Kerry Urges Calling Back Congress- Session on 9/11 Report Needed

[papau]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35337-2004Aug2.html


Kerry Urges Calling Back Congress
Session on 9/11 Report Needed, He Says
By Dan Balz and Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 3, 2004; Page A09


GRAND RAPIDS, Mich., Aug. 2 -- Sen. John F. Kerry urged President Bush on Monday to call a special session of Congress to implement the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, accusing Bush of foot-dragging and charging that the president's policies have encouraged the creation of more terrorists.

In his first response to the government's heightened terror alert along the East Coast, Kerry said Bush has been slow to embrace a national intelligence director and argued that he would have moved far more aggressively to reorganize U.S. intelligence services and also to provide anti-terrorism assistance to local fire and police departments. <snip>

Edwards brought the same message to Orlando, where he urged immediate action on the recommendations of the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He told residents gathered for what the campaign calls a "front porch" visit that three years after the attacks, the nation's intelligence gathering is woefully inadequate to track down terrorists and there is no coordinated national plan to help communities in the event of an attack.

"We have huge numbers of containers coming into ports every day, and we screen a tiny percentage of them," Edwards said, raising the sensitive issue of port security in this waterway state. "We don't have enough coordination with other countries around the world with them doing their part, so we don't have a lot of information we should have."

Edwards, who spent the day flying around Florida, told a local television affiliate: "When you just generally tell people you are raising the alert in the country, they don't know what they are supposed to do. . . . We need to give them as much information as we can."

James P. Rubin, a senior Kerry adviser, accused Bush of flip-flopping -- a charge the Bush campaign has repeatedly made against Kerry -- on the issue of a national intelligence czar and pointed out that the administration had been slow to support the creation of a homeland security department after the terrorist attacks. Kerry and Edwards, he said, long have called for a national intelligence director. <snip>

[trotsky]

1. This was F*CKING brilliant!

If * doesn't do it, he looks like he's not protecting us.

If he does do it, he looks like he's taking cues from Kerry!

Ha ha ha ha ha!

[qanda]

3. I don't think it's brilliant

I think it gives the Republicans the ability to bring up facts about Kerry not being present in the Senate. I guess there are different ways of looking at this, but I think this one takes a lot of nerve on Kerry's part.

[democrat_patriot]

8. Kerry's response:

"So the republicans need me in congress to get anything done? * can't function without me? I can't wait until I'm president, so we can really make some positive changes"

[MasonJar]

13. Maybe, but Stump has been campaigning almost non-stop, ex-

cept whan he was vacationing....and on our dollar too. I would assume that this is dangerous ground for the Pugs.

[yardwork]

14. We need somebody with a lot of nerve in the White House

I think that this was a good move for Kerry to make.

When people point fingers at Kerry for missing votes because he's campaigning, they're pointing three fingers back at * for being on vacation all the time.

Kerry has to campaign - that's the way it is. Shrub doesn't have to loll around on the pig farm.

[merh]

11. It also helps should the idiot boy try out of term appointments.

"We tried to get emergency session called to implement the 9/11 commission finding, but * refused to protect the nation just so he could get his appointees in office"

Politics over the nations security are his only interest.

[yardwork]

15. He has planned appointments

There was an article about this several days ago. Shrub has a whole long list of appointees he's just now happened to decide have to be appointed instantly even though Congress is out of town.

Kerry's right. Bring them back to town and put them to work. There are terror alerts for crying out loud! Since the Republicans insist the terror alerts aren't politically motivated but absolutely real, Congress needs to get cracking on the 9/11 report!

[merh]

18. So * can't make his appointments without looking like he

doesn't care about terra - only forcing his agenda and appointees.
Kerry is right, bring them back from vacation...

[yardwork]

20. Good point! Shrub is saying his priority is on political appointments

not on terrorism and getting Congress to work!

Every way we look at it, this was a brilliant and gutsy move on Kerry's part.

And we know that the Republicans will blink. They will never come back to D.C. during this tight an election year.

Effing brilliant!

[Tight_rope]

76. I sccond the motion!................n/t

[Cronus Protagonist]

96. Kerry's GONAD FACTOR Just Went Up Too - Brilliant

Damn good move. It's nice to not be feeling ashamed of the Democratic Party's usually lackluster campaigns. Credit where due. Good idea all around, and damn effective with poor rural communities.

SHOVE IT! - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - Hero Kerry AWOL Bush
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[liberalnurse]

2. Gheeze...I heard this recommendation

yesterday...somewhere......Great idea regardless.....Something to the effect htat he should lead Congress .....but I don't think he has the position/authority to do so since Democrats are a minority in both the House and Senate......

I guess shame will work....but the the repugs get the credit.....we never heard much about how *bush fought like hell to prevent the 911-Commission.....now he takes the glory.

[IndianaGreen]

4. What if Bush actually calls Congress into special session in September?

Calling Kerry's bluff, Bush could tie down the Democratic ticket on Capitol Hill while Congress squabbles about the 9/11 Commission recommendations, some of which that are opposed by intelligence veterans because it would create another layer of bureaucracy.

I have heartburn with some of the recommendations, and they need to be debated and not rushed through Congress like the ill-advised PATRIOT Act.

I don't favor the creation of a KGB-style organization. It will be more of a hindrance on counter-terrorism efforts.

We already have enough muscle in the 1947 National Security Act that created the CIA. We just haven't used those powers fully or wisely.

And what is this nonsense about some of the 9/11 commissioners wanting to make their jobs permanent, like a Stalinist-style politburo?

[qanda]

6. I agree with you

And as much as we scream about Bush* politicizing terror alerts, Kerry shouldn't politicize the 9/11 reports. Some of the stuff they are talking about is just downright dangerous for our Democracy. I think we should take changes as slow as possible and really consider the implications before we have to live with them under any administration.

[Beetwasher]

7. It'll NEVER HAPPEN

His party would REVOLT. There are lot's of close Senate races and the Repub Senators will NOT want this...

Good move by Kerry, because he KNOWS Bush won't do this for that reason...

[Zorra]

10. Great post.

I would like to hear Dennis Kucinich's ideas on all this. He voted against the Patriot Act and the IWR, so it seems that he takes the time to analyze legislation before voting on it.

[Zhade]

89. THANK you, IG!

I, for one, am NOT eager to expand the national security state even further!

All I keep thinking, when I hear of a single individual to oversee all intelligence both foreign and domestic, is secret police.

Fuck this insanity. If our officials had simply done their job with the tools they already had, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

But then, where would PNAC have gotten their desired "new Pearl Harbor"?

To see even some progressives conceding to this makes me wonder: are Americans insane?

[starroute]

5. Bush's actual proposals opposite of commission recommendations

Joshua Marshall has an excellent entry on this point:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_01.php#003238

"What I heard there was that the president had embraced the commission's recommendation on this point while only disagreeing on whether this new head of national intelligence would be housed within the White House or have cabinet rank status outside the White House structure.

"Yet it turns out that this is but one, and not at all the most significant way in which the policy the president has embraced differs from that of the commission. In fact, when you look closely at it, it's nothing like what the commission recommended at all. The president went out into the Rose Garden, said he was adopting the commission's proposals. But in fact he was doing close to the opposite, doing more or less what they said shouldn't be done.

"The key point made by the commission, you'll remember, is that the new NDI would have to have budgetary authority across the various intelligence agencies and the ability to hire and fire senior managers. As the Times makes clear, the president's proposal does none of those.

<snip>

Now, if you go back and read the actual 9/11 Report you'll see that the commissioners description of the organizational shortcomings of the DCI post reads more or less exactly like the description of the new post the president outlined today."

[Mighty Undecided]

9. They may call his bluff and get him actually work as a senator...

[merh]

12. Go away!

He has done more work as a senator than * has as a president. * takes vacations all the time and campaigns all the time, why don't you call him on that.

Don't start this Kerry not doing his job - you are out matched here.

[TryingToWarnYou]

17. Oh for petes sake... the record shows Kerry doesnt vote much

Why are so many here not willing to accept that tiny fact?

Since January of 2003, Kerry has only voted in 29% of all votes in Congress. Its a matter of public record. Before you lash out at people for daring to mention this untidy fact, you might want to do some homework before you look like a tool.

[merh]

19. I am aware of his record and compared to *, he has a much better

record. His votes were limited while the repukes controlled congress because his votes would make no difference to the outcome. Do you want to challenge me on his record compared to idiot boys?

The vacations and campaigning that * has taken and been doing while at war is atrocious. Don't throw Kerry to the wolves and let the shrub continue to misuse his office and abuse powers.

[TryingToWarnYou]

22. Sure, I want you to show me where the Repubs limited him

71% of the time while everyone else managed to vote a helluva lot more often.

Sorry, it aint going to fly. I can accept that answer for some of the votes because we all know that he didnt like to vote on pork issues, but that answer doesnt work for the the hundreds of other times.

Here is his voting record..

http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/cgi-bin/membervotes.cgi?&lang=&member=MAJR&site=congressmerge&address=&city=&state=&zipcode=&plusfour=&fullvotes=1

[merh]

28. You are so wrong, have you looked at the list you sent?

I suggest you go through that list and point out any legislation that is necessary legislation and not partisan and pork belly legislation (like the appointment of the neo-con judges). Then send those to me for discussion. In the meantime, explain to me your idiot prez's record. The leader of the country who cannot lead -- only divide.

Then go to this timeline and compare Kerry's record to your man's.

Then get back to me!

http://www.independent-media.tv/itemprint.cfm?fmedia_id=7073&fcategory_desc=

(PS - Kerry served - GWB was AWOL (and drunk)- you can't win!)

[TryingToWarnYou]

33. Im a Kerry supporter, genius.

Ignoring his senatorial voting record wont make it go away no matter how hard you try.

You really dont want me to go through the legislation do you? I saw stuff in there I *know* was important. In otherwords, you are telling me that for everything he didnt vote for, which was a shitload, that there was a political reason for all of them?

[merh]

40. You have ignored his 30 year record and you ignore

his record over the last 2 years if you do not review the legislation he acted upon and the legislation he passed on. Not just these snippet titles - each proposed bill to see what nasty riders and amendments were attached by the party in power. Do you even know how it works in congress?

His record is a record of 30 years of service. He is the man that was instrumental in investigating the Iran/Contra scandals. That alone speaks volumes to me. Did you look at the time line I provided?

[TryingToWarnYou]

47. 1984 to 2004 is 20, say it with me... TWENTY years

Im fully aware of how it works in congress. You are asking me to believe that just in the past two years it was so terrible that he couldnt even hardly vote???

Either you are stupid or gullible.

Iran/Contra is probably his crowning achievement so far. He did fantastic work there and I wish more of the folks had found their way to prison. Thats ok though, Hell has plenty of room.

[merh]

49. Go back and look at the crap he didn't vote on....

You have no idea how it works.

[TryingToWarnYou]

55. Yes, and its a lot of stuff. A "No" vote would have been better, so..

it seems like its you that doesnt know how it works.

[merh]

57. A no vote does not work better than no vote at all.

Look at the whole record and the bigger picture. Look beyond your simple concepts to the much larger issues.

[TryingToWarnYou]

62. Heh. Not voting is = not being there, not caring, etc. Actually voting..

means taking a stand. Do you understand that very simple concept?

[merh]

68. Do you understand the word "abstain"?

A no vote can mean the issue is not worthy of my vote one way or the other, or, due to conflicts, I cannot vote. No votes are just as powerful as 'nos'.

Roberts Rules of Order and/or the Senate Rules are suggested reading.

[TryingToWarnYou]

72. Sorry, the Senate only recognizes "Yeas and Nays" as voting positions

This means that either he was not physically there or simply chose not to vote for whatever reason.

[merh]

75. I know that - but there are reasons for abstaining as explained to you

over and over and over again. See the various posts throughout this thread.

[TryingToWarnYou]

78. Funny how "Not Voting" is now "Abstaining" which means something else...

I guess now you are going to really try to play the semantics game? Sheeesh. I know someone in office right now that would love to have you work for them.

Lets keep the terminology limited to what the Senate uses ok?

http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/standingrules.txt

To abstain, one is doing something deliberately and neither you nor I know if it was deliberate or a byproduct of his campaigning or other reasons.

[merh]

83. You are correct, abstaining is a choice. To chose not to

vote is to abstain. The reasons for abstaining are multiple and in previous posts I have provided you with examples of some reasons. You have no idea what communications Kerry has had with others in the senate chambers relative to his votes.

You just cannot grasp the obvious. To have a friend in office is nice, tell your repug friend we all say hello. I don't work for repugs.

[TryingToWarnYou]

85. Boy you really miss most things dont you?

My comment was in reference to Bush and how him and his administration love to use semantics.

I grasp the obvious just fine. Its obvious that you dont understand the importance of voting and the message it sends.

[merh]

86. I understand the importance of voting and I understand the

message sent by not voting. Do you? Again, what legislation has he missed that is crucial to the issues? Not just the title mind you, but the entire bill, complete with amendments and all revisions.

Be specific and detailed, know of what you speak before making an argument. If there has been legislation that he has missed that is vital to the issues, I will gladly rethink my position.

