Honesty pays, but it doesn't seem to pay enough to suit some people.
what should be important
and Bush on the Issues:
and Bush on GLBT Issues
Here is how he has voted through the years: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103
interest groups have rated him: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0421103
President Clinton Praised Kerry for Putting 100,000 Cops on the Street – “When we tried to get past six years of talking tough on crime but nothing happening, rhetoric and rhetoric and rhetoric and no action, to put 100,000 police on the street, to ban deadly assault weapons to pass the Brady bill, the other side, [the Republicans] led the fight against it. But John Kerry helped us pass the toughest, smartest, best crime bill this country has seen in many a day, and the crime rate has gone down for four years in a row. John Kerry was on the right side of history.” [Public Papers of the President: Fall River, MA; 8/28/96]
Democratic Leader Tom Daschle Says Kerry Knows How to Get the Legislative Job Done in the Senate - Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle had kind words for John Kerry’s work on Campaign Finance Reform when he asked Kerry to chair the Democratic Steering Committee: "From our teen-smoking bill to HMO reform and Campaign Finance Reform, John Kerry has demonstrated that he clearly knows how to get the job done. He is a valued and trusted member of our leadership team, and I am pleased he has accepted another term as Chairman of the Steering and Coordination Committee." [Daschle Press Release, 11/19/98]
Even Dr. Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader Says Kerry’s Global AIDS Legislation is a “Huge Step Forward”: “’The Kerry-Frist bill is a huge step forward,” said [current Majority Leader Bill] Frist. “It further validates U.S. leadership in the global effort to end devastation many countries face in the fight against HIV/AIDS’.” [Office of Senator Frist, press release 7/12/02]
Legislative Achievements: 58 bills and resolutions John Kerry has sponsored over the years have passed the U.S. Senate. Countless others have been improved because of his work, including the Clean Air Act, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the COPS program.
John Kerry has taken on the special interests and won. He fought against Newt Gingrich’s anti-labor and anti-environmental regulatory reform. He has fought to raise the minimum wage. He has worked to shut down wasteful corporate subsidies. And John Kerry played an important role in the effort to reach a settlement with the tobacco companies that ended marketing to children and teenagers.
The number of bills that bear your name is a poor measure of legislative accomplishment. For example, Ted Kennedy, who most would acknowledge as the most accomplished Democratic Senator in a generation, has had just 9 bills signed into law in 10 years. Of the more than 400 bills Kennedy sponsored in 108th, 105th and 104th Congresses none were signed into law. And Bill Frist, the Republican Majority Leader, has sponsored 88 bills in the 108th Congress and zero have become law. In the 107th Congress, Frist sponsored 52 bills and 1 became law. It was a bill to authorize and urge the President to promote democracy in Zimbabwe.
For comparison, here is a summary of the legislation sponsored and passed by Vice President Cheney during his 11 year legislative career.
4 Sponsored; 0 became Law
One of Kerry's main accomplishments in the Senate was not a piece of legislation, but rather taking the lead in the war on terror. In 1986, he formed "The Kerry Committee" to investigate allegations of illegal gun-running and narcotics trafficking by the CIA and State Department. The Kerry Committee's report eventually led to:
The Iran-Contra hearings
Kerry's persistence in shutting down money laundering operations and the selling of arms to terrorists angered some of his colleagues, particularly when he put a powerful fellow democrat on the witness stand - Clark Clifford, who represented BCCI.
What is Iran-Contra?
There's a good article here about it, but in a nutshell:
In the Iran-Contra Affair, Ronald Reagan's administration secretly sold arms to Iran, which was at war with Iraq from 1980 to 1988, and spent the profits to support Contra rebels fighting to overthrow the democratically-elected Sandinista government of Nicaragua. This was a violation of an Act of Congress which prohibited the sale of weapons to Iran, as well as in violation of UN sanctions. Bush Sr. was Vice President at the time.
Then the Israeli government began acting as an intermediary by shipping missiles to Iran in exchange for the release of some hostages. Israelis sold their missiles, and we secretly replaced what they sent to Iran. The BCCI bank was used for money laundering, and the CIA helped the Contras traffic drugs, including smuggling cocaine into the US.
Reagan claimed he had not been informed of the operation despite a January 1, 1986 entry in Reagan's personal diary that stated "I agreed to sell TOWs to Iran." The United States Congress then on November 18, 1987 issued its final report on the affair, which stated that Reagan bore "ultimate responsibility" for wrongdoing by his aides and his administration exhibited "secrecy, deception, and disdain for the law." Oliver North and John Poindexter were indicted on multiple charges on March 16, 1988. North, indicted on nine counts, was convicted of three: lying to Congress, destroying an official document, and accepting an illegal gratuity. The charges were vacated upon appeal. Poindexter was convicted on several felony counts of lying to Congress, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and altering and destroying documents pertinent to the investigation. His convictions were also overturned on appeal on essentially the same grounds as North's.
George W. Bush appointed John Poindexter as Director of the Pentagon's Information Awareness Office, the man convicted in 1990 on five felony charges of conspiracy, making false statements to Congress and obstructing congressional inquiries.
George W. Bush appointed Elliott Abrams special White House assistant for democracy and human rights. Another former Iran-Contra defendant, Abrams pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress, then was pardoned by the first President Bush.
George W. Bush appointed Otto Reich as the State Department's top official for Latin America. From 1983 to 1986, Reich led a State Department office accused of a covert domestic-propaganda effort against Nicaragua's leftist Sandinista government.
