Check his record for 'yerself

[Donnie]

OK....I have heard enough about what a great American John Kerry has been.....

People who back Kerry NEED to go to this site to check his ACTUAL/FACTUAL voting records as they were recorded! If you can argue that this guy has what it takes to be the PRESIDENT of these United States after taking an unbiased look through his performance, then you, my friends, are ASSES!! (Please note how many times you will see "Did not vote")

Check out this gem under the Unborn Victims Act of 2004 (under health issues):

Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.

Vote to pass a bill that would make it a criminal offense if a fetus is injured or killed while carrying out a violent crime on a pregnant woman.

I am not making this up...check it out for yourself:

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103

And one more from 2003 under the Perscription Drug Benefit Plan:

Senator John Forbes Kerry did not vote.

Vote to pass a bill that would authorize $400 billion over 10 years to create a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients beginning in 2006.


The Dem's are looking for the stupid to vote. Moore is asking for the uninformed to step up to the plate.....alas...if they only would check the man's RECORD!!!

[Donnie]

From 2003:
Senator John Forbes Kerry did not vote.

Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would create a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients.

On abortion in 2003:
Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.

Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as, "partial-birth" abortion.

On defense, this past June:
Senator John Forbes Kerry did not vote.

Vote to pass a bill that would authorize $447.2 billion for the Defense Department and the Energy Department's national security programs.

In Sept 2004:
Senator John Forbes Kerry did not vote.

Vote to pass a conference report that would extend the child tax credit and other expiring tax cuts.

He doesn't even vote on the budget??:
Senator John Forbes Kerry did not vote.

Vote to adopt the concurrent resolution that would establish the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2005 and including appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2006 through 2009.



Funny...many of these are finding their way onto his "platform". But they seem to be "shortcomings" of President Bush. At least Bush takes a stand, makes a decision and then lives with it.

[Donnie]

Oh hell! Check this out...he was asked 23 times to fill out a survey as to where he stands on key issues as a Senator....he has REFUSED to do so 23 times!!! YIKES!!!

http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=S0421103

Is this trully the best the Dems can bring forward?

[ElKabong]

That's good stuff. Thanks, wish I'd seen this earlier.

[boxcar]

Donnie, I've been wanting to start a topic dealing with Kerry's voting record in the senate, but have just been too occuppied with too many other matters outside of cyberspace. But thanks to you, I'm now energized and enthused to contribute some to this topic.

All responsible, sensible and rational people who intend to vote in this election must (and I believe will) take the time to inform themselves as to whether or not Kerry owns any serious leadership qualities. Or is he merely a power-hungry, fame-seeking politician ulitimately seeking to stroke his own ego and to bask in his own self glory? The one sure way to find out is by checking into this guy's voting record for the last two decades,and into the kinds of bills he has sponsored in Congress during his tenure. To this end, check out this site:

http://www.factcheck.org/article282.html

Bush correctly said a few weeks ago that Kerry had "no signature" accomplishments in Congress. In other words, his accomplishments are relatively minor and trivial compared to many of his colleagues.

For example, get a load of the five (5) bills Kerry sponsored that passed the Senate, the House and were signed into law by a president:

*
S.791: Authorizes $53 million over four years to provide grants to woman-owned small businesses. (1999)
*
S.1206: Names a federal building in Waltham, Massachusetts after Frederick C. Murphy, who was killed in action during World War II and awarded (posthumously) the Medal of Honor. (1994)
*
S.1636: A save-the-dolphins measure aiming “to improve the program to reduce the incidental taking of marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations.” (1994)
*
S.1563: Funding the National Sea Grant College Program, which supports university-based research, public education, and other projects “to promote better understanding, conservation and use of America’s coastal resources.” (1991)
*
S.423: Granting a visa and admission to the U.S. as a permanent resident to Kil Joon Yu Callahan. (1987)

This guy is a BIG FAT ZERO, and, folks, it doesn't get much better than this. Even the first bill listed, while looking that it may be something of substance, note carefully it only authorized a little more than $14 million per year! A mere pittance. A drop in the bucket. That $53 mil over four years had to have been stretched mighty thin!

But whatever you do, folks, don't forget to read down the article. It really gets worse! Kerry isn't only a Flip-Flopper, but and an extraordinarily lackluster underachiever!

Boxcar

[NoDayJob]

:D Senator Kerry is the perfect President for people of this former Republic. A dummie leader for a bunch of dummies that feel the gummint should take care of them from the cradle to the grave, as long as it doesn't cost them anything. How about a free lunch with that beer folks? But on the other hand, let's look at President Bush---nothing there either. He beat the Democrats at their own vote buying game. He's no dummie when it comes to beating them to the punch. Personally, "Scarlet, I don't give a damn who wins!" Vote early, vote often. Heh, heh! :D

NDJ

[Tom]

Hey Donnie!
Looks like you have been querrying more than FR1 lately!:D
Thanks for the links and info.

