This is written by an esteemed African American writer for the National Review, but largely sourced from the independent and well-regarded National Journal. March 08, 2004, 8:45 a.m. Massachusetts Liberal By Deroy Murdock Don't get much more left than Kerry. Try to get to John Kerry's left. Just try. If you're a U.S. senator, you cannot. According to a recent analysis of the World's Greatest Deliberative Body, the Massachusetts Democrat was the "No. 1 Senate liberal in 2003." As the archest of the Senate's arch-liberals, Kerry voted last year to the left of fellow Democrats John Edwards of North Carolina (No. 2), Barbara Boxer of California (No. 5) and Tom Harkin of Iowa (No. 10). Kerry's ayes and nays were significantly to the left of the two liberals who most conservatives would nominate for a one-way fact-finding mission to Mars: New York's Hillary Clinton (No. 7) and Massachusetts' Edward Moore Kennedy (No. 12). At the other end of the spectrum, 14 Republican senators tied for least liberal with scores of 14 out of 100. Top Senate conservatives include Virginia's George Allen, Tennessee's Bill Frist, and Indiana's Richard Lugar. The source for this news is not some right-wing, anti-Kerry front group, but the independent and well-regarded National Journal. This non-partisan, Washington weekly reports even-handedly on politicians and their behavior. It examined 62 Senate votes from 2003. Of these, Kerry missed 37 votes while campaigning for the White House. Kerry's blue-ribbon was based on the 25 votes he managed to cast. Among those, he took the liberal line often enough to garner a score of 97 out of 100. Kerry's numbers put him further to the left (three points from "perfect") than the most conservative Republicans are from their "ideal" (14 points away). So, who's extreme now? Super Tuesday's Superman has been in the Senate's liberal elite before. Among Senate left-wingers, the National Journal ranked him No. 9 in 2002. He was judged the Senate's leading leftist in 1986, 1988 and 1990. Other organizations that evaluate legislative votes confirm Kerry's collectivism. The American Conservative Union gives Kerry a lifetime rating of five out of 100. In contrast, he has earned a 92 out of a pristine 100 from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action. Amazingly enough, this places Kerry to the left of his fellow presidential contender, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio); the outspoken statist earns a slightly less radical 90 from the ADA. America is a free country, and many citizens consider liberalism a worthy philosophy. In solidarity with those true believers, if nothing else, Kerry could wear the National Journal's conclusion as a badge of honor. Instead, he runs away from it. "Anyone who knows John Kerry knows that this label doesn't fit," Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton told the New York Post's Brian Blomquist. "He's a decorated Vietnam combat veteran [in case you had not heard], a former prosecutor and a deficit hawk that's opposed his party and voted to shrink the deficit." Kerry himself dodged the liberal prize in a February 29 New York debate against his campaign rivals. He called the National Journal's label "a laughable characterization" and deemed this distinction "the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my life." Kerry's ability to dismiss criticism, his combative air, and impressive string of victories finally have left him virtually unchallenged for the Democratic nomination. Good for him. President Bush and the GOP can expect a battle royal from the articulate, moderate-looking Kerry and his energized party. Democrats are eager to avenge what many of them obsessively consider 2000's "swiped" election. Still, Kerry will have to explain how, despite his investment-banker-type demeanor, he voted against the 2004 budget that would have given Americans, including those in the middle class, $550 billion in tax relief. Kerry loudly denounces "Benedict Arnold companies" that outsource labor overseas. (Does this make Germany's BMW a "George Washington company" for insourcing 4,700 jobs at its automobile factory in Spartanburg, South Carolina?) Thus, Kerry should have fun telling U.S. workers why he opposed legislation to cut corporate taxes on companies' foreign profits, even if those savings were dedicated to hiring Americans at home. Kerry also famously voted to send U.S. troops to Iraq, then reversed course and opposed $87 billion in funding to equip American GIs and advance Iraqi stability. John Kerry, the Democrats' presumptive presidential nominee is a 194-proof liberal dream come true. His election next November would commence a long, national nightmare.
Better an extreme liberal than an extreme conservative, negligent flip flopper like the Bushies. I think this addresses the main point of your argument.