George W. Bush appointed Lee Hamilton to handle the 9-11 investigation. Hamiltion was chairman of the House select committee investigating the Iran-contra affair. Despite being shown ample evidence against Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, he did not probe their wrongdoing, explaining later on PBS 'Frontline,' that he did not think it would have been 'good for the country' to put the public through another impeachment trial.
Bush has also appointed at least four others involved in the Iran Contra scandal: Richard Armitage, John Negroponte, Mitch Daniels, and Rogelio Pardo-Maurer
These are the same people that John Kerry has fought to remove from government because of their support of terrorism.
For the big picture of where the economy has gone, using Bureau of Labor Statistics, go here: http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/charts.htm. You can mouse over the charts to see the forecasts for the future. In the meantime, here are some clams and facts:
Claim: Average GDP Over Most Recent Three Quarters (note the comparison)
Reality: Why look at a 9 month period?
Since the recession ended in the last quarter of 2001, the economy has grown by 3.6 percent. The Commerce Department said that the gross domestic product, the country's total output of goods and services, slowed sharply in the April-June quarter from a 4.5 percent growth rate in the first three months of the year.
The size of the slowdown caught economists by surprise.
Many had been looking for GDP growth to come in around 3.8 percent in
the second quarter. Even that would have been a sharp deceleration for
an economy that had been growing at a 5.4 percent annual rate through
the year ending in March.
Claim: the economy is doing great, Kerry is trying to put a gloomy spin on it. Wages have gone up!
The overall income Americans reported to the government shrank for two consecutive years after the Internet stock market bubble burst in 2000, the first time that has effectively happened since the modern tax system was introduced during World War II, newly disclosed information from the Internal Revenue Service shows.
Before the recent drop, the last time reported incomes fell for even one year was in 1953. The only other time since World War II that the I.R.S. reported an interruption in income gains was from 1947 to 1949, but that was because of changes in the tax law at the time that affected how income was reported rather than an actual fall.
Adjusted for inflation, the income of all Americans fell 9.2 percent from 2000 to 2002, according to the new I.R.S. data.
Falling incomes, rather than tax cuts, appear to count for the greatest share of the decline in income taxes paid.
More than 352,000 taxpayers, one of every eight who had worked their way above $200,000 of income in 2000, fell below that figure in 2002.
During the same two years the number of Americans reporting no income or that they actually lost money for tax purposes exploded, growing 48.5 percent, to 1.7 million in 2002.
Total compensation for chief executives of four companies - Oracle, Apple Computer, Yahoo and Colgate-Palmolive - rose more than 1,000 percent in 2003.
More rich people bought homes, but the homeownership rate for Americans with incomes below the median has fallen.
Since President Bush took office, the percentage of mortgage loans in foreclosure rose from 1.21 percent to 1.27 percent - an increase of 5 percent.
Since President Bush took office, the homeownership rate for households with family income below the median family income has fallen from 51.8 percent to 51.5 percent.
Since President Bush took office, the homeownership gap between whites and African-Americans has increased - from 26.1 percent to 26.2 percent.
Since President Bush took office, the homeownership gap between whites and Hispanics has increased by 7 percent - from 26.4 percent to 28.2 percent.
Currently, the white homeownership rate is over 75 percent and the African-American and Hispanic homeownership rates are both below 50 percent.
Since President Bush took office, the Hispanic homeownership rate has actually fallen - from 47.5 percent to 47.3 percent.
The percentage of Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans made to minority homebuyers has fallen.
Since President Bush took office, the percentage of FHA loans made to minority homebuyers has fallen by 16 percent - from 41.7 percent in 2000 to 35 percent in 2003.
Since President Bush took office, the difference in mortgage loan denial rates between minorities and non-minorities has increased by 8.3 percent. Minorities are now almost twice as likely to be turned down for a loan as non-minorities. http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc...me=tp-108-2-159
More on housing.
Claim: Bush's unemployment
rates are better than Clinton's, based on a comparison of the rates after
4 years in office.
A feeble attempt to imply that Bush's unemployment policies are more effective than Clinton's. A comparison showing an increase and decrease puts this in perspective.
1.8 million Private sector jobs lost since Bush took office
New jobs pay less, paying an average of 21% less than jobs lost;
Family income has declined - The typical family has seen inflation adjusted income decline by nearly $1,500;
health insurance, child care and gasoline have risen dramatically -- the
price of oil has now risen to a historic high, which means gas prices
will continue to rise
NRDC has a running summary of Bush's environmental record.
A whisper campaign states that, unlike Bush, Senator Kerry did not attend graduate school. This is impossible, since Senator Kerry is an attorney.
Graduated from Yale, gave graduation speech, http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061503.shtml
Graduated from Boston Law College in 1976 http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/bio.html
(Bush applied for Law school but was rejected, which is why he has an MBA instead of a law degree.) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2000/bush/cron.html
flunked out of Yale.
Medals were earned
There is only one logical explanation of the contradictory accounts of Sen. John Kerry’s first combat injury: Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, a major Purple Heart detractor, never saw the wound!
The physician’s procedure note, written 34 years ago, compared to Hibbard’s account, reveals the clue: The doctor removed a piece of shrapnel from a wound "ABOVE THE ELBOW," while Hibbard described a "Scratch on the FOREARM"– a distinctly different part of the body.
John Kerry wrote that, while under fire on the Mekong Delta, "A stinging piece of heat socked into my arm and just seemed to burn like hell." The physician’s report reads: "3 DEC 1968 U.S. NAVAL SUPPORT FACILITY CAM RANH BAY RVN FPO Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl. Bacitracin. Ret. to duty."1
After the shrapnel was removed, Kerry said that his arm was bandaged and the shrapnel was handed to him. Then, he would have donned the official Vietnam attire – a ‘jungle fatigue shirt’ with the sleeves rolled up TO THE CREASE OF THE ELBOW – a style that hides the entire upper arm.
John Kerry returned to duty after treatment, encountered Hibbard, his C.O., and showed him the shrapnel. Now, 35 years later, Hibbard states Kerry "Had a little scratch on his forearm, and he was holding a piece of shrapnel," (As reported in the ‘The Boston Globe’, according to a Douglas Brinkley article and others.)
Hibbard’s scenario not only contradicts the medical report but defies logic. If a shrapnel fragment leaves "a scratch," then the fragment has to graze the arm as it flies past, and there is no shrapnel to remove.
Physicians are taught to immediately write a brief description of the nature and location of an injury and the procedure performed. The doctor’s report, unmarred by political motivation and written just after the shrapnel removal, is the reliable report. And, it supports Kerry’s account.
Kerry volunteered for perilous duty in Vietnam and received two shrapnel wounds and an arm injury in combat, a Bronze Medal and a Silver Star. His courage in serving our country should be appreciated, not mocked.
1 As cited by Douglas Brinkley, who reviewed Kerry's
medical report from the incident while he was writing "Tour of Duty,"
Kerry handles the need to miss votes by having an arrangement with the Senate Democratic leadership to return should his vote be needed. He also places the way he would have voted if present in the public record. Prior to running for President, Kerry had an excellent voting record, with a voting percentage in the upper 90's. (Some conservative sources have made unsubstantiated claims that he had a poor voting record before running.)
These are a few years that cover his full time voting record before he started campaigning for President
Roll Call Vote Analysis
Year............ Voting............. Participation Party........ Support Presidential Support
Cheney in the Vice Presidential debates chose to perpetuate a rumor that Edwards was rarely in the Senate to Vote. Here is the voting record of Senator Edwards:
1999 Cast 371 out of 374 votes for a 99.2% voting record
Overall Edwards has cast 1664 out of 1962 votes for a 84.8% voting record
Bush: None. Note: TAFMS stands for Total Active Federal Military Service. I'm not sure about TAFCS. They have both been whited out. http://www.awolbush.com/images/BushANG22-box24.gif
their Commanders say:
"Ensign Kerry is an outstanding officer whose every effort in his nine months in USS GRIDLEY has been characterized by success and a high degree of professionalism. He is a highly talented, polished and professional naval officer who achieves uniformly top grade results. He has served as an Electrical Officer and Public Affairs Officer in his first half year on board and two months ago assumed the challenging duties of First Lieutenant, although very junior for this assignment. His accomplishments in the latter billet have been spectacular. He has trained, led, and genuinely inspired his division to produce results which seemed earlier to be beyond their capability.
Highly intelligent, well-read and skilled at oral and written expression, Ensign Kerry is one of the brightest, most capable, young officers I have ever had the pleasure of observing. Meticulous in attention to detail, he is a sound administrator and a natural, highly effective leader.
This officer has a sound background in seamanship and boat handling gained through considerable small boat experience prior to his appointment in the Navy. I have personal knowledge of his great motivation for this assignment and every confidence in his ability to excel in it." http://www.johnkerry.com/about/Reco...ns_For_Next.pdf
Bush: "Verbal Orders of the Commander on 1 Aug 72 suspending 1ST LT George W. Bush ... from flying status are confirmed ... Reason for suspension: failure to accomplish annual medical examination."http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif
Annual Officer Evaluation: Not observed in all categories. http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc4.gif
" This officer should have been reassigned in May 1972 since he is no longer training in his AFSC or with his unit of assignment." http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc12.gif
"Not rated for this period 1 May 72 through 30 Apr 73." http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc28.gif
“This misleading attack is a reminder of why George Bush has lost credibility with the American people. You bet, John Kerry voted against business as usual in our intelligence community. It’s no secret that we’ve got some serious gaps in our intelligence. He voted against a proposed billion dollar bloat in the intelligence budget, because it was essentially a slush fund for defense contractors. Unlike George Bush, John Kerry does not and will not support every special spending project supported by Halliburton and other defense contractor.”
Fact Check: John Kerry has supported $200 billion in intelligence funding over the past seven years – a 50 percent increase since 1996.
Intel Authorization $39.3-$41.3 Billion*
Intel Authorization $33 Billion*
Intel Authorization $29.5-$31.5 Billion*
Intel Authorization $29-$30 Billion*
Intel Authorization $29.0 Billion*
Intel Authorization $26.7 Billion*
Intel Authorization $26.6 Billion*
Another bit of dishonesty is RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie's claim, at a news conference, that in 1995, Kerry voted to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget. John Pike, who runs the invaluable globalsecurity.org Web site, said that: The Air Force's National Reconnaissance Office had appropriated that much money to operate a spy satellite that, as things turned out, it never launched. So the Senate passed an amendment rescinding the money—not to cancel a program, but to get a refund on a program that the NRO had canceled. Kerry voted for the amendment, as did a majority of his colleagues.
Yet another misleading statement is that, while on committee, Kerry Proposed Over $7.5 Billion In Across The Board Cuts To Intelligence Budget, All Of Which Were Rejected By Democrats And Republicans Alike. (S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/1994; S. Amdt. 1452, Introduced 2/9/94; S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95)
S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/1994: A bill to reduce the deficit for fiscal years 1994 through 1998, which was not voted on, instead it was referred to the committee on appropriations. Interesting items in it: Terminates the Selective Service System; Limits the number of nuclear warheads maintained by the United States; Amends the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 to reduce the funding level for marketing promotion programs.
S. Amdt. 1452, Introduced 2/9/94:
S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95:
But let's look at that bill more closely.
First, would such a reduction have "gutted" the intelligence services? Intelligence budgets are classified, but private budget sleuths have estimated that the 1995 budget totaled about $28 billion. Thus, taking out $300 million would have meant a reduction of about 1 percent. This is not a gutting.
Second, and more to the point,
Kerry's proposal would have not have cut a single intelligence program.
On the same day that Kerry's bill was read on the Senate floor, two of his colleagues—Democrat Bob Kerrey and Republican Arlen Specter—introduced a similar measure. Their bill would have cut the budget of the National Reconnaissance Office, the division of the U.S. intelligence community in charge of spy satellites.
According to that day's Congressional
Record, Specter said he was offering an amendment "to address concerns
about financial practices and management" at the NRO. Specifically,
"the NRO has accumulated more than $1 billion in unspent funds without
informing the Pentagon, CIA, or Congress." He called this accumulation
"one more example of how intelligence agencies sometimes use their
secret status to avoid accountability."
This was the same $1.5 billion that John Kerry was proposing to cut—over a five-year period—in his bill. It had nothing to do with intelligence, terrorism, or anything of substance. It was a motion to rescind money that had been handed out but never spent.
By the way, the Kerrey-Specter
bill—which called for the same intelligence cut that George W. Bush
is attacking John Kerry for proposing—passed on the Senate floor
by a voice vote. It was sheer common sense. It also led to major investigations
into the NRO's finances, both by the White House and by the CIA's general
Intelligence Meeting attendance.
A new attack ad claims that Kerry missed most of the Senate Intelligence
Committee meetings. Their attendance numbers, however, are actually not
attendance numbers at all, but rather the percentage of open
hearings at which Senator Kerry made a statement. For example
from 1993-1998 the Select Intelligence Committee held more than 329 meetings,
hearings and markups. Just 65 of these were open meetings. [Senate Report
104-1; Senate Report 105-1; Senate Report 106-3]
October 09, 2002
Statement on US Senate Floor (to Bush)
Mr. President, I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. And I will vote "yes" because on the question of how best to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, the Administration, including the President, recognizes that war must be our last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we should be acting in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein. As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means that "America speaks with one voice."
Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections. In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out "tough, immediate" inspections requirements and to "act with our allies at our side" if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.
If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out. If we do go to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so in concert with others in the international community. The Administration has come to recognize this as has our closet ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair in Britain. The Administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do - and it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed. Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible.
And in voting to grant the President the authority to use force, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses - or may pose - a potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test. Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he will use these weapons one day if he is not disarmed. But it is not imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that Saddam Hussein is about to launch any kind of attack against us or countries in the region. The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that Iraq disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and only Iraq, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq "and" enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions. The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.
Mr. President, Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq. Nor does it mean that we have exhausted all our peaceful options to achieve this goal. There is much more to be done.
The Administration must continue its efforts to build support at the United Nations for a new, unfettered, unconditional weapons inspection regime. If we can eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs through inspections whenever, wherever, and however we want them - including in presidential palaces -- and I am highly skeptical we can given the Iraqi regime's record of thwarting U.N. inspectors in the past - then we have an obligation to try that course of action first, before we expend American lives and treasure on a war with Iraq.
American success in the Persian Gulf War was enhanced by the creation of a multinational coalition. Our coalition partners -- I'd add -- picked up the overwhelming burden of the costs of that war. It is imperative that the Administration continue to work to multilateralize its current effort against Iraq. If the Administration's initiatives at the United Nations are real and sincere, other nations are more likely to stand behind our efforts to force Iraq to disarm, be it through a new, rigorous, no-nonsense inspection regime, or if necessary through the use of force. The United States without question has the military power to enter this conflict unilaterally, but we need logistical support such as bases, command and control centers, and overflight rights from allies in the region. That support will come only if they are convinced of the credibility of our arguments and the legitimacy of our mission. The United Nations never has veto power to stop the United States from doing what it must to protect its citizens, but it is in our interests to act with our allies if that is at all possible - and it should be: the burden of eliminating the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's hands is not ours alone.
Claim: Senator John Kerry "voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988."
A closer look at the weapons systems Kerry is being attacked on:
APACHE HELICOPTER: Kerry has
supported $13 billion in defense authorizations for the Apache
SOURCES ON KERRY SPENDING: Congressional Quarterly Almanacs, 1986- 2002; House Armed Service Committee Authorization Conference Report Summaries; Conference Reports for Defense Authorizations, FY1986 - present
The Bush Website makes this claim, and specifically lists these bills as the 38 times Kerry has voted against defense. But they don't explain what the bills are. Let's look:
S. Con. Res. 32, CQ Vote #52:
Rejected 43-54: R 1-50; D 42-4, 5/8/85, Kerry Voted Yea;
S. Con. Res. 120, CQ Vote #88:
Adopted 66-29: R 38-13; D 28-16, 5/1/86, Kerry Voted Nay;
S.Con.Res. 30, CQ Vote #60:
Motion Agreed To 64-31: R 38-5; D 26-26, 5/3/89, Kerry Voted Nay; A motion
to table Amendment 81, To provide increased funding for education,
training and social services.