[Donnie]

I just woke up and am kinda depressed. Looks like when presented the facts, their isn't much a Kerry-backer can argue. I was hoping for a spirited debate.

Tom, this is suddenly like researching a database and and basing your conclusions on the real data rather than a gut check!! BOL, my friend!

[so.cal.fan]

CNN [10/22]: Bush 277- Kerry 261 without Bush winning Ohio

Time [10/22]: Bush 51-Kerry 46-Nader 2 | Bush 52-Kerry 47 | Bush Job Approval @ 53%


ABC/Washington Post [10/22]: Bush 50-Kerry 46-Nader 2

Rasmussen: Bush 49-Kerry 46 | Zogby: Bush 47-Kerry 45-Nader 1


I "pirated" this off the Del Mar Fan Forum Off Topic (or the Dark Side, as the moderator likes to call it).

Courtesy of one of my favorite writers.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Kerry is too busy enjoying being called "senator" an partying to vote on stuff.
Why should he have stances? Teresa gave him 100 million to run for pres. He will just do as she orders.

[Tom]

Originally posted by kenwoodallpromos
Kerry is too busy enjoying being called "senator" an partying to vote on stuff.
Why should he have stances? Teresa gave him 100 million to run for pres. He will just do as she orders.

$100 million to run, and he still cannot "catsup" to Bush! :D

[boxcar]

Donnie@HTR wrote:

I just woke up and am kinda depressed. Looks like when presented the facts, their isn't much a Kerry-backer can argue. I was hoping for a spirited debate.

Donnie, there just isn't anything to debate when it comes to Kerry's record. A record that he, obviously, is very ashamed of --- a record which Bush, again, rightly characterizes as essentially being one that Kerry is "running from but cannot hide". It's no wonder at all that during his campaign, Kerry has talked very little about his record. And in those rare moments when he does, he keeps his remarks to a bare minimum.

However, Kerry has had to drum up some qualifications for the presidency -- something -- anything. As we all know, during the Democratic Convention, he pushed his "war record" front and center on the stage for the world to see, and this, I believe, has backfired on him. In the end, we see that he didn't want to serve. He didn't want to go to 'Nam. But when all his efforts failed, he chose swiftboat duty because at that time, all the swifties did was patrol the relatively safe and uneventful coastal waters. However, once he got to 'Nam, that policy changed and so he was forced to plot and scheme and connive his way to get out of there any way he could. And the quickest and surest way out was to get nicked and scratched a few times (any way possible!), put in for a few Purple Hearts as a result thereof, and fly on home where he'd be forever more out of harm's way. And all this makes him "qualified" to be president.

But another "qualification" , of which Kerry has often spoken, was his stint on the Senate Intelligence Committee whereon he served for eight (8) years -- from 1993 to January 2001. But...a Bush ad accuses Kerry of missing a whopping 76% of the public hearings. The Kerry camp countered back that this number is basically misleading 'cause it doesn't take into account all the closed meetings that they allege he attended (the operative term here being "alleged"). Of course, Kerry himself could clear all this up and prove to everyone that he attended a very high percentage of those closed meetings by simply releasing his attendance records. But Kerry, being true to form, refuses to release those records, just as he has refused to sign off on that form that would release all his military records. It's very evident to this writer that Kerry has much to hide.

But wait...this saga gets even "better" (depending, of course, on which side of the fence you're on). The Kerry camp has often claimed that their main man Lurch was the vice chairman of this important Committee! But to their chagrin (maybe), everyone found out that they were confusing John with Bob...that is to say, Bob Kerry a far more senior member of the senate. (Ah...Bob, John...why quibble over words???? We just missed the "nuance" of it all.)

For the entire report, click on this link:

http://www.factcheck.org/article241.html

Boxcar

[Tom]

Dot. Kerry on the Senate intelligence committee years unitl 2001.
Dot. Kerry alleges bad intelligence was Bush's fault.

Connect the dots.

[boxcar]

After a few senior advises to Kerry had told Bob Woodward of the Washington Post that the Senator would agree to an interview with him, they later backed out after the reporter submitted the proposed 22 questions to them, which, incidentially, were identical to what Bush was asked and to which he replied! As you read through the very intelligent and thought-provoking questions, it becomes easy to understand why Kerry refused. Such heavy questions require a heavyweight's answers...and God only knows that Kerry is as shallow as they come -- despite all his tiresome, repetitious assurances that he has a "plan" for just about every contigency under the sun.

Kerry, evidently, wishes to hide the fact that about the only thing he's really qualified to do in the Oval Office is to lick Bush's boots!

Very interesting read...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55919-2004Oct22?language=printer

Boxcar

[Tom]

How shallow is Kerry?
He is so shallow, that if you pat him on the back you brusie his chest!:rolleyes: