Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by bilmore
All of the focus-group reaction to him (Zell Miller) last night seems to have been very positive, especially among those who are labeled "swing voters".

As a democratic swing voter in a battleground state, I agree. I can't stand Bush in regard to social issues. But my party's nomination sucks.

Now that Kerry's voting record has been attacked at the RNC, I'm curious to see how Kerry reacts to it. Has Kerry really voted against all of those military expenditures? I realize that each bill is not about only a single issue, and that ancillary issues can result in a "No" vote even though there are portions of a bill that a congressman favors. But that was an impressive list of negative votes that Miller rattled off. Now I just need to know if Miller was telling the truth.

The GOP contends that Kerry is an indecisive flip-flopper and that his indecisveness results in confusion. I must admit I'm confused by the way Kerry is running his campaign. I need to hear more about how he has voted for the last 20 years.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
As a democratic swing voter in a battleground state, I agree. I can't stand Bush in regard to social issues. But my party's nomination sucks.

Now that Kerry's voting record has been attacked at the RNC, I'm curious to see how Kerry reacts to it. Has Kerry really voted against all of those military expenditures? I realize that each bill is not about only a single issue, and that ancillary issues can result in a "No" vote even though there are portions of a bill that a congressman favors. But that was an impressive list of negative votes that Miller rattled off. Now I just need to know if Miller was telling the truth.

The GOP contends that Kerry is an indecisive flip-flopper and that his indecisveness results in confusion. I must admit I'm confused by the way Kerry is running his campaign. I need to hear more about how he has voted for the last 20 years.

You see very few Presidents coming from the Senate because it is so easy to attack someone's voting record. One example for Kerry has been discussed at length on this board. Kerry voted against a bill to fund troops in Iraq.

Why? There were more tax cuts hidden in the bill, and Bush threatened to veto the bill unless the tax cuts were kept in. The bill passed easily (with the tax cuts), but Kerry voted a symbolic "No." Rs spin this as Kerry failing to support the troops. I view it as tax cuts being more important to Bush than funding the troops.

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Why? There were more tax cuts hidden in the bill, and Bush threatened to veto the bill unless the tax cuts were kept in. The bill passed easily (with the tax cuts), but Kerry voted a symbolic "No." Rs spin this as Kerry failing to support the troops. I view it as tax cuts being more important to Bush than funding the troops.

I agree with Kerry's stance on this one. But shouldn't such stances be rare? Why (assuming Miller is telliing the truth) did Kerry vote "No" on so many of those defense projects? My gut tells me that it must be that he is, generally speaking, not in favor of defense spending. And unfortunately, simpletons such as myself tend to equate "defense spending" with "defending ourselves from terrorism".

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
I agree with Kerry's stance on this one. But shouldn't such stances be rare? Why (assuming Miller is telliing the truth) did Kerry vote "No" on so many of those defense projects? My gut tells me that it must be that he is, generally speaking, not in favor of defense spending. And unfortunately, simpletons such as myself tend to equate "defense spending" with "defending ourselves from terrorism".

Some more skeptical than you tend to associate "defense spending" with "more no-bid contracts for Halliburton." I haven't studied Kerry's voting record in depth, but I'm offering up a possibility. One that I'm sure will be roundly attacked by those as equally uninformed as me.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Some more skeptical than you tend to associate "defense spending" with "more no-bid contracts for Halliburton." I haven't studied Kerry's voting record in depth, but I'm offering up a possibility. One that I'm sure will be roundly attacked by those as equally uninformed as me.

So you believe a reasoned approach is that we shouldn't buy weapons from the Sikorskys or Grumans. You know, the companies that know how to make sophisticated equipment. You think we should buy weapons from smaller more organic companies. I think that sort of tracks Zell's spitball comment. do you think so?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
I realize that each bill is not about only a single issue, and that ancillary issues can result in a "No" vote even though there are portions of a bill that a congressman favors. But that was an impressive list of negative votes that Miller rattled off. Now I just need to know if Miller was telling the truth.

Yeah, it's hard to defend a record because the bill funding the Blurperwhacker XX-21 might also fund killing baby seals.

BUT . . .

I saw posted this morning (I'll try to find it again) Kerry's fundraising memo from way back, listing a whole bunch of weapons programs (Miller's list, BTW), setting out that Kerry thought they were all unnecessary and wasteful because we don't need such a huge defense anymore, and promising to work to cancel them all.