H.R. 2072, CQ Vote #72: Motion
Agreed To 77-18: R 30-11; D 47-7, 6/1/89, Kerry Voted Nay;
S. 2884, CQ Vote #216: Motion
Agreed To 51-48: R 34-11; D 17-37, 8/3/90, Kerry Voted Nay;
S. Con. Res. 29, CQ Vote #49:
Motion Rejected 22-73: R 1-39; D 21-34, 4/25/91, Kerry Voted Yea;
S. Con. Res. 106, CQ Vote #73:
Motion Agreed To 53-40: R 38-1; D 15-39, 4/9/92, Kerry Voted
S. Con. Res. 106, CQ Vote #69:
Rejected 45-50: R 4-37; D 41-13, 4/9/92, Kerry Voted Yea;
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. 1122, CQ Vote #156: Motion
Rejected 16-81: R 8-45; D 8-36, 6/8/99, Kerry Voted Yea;
S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #46:
Adopted 69-30: R 31-12; D 38-18, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted Nay;
S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #180:
Rejected 40-60: R 37-17; D 3-43, 5/23/95, Kerry Voted Nay;
S. 1087, CQ Vote #389: Motion
Agreed To 56-42: R 50-3; D 6-39, 8/10/95, Kerry Voted Nay;
S. Con. Res. 57, CQ Vote #113:
Rejected 42-57: R 6-47; D 36-10, 5/15/96, Kerry Voted Yea;
S. 1745, CQ Vote #172: Rejected
34-65: R 4-49; D 30-16, 6/26/96, Kerry Voted Yea;
S. 1745, CQ Vote #173: Rejected
45-55: R 6-47; D 39-8, 6/26/96, Kerry Voted Yea;
H.R. 4278, CQ Vote #302: Passed
84-15: R 38-14; D 46-1, 9/30/96, Kerry Voted Yea;
H. Con. Res. 68, CQ Vote #86:
Adopted 54-44: R 54-0; D 0-44, 4/15/99, Kerry Voted Nay;
H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #182: Motion
Rejected 28-69: R 3-39; D 25-30, 9/10/91, Kerry Voted Yea;
S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #181:
Rejected 28-71: R 2-51; D 26-20, 5/24/95, Kerry Voted Yea;
H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #182: Motion
Rejected 28-69: R 3-39; D 25-30, 9/10/91, Kerry Voted Yea;
S. 2399, CQ Vote #56: Motion
Rejected 50-48: R 3-40; D 47-8, 3/26/92, Kerry Voted Yea;
S. Con. Res. 106, CQ Vote #70:
Motion Rejected 36-62: R 3-39; D 33-23, 4/9/92, Kerry Voted Yea;
H.R. 5677, CQ Vote #209: Motion
Rejected 30-67: R 6-37; D 24-30, 9/16/92, Kerry Yea;
H.R. 5677, CQ Vote #211: Motion
Rejected 43-53: R 14-28; D 29-25, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Yea; Amendment
3019, To increase the amounts available for carrying out programs of cancer
S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #50:
Motion Agreed To 58-41: R 6-37; D 52-4, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted
S. 1298, CQ Vote #253: Motion
Agreed To 61-32: R 35-5; D 26-27, 9/9/93, Kerry Voted Nay;
S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #66:
Rejected 42-58: R 42-2; D 0-56, 3/23/94, Kerry Voted Nay;
S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #204:
Rejected 31-68: R 1-53; D 30-15, 5/25/95, Kerry Voted Yea;
H.R. 1944, CQ Vote #319: Motion
Agreed To 57-40: R 47-5; D 10-35, 7/21/95, Kerry Voted Nay;
H.R. 1944, CQ Vote #320: Motion
Agreed To 65-32: R 49-3; D 16-29, 7/21/95, Kerry Voted Nay;
S. 1745, CQ Vote #175: Motion
Agreed To 60-40: R 50-3; D 10-37, 6/26/96, Kerry Voted Nay;
S. 1061, CQ Vote #229: Motion
Rejected 27-72: R 2-53; D 25-19, 9/10/97, Kerry Voted Yea;
S. 2057, CQ Vote #173: Rejected
18-74: R 1-50; D 17-24, 6/25/98, Kerry Voted Yea;
S. 1077, CQ Vote #224: Motion
Agreed To 77-22: R 48-0; D 29-21; I 0-1, 7/10/01, Kerry Voted Nay
Kerry Voted Against
Funding For F-18 Fighters At Least Eight Times, In 1990,
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;
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. 1124, CQ Vote #5: Adopted
56-34: R 42-3; D 14-31, 1/26/96, Kerry Voted Nay;
H.R. 3230, CQ Vote #279: Adopted
73-26: R 50-3; D 23-23, 9/10/96, Kerry Voted Nay
Before George W. Bush's political operatives started pounding on John Kerry for voting against certain weapons systems during his years in the Senate, they should have taken a look at this quotation:
"After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office."
The speaker was President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992.
They should also have looked up some testimony by Dick Cheney, the first President Bush's secretary of defense (and now vice president), three days later, boasting of similar slashings before the Senate Armed Services Committee:
"Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend."
Cheney proceeded to lay into the then-Democratically controlled Congress for refusing to cut more weapons systems.
"Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them."
The Republican operatives might also have noticed Gen. Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same hearings, testifying about plans to cut Army divisions by one-third, Navy aircraft carriers by one-fifth, and active armed forces by half a million men and women, to say noting of "major reductions" in fighter wings and strategic bombers.
Granted, these reductions were made in the wake of the Soviet Union's dissolution and the Cold War's demise. But that's just the point: Proposed cuts must be examined in context. A vote against a particular weapons system doesn't necessarily indicate indifference toward national defense.