[TryingToWarnYou]

87. So you are saying that he hasnt missed anthing vital?

We dont know what the message is because we dont know in what context "Not Voting" means for him. He could have been there, he could have been on the toilet, he could have been in another state etc. I find it very hard to believe that out of 400 something votes, he managed to get the 29% that mattered most while Daschle kept him down for the remaining 71%.

Im also looking for an example of a vote that he missed where it was important..Im finding quite a few, but theres a lot of stuff riding on the bills and I suspect that whatever I offer up will be insufficient for you because we are trying to extrapolate why he didnt vote and any excuse can be made.

Im also still waiting for you to show me an example of the repugs keeping Kerry down.

[merh]

88. I am asking you what vital legislation has he missed?

I am also asking what vital legislation failed because he did not vote? Come on - give your all.

Not all bills before congress are vital to our nation. Judge RW neo-con for appeals court is an unimportant issue compared to other matters our nation is involved in.

[Zhade]

90. Uh - can you clarify this point? I don't want to misread it.

Judge RW neo-con for appeals court is an unimportant issue compared to other matters our nation is involved in.

Can you please explain what you mean here? It's reading very oddly to me, and I would like to know what you actually mean.

It doesn't sound good, which is why I'm asking for clarification for fear of misinterpreting your remarks.

[TryingToWarnYou]

93. And I told you what Ive found...

And Im asking you to clarify that you are saying that he didnt miss any vital votes out of the hundreds he missed? Law of statistics says you are wrong.

And I disagree with you about the Judges. Thats a very important thing to miss out on. But, here you are already moving the goal posts...so, lets have you lay out what you consider an "important" matter so we dont waste a bunch of time tracking down the unimportant stuff like national defense, medicaid and other "unimportant" legislation.

[merh]

94. You did not find diddle squat! You cited a list of titles of legislation

but you have no idea what the legislation entails and what the votes were to determine whether or not the "no vote" was vital to the passage or failure of the vote.

Let's see, K & E are sloppy senators, well do you want to know what these lazy fellows did during their campaigning? They were able to cast their votes against the repukes efforts to allow oil exploration in protected areas. Pissed the hell out of cheney too! The repukes needed 60 votes. They got 58 w/ K & E voting against. This is what I am talking about.

As to the judges, the votes for repukes have been tied up in congress for some time, it has frustrated the clown-n-chief so badly that he appointed a neo-con racisit while congress was out of session and his other appointments have been stalled, causing him to whine about how unfair the dems are. The few that have been appointed were approved after a deal was made with Daschle and his minions. They made a "promise" to curtail the efforts during the campaign. (Kerry knows if his fellow senators on the judiciary committee need him to come vote, they will call him to vote.)

You provided diddly and you know diddly.

I reiterate, it is amazing how much can be accomplished while on the road. Kerry can communicate with his fellow senators while on the road and can tend to the business of his office while campaigning. How do you think he knew to fly back to DC to try to vote for the veterans bill, only to be screwed over by Daschle.

Provide me with legislation that Kerry missed that is vital to the issues. Not just titles of legislation, but links to the actual legislation with all amendments. But, I suggest you read the legislation and know what it is about and what all is involved with its passage or failure.

Your obession with this is similiar to the talking pointed heads of the RW griping that Kerry voted against the funding for the troops. He voted against the bill because the repukes refused to provide for how the funding would be obtained (he wanted an amendment to tax the folks over $200,000) and because the other money that had been approved had not be properly accounted for and/or spent. Even McCain, the repug voted against it. (Remember, Daschle made a big scene saying "McCain who?")

There is more to a "yes" vote or a "no" vote or a "no vote" than meets the eye.

[TryingToWarnYou]

95. Actually, I havent given you anything yet...

And I have asked you time and time again to show me where they are keeping Kerry from voting. You keep dodging me on this request.

Like I told you earlier, there are a lot to most of the votes, amendments to the legislation etc. I dont think that anything I find will be good enough for you even though you know and I know its there. You will just move the goal posts to favor your fantasy that Kerry is perfect. This is not reality.

The points:

Kerry has not voted hundreds of times in the past two years and there is no way, statistically, that he managed to vote on only the important legislation (as determined by you, of course).

A yes or a no means he voted and actually took a position. NOT VOTING has many different meanings and looks bad to the general public.

Ill ask you again: What do you consider important legislation that he should vote on? Obviously, veterans benefits, military funding etc. shouldnt be included (note the sarcasm). I want to know the ground rules for your request before I waste my time digging up legislative text.

EDIT: Ok, I went and did a real quick search as it is late here:

In my opinion, he should have voted for this:

To require reports on the efforts of the President to stabilize Iraq and relieve the burden on members of the Armed Forces of the United States deployed in Iraq and the Persian Gulf region.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00138

Amendment was rejected. Two Senators not voting. If both had voted Yes, it would have forced Crashcart to make the tiebreaker. While I dont agree with the war in Iraq, I want them to have the tools they need to do their jobs there. This is all referencing S.2400. I dont know what the text of that bill was and what the funding outcome was. This was for this amendment only.

The Amendment:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SP3377:

Text of Bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:2:./temp/~c108yQJmjU::

[merh]

98. You have to track the legislation --- have you done that?

H.R.4200
Title: To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Hunter, Duncan (by request) (introduced 4/22/2004) Cosponsors (1)
Related Bills: H.RES.648, H.R.4039, H.R.4130, S.2400, S.2401
Latest Major Action: 6/24/2004 Resolving differences / Conference -- Senate actions. Status: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Warner; McCain; Inhofe; Roberts; Allard; Sessions; Collins; Ensign; Talent; Chambliss; Graham SC; Dole; Cornyn; Levin; Kennedy; Byrd; Lieberman; Reed; Akaka; Nelson FL; Nelson NE; Dayton; Bayh; Clinton; Pryor.
House Reports: 108-491, 108-491 Part 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATUS: (color indicates Senate actions)
4/22/2004:
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
2/4/2004:
Hearings Held Prior to Introduction.
2/12/2004:
Hearings Held Prior to Introduction.
2/25/2004:
Hearings Held Prior to Introduction.
2/26/2004:
Hearings Held Prior to Introduction.
3/3/2004:
Hearings Held Prior to Introduction.
3/24/2004:
Hearings Held Prior to Introduction.
3/31/2004:
Hearings Held Prior to Introduction.
5/4/2004:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.
5/4/2004:
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces Held Hearings Prior to Introduction (2/25/2004, 3/18/2004, and 3/25/2004).
5/6/2004:
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
5/6/2004:
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
5/4/2004:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.
5/4/2004:
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces Held Hearings Prior to Introduction (3/4/2004, 3/17/2004, 3/25/2004, and 4/1/2004).
5/6/2004:
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
5/6/2004:
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
5/4/2004:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Readiness.
5/4/2004:
Subcommittee on Readiness Held Hearings Prior to Introduction (2/26/2004, 3/4/2004, 3/11/2004, 3/18/2004, 3/25/2004, and 3/30/2004).
5/6/2004:
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
5/6/2004:
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
5/4/2004:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Projection Forces.
5/4/2004:
Subcommittee on Projection Forces Held Hearings Prior to Introduction (3/3/2004, 3/11/2004, 3/17/2004, and 3/30/2004).
5/5/2004:
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
5/5/2004:
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
5/4/2004:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Total Force.
5/4/2004:
Subcommittee on Total Force Held Hearings Prior to Introduction (3/3/2004, 3/10/2004, 3/18/2004, 3/24/2004, and 3/31/2004).
5/5/2004:
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
5/5/2004:
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
5/4/2004:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities.
5/4/2004:
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Held Hearings Prior to Introduction (2/26/2004, 3/4/2004, 3/11/2004, 3/18/2004, 3/25/2004, 3/31/2004, and 4/1/2004).
5/5/2004:
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
5/5/2004:
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
5/6/2004:
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces Discharged.
5/13/2004:
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
5/13/2004:
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 60 - 0.
5/14/2004 11:26pm:
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Armed Services. H. Rept. 108-491.
5/14/2004 11:26pm:
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 278.
5/19/2004 10:25am:
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 648 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4200 with 2 hours of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. It shall be in order to consdier as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order.
5/19/2004 2:22pm:
Rule H. Res. 648 passed House.
5/19/2004 2:34pm:
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 648. (consideration: CR H3260-3358; text of measure as reported in House: CR H3281-3346)
5/19/2004 2:35pm:
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 648 and Rule XVIII.
5/19/2004 2:35pm:
The Speaker designated the Honorable Doc Hastings to act as Chairman of the Committee.
5/19/2004 6:54pm:
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 4200 as unfinished business.
5/19/2004 8:26pm:
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3369-3377)
5/19/2004 8:26pm:
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
5/19/2004 9:28pm:
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 4200 as unfinished business.
5/20/2004 11:51am:
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3406-3411)
5/20/2004 11:51am:
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
5/20/2004 1:01pm:
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 4200 as unfinished business.
5/20/2004 1:08pm:
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3411-3414)
5/20/2004 1:09pm:
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
5/20/2004 1:28pm:
Supplemental report filed by the Committee on Armed Services, H. Rept. 108-491, Part II.
5/20/2004 2:17pm:
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 4200 as unfinished business.
5/20/2004 2:58pm:
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3415-3431, CR 5/21/2004 H3445-3457)
5/20/2004 2:58pm:
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
5/20/2004 3:32pm:
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 4200.
5/20/2004 3:33pm:
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR 5/21/2004 H3454)
5/20/2004 3:34pm:
Mr. Waxman moved to recommit with instructions to Armed Services. (consideration: CR 5/21/2004 H3454-3456)
5/20/2004 3:50pm:
The previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection. (consideration: CR 5/21/2004 H3456; text: CR 5/21/2004 H3454)
5/20/2004 4:09pm:
On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 202 - 224 (Roll no. 205).
5/20/2004 4:17pm:
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 391 - 34 (Roll no. 206).
5/20/2004 4:17pm:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
5/20/2004 4:17pm:
The Clerk was authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross references, and to make other necessary technical and conforming corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 4200.
5/20/2004 4:17pm:
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
5/21/2004:
Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 537.
6/23/2004:
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR 6/24/2004 S7300)
6/23/2004:
Senate struck all after the Enacting Clause and substituted the language of S. 2400 amended.
6/23/2004:
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
6/24/2004:
Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Warner; McCain; Inhofe; Roberts; Allard; Sessions; Collins; Ensign; Talent; Chambliss; Graham SC; Dole; Cornyn; Levin; Kennedy; Byrd; Lieberman; Reed; Akaka; Nelson FL; Nelson NE; Dayton; Bayh; Clinton; Pryor.
7/6/2004:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.

[TryingToWarnYou]

99. Yeah..what does all this have to do with failure of that amendment?

Make your point....

If the votes had been made, it wouldnt have come to this.

[merh]

100. The legislation has not passed and the amendment is still

an issue.....

Track the legislation, know the process. The issue is still alive.
When this matter comes up for final vote, if K & E are needed to vote for the legislation that contains the issue, then their "no vote" is an issue. They will be there when needed, as they have shown during the campaigns.

It would help if you tried to understand the process.

[TryingToWarnYou]

101. I understand the process just fine...the amendment was REJECTED

Ive been polite, courteous and calm with you. I would appreciate a little in return. Please knock off the pious smart ass rhetoric you arent impressing anyone and its certainly not making you any more correct.

Kerry hasnt been doing much in the last two years, why would he "be there" now? You still have failed to provide me with any examples of how Kerry is being kept from voting on important issues.

[merh]

102. You can go away with your Kerry bashing.... you are boring

And you can stop with your pitiful efforts to try to appear that you are knowledgeable, when all you are is a parrot for the repug talking pointed heads.

What makes you so obvious is that when you have been proven wrong you attack and try to discredit. Just as you have accused me of using "pious smart a** rhetoric", you have failed to provide me with any basis for your assertions that Kerry has not performing his duties, both as a senator of Mass and as the democratic candidate for the office of President. IMHO, running against the clown-n-chief is vital to the needs of our nation. Replacing the shrub is a matter of national security and international security. He has had more contact with foreign leaders in his 20 years as a senator, especially in the last 2 years, than the idiot shrub has had in the 3 1/2 years he has been in the office he stole. Kerry is respected. * is disliked, if not hated. No one trusts him.

I may be better informed than you are, but I have not been a smart a** with you in my posts, though I could easily have done so.

"You still have failed to provide me with any examples of how Kerry is being kept from voting on important issues."

Actually, it was Frist and not Daschle that impeded Kerry's efforts to vote for an important piece of legislation. I misstated the name of the senator that screwed him and I humbly apologize for that. Daschle has tried to help Kerry and has kept Kerry informed of important legislation and the party's and the senate's need for his vote. If you don't believe me, then I suggest you read the article from June 23, 2004, that I have provided below (along with link). As the clown-n-chief so inadequately tried to say "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me". This is the first time it was publicized, not the first time it was occurred. Your ignorance of how things work in congress is quite pathetic. I suggest you try to intern for a congressional leader for awhile.

Since you refuse to accept simple concepts and since you seem to prefer your ignorance, this will be my last post on this issue. I have provided you with ample logic to use if you were in fact a Kerry supporter and not a freeper. It is my humble opinion that you are on this forum in an attempt to spread the misinformed opinions of the RW and not to try to gain an appreciation of the qualifications of our next president. As I have provided you sufficient facts to debunk the garbage you spread, I feel no further need to continue this discourse. You informed mind has been made up.

I am happy to put John Kerry's record of service to this country up against the clown-n-chief's any day of the week. A drug using, drunken, lying, AWOL politician that has the intelligence of an armadillo (if that high) and the integrity of Benedict Arnold has no place as the leader of this nation. (IMHO)

WASHINGTON -- Under fresh attack by Republicans to resign his Senate seat after missing months of votes, John F. Kerry returned to the Senate chambers yesterday to be in position to vote on a bill providing improved health care for veterans -- a move that triggered a partisan battle among his colleagues.

The presumed Democratic presidential nominee also crossed paths with several senators who have been mentioned as possible running mates: He huddled for a few minutes in private with John Edwards of North Carolina, who is now being vetted by the Kerry campaign, and he also chatted briefly on the Senate floor with Joseph Biden of Delaware and exchanged a high-five and a few words with John McCain, the Arizona Republican who has ruled out a bipartisan ticket with Kerry.

But it was the unusual spectacle of a fight over veterans' benefits that dominated Kerry's day and injected a burst of campaign politics into routine Senate business over a Pentagon budget bill. Kerry waited seven hours on the Hill yesterday in hopes of voting on a proposal to increase health care spending for veterans by 30 percent, but Republicans used procedural tactics to delay any vote until at least after Kerry had left for a campaign trip to San Francisco last night.

(snip)

According to Senate roll call records, Kerry has missed at least three votes this year on veterans' issues, including one on a Democratic proposal that would have allowed up to $2.7 billion in extra spending for veterans' medical programs, though he has regularly supported such funding increases in the past. That vote failed by a sizable margin, and Kerry has said in the past that he would only make a point of returning to Capitol Hill for close votes in which he would make a difference.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/06/23/rare_kerry_appearance_causes_uproar_in_senate/

[TryingToWarnYou]

104. You just cant focus can you? I SUPPORT KERRY. Get it?

Im not parroting anything other than public record.

You said: "What makes you so obvious is that when you have been proven wrong you attack and try to discredit. Just as you have accused me of using "pious smart a** rhetoric", you have failed to provide me with any basis for your assertions that Kerry has not performing his duties, both as a senator of Mass and as the democratic candidate for the office of President."

Proven wrong? Since when? You havent proven anything other than assuming that your speculation is correct while mine is wrong. Hint: They are both speculation. IMO, Kerry has not performed very much of his duty for the last two years as a Senator. Ive said nothing about his candidacy for President other than I think he is going to be a good President. Yeah, Im a real basher.

You said: "I may be better informed than you are, but I have not been a smart a** with you in my posts, though I could easily have done so."

You arent better informed, but you are an apologist. You have been a smart ass and a pious jerk in quite a few of your responses to me, for no reason other than you simply disagree with me. You even speculate, once again, that I know nothing, that Im ignorant and I should work for a Senator sometime. I suggest you learn the very important differences in the vote process. Its obvious that you would support Kerry no matter what. You are incapable of finding fault with him where there is fault to be found. Its not a damning quality because Kerry is human believe it or not.

You said: "Since you refuse to accept simple concepts and since you seem to prefer your ignorance, this will be my last post on this issue. I have provided you with ample logic to use if you were in fact a Kerry supporter and not a freeper."

Yeah, Im a Freeper because I think Kerry should have voted a few hundred times more than he did. Yep, sign me right up for the RNC.
Its your last post because you know that your BS is getting old and you cannot defend the issue of him missing hundreds of votes. You cannot show that those votes missed werent important.

You said: "It is my humble opinion that you are on this forum in an attempt to spread the misinformed opinions of the RW and not to try to gain an appreciation of the qualifications of our next president. As I have provided you sufficient facts to debunk the garbage you spread, I feel no further need to continue this discourse. You informed mind has been made up."

LOL.. my informed mind? Little slip there? Ive been here a helluva lot longer than my post count indicates and Ive lurked for a very long time. You have no right to accuse me of such behavior when my posting history is evident to any of the mods that wish to look it up. You have NOT provided any facts..you have provided speculation, assumption and your own opinion. This post is the very first one where you tried to give any kind of a link.

Additionally, I have told you several times already that we KNOW politics has a lot to do with the voting issue, but if they are managing to keep him away for 89% of the votes, thats a problem. I stand by that assertion.

[lunarboy13]

35. Who's missing what....

The repukes often throw Bob Dole out as a contrast to Kerry, saying Bob Dole retored from the senate to run for president. They kinda forget, however, that he didn't retire when he ran as Gerald Ford's VP in 76 or that he kept his senate seat when he ran for president in 88 (and in each case he missed votes in the senate). Further, Senators often miss votes in the senate when the run for re-election. But, perhaps more on point here, we cannot forget what Frist did when Kerry came back to DC to vote on a bill (I can't remember what bill it was) -- and they kept tabling it and putting off the vote. A lot of people saw this as politics at its worst. So I think the American people are more forgiving of Kerry missing a few votes.

Also, when it comes to missing intelligence briefings, the president and his cronies should be very quiet, lest people start talking about all the intelligence briefings dumbya missed regarding terrorism and al Queda (remember all those warnings from Richard Clarke and Tenant?) before 9/11.

[TryingToWarnYou]

26. Just so Im clear...

I agree with you about Bush. I believe his vacation BS to be a serious problem, however, comparing him to Kerry is silly. Apples and Oranges as far as job description goes.

Im also not throwing Kerry to the wolves. I am echoing his public record. If you think thats throwing him to the wolves, then you might want to contact him about his job performance and urge him to vote a little more often because he only has himself to blame.

[merh]

30. Apples and Oranges - you are so right

How dare you condemn Kerry for campaigning and not your *? He is the leader of our nation for christ's sake, he shouldn't be sitting on his butt letting kids read to him when he has been told we ar under attack.

He shouldn't be campaigning at military bases and on air craft carriers promoting the message "mission accomplished" while our guys die because of his lies.

No denials, Kerry has been campaigning, he has tried to make it back to congress to take part in the important votes, only to have the repukes play games and delay things. Kerry has been campaigning on his own dime and not on my taxes. What about *, he does it pretending it is a pep rally for the troops, while all along he is the one cutting the benefits for the troops.

I would prefer the leader of the USA lead and not take vacations all the time. I would prefer he lead and not campaign all the time. How about you?

[TryingToWarnYou]

34. Ok, you have missed the point so badly....

Going to break it down for you:

How dare you condemn Kerry for campaigning and not your *? He is the leader of our nation for christ's sake, he shouldn't be sitting on his butt letting kids read to him when he has been told we ar under attack.

