gentlemen, is not Senator Kerry bringing his faith to the White House, it's his extreme liberalism and that crazy oddball wife of his that he's going to be bringing to the White House. That's what we don't want in the White House. We don't want his extreme ultra-liberalism, and we don't want that fringe kook ball as his wife in the Oval Office herself. He can bring his faith anywhere else he wants to go, but his faith is liberalism, folks, and make no mistake about it, and that's what we don't want in the Oval Office.

www.rushlimbaugh.com

Rachel | October 22, 2004 11:42 AM

Dear Mr.Kerry,
What is the reson that you are such a double talker. You will say one thing one day then the nexted day you will say samething completely different the nexted day. I want a president who I can trust will not go back on his word, and will not change his mind every day. Would you be that president or will you be the one that everyone regrets voting for in the first place. If you have any balls please responded to his posting, and have wonderful year.

Jennifer | October 22, 2004 03:40 PM

As an american citizen and scared to death watching the polls and not knowing if the most idiotic man in the unites states is going to be placed neatly back into the white house, i can honestly say that i would rather put mickey mouse in the white house over george bush anyday. Kerry is a liar just like all the rest, but atleast (so far) he hasn't allowed terrorists to attack our homeland soil. I only know what i read or see on tv. but i know enough to know that bush spent the entire month of august in texas. doing god only knows what. while he's getting word that osama is gonna attack us by hi-jacking airplanes. He stood idily by and palyed GOLF or some bull CRAP. all of our lives lie in the hands of one man and some other dudes that have the power to get us all killed.
kerry may not be more honest,but at least he doesn't deny lying.

Michael Gray | October 22, 2004 06:33 PM

Ahhh...Jennifer. That was my problem. I came in here and quoted what I heard on t.v. Everyone ripped me to shreds. Now I still don't have it all figured out (most of you would agree) but I do know more than what I did. It's called "research".

Now I'm sure that Mickey Mouse will be gracious for your vote on November 2nd but...do you really think he is um...mouse enough to run this country?

Lets look at facts.
Fact 1) The C.I.A. has been a trusted source of intelligence for a long time.-This was the same C.I.A. that said, "Slam dunk!!! Go get those WMD's." Lo and behold...there are none.

Fact 2) Kerry himself denied ever flip-flopping. He said himself during a debate quote, "The President would like you to beleive that I flip-flop, but I dont." -This link shows you Kerry's flip-flops.- (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ekerryflipflop/thelist.html)

This is a record that will continue in the White House if he is elected. This is not what this country needs. This man is not consistent. He goes with what is popular at the time.

And if Kerry is in the White House...things will definately get worse as far as terrorism goes.
-------------------------------------------------
You know, there's an interesting juxtaposition you can make here about Kerry's issue. Kerry sits there and says that we have, because of Bush's incompetence, turned Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground, right? And he says this is bad. Well, if Bush and his incompetence has turned Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground, doesn't it make Iraq the forefront of the war on terror? It does, and furthermore, doesn't it also mean that the terrorists are too preoccupied with us there than to attack us here? Hasn't it all along been sensible to coalesce and congregate all the terrorists in one spot and they may be flooding into Iraq because they know how crucial it is. They're fighting to the death to defend Iraq because if Iraq goes, they lose big. It's a brilliant move to have this all happening in Iraq instead of here.

So Kerry, on the one hand, tries to say it's incompetence on Bush's part that we have caused all this new terrorism and turned Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground, when according to Michael Moore it was nothing more than a happy-go-lucky bunch of people flying kites before we got there and now it's just horrible. It is the center front on the war on terror, and the terrorists are so occupied with us there, they don't have the resources nor the ability to hit us here as they did on 9/11.

It's a paramount, profound success, Senator Kerry, and more and more people begin to see this. And what will you do, sir? Well, you'll find a way to get us out of there as quick as we can, in a way that causes us to lose, lose it, and lose face, and thereby expand their momentum and their confidence that they can hit us again, and that we won't do much about it once you're in the White House, sir.- www.rushlimbaugh.com

Tori | October 27, 2004 07:32 PM

I believe Kerry can win i think if he puts his mine to it he can do it. If he won't let people put him down by what they say!

Michael Gray | October 28, 2004 04:05 PM

Politics aside...John Kerry is a snake. I can't beleive more and more people don't see this.

He is lying through his teeth now with this story in Iraq. He is lying through his teeth win he says his faith will guide him in the White House.
Did it guide him to vote for partial birth abortion over and over? Has it ever guided him on anything?

That man in office will be a major downfall for this country. Thats not opinion. LOOK AT THE FACTS PEOPLE.

Torie | November 2, 2004 03:23 PM

I hope and pray Kerry wins this election because in my opinion, Bush doesn't know what he is doing that's why we are in this messed up situation now. Come on now people, open your eyes and get a clue.

Anna | November 2, 2004 08:39 PM

NADAR RUELS!

Steve Brady | November 3, 2004 12:38 PM

Well, you were right about Ohio and Florida, John.

Jeff Porten | November 4, 2004 03:47 AM

The odd thing is, that last post just cheered me up.

(In case John inevitably deletes it, it was a spam message with about 200 sex synonyms. Not the Ohio and Florida thing.)

haba | November 4, 2004 10:53 PM

ive been depressed, its been a sad week im sure for everybody else as well, we'll get them in 4 years when bush will mess up again and wont be able to clean himself up

Anonymous | November 4, 2004 10:54 PM

ive been depressed, its been a sad week im sure for everybody else as well, we'll get them in 4 years when bush will mess up again and wont be able to clean himself up

Anonymous | November 5, 2004 10:35 AM

loser to long to read

Anonymous | November 5, 2004 07:40 PM

For your info MR. SMARTY PANTS Bush is a great president and your the one that needs to be taken out and beat to death with your shoes. YOU MAKE ME SICK!!! All of you out their that feal the same way this applys to you too.