Looking at the weapons that the RNC says Kerry voted to cut, a good case could be made, certainly at the time, that some of them (the B-2 bomber and President Reagan's "Star Wars" missile-defense program) should have been cut. As for the others (the M-1 tank and the F-14, F-15, and F-16 fighter planes, among others), Kerry didn't really vote to cut them.
The claim about these votes was made in the Republican National Committee "Research Briefing" of Feb. 22. The report lists 13 weapons systems that Kerry voted to cut—the ones cited above, as well as Patriot air-defense missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and AH64 Apache helicopters, among others.
It is instructive, however, to look at the footnotes. Almost all of them cite Kerry's vote on Senate bill S. 3189 (CQ Vote No. 273) on Oct. 15, 1990. Do a Google search, and you will learn that S. 3189 was the Fiscal Year 1991 Defense Appropriations Act, and CQ Vote No. 273 was a vote on the entire bill. There was no vote on those weapons systems specifically.
On a couple of the weapons, the RNC report cites H.R. 5803 and H.R. 2126. Look those up. They turn out to be votes on the House-Senate conference committee reports for the defense appropriations bills in October 1990 (the same year as S. 3189) and September 1995.
In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank dishonesty.
An examination of Kerry's real voting record during his 20 years in the Senate indicates that he did vote to restrict or cut certain weapons systems. From 1989-92, he supported amendments to halt production of the B-2 stealth bomber. (In 1992, George H.W. Bush halted it himself.) It is true that the B-2 came in handy during the recent war in Iraq—but for reasons having nothing to do with its original rationale.
The B-2 came into being as an airplane that would drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. The program was very controversial at the time. It was extremely expensive. Its stealth technology had serious technical bugs. More to the point, a grand debate was raging in defense circles at the time over whether, in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range cruise missiles, the United States needed any new bomber that would fly into the Soviet Union's heavily defended airspace. The debate was not just between hawks and doves; advocates and critics could be found among both.
In the latest war, B-2s—modified to carry conventional munitions—were among the planes that dropped smart bombs on Iraq. But that was like hopping in the Lincoln stretch limo to drop Grandma off at church. As for the other stealth plane used in both Iraq wars—the F-117, which was designed for non-nuclear missions—there is no indication that Kerry ever opposed it.
The RNC doesn't mention it, but Kerry also supported amendments to limit (but not kill) funding for President Reagan's fanciful (and eventually much-altered) "Star Wars" missile-defense system. Kerry sponsored amendments to ban tests of anti-satellite weapons, as long as the Soviet Union also refrained from testing. In retrospect, trying to limit the vulnerability of satellites was a very good idea since many of our smart bombs are guided to their targets by signals from satellites. Kery also voted for amendments to restrict the deployment of the MX missile (Reagan changed its deployment plan several times, and Bush finally stopped the program altogether) and to ban the production of nerve-gas weapons.
At the same time, in 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile. (Interestingly, the F-18 and Trident II are among the weapons systems that the RNC claims Kerry opposed.)
From Bush's website "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)"
The actual amendment is about a Tobacco Trust Fund, with some language thrown in about marriage penalties for good measure. From the amendment that Senator Kerry voted to table:
(1) In general: Except as provided in paragraph (2) and notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the amount credited to the National Tobacco Trust Fund under section 401(b) of this Act for any fiscal year shall be reduced by the amount of the decrease in Federal revenues for such fiscal year which the Secretary of the Treasury estimates will result from the amendments made by this title. The Secretary shall increase or decrease the amount of any reduction under this section to reflect any incorrect estimate for any preceding fiscal year.
(2) Limitation on reduction after fiscal year 2007:
(A) In general: Except as provided in subparagraph (B), with respect to any fiscal year after fiscal year 2007, the reduction determined under paragraph (1) shall not exceed 33 percent of the total amount credited to the National Tobacco Trust Fund for such fiscal year.
The claim on Bush's website: In 1995, Kerry Voted For A Resolution That Said Middle Class Tax Cuts Were Not Wise. The sense of the Senate amendment, killed on a motion by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), said, "reducing the deficit should be one of the nation's highest priorities, and that a middle-class tax cut would undermine and be inconsistent with the goal of achieving a balanced budget." (H.J. Res. 1, CQ Vote #67: Motion Agreed To 66-32: R 49-3; D 17-29, 2/14/95, Kerry Voted Nay)
The resolution did not mention middle class tax cuts anywhere in it. The only reference in all four versions of it to taxes is this single line: SECTION 2. No bill to increase tax revenue shall become law unless approved by a three-fifths majority of the whole number of each House of Congress." http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c104:4:./temp/~c104niuNgJ::
Furthermore, vote #67 was a motion to commit to Senate Committee on Budget, tabled in Senate. It was not a "sense of the Senate Amendment as claimed. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00067
Kerry didn't vote against funding the troops. In fact, John Kerry proposed a bill to fund the troops. He voted to pay for the funding, too, instead of further running up the deficit. Bush threatened to veto a bill for funding the troops if it didn't run up the deficit. The GOP agreed, their version passed, and now we have record-setting deficits.
Listen to his statement: http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/press/audio_list.html He hits the main point hard within the first minute and a half, but the rest of the speech is well worth the listen, if you want the full perspective on his feelings about the war. It's the modern day Winter Soldier's testimony. [My words, not his]
The $87 billion supplemental bill was presented with no "payback provision," meaning that our tax money would have paid for every penny of this.