My *? Please. I hate the motherfucker with every fiber of my being so knock it off. If you dont have anything other than the ability to yell "FREEPER" at someone that disagrees with you, you might want to stop now. We are NOT talking about running for office. The subject was Kerry and his voting record in the senate (which will come back to haunt him).

You are so blinded by rage that you arent even seeing that we are on the same side of the issue. We both know Bush is a failure and we both know he abuses the system, but only one of us knows that Kerry has a bad voting record in the Senate and thats a liability for us come November. I want a leader that does his fucking job. Period. Bush takes vacations and Kerry campaigns...whats the difference at the end of the day? Neither one of them were doing what they were elected to do. Thats the point.

[merh]

37. No, it is you who is blinded. You believe the talking points with

out the benefits of understanding the lack of votes that you feel are so damning to Kerry.

Go back through the legislation - he didn't vote for *'s neo con judges, he wouldn't vote for funding the war without a source for the funds, he voted for the environment.

Look at the legislation before you make the judgments you have made.

If you are against *, then arm yourself with the truth relative to the record. Kerry's record is 30 years of public service - 20 years in congress. Have you even looked at the stuff he didn't act on? For the most part, its amazing that any one did.

[TryingToWarnYou]

51. ..sigh... Not voting is not the same as a NO vote.

Not voting means you never took a stand one way or the other..that you did not participate in any way with the voting process.

I know the legislation details determines voting with many members of the senate...Hell, I wouldnt want him voting on a bunch of pork shit and Im thrilled that he doesnt, but he needs to vote NO so that its on record as a NO, not as a NOT VOTING.

Do you understand my point now? He is voting for the right things in my opinion, but he needs to give the Right nothing that they can use to attack him. While you and I know that he has a good record overall (lest the last two years) we also know that they will use whatever they can to try to make him look bad to the American public and playing Devils advocate for a minute.. .If I were to have done only 29% of my job the last two years, I would be unemployed. Most Americans know this too. Im sure your job expects you to do more than 29%.

[merh]

58. To not vote does not equate to not doing your job.

How naive.

[TryingToWarnYou]

63. hmmm, then what does the typical person think it means?

Not voting translates into

"too busy doing other things to vote"

"doesnt care"

"wont go on the record to make a stand one way or the other"

"ambiguous job performance"

If the votes were on things he didnt want, NO would have been appropriate.

[merh]

67. You again?

You are stuck on a subject that is beyond your abilities to comprehend. Basically ever member of congress that runs for office misses votes. The citizens of Mass, the ones that voted him into office are the voters he answers to.

Now, the prez, he answers to all of us and his MIA status over his term is much more important than Kerry's "no votes". It is more appauling that he is campaigning during his entire 3 plus years and not taking care of business. If you are worried about folks pointing out Kerry's absence because he was campaigning, simply point out that the clown-n-chief was campaigning and photo-oping on Sept 11, 2001, and that he couldn't/didn't leave the photo op when he knew we were under attack. Get your priorities in order and maybe you can get beyond your silly respect of this stupid talking point.

Read the information that other have provided to you. Then, if you can't come to terms with the ignorance of your stance so be it.

By the way 30 years of service includes his service in Nam, his work as a prosecutor, his role as lt. governor and his term in the senate.

[TryingToWarnYou]

81. Yeah, you aint getting off the hook...

Yes, they all miss votes. Some more than others apparently. 71% for the last two years for Kerry. Thats a lot and way more than average. I know he has his reasons, but cmon...

Since you keep trying to take this conversation back to Bush, yes, his MIA status is horrible and far worse. Boy, if this had been Clinton, he would have been under investigation etc. in a heartbeat. He has been a failure every step of the way.

More pious talk from you... "the ignorance of your stance"? Im not the one changing terminology to suit me. Im not the one unwilling to admit that a 29% vote record is a shitty thing. Im not the one trying to convince everyone that Daschle and the other pukes are soooo powerful that they control the voting practices of Senators from the other side. I may be ignorant, but at least Im honest. If you were half as honest as you are pious, we wouldnt be having this discussion.

[Zhade]

91. So you know, being against * does not require ignoring Kerry's record.

NT!

[merh]

21. I suggest you do your homework and go somewhere else

to pick a fight. There are plenty of blogs that will welcome you. No name calling, its against the rules.

[TryingToWarnYou]

24. I never called you a name. Are you going to twist everything?

Just curious...

Oh and there is no picking of fights... Im tired of the disinformation about this issue. Kerry has a shitty voting record, end of story. Sure, the repugs are responsible for *some* of those votes, but not all of them. 29% voting is terrible.

EDIT: Do my homework? ROFL! You do realize this is what Ive done? Im one of the few here that *has* done their homework and thats why I know he has only participated in 29% of the votes since January of '03. As for going someplace else, how ironic that we are supposed to be for free speech and you dont want that to apply to people that are saying things you dont want to hear.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TryingToWarnYou]

36. Feel free to correct me anytime... You havent done so yet.

His voting record is not a lie. Surely you have a browser so follow it over to the link in my sig and do the math yourself. It took me about 5 minutes to count out the total votes, determine how many he missed vs. how many votes were made and to have an answer.

[merh]

38. Read the legislation and get back to me - tell me about the ones

he missed, how fair the legislation is for the average joe and how necessary it is for the US.

Adding and dividing is not all there is to decisions relative to records. I will take substance over numbers any day.

[Zhade]

92. "it is a Democratic Party board" - sorry, you're wrong.

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/about.html

And it's painfully obvious the other poster is NOT backing b*sh. You're essentially calling him a Freeper, and that's out of line. Just because you disagree with him, there's no need to libel the guy.

[yardwork]

23. I'm not lashing out at anybody except Shrub

Kerry has been campaigning since 2003. It is a fact that this is what it takes to win election to president in this country.

Things could be done to change that, but so far nothing has been done, so the simple fact remains that Kerry and Edwards and all the other candidates MUST campaign nonstop for years prior to the election.

Shrub has campaigned non-stop as well, when he's not on vacation.

[TryingToWarnYou]

25. Thats great. And this is why his voting record sucks.

Thats my only point. All we have to do is admit it and move on. If we keep acting like his voting record is stellar, we are going to look like idiots to anyone with a calculator and 5 minutes worth of research.

[merh]

32. Are you using the talking points of the repug party or are you

basing "his record" on the last year of legislation? A record is the entire carrier, not just last year. Check your facts and provide me with legislation on that list that is not pork barrell or partisan legislation. Then go further and point to me the ones that failed because he did not vote? His party has supported his campaign. If he has been needed on a vote he has returned to congress, only to be messed over by Daschle et al. and the votes delayed.

I admit to political tricks and talking points, will you?

