Bush’s speech last night had this little zinger, which most would find amusing:
“The other party’s nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group with diverse opinions – for tax cuts and against them, for NAFTA and against NAFTA, for the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act, in favor of the liberation of Iraq and opposed to it.
“And that’s just one senator from Massachusetts,” Bush said, getting a roaring response from the Republican crowd.
A fair shot- and aimed at the record, and not the man- in other words, about the issues. Which brings up an important question- ‘What exactly is John Kerry’s voting record?”
This AP write-up highlights some of the cuts that Kerry supported:
he AP review of Kerry’s votes in the Senate for more than a decade show that he often has backed or spearheaded targeted cuts in the Pentagon budget.
In the early 1990s, he voted to limit funding for the B-2 stealth bomber, which for years was plagued by cost overruns and had an eye-popping pricetag of $2 billion per plane. Under the direction of then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, the Pentagon decided to buy fewer planes.
Kerry also voted to trim $3 billion to $4 billion from the defense bill in 1991-92. And in 1995 and 1996, he voted against both major defense spending and authorization bills.
“In the early stages of his (Senate career) he looked to squeeze the fat out of some of the big defense budgets,” said Michael Meehan, senior Kerry campaign adviser. “We had enormous deficits and he would oppose big ticket weapons systems that were very expensive.”
Kerry, a longtime member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, at times argued for spending restraint and on other occasions was at odds with the first Bush administration, the Clinton White House and even some Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is responsible for the annual defense authorization bills.
In one 1990 debate, Kerry pushed for cuts in an anti-satellite weapons system, which had increased in cost from $73 million to a proposed $208 million in a single year. He said the funding should stay at the $73 million level, but that any savings should go to other defense programs.
In other instances, Kerry:
–Voted to eliminate the B-2 bomber program in 1992.
–Voted on several occasions to reduce funding for long-range missile defense programs. Derisively referred to as President Reagan’s “Star Wars” program by some in Congress, missile defense was a constant source of controversy in the 1990s as lawmakers questioned the feasibility of a missile shield, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.
Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said Kerry voted against spending on weapons systems that have proven valuable in the Persian Gulf, including the F-16 and F-15 fighter aircraft.
“There is a canyon of difference between his voting record in the Senate and his rhetoric on the campaign trail,” Iverson said.
Meehan said that early on, officials questioned whether some of the aircraft, such as the B-2 bomber, would be successful in the Gulf wars.
My question- do these votes reflect actual up and down votes on weapons systems, or are they merely procedural votes on amendments that Kerry objected to and seem to look as if he was voting against the weapons systems, but later he voted in favor of different versions of the authroization bills?
*** Update ***
Jim taranto raises a good point when he notes that the Democrats are shooting themselves in thefoot when they try to pretend that questioning Kerry’s voting record is questioning his patriotism:
This is what Democrats call “fighting back,” and as we’ve noted many times before, it is an utterly self-defeating approach. Republicans are arguing that Kerry is weak on defense. By raising the question of his own patriotism, Kerry has changed the terms of the debate. Now it’s: Is Kerry just weak on defense, or is he unpatriotic too? For the record, we say he’s a patriot who’s weak on defense.
the talking dog
Come on, John– Kerry served in Vietnam. His voting record is, therefore, not important.
More to the point, rather than point to a line of votes you don’t like (a standard demagogue tactic), the fair rap on Kerry is actually in the President’s little joke. In 19 years in the senate, the number of major bills he has written or introduced is a wopping ZERO; his voting record is actually a series of wafflings and flip flops, depending on which way he sees the political wind blowing (albeit with a port orientation, giving the overall picture a look to the left of Teddy Kennedy).
The guy pushed his way by people screaming “Don’t you know who I am?” and got the nickname “Liveshot” for being a grandstander out JUST for publicity for himself.
In short, he is an unprincipled jerk with a really liberal voting record, and more to the point– whatever he DOES vote for (like, say, authorizing the Iraq war) HE GOES BACK ON!!! So, naturally, the voters of Iowa smelled a winner!!!
Hey, look: he’s probably the worst of the one-time electable Democratic quartet (alphabetically, Clark, Dean, Edwards, Kerry), but he’s the nominee.
Is Kerry better than George “Fuck Everybody Except the Religious Right” Bush? Yes. By light years. Kerry sucks, actually: AND HE’S STILL BETTER THAN BUSH BY MILES AND MILES.
I know you like the wars and the tax cuts, John, but I think turning the constitution into a tool of hatemongering should turn just about all but the most irrational loyalists into considering going elsewhere, or at least staying home rather than support the Hatemonger in Chief.
Skip Perry
If you think about it, calling an attack on policy an attack on patriotism is really quite a good strategy, especially given Kerry’s spotty (at best) record.
platosearwax
I am so not a fan of Bush or the Republicans but this is totally fair criticism. Kerry was one of the worst choices out of the Democratic field.
SDN
How, exactly, is using the process defined in the Constitution to put a question to the American people “turning the constitution into a tool of hatemongering”? Vote no! Convince all your friends and neighbors to vote no! Maybe, just maybe, if the religious right sees that a majority of the country isn’t going to agree with them, they’ll accept that they live in a sinful world and either a) withdraw or b) realize that they have a lot of work to do that government CAN’T do for them. What they WON’T have is the comforting fantasy that the “Moral Majority” is being thwarted by unelected judges.
Of course, if the opposite conclusion is reached, you will be faced with exactly the same choices, and stripped of a similar fantasy.
Jack Sparks (burn rate)
Don’t forget that roughly 50% of Americans support the FMA. Thus fully half of the country is made up of “hatemongers” from the “religious right.”
You’d think they’d have an easier time getting abortion outlawed, no?
Unfortunately, this sort of gibbering nonsense is going to be with us for months. Just remember that every time you vomit forth your invective, you’re insulting 50% of the country in pretty harsh terms. That’s not going to win you any voters in the fall.
Back on topic – I believe this votes were likely cast against omnibus defense spending increases proposed by Reagan in the 80s. It’s possible they might have been votes on a specific bill to cut spending on a particular project, but that doesn’t seem too likely.
Back off topic – why is so hard for proponents of gay marriage to give their opponents even the smallest benefit of the doubt? I don’t run around screaming “the fags want to legalize gay marriage so they can turn the church into bastions of blasphemous buggery!” And yet no less an establishment democrat as Terry McAuliffe talks about attempts to write bigotry into the constitution, and rank and file leftists of the obnoxious sort run around shouting “hatemongers!!!”
Amending the constitution is a marvelously democratic process, and it will go much more smoothly if we can discuss it like adults.
Sorry for the rant.
Ken Hahn
There is zero chance of 38 states approving an amendment to define marriage. There is nearly 100% chance that activist courts will impose extreme leftist definitions on social institutions. Since it’s a given that Kerry would nominate only judges with agendas that agree with his liberal philosophy, Bush is the moderate in this case.
I don’t much like Bush but the Democrats are making my vote for him more likely every day. If you’d like to see judicial activism like that of the Massachucetts SJC imposed on all Americans then Kerry is your man. Be careful what you wish for however. Once you concede to a judicially controlled society, you may end up with Iran.
CadillaqJaq
What KenHahn said…
IMO, GWB and his recent speech suggesting a Constitutional Amendment to preserve the sanctity of marriage is what the religious right needed to get back on board.
Now he has to give a like speech dealing with jobs and the economy in general to inspire his fiscal conservative constituancy.
Kimmitt
Slate’s got a pretty good analysis of these claims; essentially, you’ve got it right. Procedural votes, large bills, et cetera et cetera.
Dean
Which then begs the question:
Which weapons has Kerry supported? As “talking dog” noted above, Kerry has apparently NEVER sponsored a bill of any sort in his Senate career. This leaves us only w/ his voting record on others’ bills to judge his stances on.
Has he voted in support of any bills relating to the Pentagon budget? Has he spoken out for any? If the argument is that his votes don’t show him “anti-” Pentagon, they certainly don’t support any claim that he’s pro-defense, either.
Kimmitt
Again, bounce on over to the Slate article; it’ll clear you up.
Minnie
I would suggest any and all read the following:http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/
It will totally clear up the Kerry record and when he voted on what!
Dean
Wow, talk about changing goal posts.
Kaplan’s comment is about a 1990 vote on the defense appropriations bill.
But folks who have criticized Kerry have gone as far back as 1984, when his flyers were advertising that he would oppose the F-14 and F-15.
See this news article, frex:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A546-2004Feb23.html
So, cutting defense in 1984, when the USSR was still around, when they still ruled Eastern Europe, when they had SS-20s aimed at Western Europe, is the same as voting to cut programs that the END of the Cold War obviated?
Sorry, I forgot that only Kimmitt is allowed to move goal-posts around here.
BTW, does such misrepresentation (sorry, goal-post moving) count as lying at all?
Diane M. Davis
Republicans fail to mention, President Bush (Sr),State of the Union address in Jan. 1992, “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.” Said, by Pres. George H.W. Bush. He also, started the closing of our military bases.
Please start quoting some of the truths. In light of the end of the cold war, and never ever dreaming of a 9/11, what would have been the point of all those weapon systems???? ABSOLUTELY NONE