$18.6 billion - or 21% - was
allocated for "security, relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction
The Senate rejected an amendment that would prevent further fiscal abuses. Sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), the amendment would have barred funds from going to contracts with companies that owe deferred compensation to Cheney and 21 other administration officials. It was defeated by a 65-34 vote, with only Democrats voting in support.
Vocal opponents of the bill included:
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA): "When the roll is called on this $87 legislation, which provides no effective conditions for genuine international participation and a clear change in policy in Iraq, I intend to vote no. The amount of money is huge. It is 87 times what the federal government spends annually on after-school programs. It is 7 times what President Bush proposed to spend on education for low-income schools in 2004. It is 9 times what the federal government spends on special education each year. It is 8 times what the government spends to help middle- and low-income students go to college. It is 15 times what the government spends on cancer research. It is 27 times what the government spends on substance abuse and mental health treatment." (Source: Washington Post, October 19, 2003.)
Representative Lois Capps (D-CA):
"I rise in opposition to this bill. Last year I voted against the
war in Iraq because I believed this
Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV):
"Mr. President, the Emperor has no clothes. This entire adventure
in Iraq has been based on propaganda and manipulation. Eighty-seven billion
dollars is too much to pay for the continuation of a war based on falsehoods.
. This huge spending bill has been rushed through this chamber in just
one month. There were just three open hearings by the Senate Appropriations
Committee on $87 billion, without a single outside witness called to challenge
the Administration's line."More
On a related note, if Bush is so concerned about troops and their body armor, why is he refusing to to allow 1300 donated bullet proof vests to be shipped to Iraq? The vests were requested by 1st Sgt. Fred Chisholm, they were collected by a sheriff, and they have been sitting in a warehouse since May, 2004. Rumsfeld and Bush refuse to grant permission to ship them, and Jeb refuses to intervene in this case. Chisholm wanted the vests so his soldiers could pad the interior of their thin-skinned Humvees to protect against homemade roadside bombs and other weapons.http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=154-07212004
Assertions that the Democrats' presumptive nominees are extreme liberals fall flat. True, Mr. Kerry's voting history places him to the left of today's median Senate Democrat (Tom Daschle of South Dakota). But he is closer to the center of the Democratic Party than he is to the most liberal senators, including Mr. Kennedy. John Edwards falls just to the right of the median Democrat. In fact, he is nearly indistinguishable from Mr. Lieberman, the Democrats' vice presidential candidate in 2000.
On the other side of the partisan
divide, Mr. Bush - like Mr. Kerry - is more extreme than his party's median
senator (Richard Shelby of Alabama). He is also noticeably more conservative
than his primary challenger in 2000, John McCain. So any assertion that
the Democratic candidates are out of the mainstream might easily be applied
to the Republicans as well. In fact, if any of the four candidates on
the national party tickets this year is out of the mainstream, it is Mr.
Cheney, who in his last full term in the House was on the right flank
of roughly 90 percent of his Republican colleagues. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/26/opinion/26mann.html
cleared of charges
This section got so long I moved it here to speed download time.
Quotes. There is an email floating around with less than intelligent quotes, attributed to John Kerry. The majority of the quotes are actually from Dan Quayle. The email has been circulating since 1999, with various politicians blamed for the quotes. http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_john_kerry_quotes.htm
Kerry Broke Agreement By Spending $1.2 Million Over Limit. “Post-election reports showed a last-minute infusion of $1.7 million from Kerry’s wife, heiress Teresa Heinz. … Kerry 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)
What this doesn't mention is that Kerry and Weld made this agreement, and then Weld violated it, overspending by nearly half a million on tv ads. Once Weld broke it, there was no reason for Kerry to stick with it. A contract is two sided; Weld voided it.
Also, just as a study in rhetoric, note the use of the words "millionaire," "heiress," and the statement that Weld favored the cap because of Teresa's wealth.
One would never know from this that Weld is a millionaire. In the 1970s Bush Sr.'s uncle sold his brokerage company G.H. Walker & Co. to White, Weld & Co. and became a director of the latter company before its merger with Merrill Lynch in 1978.
Weld is now said to be heir to the White, Weld fortune. Weld is a principal at Leeds Weld & Co., which describes itself as the United States's largest private equity fund focused on investing in the education and training industry.
It originated in an opinion column written by a researcher for the conservative, Washington, D.C.-based Capital Research Center. The crux of CRC’s argument is that money directed by the Endowments to Tides is "fungible." By supporting projects through Tides, CRC alleged that Heinz has secretly funneled money to every other organization that has ever received funding through Tides Center and the separate Tides Foundation.
Since first being published in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, CRC’s accusation has been picked up and expanded in opinion pieces in a number of newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and the Washington Times. But not even these publications have leveled this allegation in actual news stories.
The reason why is obvious: The charge does not stand up to objective scrutiny. Four facts undercut it completely. First, by legally binding contract, every penny of Heinz’s support to Tides has been explicitly directed to specific projects in Pennsylvania. It cannot legally be redirected and is the exact opposite of fungible.
Second, the Tides Center is a provider of management and administrative services, and we have used it only for those services, not to advance Tides’ grantmaking agenda. Foundations from all across the country-many, like Heinz, with strong centrist agendas-use these services to incubate an array of nonprofit programs. So does the federal government. It is no more accurate to suggest that Heinz supports every one of these programs than it is to suggest that someone who contributes to a specific group through the United Way supports the agenda of every other United Way beneficiary.