[TryingToWarnYou]

41. *yawn* These "republican talking points" are public record

These figures are based on whats publicly available since Jan. 03. I havent seen or found anything prior to that. Got a link? (two years is a pretty big stretch of time)

Whether legislation passed or not is irrelevant. The point is that he chose to vote in only 29% of all votes since Jan. 03. I would argue that as a Senator, his vote is needed on all matters of the Senate. Additionally, even if his vote "didnt matter" its still his official position whether its yes or no. That shows he is there and trying to make a difference.

Political tricks and talking points abound, but there is a serious difference between RW bullshit and public record not being in favor of Kerry.

[merh]

42. Review the legislation -

review his entire record.

[merh]

43. Forgot to mention the obvious.

He is elected to represent the citizens of Massachusettes, not the US. They seem to be happy with the job he has done since they have elected him to office over and over again.

Also, I haven't mentioned that he formed one of the first women's victims units when he was prosecutor, he hired more women lawyers when he was prosecutor, is responsible first GLBT equal rights legislation, Ryan White cosponsor, wrote 2000 Global AIDS, children's health care bill which eventually became SCHIP, domestic violence cosponsor, YouthBuild, early childhood legislation, Housing Trust Fund legislation, school rebuilding fund, Oceans and Fisheries legislation, Small Business committee, and there really is even more.

What you have against this guy is beyond me and there is no justification for it.

[TryingToWarnYou]

52. I have nothing at all against Kerry. I think he is going to kick ass

as President.

I am just amazed that more folks arent willing to look at all sides of an issue rather than just proclaiming something to be good because its about Kerry. Its like the RW and their "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" view of Bush. Lets not fall into that same trap with our guy.

I know the good that he has done and I think that bodes well for us. I support him and John Edwards without question.

[merh]

56. You do not appreciate the obvious...

I know the issues, from inside and out. I know the workings of our congress and how they manipulate the legislation to include their pet projects and to perpetuate their images. The failures to vote are not comments on a record. It is the votes for or against programs and legislature that matter. To criticize the failure to vote without knowing the full text of the legislature is ridicilous and naive.

Don't fall for the myth that is congress. Look behind the curtain and their motives before you judge.

[TryingToWarnYou]

64. Im aware of it too... you arent the only one that took a civics class

[merh]

69. Have you ever worked in government? (eom)

[TryingToWarnYou]

70. No, but like I said, you arent the only one with 3 credit hours in Civics

[merh]

71. Civics lessons are not what I am basing my comments on. You need

to study some more, go beyond those piddly 3 hours and get some life experience. You comment on what you do not know and then you further upset yourself when you cannot accept critical facts essential to true judgments of the issues.

[TryingToWarnYou]

73. Yeah, I need to "study some more" because NOT VOTING means

he didnt vote yea or nay on an issue. In essence, he was the invisible man.

I have plenty of life experience and I know that Not Voting is not the same as a No or a Yes. The differences are very specifc. You yourself may want to go study some more as its apparent that the words are causing you problems.

[merh]

74. Have you reviewed the full text of any of the legislation that you

provided? Do you know any of the particulars of the legislation and what riders may be attached to them or what amendments?

You haven't a clue and your persistence in failing to understand some very basic concepts has your Psyche all twisted.

There is nothing unusual, illegal, immoral or wrong for a member of congress to be absent when campaigning. I believe a poster has provided you with examples, go read the previous posts.

Kerry answers to the voters of Massachusetts, those that elected him, not to the entire nation. His record for the 20 years in the senate has been remarkable.

There are myriad of reasons for no votes. You can be in your office, working away on other issues and find that the vote is not crucial to your constituents needs, therefore, you are a no show; OR, the other side has more than enough votes to pass the bill and your vote won't make a difference and the matter you are working on is important to the future of the nation (like campaigning against the clown-n-chief); OR, there is a conflict of issue that prevents you from voting one way or the other, so you do not vote (ABSTAIN); OR, your side has all the votes it needs to get the legislation passed and your vote is not necessary and what you are working on is important.

He has tried to make it to vital votes, only to have Daschle and his cronies screw things up and delay the process or worse, remove the matter from the floor so no vote can be made.

Do you know what is really ironic about this silly debate with you? We are using the internet. He can be on the campaign trail and still be up to date on all matters involving his office. Ain't it a remarkable world -- the internet, laptops, pds, faxes, video conferencing, cell phones, overnight mail, scanners -- all sorts of technology is available for him to use to keep up with his office obligations.

You do not have enough life experience or education on the subject and you haven't a clue how government works. I know what "No" means and I know what "Yes" means, but more important than that, I know the intricacies of government and that you are just poorly informed and refuse to accept the information that has been provided to you in the many posts of this thread.

Ignorance is bliss!

The clown-n-chief can cut tree limbs on his ranch and can play golf all day, but he is having working vacations! Give me a break.

[TryingToWarnYou]

77. Address the issues please....

Im going to keep ignoring your ad hominem because I think its mostly your lack of maturity thats kicking in, but if you cant address the issues, just dont reply ok?

You keep asserting that Daschle and the others are keeping him from voting. Please show me an example where they did this. I find it hard to believe that they have that much influence to where they can limit his voting (and his alone) to 29% for the last two years. If thats the case, we are fucked because they are seriously in control to the point where they control the voting habits of our Senators.

Why are you bringing up Bush? I dont believe Ive supported his little vacations one time. Take your own advice and go read my previous posts.

As for my life experience, you dont know anything about me, what I have done or havent done etc. To sit there and pontificate about me is rather crass. It shows that you are far too stubborn to admit that "not voting" has just as many potentially negative connotations as you would like people to believe they are benign.

No, Kerry does not vote on outrageously pork packed issues. We all know this. Im not against Kerry in any way, but I am concerned that the RW will make an issue of his abysmal voting record the last two years. "Not Voting" has its own meaning and as I said before, unless you know whether he was there or not, what the situation was, for what reasons he was excused from voting etc. then you and I are just speculating as to why he chose not to vote.

[SidDithers]

44. vote-smart.org

For John Kerry
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0421103

Roll Call Vote Analysis
Year Voting Participation Party Support Presidential Support
2003 36% 100% 30%
2002 96% 92% 72%
2001 98% 98% 65%
2000 95% 96% 97%
1999 99% 95% 93%

Looks like pretty good attendance to me for 1999-2002

Sid

[TryingToWarnYou]

53. Agreed!

[yardwork]

50. In what way is it not in his favor? Most legislation is b.s. anyway

The subtext to this argument is the suggestion that Kerry is unfit to be president because he's lazy or irresponsible.

That's not backed up by the facts. Kerry has campaigned relentlessly since 2003. And sometimes it is politically wise to miss certain votes. That's the reality of the Senate. I am confident that Kerry is not lazy and that the fact that he missed votes won't hamper his ability to be president.