Still, Kerry will have to explain how, despite his investment-banker-type demeanor, he voted against the 2004 budget that would have given Americans, including those in the middle class, $550 billion in tax relief. "The budget was a deficit disaster. This country can't afford Bush's fiscal irresponsibility." <B>Thus, Kerry should have fun telling U.S. workers why he opposed legislation to cut corporate taxes on companies' foreign profits</B> "We don't want to encourage companies to move more jobs abroad by making it even more profitable to do so." <B>Kerry also famously voted to send U.S. troops to Iraq, then reversed course and opposed $87 billion in funding to equip American GIs and advance Iraqi stability. </B> "If the President wants your money to go to Iraq, he had better be willing to tell us how it will be spent. No more throwing money at fraud-ridden companies like Halliburton without a competitive bidding process." Yeah, these will be hard sells. What a bizarre article.
It's standard practice to have bills with really bad parts and really good parts and forcing the other side to take a stand on the bad part, and campaigning against them because they voted against the good part. It's sort of like this cut and paste job: --- Bush is against campaign finance reform... ... then he's for it. --- Bush is against a Homeland Security Department... ... then he's for it. --- Bush is against a 9/11 commission... ... then he's for it. --- Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation... ... then he's for it. --- Bush is against nation building... ... then he's for it. --- Bush is against deficits... ... then he's for them. --- Bush is for free trade... ... then he's for tariffs on steel... ... then he's against them again. --- Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict... ... then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State. --- Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage... ... then he is for changing the constitution. --- Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency)... ... then he doesn't. --- Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military)... ... then he cuts benefits --- Bush: "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden." )... ... Bush: "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. --- Bush claims to be in favor of the environment)... ... and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island. --- Bush talks about helping education)... ... and increases mandates while cutting funding. --- Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea)... ... now he will --- Bush goes to Bob Jones University)... ... then say's he shouldn't have. --- Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq)... ... then Bush announced he would not call for a vote --- Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors)... ... Bush later admits it was his advance team. --- Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US)... ... After meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.
Flip-flopper......flip-flopper.....flip-flopper? Kerry is the ultimate embodiment of flip-flopping! He could have a debate with himself!
Yeah, he's as big a flip flopper as Bush on "Nation Building", isn't he! The fact of the matter is, he supported bills, like "No Child Left Behind", which look great on paper. When the Bushies failed to fund it, and it became "No Child Left Funded", he withdrew his support. And rightfully so. Much better to have a leader that can react to change than a leader wearing blinders, holding on for dear life as policy fails him, as can easily be said with Bush and the coming civil war in Iraq...a civil war that will more than likely kill three times as many Iraqis as Saddam did during his entire heinous reign!
I trust you've seen woofers list of Bush flip flops. Bush has done more flip flops in three years of office than Kerry has in nearly two decades in the senate. Bush flip flops more than ten year old olympic gymnst.
So which of the Bush's Flip Flops above can you explain? It's a pretty long list. If you can't discredit at least half of them, I would say you don't have an issue. For the record, I'm not a big Kerry supporter. I do think he has credibility problems on issues like his vote on Iraq. However, Bush is such a godawful failure on every level, that I will be able to vote for Kerry with a happy heart.
Geez Louise, people. Do you really have to continually quote the actual "content" (sic) of that poster. Just address your replies to him. I see enough exclamation marks and idiocy when I grade student papers.
Why do you feel the need to point out that he's african-american? Why do conservatives just love to point out the few black conservatives that there are and underscore that they are black, like bigtexx does here? That sounds suspiciously like affirmative action to me, I thought you wanted a color blind society? EDIT: PG beat me to it.
I think the options opened for parody will be fun. "Look, Paul Krugman has written an article critical of the administration. He is an esteemed, white author."
I saw his picture and found it somewhat unique to see an African American writing for the National Review, so I made mention of it. It's enlightening to see wise men of all races write good pieces such as this one.
Indeed, so the first thing you noticed about somebody who writes an article is their race? That's odd. Does this make you a racist?
1) His race absolutely wasn't the first thing I noticed. 2) A racist is somebody who believes that one race is superior to another. I merely noticed he was African American. I made no comments insinuating that his race was inferior to some other race. Nor would I, because I do not harbor opinions like that. I'm really not sure what you're trying so hard to prove here, Samuel.
The basis behind these ratings are not obvious. We all know Kerry is a liberal, but we cannot determine how liberal when the votes are taken out of context. One thing is irrefutable, Bush is extreme conservative.