Third, the projects we have supported through Tides speak for themselves. They include programs to test the career readiness of area high school students, protect Pittsburgh’s environment and retain young people in our region-hardly an extremist agenda.
and finally, information about every one of our Tides-related grants is
and always has been readily available in our public filings, annual reports
and here on our web site. Far from being secretive, we have been consistently
open in detailing the nature of our grants to Tides and every other organization
story about a Fire Hydrant
However, the aggregate value of these five homes is roughly $29 million, but the claim that John Kerry "owns" all of these properties is problematic. John and Teresa Kerry signed a prenuptial agreement and have kept their premarital assets separate. The Boston townhouse (which John Kerry mortgaged in 2003 to finance his presidential bid) is the only one of these homes that they own as a couple; the other four belonged to Teresa before her 1995 marriage to John Kerry, and some of them are even still listed under the name of her late husband.
according to the London Times, the Italian villa bought by actor George
Clooney was sold a year before John Kerry announced his intention to seek
the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, and it was owned not by John
or Teresa Kerry, but by Mrs. Drue Heinz, a relative of Teresa's through
her marriage to John Heinz:
does not own Heinz
to select a card during the sign-up period.
The Bush administration has promised the new Medicare drug discount card program will save all seniors money on their medicines. Yet, according to the Boston Globe, the White House allowed drug card industry CEO David Halbert (a longtime Bush campaign contributor) to be involved in the original crafting of the discount card program. The result is a program that enriches drug card companies at the expense of consumers. The cards do not guarantee any price savings for consumers, allowing drug card companies to change their "discounts" at any time in order to maximize profits.
Now, as the program is set to start, the White House has once again looked to its top campaign contributors in deciding which companies it approved to administer the cards. All told, the 73 companies selected gave President Bush and conservatives in Congress more than $5 million since 2000. Of those 73 companies approved by the administration, 20 (almost one third) have been involved in fraud charges. Those 20 companies made more than 60% of the total contributions to Bush and conservatives by drug card companies, calling into question whether the administration overlooked those companies' records because of their financial ties to the Bush Campaign.
Recently revealed federal documents show that the Bush administration estimated last year that the new Medicare prescription-drug benefit could cost almost $600 billion, more than half again as much as it publicly predicted at the time. Even worse, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has concluded that administration efforts to conceal this and other unflattering cost forecasts of the proposal while it was debated "appear to violate a specific and express prohibition of federal law."
Claim: The Bush administration has stated that uncapped malpractice suits drive up health care costs by 5-9%, or a total of $60 billion and $108 billion per year.
Reality: This data is derived from a single study done in 1996, based only on a study on heart patients. Both the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office criticize the 1996 study the Bush administration uses as their main support. These nonpartisan agencies suggest savings – if any – would be relatively small.
On Jan. 8, 2004, the Congressional Budget Office also said the 1996 study wasn’t a valid basis for projecting total costs of defensive medicine.
When CBO applied the methods used in the study of Medicare patients hospitalized for two types of heart disease to a broader set of ailments, it found no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending. Moreover, using a different set of data, CBO found no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts.
Worth noting: The nonpartisan CBO is now headed by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who previously was chief economist for President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.
Kerry and Edwards support these proposals to help with the malpractice crisis: encouraging arbitration, review of cases to weed out frivilous suits, sanctions against attorneys who file frivilous suits, and an elimination of most punitive awards (which are responsible for many of the huge malpractice settlements in states where they are legal).
In contrast, Bush promotes a cap on settlements, which does not differentiate between real damages. Therefore a person who truly suffers $1 million in damages could not collect more that $250.000 under Bush's proposals. This would also not be of much benefit because malpractice carriers have a history of rising premiums independent of actual costs.
Late Term Abortion Ban. There seems to be confusion about why John Kerry voted against the banning of late term abortions. He voted against it, because it left out any provisions that would protect the mother in a life threatening situation. In other words, under the Republican bill, without ammendment, if a mother's life is in jeopardy, she still can't have the abortion, even if it will save her life.
Yucca Mountain: Bush claims that Senator Kerry "says he's strongly against (storing nuclear waste at) Yucca here in Nevada, but he voted for it several times." Not true. "Each time Kerry has faced the simple choice of voting whether or not to send waste to Yucca Mountain, he has voted against it. But he has voted for some measures that had provisions to allow nuclear dumps there. Some 16 years ago, Kerry voted for an overall budget bill that included a provision favoring putting the nuclear waste in Nevada."
Ghengis Kahn: I've seen this as a talking point on the RNC blogs, for some reason. Kerry pronounced the name Ghengis with a soft G, which is the more authentic pronunciation. If you look at the alternate spellings, it's pretty clear. "Ghengis Khan. Genghis Khan, also spelled Ching-gis Khan, Chingis Khan, Jenghiz Khan, or Jinghis Khan..." http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Ghengis%20Khan
A story in the Sun Sentinal reports that republicans are being intimidated at the polls. One of the complainers, Elaine Fandino, reported problems with Kerry supporters showing up at the polls with their campaign signs. Here is a photo of her - she's the one in the center, in front of the line of people at the polls, holding a giant BUSH sign: http://uk.fc.yahoo.com/041018/46/f4ssa.html and here she is rioting to try to stop the vote recount in 2000: http://www.thehollandsentinel.net/stories/111300/new_Campaigns.html. Another supposed victim, Juan D'Arce "couldn't stand the taunting, so he turned away and did not vote." He is a republican in charge of setting up debates at colleges in Florida. Lawrence Gottfried, who "used to be a democrat" filed a lawsuit concerning the recount in 2000