[TryingToWarnYou]

54. No, thats not what Im saying...

What Im saying, and maybe I havent been too clear, is that the RW is going to be making an issue of this and its something that should be addressed by Kerry himself to diffuse it. Judging by his prolonged voting record, aside from the past two years, I would agree with you.

[Mighty Undecided]

84. Medicare, media consolidation, overtime, unemployment extension

Some of the BS kerry didn't vote on this year. No subtext here. He failed to take a position on crucial issues - to me at least.

[librechik]

29. read a history book

this is totally normal for anyone from Congress running for president--besides, it is just a PLOY to lure Kerry into the whole Republican "We are determined to spoil your vote!" game. They manipulate the votres on their side, so if Kerry shows up, they change the votes at the last minute to cancel out the effect of Kerry's vote.

Why should he run himself ragged chasing that ball?

HE HAS BEEN IN THE SENATE ALMOST 30 YEARS! it is CLEAR that Kerry has done his duty by his contituents.

That niggling complaint is empty, scripted, and political. You and the rest of the Kerry Bashers can kiss my ass.

[TryingToWarnYou]

45. Kerry basher? Hardly....

Ill be the first one voting for Kerry in my town.

Since when is barely 20 years almost 30 years? He was elected to the Senate in 1984.

http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/about/biography.html

(guess Ill be called a Kerry basher again for pointing that out)

Like I said before, and apparently you missed it, is that YES, the repugs love to play the vote manipulation game, but I find it very hard to believe that they were doing it to Kerry and Kerry only so that he only managed to vote 29% of the time in the past two years. Please tell me how thats possible. Also, it doesnt matter whether his vote "counted" or not..it's the fact that he isnt voting at all thats the issue.

Youre another one thats not getting the message.

[librechik]

61. zzzzzzzz

build your post count off somebody else's remarks please

[TryingToWarnYou]

65. Yeah, go back to sleep. Its served you well so far....

Meanwhile, no reply to my points... how surprising :crazy:

[SidDithers]

39. What's his % over 20 years of being in the Senate?

He's pretty much been campaigning for President since January 2003. You might want to do some homework before you look like a tool.


More info from vote-smart.org
link: http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0421103

Roll Call Vote Analysis
Year Voting Participation Party Support Presidential Support
2003 36% 100% 30%
2002 96% 92% 72%
2001 98% 98% 65%
2000 95% 96% 97%
1999 99% 95% 93%

(sorry for the formatting)

Sid

[TryingToWarnYou]

46. Hey, there ya go! Someone did some work other than me....

Thats great! High 90's are always a welcome sight. Since you bring up the 20 years business (oh and 1984 to 2004 is only 20 years since we are picking nits), I noticed you only showed the last 5 years. Wheres the rest?

Oh and you can add 29% thus far for 2004.

[SidDithers]

59. Well, it took me 1 minute to come up with 5 years worth of record..

going back further seems to be much more difficult. One organization, the Congressional Observer Publications, collects this type of data, and has reports going back as far as 1995, but it's a subscription service. If I wanted to spend a couple of hours, I could probably research further back and do the counts myself.

The point is that, the "Kerry's bad attendance since 2003" meme is an (R) "talking point" because it misleads people into thinking that a small set of data is representative of the entire data set.

Sid

[TryingToWarnYou]

66. Well, it is a small set of numbers, but unless the rest become public...

then the public is going to be shown what the public has access to. Follow?

In otherwords, Im certain his voting record isnt as bad overall as the past two years suggests, but when thats all that anyone really gets to see, its going to be hard to argue that he has a great record for the other 15 years without the figures in hand. Im sure the media has it, but Im not expecting those assholes to come to his rescue. It is a RW talking point, but its one that they arent going to have to work too hard to make given the evidence available at the time. Its going to be spun as "as soon as Kerry knew he was going to run for office of President, he abandoned his duties to the people of Mass.". Then Kerry has to do damage control. Its just fucked up.

[drscm]

80. So, if the 2003 voting record is a problem, what do you propose Kerry do?

Sit on his hands in DC waiting for Frist to present bills - while Frist delays or tables the bills while Kerry is in town?

What should Kerry do?

Quit running? Give up his seat so that the Repugs may have it, as if that new person will have the best interest of Mass in mind?

What should Kerry do?

[TryingToWarnYou]

82. I propose Kerry vote Yes or No. Take an actual position...

NOT VOTING is interpreted many ways.

[yardwork]

16. If so, maybe our president will remember that he's in charge

and actually spend some time working in the Oval Office, instead of fishing down on the farm.

[librechik]

27. no way; Bushie can't control the congress critters

he only needs to convince the sheeple that he wants to go that way, then sit back and watch them walk off the cliff one by one. NOTHING will happen that isn't a stroke of his pen. "I hire him; I fire him< that's the check a and balance system we got here"

Kudos to Kerry for A) saying the right thing and B)beating Bush to the punch.

[CityDem]

48. Don't like this position

First, most people will view it as a cheap political stunt. Why? Because Kerry has been out campaigning for months and it is easily proven that he has missed many votes in the Senate. Second, he missed a large number of intelligence committee hearings and this makes him vulnerable on the national security issue. One can envision an ad showing JFK asking for this special session while detailing the number of intelligence committee hearings he missed in the Senate.

On edit: Corrected spelling error.

[Democat]

60. Sorry Kerry, this is too reactionary - remember the Patriot Act

We don't need to rush this through out of fear and political need unless we want to give away more of our freedoms.

[farmbo]

79. If Bush* calls them back now... It will be the "Kerry Congress"

So obviously, Bush will NOT call them into an emergency session.

Meanwhile, if God forbid there is another terror attack, and it originates from a vulnerable area identified in the 9/11 Report (eg shipping containers) Bush will then be irretrievably on the defensive on his heretofore most reliable issue: winning the war on terror.

I likey.

[Cronus Protagonist]

97. Let's have the Kerry Emergency Anti-Terrorism Congress

I think the nation needs this kind of initiative. It's been a long time since we've seen anything proactive out of the single-term Bush presidency.

We can have the congress answer for the people for once! Get them to work on the people's business that should have been taken care of years ago by the Saddam obsessed Bush administration. The time is now. If we wait we won't be able to force them into it. The need all our votes.

Convene Kerry's Anti-Terrorism Congress NOW!


SHOVE IT! - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - Hero Kerry AWOL Bush
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Zorra]

103. Maybe Bu$h is planning to allow a terrorist attack so that he can

enact laws by pResidential edict rather than allow Congress the time to debate on these recommendations. If Congress is allowed substantial time for debate, some of the recommendations may be adopted while fully protecting our civil liberties.

If Bu$h declares law by pResidential edict, our civil liberties will be smashed and Bu$h will set up his Gestapo.