So, no, he doesn't have that particular defense here. Miller was accurate.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
So you believe a reasoned approach is that we shouldn't buy weapons from the Sikorskys or Grumans. You know, the companies that know how to make sophisticated equipment. You think we should buy weapons from smaller more organic companies. I think that sort of tracks Zell's spitball comment. do you think so?

We should really be doing procurment through smaller, female-Eskimo-owned companies.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
So you believe a reasoned approach is that we shouldn't buy weapons from the Sikorskys or Grumans. You know, the companies that know how to make sophisticated equipment. You think we should buy weapons from smaller more organic companies. I think that sort of tracks Zell's spitball comment. do you think so?

Hank, I've tired of your oversimplified, non-responses to my posts. If you want to respond to the substance of the point I made, feel free to do so.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Hank, I've tired of your oversimplified, non-responses to my posts. If you want to respond to the substance of the point I made, feel free to do so.

In fairness to Hank, your reflexive "no-bid Haliburton" thingie starts out at a point so oversimplified and uninformed that his response was a polite and appropriate one.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
You see very few Presidents coming from the Senate because it is so easy to attack someone's voting record. One example for Kerry has been discussed at length on this board. Kerry voted against a bill to fund troops in Iraq.

Why? There were more tax cuts hidden in the bill, and Bush threatened to veto the bill unless the tax cuts were kept in. The bill passed easily (with the tax cuts), but Kerry voted a symbolic "No." Rs spin this as Kerry failing to support the troops. I view it as tax cuts being more important to Bush than funding the troops.

That would be a good defense, except Kerry is on record (pre-vote) stating that it would be irresponsible to vote no on the $87 million if the alternative bill he proposed could not garner support.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Some more skeptical than you tend to associate "defense spending" with "more no-bid contracts for Halliburton." I haven't studied Kerry's voting record in depth, but I'm offering up a possibility. One that I'm sure will be roundly attacked by those as equally uninformed as me.

POF - Halliburton got no-bid contracts under Clinton as well. Now that may not justify them (it may, I'm just not informed on the subject) but it certainly belies the allegedly nefarious connections with Cheney.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by bilmore
Yeah, it's hard to defend a record because the bill funding the Blurperwhacker XX-21 might also fund killing baby seals.

BUT . . .

I saw posted this morning (I'll try to find it again) Kerry's fundraising memo from way back, listing a whole bunch of weapons programs (Miller's list, BTW), setting out that Kerry thought they were all unnecessary and wasteful because we don't need such a huge defense anymore, and promising to work to cancel them all.

So, no, he doesn't have that particular defense here. Miller was accurate.

How "way back"? Was this anywhere 1992-1998? 'Cause then I'm thinking not so much bad. If we're talking post 9/11, that's a different matter. Maybe. Even then, not so much, if we're giving up a program / weapon that's really good at stopping the advance of Soviet troops across Germany in favor of, say, bomb detection technology.

I remember in 93, 94 in particular (because I happened to be taking a class on US defense policy), everybody, both sides of the isle, was talking about the "peace dividend."

I also am curious to know (and I'm sure some left wing wonk will provide) which things Miller himself voted against, or if he voted in the opposite direction from Kerry on each of those bills.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
In fairness to Hank, your reflexive "no-bid Haliburton" thingie starts out at a point so oversimplified and uninformed that his response was a polite and appropriate one.

My post made very clear that I hadn't researched Kerry's voting record enough to know whether or not I was right. The post also predicted Hank's response would be similarly uninformed.

Your initial response, on the other hand, actually appears to have been based upon having looked at the reported basis for Kerry's votes. I note and appreciate the difference.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
POF - Halliburton got no-bid contracts under Clinton as well. Now that may not justify them (it may, I'm just not informed on the subject) but it certainly belies the allegedly nefarious connections with Cheney.

The horrendous state of defense spending and military procurement goes back to Scoop Jackson at the least, and probably the Civil War. It's hardly a Cheney thing.

[SlaveNoMore]

soup sandwich
The GOP contends that Kerry is an indecisive flip-flopper and that his indecisveness results in confusion. I must admit I'm confused by the way Kerry is running his campaign. I need to hear more about how he has voted for the last 20 years.

Here is some back-up on his anti-defense campaigning over the years.

Do the Dems have enough time to do a Torricelli and get this lead balloon off the ticket??